Author Topic: What do we at least agree on ?  (Read 2449 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
What do we at least agree on ?
« on: February 04, 2014, 04:38:38 PM »
     What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ?


   I have a little list.

   Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed


  Anything else ? I know there has to be more stuff that we agree on.

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,275
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2014, 04:44:18 PM »
     What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ?


   I have a little list.

   Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed


  Anything else ? I know there has to be more stuff that we agree on.

Since you include protestants, nothing.
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2014, 04:45:19 PM »
     What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ?


   I have a little list.

   Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed


  Anything else ? I know there has to be more stuff that we agree on.

Since you include protestants, nothing.


   As in Nothing else ?

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,593
  • 1951-2015 Memory Eternal Uncle Roy--40 Days of Mourning.
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2014, 04:46:46 PM »
1) Nope. In fact, many Roman Catholics and Protestants I've met have gotten extremely lax about the Trinity, with Roman Catholics disregarding it "because it don't make sense" and more and more Protestants discarding it because "it's not in the Bible" (which they are actually correct about to a degree, btw).

2) Nope. Many Protestants ascribe a great sense of value to sexuality (for better or for worse) and thus will go through great lengths to say that Jesus was in fact born from sexual intercourse and that St. Joseph and the Theotokos were making love every single night. The concept of celibacy or virginity is something that some Protestants are extremely wary of.

3) Nope. Actually, most Protestants and RCs--even Orthodox to a degree--don't have any idea about who or what the Holy Spirit is, or if its even its own person. In regards to Jesus' Divinity, many Protestants I know don't really have a concept of "Divinity" or "Humanity." They don't have a concept of Christology at all. Simple put, they believe "Jesus died for our sins" and as to who or what He was, it doesn't matter. You usually won't get a deep Protestant answer about this.

4) LOL! Nope (see the Filioque)
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2014, 04:49:04 PM »
1) Nope. In fact, many Roman Catholics and Protestants I've met have gotten extremely lax about the Trinity, with Roman Catholics disregarding it "because it don't make sense" and more and more Protestants discarding it because "it's not in the Bible" (which they are actually correct about to a degree, btw).

2) Nope. Many Protestants ascribe a great sense of value to sexuality (for better or for worse) and thus will go through great lengths to say that Jesus was in fact born from sexual intercourse and that St. Joseph and the Theotokos were making love every single night. The concept of celibacy or virginity is something that some Protestants are extremely wary of.

3) Nope. Actually, most Protestants and RCs--even Orthodox to a degree--don't have any idea about who or what the Holy Spirit is, or if its even its own person. In regards to Jesus' Divinity, many Protestants I know don't really have a concept of "Divinity" or "Humanity." They don't have a concept of Christology at all. Simple put, they believe "Jesus died for our sins" and as to who or what He was, it doesn't matter. You usually won't get a deep Protestant answer about this.

4) LOL! Nope (see the Filioque)




  Man  :'(    That is actually depressing. 

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2014, 04:53:50 PM »
    See this is why I wonder if The Lord is starting to do a work in many people's heart about Orthodoxy, because there really are Protestant Christians out there that believe these Core Doctrines but it seems like a lot of these Protestant Churches are starting to go off the deep end and deny The Very Basic Core Doctrines of Historical Christianity.  It's disturbing.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2014, 04:54:08 PM »
     What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ?


   I have a little list.

   Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed


  Anything else ? I know there has to be more stuff that we agree on.

I think you need to define Protestants to really discuss this.  Do you mean the Magisterial Reformers?  Anabaptists?  Pietists?  Restorationists?   Fundamentalists?  Evangelicals?  Emergent types?   Etc.  

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2014, 04:56:11 PM »
    What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ?


   I have a little list.

   Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed


  Anything else ? I know there has to be more stuff that we agree on.

I think you need to define Protestants to really discuss this.  Do you mean the Magisterial Reformers?  Anabaptists?  Pietists?  Restorationists?   Fundamentalists?  Evangelicals?  Emergent types?   Etc.  


   I guess I mean Fundamentalist, Evangelical, And Anabaptists.
 
I know the Emergent Types are just plain Awful.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 04:58:08 PM by Jude1:3 »

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2014, 04:57:12 PM »
     What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ?


   I have a little list.

   Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed


  Anything else ? I know there has to be more stuff that we agree on.

I think you need to define Protestants to really discuss this.  Do you mean the Magisterial Reformers?  Anabaptists?  Pietists?  Restorationists?   Fundamentalists?  Evangelicals?  Emergent types?   Etc.  

Some might even include Unitarians and Universalists in the classical sense.  

And then you have problems such that some Lutheran parishes believe what Luther taught word for word while others say he was a metaphor to be reinterpreted in time.

For the record, I also include Mormons, JWs, and Seventh Day Adventists under Restorationists.  I also include Campbellites (Church of Christ) although they adopted far fewer novel doctrines than the others.  

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2014, 04:59:05 PM »
 In General I'll say Trinitarian Churches also.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 05:00:50 PM by Jude1:3 »

Offline genesisone

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,680
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2014, 04:59:51 PM »
     What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ?


   I have a little list.

   Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed


  Anything else ? I know there has to be more stuff that we agree on.

I think you need to define Protestants to really discuss this.  Do you mean the Magisterial Reformers?  Anabaptists?  Pietists?  Restorationists?   Fundamentalists?  Evangelicals?  Emergent types?   Etc.  


   I guess I mean Fundamentalist, Evangelical, And Anabaptists.
If you look at official Statements of Belief (or equivalent) from various Protestant denominations there probably is plenty of agreement on the points you listed. However, for the average Protestant churchgoer there is probably very little agreement as others have pointed out. I have observed a big disconnect between official denominational beliefs and those held by the membership.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2014, 05:06:16 PM »
    What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ?


   I have a little list.

   Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed


  Anything else ? I know there has to be more stuff that we agree on.

I think you need to define Protestants to really discuss this.  Do you mean the Magisterial Reformers?  Anabaptists?  Pietists?  Restorationists?   Fundamentalists?  Evangelicals?  Emergent types?   Etc.  


   I guess I mean Fundamentalist, Evangelical, And Anabaptists.
 
I know the Emergent Types are just plain Awful.

1.  They agree on the persons, I think, but not their relationship.   Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son or doesn't He?
2.  I think most fundamentalists, Anabaptists and Evangelicals agree on the Virgin Birth as a fact.  Not sure about all Evangelicals.  What about the Rob Bell types?  But what about its theological implications in terms of our redemption, Mary's preeminent role in choosing, etc?   The Catholic position is characterized such that Mary couldn't refuse.  We don't believe that.  
3.  I think that we all probably agree that Christ was divine.  But the logical implication of this is that Mary is the Mother of God.  The Council at Ephesus recognized this in 431.  Do the groups you mentioned agree?
4.  Probably yes, as far as they go.  But our OT has more books than theirs and more prophesies.  Read Sirach or the Wisdom of Solomon.   Do they accept these prophesies?
5.  I don't know if Anabaptists accept the Creed at all formally although they wouldn't disagree with its contents. Some fundamentalists and evangelicals would probably deny the authority of a council to adopt a Creed at all that is binding.  And all have allowed "and the Son" to be improperly added to it.  
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 05:06:52 PM by Yurysprudentsiya »

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2014, 05:07:51 PM »
    I was at work today talking with a Co Worker that is Coptic Orthodox and I was trying to think of Doctrines that we both had in common and also doctrines that were different. That is why I created this thread.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,858
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2014, 05:14:03 PM »
1) Nope. In fact, many Roman Catholics and Protestants I've met have gotten extremely lax about the Trinity, with Roman Catholics disregarding it "because it don't make sense" and more and more Protestants discarding it because "it's not in the Bible" (which they are actually correct about to a degree, btw).

2) Nope. Many Protestants ascribe a great sense of value to sexuality (for better or for worse) and thus will go through great lengths to say that Jesus was in fact born from sexual intercourse and that St. Joseph and the Theotokos were making love every single night. The concept of celibacy or virginity is something that some Protestants are extremely wary of.

3) Nope. Actually, most Protestants and RCs--even Orthodox to a degree--don't have any idea about who or what the Holy Spirit is, or if its even its own person. In regards to Jesus' Divinity, many Protestants I know don't really have a concept of "Divinity" or "Humanity." They don't have a concept of Christology at all. Simple put, they believe "Jesus died for our sins" and as to who or what He was, it doesn't matter. You usually won't get a deep Protestant answer about this.

4) LOL! Nope (see the Filioque)
 Man  :'(    That is actually depressing.  
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you. Some of it looks factual, but there's so much apparent exaggeration in what he wrote that I don't know what's true and what's not.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 05:17:07 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2014, 05:15:29 PM »
 I guess I'm Really Really wanting to have a common ground and Basic Core Doctrine Commonality with all Trinitarian Christians.

I want to be able to have fellowship with believers in The Lord Jesus Christ in the very basic sense of things.  I'm trying to grapple with certain and distinct doctrines that seem strange to me. It's all very interesting that is for sure.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 05:15:57 PM by Jude1:3 »

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2014, 05:17:11 PM »
1) Nope. In fact, many Roman Catholics and Protestants I've met have gotten extremely lax about the Trinity, with Roman Catholics disregarding it "because it don't make sense" and more and more Protestants discarding it because "it's not in the Bible" (which they are actually correct about to a degree, btw).

2) Nope. Many Protestants ascribe a great sense of value to sexuality (for better or for worse) and thus will go through great lengths to say that Jesus was in fact born from sexual intercourse and that St. Joseph and the Theotokos were making love every single night. The concept of celibacy or virginity is something that some Protestants are extremely wary of.

3) Nope. Actually, most Protestants and RCs--even Orthodox to a degree--don't have any idea about who or what the Holy Spirit is, or if its even its own person. In regards to Jesus' Divinity, many Protestants I know don't really have a concept of "Divinity" or "Humanity." They don't have a concept of Christology at all. Simple put, they believe "Jesus died for our sins" and as to who or what He was, it doesn't matter. You usually won't get a deep Protestant answer about this.

4) LOL! Nope (see the Filioque)
  Man  :'(    That is actually depressing. 
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.
LOLS. Wait a second..... I thought he was Orthodox also  ???

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,754
  • "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2014, 05:17:40 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P  
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Quote
Bartholomew, 270th Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, is spiritual leader to 300 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2014, 05:20:36 PM »
I guess I'm Really Really wanting to have a common ground and Basic Core Doctrine Commonality with all Trinitarian Christians.

I want to be able to have fellowship with believers in The Lord Jesus Christ in the very basic sense of things.  I'm trying to grapple with certain and distinct doctrines that seem strange to me. It's all very interesting that is for sure.

You can probably get a lot of agreement on certain basic facts with many or even most Trinitarian Christians.  But when you start to discuss what those facts mean, they will diverge all over the place.

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,177
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2014, 05:21:16 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P  


Now is when you really wish there were a 'Take with a grain of salt' Board Title...

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,275
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2014, 05:22:39 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P  

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,858
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2014, 05:25:10 PM »
1) Nope. In fact, many Roman Catholics and Protestants I've met have gotten extremely lax about the Trinity, with Roman Catholics disregarding it "because it don't make sense" and more and more Protestants discarding it because "it's not in the Bible" (which they are actually correct about to a degree, btw).

2) Nope. Many Protestants ascribe a great sense of value to sexuality (for better or for worse) and thus will go through great lengths to say that Jesus was in fact born from sexual intercourse and that St. Joseph and the Theotokos were making love every single night. The concept of celibacy or virginity is something that some Protestants are extremely wary of.

3) Nope. Actually, most Protestants and RCs--even Orthodox to a degree--don't have any idea about who or what the Holy Spirit is, or if its even its own person. In regards to Jesus' Divinity, many Protestants I know don't really have a concept of "Divinity" or "Humanity." They don't have a concept of Christology at all. Simple put, they believe "Jesus died for our sins" and as to who or what He was, it doesn't matter. You usually won't get a deep Protestant answer about this.

4) LOL! Nope (see the Filioque)
  Man  :'(    That is actually depressing. 
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.
LOLS. Wait a second..... I thought he was Orthodox also  ???
I didn't say he's not Orthodox. I just meant to imply that he knows much less than he lets on and that you would do well to take him--for that matter, each person here--with a grain of salt. I'm really not sure how good an answer you'll get from any one person on the matter you're asking about. Catholicism has its expansive and monolithic body of doctrines much like the Orthodox do, but the matter of whether individual Catholics actually believe the teachings of their church is a totally different question. Protestantism, OTOH, is so fragmented and so UN-monolithic, that every different Protestant you talk to will give you three different statements of what he believes.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,177
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2014, 05:26:56 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P  

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.

If that were 100% true across the board, there would be 0 reception by Chrismation.  Even with economia, the Church as a whole would not allow people with whom there is nothing -meaningful- held in common, to not receive baptism.

*prepares herself for the flames*

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,858
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2014, 05:27:27 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P  

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.
Stop flattering James, and stop putting yourself forward as the final authority on questions.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,275
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2014, 05:30:22 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P  

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.
Stop flattering James, and stop putting yourself forward as the final authority on questions.

What are you going on about? There is no such thing as "final authority" so I wouldn't even know how to put myself forward as that. But you and Mor badgering James, I do know about.

So Peter, what do all those who call themselves Christians on this planet hold in common that could be considered meaningful?

Nothing, as you stated in light of my authority regardless of whether it is final or not. You can't prove otherwise.
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,275
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2014, 05:32:14 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P  

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.

If that were 100% true across the board, there would be 0 reception by Chrismation.  Even with economia, the Church as a whole would not allow people with whom there is nothing -meaningful- held in common, to not receive baptism.

*prepares herself for the flames*

It is true. Go get the set of all people who call themselves Christians. Then other than the fact they call themselves Christians, please give me another description of that set which would be meaningful in this discussion.

Some Christians don't believe Jesus existed or believe in God, so I am not sure what Christians agree on.
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2014, 05:33:37 PM »
1) Nope. In fact, many Roman Catholics and Protestants I've met have gotten extremely lax about the Trinity, with Roman Catholics disregarding it "because it don't make sense" and more and more Protestants discarding it because "it's not in the Bible" (which they are actually correct about to a degree, btw).

2) Nope. Many Protestants ascribe a great sense of value to sexuality (for better or for worse) and thus will go through great lengths to say that Jesus was in fact born from sexual intercourse and that St. Joseph and the Theotokos were making love every single night. The concept of celibacy or virginity is something that some Protestants are extremely wary of.

3) Nope. Actually, most Protestants and RCs--even Orthodox to a degree--don't have any idea about who or what the Holy Spirit is, or if its even its own person. In regards to Jesus' Divinity, many Protestants I know don't really have a concept of "Divinity" or "Humanity." They don't have a concept of Christology at all. Simple put, they believe "Jesus died for our sins" and as to who or what He was, it doesn't matter. You usually won't get a deep Protestant answer about this.

4) LOL! Nope (see the Filioque)
  Man  :'(    That is actually depressing. 
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.
LOLS. Wait a second..... I thought he was Orthodox also  ???
I didn't say he's not Orthodox. I just meant to imply that he knows much less than he lets on and that you would do well to take him--for that matter, each person here--with a grain of salt. I'm really not sure how good an answer you'll get from any one person on the matter you're asking about. Catholicism has its expansive and monolithic body of doctrines much like the Orthodox do, but the matter of whether individual Catholics actually believe the teachings of their church is a totally different question. Protestantism, OTOH, is so fragmented and so UN-monolithic, that every different Protestant you talk to will give you three different statements of what he believes.


    Interesting. Got It.

  I was reading Dr. Walter Martin's book "Essential Christianity" and it has some of the stuff I listed in the OP. I'll browse through it and see if I can find some more stuff in it to post.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2014, 05:36:03 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P  

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.

If that were 100% true across the board, there would be 0 reception by Chrismation.  Even with economia, the Church as a whole would not allow people with whom there is nothing -meaningful- held in common, to not receive baptism.

*prepares herself for the flames*

It is true. Go get the set of all people who call themselves Christians. Then other than the fact they call themselves Christians, please give me another description of that set which would be meaningful in this discussion.

Some Christians don't believe Jesus existed or believe in God, so I am not sure what Christians agree on.


Thank God that everything isn't relative. Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one.  

I could call myself a Marxist (I don't) but real Marxists would have to judge whether I was close enough to be one.  

We as Orthodox hold the entirety of the faith.  Other groups are Christian to the degree they approach this fullness.  There is a line beyond which one isn't Christian no matter what one says.  Not believing in God or the existence of Christ is well beyond that line.  
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 05:36:43 PM by Yurysprudentsiya »

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,177
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #27 on: February 04, 2014, 05:36:21 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P  

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.

If that were 100% true across the board, there would be 0 reception by Chrismation.  Even with economia, the Church as a whole would not allow people with whom there is nothing -meaningful- held in common, to not receive baptism.

*prepares herself for the flames*

It is true. Go get the set of all people who call themselves Christians. Then other than the fact they call themselves Christians, please give me another description of that set which would be meaningful in this discussion.

Some Christians don't believe Jesus existed or believe in God, so I am not sure what Christians agree on.


Not arguing that there is not a wide span of variance in people who would call themselves Christian.  Am merely saying that there are some that do have meaningful shared beliefs, and thus you cannot categorically state 'there is nothing at all in common' since with some subgroups and denominations there is.

You cannot simplify it to that level and declare it a nothing.


no more. no less
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 05:37:34 PM by DeniseDenise »

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,275
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #28 on: February 04, 2014, 05:39:57 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P  

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.

If that were 100% true across the board, there would be 0 reception by Chrismation.  Even with economia, the Church as a whole would not allow people with whom there is nothing -meaningful- held in common, to not receive baptism.

*prepares herself for the flames*

It is true. Go get the set of all people who call themselves Christians. Then other than the fact they call themselves Christians, please give me another description of that set which would be meaningful in this discussion.

Some Christians don't believe Jesus existed or believe in God, so I am not sure what Christians agree on.


Not arguing that there is not a wide span of variance in people who would call themselves Christian.  Am merely saying that there are some that do have meaningful shared beliefs, and thus you cannot categorically state 'there is nothing at all in common' since with some subgroups and denominations there is.

You cannot simplify it to that level and declare it a nothing.


no more. no less

Not once you include protestants. The OP must have a point other than enumerating what Christians hold in common, they should get to it.

It would speed things up.
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,593
  • 1951-2015 Memory Eternal Uncle Roy--40 Days of Mourning.
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #29 on: February 04, 2014, 05:41:47 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P 

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.

If that were 100% true across the board, there would be 0 reception by Chrismation.  Even with economia, the Church as a whole would not allow people with whom there is nothing -meaningful- held in common, to not receive baptism.

*prepares herself for the flames*

The truth is, as much as the Orthodox won't even like to admit, the Church itself is fragmented and can't agree on even the most basic of things.

Visit the Old vs New Calendar threads if you don't believe me.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 05:42:02 PM by JamesR »
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2014, 05:43:42 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P  

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.

If that were 100% true across the board, there would be 0 reception by Chrismation.  Even with economia, the Church as a whole would not allow people with whom there is nothing -meaningful- held in common, to not receive baptism.

*prepares herself for the flames*

It is true. Go get the set of all people who call themselves Christians. Then other than the fact they call themselves Christians, please give me another description of that set which would be meaningful in this discussion.

Some Christians don't believe Jesus existed or believe in God, so I am not sure what Christians agree on.


Not arguing that there is not a wide span of variance in people who would call themselves Christian.  Am merely saying that there are some that do have meaningful shared beliefs, and thus you cannot categorically state 'there is nothing at all in common' since with some subgroups and denominations there is.

You cannot simplify it to that level and declare it a nothing.


no more. no less

Not once you include protestants. The OP must have a point other than enumerating what Christians hold in common, they should get to it.

It would speed things up.
 
   Honestly Man My only Point is that I'm legitimately trying to find Common Core and Distinct Beliefs that all " Trinitarian" Christians agree on. That's it.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #31 on: February 04, 2014, 05:48:28 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P 

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.

If that were 100% true across the board, there would be 0 reception by Chrismation.  Even with economia, the Church as a whole would not allow people with whom there is nothing -meaningful- held in common, to not receive baptism.

*prepares herself for the flames*

The truth is, as much as the Orthodox won't even like to admit, the Church itself is fragmented and can't agree on even the most basic of things.

Visit the Old vs New Calendar threads if you don't believe me.

Who among the canonical church doesn't accept both calendars?

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,593
  • 1951-2015 Memory Eternal Uncle Roy--40 Days of Mourning.
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2014, 05:49:18 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P 

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.

If that were 100% true across the board, there would be 0 reception by Chrismation.  Even with economia, the Church as a whole would not allow people with whom there is nothing -meaningful- held in common, to not receive baptism.

*prepares herself for the flames*

The truth is, as much as the Orthodox won't even like to admit, the Church itself is fragmented and can't agree on even the most basic of things.

Visit the Old vs New Calendar threads if you don't believe me.

Who among the canonical church doesn't accept both calendars?

Who is the "canonical" Church?
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2014, 05:50:49 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P 

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.

If that were 100% true across the board, there would be 0 reception by Chrismation.  Even with economia, the Church as a whole would not allow people with whom there is nothing -meaningful- held in common, to not receive baptism.

*prepares herself for the flames*

The truth is, as much as the Orthodox won't even like to admit, the Church itself is fragmented and can't agree on even the most basic of things.

Visit the Old vs New Calendar threads if you don't believe me.

Who among the canonical church doesn't accept both calendars?

Who is the "canonical" Church?

Those churches in communion with His All Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople and, as I fervently believe, with His Holiness the Pope of Alexandria (sorry if I got the title wrong). 

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,858
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2014, 05:58:25 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P  

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.
Stop flattering James, and stop putting yourself forward as the final authority on questions.

What are you going on about? There is no such thing as "final authority" so I wouldn't even know how to put myself forward as that. But you and Mor badgering James, I do know about.
And you flattering James to the point that he's now eating out of the palm of your hand I know about, but that's neither here nor there. It's certainly not the point of this thread.

So Peter, what do all those who call themselves Christians on this planet hold in common that could be considered meaningful?
I'm not making this assertion you're questioning, so why don't you ask that question of those who are. ;)

Nothing, as you stated in light of my authority regardless of whether it is final or not. You can't prove otherwise.
Since I made no such assertion, I bear no burden to prove it.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 06:03:49 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,177
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2014, 05:59:24 PM »
     What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ?


   I have a little list.

   Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed


  Anything else ? I know there has to be more stuff that we agree on.





My advice...along the grain of salt sort of thinking...

Go (if it can at all be managed) to an actual real life Orthodox Church, speak to the Priest.  Beleive what you learn in Inquirers class or from talking to him at Coffee hours.

The internet is full of armchair 'deciders' and staters of truth as they see it.  Until you know that there are various things always repeated, and which you can ignore and which are based in some fact......don't take opinions here as factual.  Everyone has their own take on it.....as you are obviously seeing here.

Believe a real live person, whose face you can see the expressions of.....and who you can ask questions of in person.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,858
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2014, 06:00:17 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P 

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.

If that were 100% true across the board, there would be 0 reception by Chrismation.  Even with economia, the Church as a whole would not allow people with whom there is nothing -meaningful- held in common, to not receive baptism.

*prepares herself for the flames*

The truth is, as much as the Orthodox won't even like to admit, the Church itself is fragmented and can't agree on even the most basic of things.

Visit the Old vs New Calendar threads if you don't believe me.
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2014, 06:02:37 PM »
     What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ?


   I have a little list.

   Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed


  Anything else ? I know there has to be more stuff that we agree on.





My advice...along the grain of salt sort of thinking...

Go (if it can at all be managed) to an actual real life Orthodox Church, speak to the Priest.  Beleive what you learn in Inquirers class or from talking to him at Coffee hours.

The internet is full of armchair 'deciders' and staters of truth as they see it.  Until you know that there are various things always repeated, and which you can ignore and which are based in some fact......don't take opinions here as factual.  Everyone has their own take on it.....as you are obviously seeing here.

Believe a real live person, whose face you can see the expressions of.....and who you can ask questions of in person.
     

     Thank you for the advise. I have to do this soon.


Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,440
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2014, 06:08:54 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P 

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.

If that were 100% true across the board, there would be 0 reception by Chrismation.  Even with economia, the Church as a whole would not allow people with whom there is nothing -meaningful- held in common, to not receive baptism.

*prepares herself for the flames*

The truth is, as much as the Orthodox won't even like to admit, the Church itself is fragmented and can't agree on even the most basic of things.

Visit the Old vs New Calendar threads if you don't believe me.
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

I do not agree but for some folks it is.

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,440
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2014, 06:13:44 PM »
1) Nope. In fact, many Roman Catholics and Protestants I've met have gotten extremely lax about the Trinity, with Roman Catholics disregarding it "because it don't make sense" and more and more Protestants discarding it because "it's not in the Bible" (which they are actually correct about to a degree, btw).

2) Nope. Many Protestants ascribe a great sense of value to sexuality (for better or for worse) and thus will go through great lengths to say that Jesus was in fact born from sexual intercourse and that St. Joseph and the Theotokos were making love every single night. The concept of celibacy or virginity is something that some Protestants are extremely wary of.

3) Nope. Actually, most Protestants and RCs--even Orthodox to a degree--don't have any idea about who or what the Holy Spirit is, or if its even its own person. In regards to Jesus' Divinity, many Protestants I know don't really have a concept of "Divinity" or "Humanity." They don't have a concept of Christology at all. Simple put, they believe "Jesus died for our sins" and as to who or what He was, it doesn't matter. You usually won't get a deep Protestant answer about this.

4) LOL! Nope (see the Filioque)
 Man  :'(    That is actually depressing.  
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you. Some of it looks factual, but there's so much apparent exaggeration in what he wrote that I don't know what's true and what's not.

I do not think that one looks for definitive answers from a participant on this forum. Those are James's views and, although not definitive, are by and large an acceptable contribution to the discussion.

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,440
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #40 on: February 04, 2014, 06:15:21 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P 

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.

If that were 100% true across the board, there would be 0 reception by Chrismation.  Even with economia, the Church as a whole would not allow people with whom there is nothing -meaningful- held in common, to not receive baptism.

*prepares herself for the flames*

The truth is, as much as the Orthodox won't even like to admit, the Church itself is fragmented and can't agree on even the most basic of things.

Visit the Old vs New Calendar threads if you don't believe me.

Who among the canonical church doesn't accept both calendars?

Who is the "canonical" Church?

Those churches in communion with His All Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople and, as I fervently believe, with His Holiness the Pope of Alexandria (sorry if I got the title wrong). 

I am at a loss why you specified these two and left out all the remaining 13 local churches.

Online Iconodule

  • Uranopolitan
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,751
  • "My god is greater."
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #41 on: February 04, 2014, 06:18:01 PM »
Don't you know that the Patriarch of Constantinople is our spiritual leader?

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #42 on: February 04, 2014, 06:29:34 PM »
What's most depressing is that you're so quick to believe James's assessment so accurate. I have no idea where he got half of the stuff he just told you.

Oh, Peter, he's likely not been around long enough to appreciate JamesR's sagacious insight into all things above his pay grade.  :P 

Well other than you two insulting him as usual nothing is different here including his being correct. I already stated, nothing meaningful is held in common by Christians.

If that were 100% true across the board, there would be 0 reception by Chrismation.  Even with economia, the Church as a whole would not allow people with whom there is nothing -meaningful- held in common, to not receive baptism.

*prepares herself for the flames*

The truth is, as much as the Orthodox won't even like to admit, the Church itself is fragmented and can't agree on even the most basic of things.

Visit the Old vs New Calendar threads if you don't believe me.

Who among the canonical church doesn't accept both calendars?

Who is the "canonical" Church?

Those churches in communion with His All Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople and, as I fervently believe, with His Holiness the Pope of Alexandria (sorry if I got the title wrong). 

I am at a loss why you specified these two and left out all the remaining 13 local churches.

It is shorthand for the EO and OO communions.  Sorry for any confusion. 

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,593
  • 1951-2015 Memory Eternal Uncle Roy--40 Days of Mourning.
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #43 on: February 04, 2014, 07:03:52 PM »
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.

...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #44 on: February 04, 2014, 07:07:07 PM »
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,593
  • 1951-2015 Memory Eternal Uncle Roy--40 Days of Mourning.
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #45 on: February 04, 2014, 07:08:12 PM »
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #46 on: February 04, 2014, 07:11:13 PM »
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,593
  • 1951-2015 Memory Eternal Uncle Roy--40 Days of Mourning.
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #47 on: February 04, 2014, 07:17:11 PM »
No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate.

The time those "canonical" and "genuine" groups did.


Quote
Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

That's subjective. According to the aforementioned groups, the "canonical" Church broke away from them.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #48 on: February 04, 2014, 07:26:51 PM »
No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate.

The time those "canonical" and "genuine" groups did.


Quote
Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

That's subjective. According to the aforementioned groups, the "canonical" Church broke away from them.

Apply the Vincentian canon to that argument. 

My point is, they were the first and only.  Innovation doesn't bode well for such claims. 

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #49 on: February 04, 2014, 07:28:33 PM »
No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate.

The time those "canonical" and "genuine" groups did.


Quote
Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

That's subjective. According to the aforementioned groups, the "canonical" Church broke away from them.

Apply the Vincentian canon to that argument. 

My point is, they were the first and only.  Innovation doesn't bode well for such claims. 

Well, upon further reflection, I think you can compare them in a lot of ways to the Russian Old Believers. 

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,177
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #50 on: February 04, 2014, 07:37:21 PM »
Upon further reflection it's clear we have at least one thing in common with Protestants:

The ability to bicker among ourselves about things until death.



Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,275
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #51 on: February 04, 2014, 07:41:28 PM »
Upon further reflection it's clear we have at least one thing in common with Protestants:

The ability to bicker among ourselves about things until death.




I believe the TRUE Orthodox believe in theosis as a process which never ends. So I imagine there will be bickering after death as well.
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,177
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #52 on: February 04, 2014, 07:43:27 PM »
Upon further reflection it's clear we have at least one thing in common with Protestants:

The ability to bicker among ourselves about things until death.




I believe the TRUE Orthodox believe in theosis as a process which never ends. So I imagine there will be bickering after death as well.

I meant the death of the things, not the people. Well aware there will be bickering after ;)

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,593
  • 1951-2015 Memory Eternal Uncle Roy--40 Days of Mourning.
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #53 on: February 04, 2014, 07:46:45 PM »
Apply the Vincentian canon to that argument.

I don't think you understand how canons work and they could just as well throw some obscure canon at you.

Quote
My point is, they were the first and only.

So? There's a first time for everything

Quote
Innovation doesn't bode well for such claims.

"Innovation" is a part of Theosis. We're being saved; it's a process, remember?
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #54 on: February 04, 2014, 07:49:33 PM »
Apply the Vincentian canon to that argument.

I don't think you understand how canons work and they could just as well throw some obscure canon at you.

Quote
My point is, they were the first and only.

So? There's a first time for everything

Quote
Innovation doesn't bode well for such claims.

"Innovation" is a part of Theosis. We're being saved; it's a process, remember?

I do understand how canons work.  The Vincentian canon isn't really a canon at all. It's a principle. 

Solomon says There's nothing new under the sun.  The longer I live, the more I believe it. 

You have a faulty concept of innovation.  All that we are being saved unto already exists in Christ our Lord.  That is expressed in the Liturgy when the priest says Blessed IS the Kingdom and when he thanks God for the second coming in the past tense.   

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,754
  • "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #55 on: February 04, 2014, 07:52:18 PM »
Upon further reflection it's clear we have at least one thing in common with Protestants:

The ability to bicker among ourselves about things until death.




Do Protestants also poke holes in others' arguments without putting forward their own?  I don't know enough Protestants to be sure either way. 
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Quote
Bartholomew, 270th Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, is spiritual leader to 300 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,858
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #56 on: February 04, 2014, 08:19:30 PM »
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.
James, the OP asks what we agree on, not what we don't agree on.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 08:21:45 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,177
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2014, 08:25:56 PM »
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.
James, the OP asks what we agree on, not what we don't agree on.

Oh face it. The OP stopped trying to figure out what everyone was arguing about two hours ago.

And later when someone asks about why we don't share our faith more, well this is why.
We show to outsiders, the same fractured church they already have. 

But we will write it off as 'they were too lazy' or ' they didn't stay long enough'


Offline FormerCalvinist

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #58 on: February 04, 2014, 08:42:28 PM »
1. The Holy Trinity
2. The Virgin Birth
3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
5. The Nicene Creed

Speaking generally, of course:

1. No. Most Protestants hold to the Filioque, and from my experience they understand it in a heretical sense.
2-3. No. Most Protestants are crypto-Nestorians so their understanding of Jesus' birth and divinity is heretical.
4. No. They understand the prophecies wrongly (e.g., Isaiah 53 is viewed as a proof of penal substitutionary atonement).
5. No. They include the Filioque and understand the creed in a heretical manner (e.g., their views on the Church).

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Partisan Pro-Chalcedonian Fanatic
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,505
  • St. John the Merciful
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #59 on: February 04, 2014, 08:53:29 PM »
    See this is why I wonder if The Lord is starting to do a work in many people's heart about Orthodoxy, because there really are Protestant Christians out there that believe these Core Doctrines but it seems like a lot of these Protestant Churches are starting to go off the deep end and deny The Very Basic Core Doctrines of Historical Christianity.  It's disturbing.

... Well, it was the Orthodox-Catholic Church (notice the Ecumenical Dash™  :o) that made those ideas normative, when Protestants reject the authority of the Church and Her tradition, it's a natural result.
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,858
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #60 on: February 04, 2014, 08:54:37 PM »
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.
James, the OP asks what we agree on, not what we don't agree on.

Oh face it. The OP stopped trying to figure out what everyone was arguing about two hours ago.

And later when someone asks about why we don't share our faith more, well this is why.
We show to outsiders, the same fractured church they already have. 

But we will write it off as 'they were too lazy' or ' they didn't stay long enough'
It could actually just be the personalities of those who took the time to reply to the OP.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #61 on: February 04, 2014, 09:15:11 PM »
1. The Holy Trinity
2. The Virgin Birth
3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
5. The Nicene Creed

Speaking generally, of course:

1. No. Most Protestants hold to the Filioque, and from my experience they understand it in a heretical sense.
2-3. No. Most Protestants are crypto-Nestorians so their understanding of Jesus' birth and divinity is heretical.
4. No. They understand the prophecies wrongly (e.g., Isaiah 53 is viewed as a proof of penal substitutionary atonement).
5. No. They include the Filioque and understand the creed in a heretical manner (e.g., their views on the Church).

  

     Thank you very much for your response. I just want you to know that I don't mean my response in a facetious or snooty way. Sometimes it's a challenge to know exactly because we are reading text. I'm honestly asking for personal information and self education.


1.Can you break down exactly how modern day Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians don't believe in the Holy Trinity ? How do they understand it in a heretical sense ?  


2/3. The Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians I'm speaking of believe that The Lord Jesus Christ is Literally God and that The Holy Spirit is Literally God.      Can you please explain crypto-Nestorians for me ?


4. Protestants understand every single prophecy from the Old Testament about Jesus Wrongly ?.........  Every Single One ?  Protestants don't understand any Prophecy about Jesus in the OT Correctly ?   I'm having a hard time understanding that.



Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Partisan Pro-Chalcedonian Fanatic
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,505
  • St. John the Merciful
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #62 on: February 04, 2014, 09:45:24 PM »
1. The Holy Trinity
2. The Virgin Birth
3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
5. The Nicene Creed

Speaking generally, of course:

1. No. Most Protestants hold to the Filioque, and from my experience they understand it in a heretical sense.
2-3. No. Most Protestants are crypto-Nestorians so their understanding of Jesus' birth and divinity is heretical.
4. No. They understand the prophecies wrongly (e.g., Isaiah 53 is viewed as a proof of penal substitutionary atonement).
5. No. They include the Filioque and understand the creed in a heretical manner (e.g., their views on the Church).

 

     Thank you very much for your response. I just want you to know that I don't mean my response in a facetious or snooty way. Sometimes it's a challenge to know exactly because we are reading text. I'm honestly asking for personal information and self education.


1.Can you break down exactly how modern day Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians don't believe in the Holy Trinity ? How do they understand it in a heretical sense ?   


2/3. The Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians I'm speaking of believe that The Lord Jesus Christ is Literally God and that The Holy Spirit is Literally God.      Can you please explain crypto-Nestorians for me ?


4. Protestants understand every single prophecy from the Old Testament about Jesus Wrongly ?.........  Every Single One ?  Protestants don't understand any Prophecy about Jesus in the OT Correctly ?   I'm having a hard time understanding that.

 

1. They believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son which subordinates the hierarchy of the Holy Trinity. Page 7 (327) on this PDF from Orthodox Answers shows the resulting complications from this idea.

2. I was going to explain this earlier, but decided not to. The Council of Ephesus decreed in 431 (sic?) that St. Mary is the 'Mother of God', which means that St. Mary gave birth to God, because Christ is the God-man. Christ was fully God and fully man, so Mary is the Mother of God. Protestants reject the idea that Mary is the Mother of God on account of it's "idolatry" and call Mary 'the Mother of Christ' this was exactly the position Nestorius took when he objected to the Orthodox-Catholic Church using the word Theotokos or Mother of God, and he decided to use the word "Christotokos" Mother of Christ.

In essence, Protestants indirectly reject the Incarnation of Christ because they deny that St. Mary birthed God Himself, and not simply a man. Thus, the reason she isn't called "Mother of God' but 'Mother of Christ' by many Protestants.

Do Protestants REALLY reject the Incarnation? I don't think so, but they reject the idea that Mary birthed God, which is quite close to saying that Mary only gave birth to a man.

4. No. But they interpolate their own theology into the passages and make them say something they don't really say. That was the point of Isaiah 53. Another passage is Psalm 2.

Psalm 2 in Protestant Bibles says "Kiss the Son" but Catholic and Orthodox Bibles (from the Septuagint and Vulgate) say "Embrace discipline" (DRB). The verse itself in every non-Protestant version says "Embrace discipline" but for theological purposes, they mistranslated the verse.

Anti-Christian Jews also point out that this verse was purposely mistranslated.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 09:59:38 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #63 on: February 04, 2014, 10:04:52 PM »
 Thanks for taking the time to answer my response.

I agree Mary is the Mother of God as in The Lord Jesus Christ. Is it Heretical to make the distinction though that she did not Create/Birth The Father or The Holy Spirit ?
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 10:14:39 PM by Jude1:3 »

Offline FormerCalvinist

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #64 on: February 04, 2014, 10:14:20 PM »
Thank you very much for your response. I just want you to know that I don't mean my response in a facetious or snooty way. Sometimes it's a challenge to know exactly because we are reading text. I'm honestly asking for personal information and self education.

1.Can you break down exactly how modern day Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians don't believe in the Holy Trinity ? How do they understand it in a heretical sense ?  

2/3. The Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians I'm speaking of believe that The Lord Jesus Christ is Literally God and that The Holy Spirit is Literally God.      Can you please explain crypto-Nestorians for me ?

4. Protestants understand every single prophecy from the Old Testament about Jesus Wrongly ?.........  Every Single One ?  Protestants don't understand any Prophecy about Jesus in the OT Correctly ?   I'm having a hard time understanding that.

Reading back over my post I was unclear on some things so hopefully this will help to clarify. I'll also provide some supporting evidence from the Westminster Confession of Faith.

1. I did not mean that Protestants do not believe in the Trinity at all, but that they understand it wrongly. We can both say, "I believe in the Trinity," but if what we understand as "The Trinity" is different then we really don't believe the same thing. In my experience dealing with Protestants I have found that they believe the Filioque in the sense that the Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Son; i.e., that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Son in the same way that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. This is heretical.

WCF 2.3 "...The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

2-3. The issue here regards whether Christ is one person or two persons (Nestorianism). To explain this I need to distinguish between the way we use the term "person." We can use "person" to refer to the personality of the hypostasis, or we can refer to the natural composition of the hypostasis; or perhaps I could say we can speak technically or casually, respectively. Technically, the personality of Christ's hypostasis is divine. Christ is not a human person in this sense, but a divine person who has taken upon himself a human nature. He did not become a different person at the Incarnation. By virtue of his human nature, rational soul, etc. he is fully human, and thus in the casual sense we can say that Christ is a human person. The natural composition of the hypostasis is a divine nature and a human nature, and so Christ is a person who is human. He is both God and man. But to speak technically of the personality of the hypostasis it is only divine.

Protestants do not seem to understand this distinction and believe that the personality of Christ's hypostasis is both divine and human, that in this technical sense Christ's person is a result of the joining of his divine nature with a human nature. It is one of the reasons that many will not use the term "Mother of God," as they believe that Mary only gave birth to Christ's human nature (which they treat as a "person") which then combined with his divine nature (which they treat as a "person") to result in the divine/human person of Christ. So while they will affirm that Christ is one person, the manner in which they treat his two natures results in a theology in which Christ is treated as two persons. They are thus crypto-(hidden)-Nestorians.

WCF 8.2 "...So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion..."

4. I didn't mean to say that they understand every prophecy wrongly, but that they understand some wrongly. Sorry about that.

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #65 on: February 04, 2014, 10:21:38 PM »
Thank you very much for your response. I just want you to know that I don't mean my response in a facetious or snooty way. Sometimes it's a challenge to know exactly because we are reading text. I'm honestly asking for personal information and self education.

1.Can you break down exactly how modern day Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians don't believe in the Holy Trinity ? How do they understand it in a heretical sense ?  

2/3. The Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians I'm speaking of believe that The Lord Jesus Christ is Literally God and that The Holy Spirit is Literally God.      Can you please explain crypto-Nestorians for me ?

4. Protestants understand every single prophecy from the Old Testament about Jesus Wrongly ?.........  Every Single One ?  Protestants don't understand any Prophecy about Jesus in the OT Correctly ?   I'm having a hard time understanding that.

Reading back over my post I was unclear on some things so hopefully this will help to clarify. I'll also provide some supporting evidence from the Westminster Confession of Faith.

1. I did not mean that Protestants do not believe in the Trinity at all, but that they understand it wrongly. We can both say, "I believe in the Trinity," but if what we understand as "The Trinity" is different then we really don't believe the same thing. In my experience dealing with Protestants I have found that they believe the Filioque in the sense that the Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Son; i.e., that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Son in the same way that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. This is heretical.

WCF 2.3 "...The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

2-3. The issue here regards whether Christ is one person or two persons (Nestorianism). To explain this I need to distinguish between the way we use the term "person." We can use "person" to refer to the personality of the hypostasis, or we can refer to the natural composition of the hypostasis; or perhaps I could say we can speak technically or casually, respectively. Technically, the personality of Christ's hypostasis is divine. Christ is not a human person in this sense, but a divine person who has taken upon himself a human nature. He did not become a different person at the Incarnation. By virtue of his human nature, rational soul, etc. he is fully human, and thus in the casual sense we can say that Christ is a human person. The natural composition of the hypostasis is a divine nature and a human nature, and so Christ is a person who is human. He is both God and man. But to speak technically of the personality of the hypostasis it is only divine.

Protestants do not seem to understand this distinction and believe that the personality of Christ's hypostasis is both divine and human, that in this technical sense Christ's person is a result of the joining of his divine nature with a human nature. It is one of the reasons that many will not use the term "Mother of God," as they believe that Mary only gave birth to Christ's human nature (which they treat as a "person") which then combined with his divine nature (which they treat as a "person") to result in the divine/human person of Christ. So while they will affirm that Christ is one person, the manner in which they treat his two natures results in a theology in which Christ is treated as two persons. They are thus crypto-(hidden)-Nestorians.

WCF 8.2 "...So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion..."

4. I didn't mean to say that they understand every prophecy wrongly, but that they understand some wrongly. Sorry about that.


    I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate on your answers. I think I might have to re read 2-3 again (LOLS)  :D To really understand fully what you wrote. 

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,275
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #66 on: February 04, 2014, 11:32:13 PM »
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.
James, the OP asks what we agree on, not what we don't agree on.

PtA, he's been given an answer by you, me, and James which is the same: nothing.
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline Nephi

  • Monster Tamer
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,762
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #67 on: February 05, 2014, 12:05:37 AM »
1. The Holy Trinity
2. The Virgin Birth
3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
5. The Nicene Creed

Speaking generally, of course:

1. No. Most Protestants hold to the Filioque, and from my experience they understand it in a heretical sense.
2-3. No. Most Protestants are crypto-Nestorians so their understanding of Jesus' birth and divinity is heretical.
4. No. They understand the prophecies wrongly (e.g., Isaiah 53 is viewed as a proof of penal substitutionary atonement).
5. No. They include the Filioque and understand the creed in a heretical manner (e.g., their views on the Church).

Regarding #1, not all Protestants even understand the Trinity with formal definitions in mind, much less with the filioque. I doubt the Evangelical church up the road has any idea what the filioque is, but they do know what the Trinity is. Even if they did hold to the filioque, I don't think it's enough to say they worship a different Trinity. Here I concede to Fr. Sergius Bulgakov who considers the filioque and the "through the son" as theologoumena (even if he disagrees with the former), Western and Eastern respectively.

#2, not all Protestants are crypto-Nestorian. Just look at the eucharistic debates between Luther/Calvin, where the former was accused of being monophysitic by the latter. Although even if they were all crypto-Nestorians, I'm not sure how that negates their belief in the Virgin Birth itself, regardless of how they understand the specific person born in that circumstance.

#3, again, see #2. If they are crypto-Nestorian, then there is a substantial difference - yet only if they actually are - and then in how we perceive Christ's divinity. They do affirm the deity of the Holy Spirit, which we agree.

#4, while most Protestants do hold to penal substitution theory (although some are leaving that for older variants of atonement theories), I don't think that's enough to dismiss that they do view the Old Testament Christologically like we do. I would say that some, in the vein of folks like Luther, perceive the Old Testament much differently than we do by making too many conclusions with a (false) dichotomy between Gospel/Law.

#5, I think in the most basic since we share the Nicene Creed (for those groups that do affirm it), but I do have to concede that our understandings of it are widely different in general.

In my own thoughts, I would say that we do share: the Holy Trinity, the divinity and sinlessness of Christ, the virgin birth, the deity of the Holy Spirit, that Christ died to save us (regardless of how/why), Christ's resurrection, and that the Church and Scriptures (whatever they may be) are somehow important.

That said, I have to qualify "Protestants" by specifying conservative Trinitarian Protestants. Anything outside that, and even inside that sometimes, can throw out I said above, such as liberal Protestants that even deny the very existence of Christ etc.

Honestly, Catholics (except liberal/progressive Catholics, e.g. some that deny Christ's historical resurrection) and Orthodox share much more in common than either do with even the most conservative/classical of Protestants, but I wouldn't go so far as to say we share absolutely nothing. I suppose I try to see this more positively than I used to, when I wanted to consign all Protestants to the furthest depths of Hell.

Offline FormerCalvinist

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #68 on: February 05, 2014, 01:04:06 AM »
Regarding #1, not all Protestants even understand the Trinity with formal definitions in mind, much less with the filioque. I doubt the Evangelical church up the road has any idea what the filioque is, but they do know what the Trinity is. Even if they did hold to the filioque, I don't think it's enough to say they worship a different Trinity. Here I concede to Fr. Sergius Bulgakov who considers the filioque and the "through the son" as theologoumena (even if he disagrees with the former), Western and Eastern respectively.

As we all know, Protestants are a very broad group and I can only speak in general terms and about the groups with whom I have the most experience, which is primarily the Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists. I can tell you that in Reformed theology the Filioque as an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is viewed as in important aspect of the Trinity and is deeply tied to their exegetical methodology. I of course do not think that they are worshiping a different Trinity, but that they understand the Trinity wrongly.

#2, not all Protestants are crypto-Nestorian. Just look at the eucharistic debates between Luther/Calvin, where the former was accused of being monophysitic by the latter. Although even if they were all crypto-Nestorians, I'm not sure how that negates their belief in the Virgin Birth itself, regardless of how they understand the specific person born in that circumstance.

#3, again, see #2. If they are crypto-Nestorian, then there is a substantial difference - yet only if they actually are - and then in how we perceive Christ's divinity. They do affirm the deity of the Holy Spirit, which we agree.

It does not negate their belief in the Virgin Birth, but they understand the Virgin Birth in a wrong manner; i.e., that Mary essentially gave birth to a human person who then united with the divine Word to form the current person of Christ. I didn't mean that they don't believe in these things at all but that their understanding of them is very flawed. I don't think that every single Protestant is a crypto-Nestorian. There is probably a minority who hold an orthodox Christology, and many don't know anything about this issue at all; but every Protestant that I have seen discuss this issue has taken a Nestorian position, anecdotal as that may be.

#4, while most Protestants do hold to penal substitution theory (although some are leaving that for older variants of atonement theories), I don't think that's enough to dismiss that they do view the Old Testament Christologically like we do. I would say that some, in the vein of folks like Luther, perceive the Old Testament much differently than we do by making too many conclusions with a (false) dichotomy between Gospel/Law.

I was unclear there and I clarified in a second post that I did not mean that they misunderstand all Old Testament prophecy. Penal substitutionary atonement in Isaiah 53 was just an example of something that they do misunderstand. I agree that they view the Old Testament in a Christological manner.

#5, I think in the most basic since we share the Nicene Creed (for those groups that do affirm it), but I do have to concede that our understandings of it are widely different in general.

In my own thoughts, I would say that we do share: the Holy Trinity, the divinity and sinlessness of Christ, the virgin birth, the deity of the Holy Spirit, that Christ died to save us (regardless of how/why), Christ's resurrection, and that the Church and Scriptures (whatever they may be) are somehow important.

That said, I have to qualify "Protestants" by specifying conservative Trinitarian Protestants. Anything outside that, and even inside that sometimes, can throw out I said above, such as liberal Protestants that even deny the very existence of Christ etc.

Honestly, Catholics (except liberal/progressive Catholics, e.g. some that deny Christ's historical resurrection) and Orthodox share much more in common than either do with even the most conservative/classical of Protestants, but I wouldn't go so far as to say we share absolutely nothing. I suppose I try to see this more positively than I used to, when I wanted to consign all Protestants to the furthest depths of Hell.

This is really what I was getting at: that though we share many things in a broad sense, we understand them in very different ways. I wanted to point out that if we look beyond the surface of the terms we are affirming, to see what we really mean by those terms, substantial differences become apparent, such that it becomes impossible to say that we agree. It's not really that surprising; this kind of equivocation of terms, of saying the same thing as orthodoxy but meaning something very different, is a common feature of heresy. So, sure, if we want to look at things broadly enough I will agree that we share certain things, but not in a truly meaningful way. I agree that we are closer to Roman Catholics than Protestants.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,858
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #69 on: February 05, 2014, 02:13:56 AM »
You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.
James, the OP asks what we agree on, not what we don't agree on.

PtA, he's been given an answer by you, me, and James which is the same: nothing.
1. I never said that we don't agree on anything with Catholics and Protestants.
2. James is old enough and articulate enough to speak for himself. He doesn't need you to defend him.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline IoanC

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,414
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #70 on: February 05, 2014, 02:34:58 AM »
I believe that most importantly we agree that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. It is very painful to see us separated by artificial boundaries such as various beliefs/dogmas that have accumulated over time and may not even reflect how we feel deep inside. Yet, the situation is hard and the historical and dogmatic rift is very big.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 02:36:52 AM by IoanC »

Offline Cognomen

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,972
  • Ungrateful Biped
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #71 on: February 05, 2014, 03:37:58 AM »

I agree Mary is the Mother of God as in The Lord Jesus Christ. Is it Heretical to make the distinction though that she did not Create/Birth The Father or The Holy Spirit ?

No, it is our belief that she gave birth to only one of the Trinity. 
North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,138
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #72 on: February 05, 2014, 08:37:10 AM »
We really need to differentiate between what branch of Protestantism. You can't paint with such a broad brush. Saying, "Protestants believe such-and-such" is like saying "Men believe such-and-such". Are you referring to Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Church of Christ, etc?

Some Protestant branches would have no problem with the Trinity (most) or The Mother of God (Lutherans) others are so alien as to barely be considered Christian by our standards.

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline katherineofdixie

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,714
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #73 on: February 05, 2014, 10:35:53 AM »
This is really what I was getting at: that though we share many things in a broad sense, we understand them in very different ways. I wanted to point out that if we look beyond the surface of the terms we are affirming, to see what we really mean by those terms, substantial differences become apparent, such that it becomes impossible to say that we agree. It's not really that surprising; this kind of equivocation of terms, of saying the same thing as orthodoxy but meaning something very different, is a common feature of heresy. So, sure, if we want to look at things broadly enough I will agree that we share certain things, but not in a truly meaningful way. I agree that we are closer to Roman Catholics than Protestants.

Good point. I was just thinking that was the real answer. Perhaps one of the most confusing things is that Protestants and Orthodox use the same terms but with vastly different definitions. I had a great deal of trouble "re-learning" and "re-programming" when I became Orthodox, but now I really don't see much common ground at all, even with Roman Catholics, because of this.
"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,858
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #74 on: February 05, 2014, 01:53:50 PM »
Thread locked for split
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,858
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
MOVED: Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #75 on: February 05, 2014, 02:02:18 PM »
The tangent regarding the Monothelete heresy has been moved to Religious Topics.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=56562.0
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 02:03:17 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,858
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #76 on: February 05, 2014, 02:03:38 PM »
Thread now unlocked
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Mockingbird

  • Mimus polyglottos
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Episcopal Church
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #77 on: February 05, 2014, 09:22:07 PM »
     What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ? I have a little list.  Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed
You have independently arrived at a partial reconstruction of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: 
Quote
In the opinion of this Conference [i.e. the Lambeth Conference of 1888] the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be, by God's blessing, made towards Home Reunion:

(a)  The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

(b)  The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

(c)  The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself -- Baptism and the Supper of the Lord -- ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.

(d)  The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
Your points (1) (2) (3) and (5) are covered by (b), and point (4) is covered by (a).

To your list I would add:

6.  The seven-day week, beginning on the Lord's Day and ending on the Sabbath.

My observations on your points (1) through (5):

1.  Here is the Collect for Trinity Sunday from the Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer: 
Quote
Almighty and everlasting God, who hast given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity:  We beseech thee that thou wouldest keep us steadfast in this faith and worship, and bring us at last to see thee in thy one and eternal glory, O Father; who with the Son and the Holy Spirit livest and reignest, one God, for ever and ever.
  Further comment (my private opinion only):  As I read the history, the twin doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation were the best way found in antiquity to preserve the truths of the scriptural and Jewish inheritance and of the original Jewish Christian experience in the face of the questions posed by the Gentile world's presuppositions.

2.  Here is one of the Collects for Christmas Day from TEC's BCP: 
Quote
Almighty God, who hast given us thy only-begotten Son to take our nature upon him and as at this time to be born of a pure virgin:  Grant that we, being regenerate and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit ever, one God, world without end.
  Further comment (my private opinion only):  It is necessary to distinguish the doctrine of virgin conception, which is scriptural, from the doctrine of "virgin birth", which holds that our Lord's worthy mother gave birth to him without pain or loss of blood.  This latter formulation I reject.  To me it seems almost to deny the Incarnation.  But even if that be not the case, it seems an unreasonable proposition.

3.  and 5.  Point (3) is clearly asserted in the Nicene Creed (point 5) which the rubrics of our Eucharistic synaxis require to be recited on Sundays and major feasts.

4.  Christological interpretations of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and Psalm 22 are implied by the appointment of these readings among the options for the readings on Good Friday.

Further comment (private opinion only):  There is no contradiction between interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures Christologically and asserting that, as a historical matter, the original authors could have had little or no knowledge of the details of how their visions would be understood by future generations to have been fulfilled.

Remarks on other replies to this thread: 

A.  The filioque.  A detailed Anglican-Orthodox dialog on the questions raised by the filioque can be found in the Cyprus Agreed Statement:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical/dialogues/orthodox/docs/pdf/The%20Church%20of%20the%20Triune%20God.pdf

Further comment (private opinion only).  The doctrine of the filioque was asserted against the Arians.  I suppose the thinking was something like, "If the Father and Son don't share all things in common, the Son does not truly know his Father as the Arians teach.  But this cannot be so.  So the Father and the Son must share all things."   The doctrine is orthodox in intention, though the addition to the Creed long ago outlived any usefulness it had.  So the latter is slowly being phased out in Anglicanism, while the former is taught in an orthodox sense.

Any doctrine of the Holy Spirit's procession must incorporate these scriptural facts: 

i.  The Son "who is in the bosom of the Father, has made [God] known".  So the Son must truly know his Father.

ii.  The Holy Spirit is called in Scripture "the Spirit of Jesus" (Acts 16.7), "the spirit of Christ" (Romans 8.9), and "the Sprit of [God's] Son".

B.  The 2nd Psalm.  The translation of Psalm 2.10-12 in my "Protestant Bible" (RSV) is

10.Now therefore, O kings, be wise;*
be warned, O rulers of the earth.

11.  Serve the LORD with fear,*
with trembling [12] kiss his feet,

lest he be angry, and you perish in the way;*
for his wrath is quickly kindled.

Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

In my Book of Common Prayer (1979 edition) Psalm 2.10-13 is

10.  And now, you kings, be wise; *
be warned, you rulers of the earth.

11.  Submit to the LORD with fear,*
and with trembling bow before him;

12.  Lest he be angry and you perish;*
for his wrath is quickly kindled.

13.  Happy are they all*
who take refuge in him.
Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Partisan Pro-Chalcedonian Fanatic
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,505
  • St. John the Merciful
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #78 on: February 05, 2014, 09:40:17 PM »
     What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ? I have a little list.  Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed
You have independently arrived at a partial reconstruction of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: 
Quote
In the opinion of this Conference [i.e. the Lambeth Conference of 1888] the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be, by God's blessing, made towards Home Reunion:

(a)  The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

(b)  The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

(c)  The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself -- Baptism and the Supper of the Lord -- ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.

(d)  The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
Your points (1) (2) (3) and (5) are covered by (b), and point (4) is covered by (a).

To your list I would add:

6.  The seven-day week, beginning on the Lord's Day and ending on the Sabbath.

My observations on your points (1) through (5):

1.  Here is the Collect for Trinity Sunday from the Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer: 
Quote
Almighty and everlasting God, who hast given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity:  We beseech thee that thou wouldest keep us steadfast in this faith and worship, and bring us at last to see thee in thy one and eternal glory, O Father; who with the Son and the Holy Spirit livest and reignest, one God, for ever and ever.
  Further comment (my private opinion only):  As I read the history, the twin doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation were the best way found in antiquity to preserve the truths of the scriptural and Jewish inheritance and of the original Jewish Christian experience in the face of the questions posed by the Gentile world's presuppositions.

2.  Here is one of the Collects for Christmas Day from TEC's BCP: 
Quote
Almighty God, who hast given us thy only-begotten Son to take our nature upon him and as at this time to be born of a pure virgin:  Grant that we, being regenerate and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit ever, one God, world without end.
  Further comment (my private opinion only):  It is necessary to distinguish the doctrine of virgin conception, which is scriptural, from the doctrine of "virgin birth", which holds that our Lord's worthy mother gave birth to him without pain or loss of blood.  This latter formulation I reject.  To me it seems almost to deny the Incarnation.  But even if that be not the case, it seems an unreasonable proposition.

3.  and 5.  Point (3) is clearly asserted in the Nicene Creed (point 5) which the rubrics of our Eucharistic synaxis require to be recited on Sundays and major feasts.

4.  Christological interpretations of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and Psalm 22 are implied by the appointment of these readings among the options for the readings on Good Friday.

Further comment (private opinion only):  There is no contradiction between interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures Christologically and asserting that, as a historical matter, the original authors could have had little or no knowledge of the details of how their visions would be understood by future generations to have been fulfilled.

Remarks on other replies to this thread: 

A.  The filioque.  A detailed Anglican-Orthodox dialog on the questions raised by the filioque can be found in the Cyprus Agreed Statement:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical/dialogues/orthodox/docs/pdf/The%20Church%20of%20the%20Triune%20God.pdf

Further comment (private opinion only).  The doctrine of the filioque was asserted against the Arians.  I suppose the thinking was something like, "If the Father and Son don't share all things in common, the Son does not truly know his Father as the Arians teach.  But this cannot be so.  So the Father and the Son must share all things."   The doctrine is orthodox in intention, though the addition to the Creed long ago outlived any usefulness it had.  So the latter is slowly being phased out in Anglicanism, while the former is taught in an orthodox sense.

Any doctrine of the Holy Spirit's procession must incorporate these scriptural facts: 

i.  The Son "who is in the bosom of the Father, has made [God] known".  So the Son must truly know his Father.

ii.  The Holy Spirit is called in Scripture "the Spirit of Jesus" (Acts 16.7), "the spirit of Christ" (Romans 8.9), and "the Sprit of [God's] Son".


B.  The 2nd Psalm.  The translation of Psalm 2.10-12 in my "Protestant Bible" (RSV) is

10.Now therefore, O kings, be wise;*
be warned, O rulers of the earth.

11.  Serve the LORD with fear,*
with trembling [12] kiss his feet,

lest he be angry, and you perish in the way;*
for his wrath is quickly kindled.

Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

In my Book of Common Prayer (1979 edition) Psalm 2.10-13 is

10.  And now, you kings, be wise; *
be warned, you rulers of the earth.

11.  Submit to the LORD with fear,*
and with trembling bow before him;

12.  Lest he be angry and you perish;*
for his wrath is quickly kindled.

13.  Happy are they all*
who take refuge in him.

The problem is that those verses you and Catholic Answers love to quote to defend the filioque, don't mention anything about procession.
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline Maximum Bob

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,172
  • Personal Text? We can have personal text?
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #79 on: February 06, 2014, 01:25:32 AM »
Wow.  ::)

Jude I'm glad you finally got some good answers. Brief answers based on the inclusion of absolute terms such as "all" or "none" just are not helpful, however, accurate they may be. As you can see even with helpful answers there's still a lot of room for discussion and disagreement. I think many Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox would agree on the surface about many of the things you mentioned but as has already been stated when you get down to the level of asking how they understand those beliefs then then people part ways. The Orthodox Church I would assert does agree on these basic beliefs, not only on the surface but also in underlying understanding of them from one jurisdiction to the next. Not to say that we can't find minor things to argue about or even that some people do consider them to be major, but the Orthodox Church doesn't have anywhere near the amount of dogma that the others have. Our dogma hasn't really changed in over one thousand years because we only set dogma reactively and only by agreement of the whole Church.
Psalm 37:23 The Lord guides a man safely in the way he should go.

Prov. 3: 5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths.

Offline Gunnarr

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,933
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #80 on: February 06, 2014, 05:16:12 AM »
Hello I will compile a nice list

1. Existence of God
2. ???
....

I am a demonic servant! Beware!

Offline Laird

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Lord have mercy
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #81 on: February 06, 2014, 12:05:53 PM »
     What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ?


   I have a little list.

   Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed


  Anything else ? I know there has to be more stuff that we agree on.

1. Yes, except some Protestants will defend the Catholic Filioque
2. Yes (though Orthodox put more emphasis on the Incarnation, while Protestants the penal substitution)
3. Yes, but a lot of modern Evangelicals reject the term Theotokos/Mother of God, and in doing so, fall for a form of crypto-Nestorianism
4. Yes
5. Mostly, though modern Evangelicals reject that "baptism is for the remission of sins" and all Protestants reject that there is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" in the meaning intended by the Creed.
"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

Offline Mockingbird

  • Mimus polyglottos
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Episcopal Church
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #82 on: February 08, 2014, 06:33:37 PM »
So while they will affirm that Christ is one person, the manner in which they treat his two natures results in a theology in which Christ is treated as two persons. They are thus crypto-(hidden)-Nestorians.

WCF 8.2 "...So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion..."
The quotation from the WCF is a paraphrase of the Chalcedonian definition.  It does not support your accusation.
Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #83 on: February 08, 2014, 08:50:16 PM »
    What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ? I have a little list.  Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed
You have independently arrived at a partial reconstruction of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral:  
Quote
In the opinion of this Conference [i.e. the Lambeth Conference of 1888] the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be, by God's blessing, made towards Home Reunion:

(a)  The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

(b)  The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

(c)  The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself -- Baptism and the Supper of the Lord -- ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.

(d)  The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
Your points (1) (2) (3) and (5) are covered by (b), and point (4) is covered by (a).

To your list I would add:

6.  The seven-day week, beginning on the Lord's Day and ending on the Sabbath.

My observations on your points (1) through (5):

1.  Here is the Collect for Trinity Sunday from the Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer:  
Quote
Almighty and everlasting God, who hast given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity:  We beseech thee that thou wouldest keep us steadfast in this faith and worship, and bring us at last to see thee in thy one and eternal glory, O Father; who with the Son and the Holy Spirit livest and reignest, one God, for ever and ever.
 Further comment (my private opinion only):  As I read the history, the twin doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation were the best way found in antiquity to preserve the truths of the scriptural and Jewish inheritance and of the original Jewish Christian experience in the face of the questions posed by the Gentile world's presuppositions.

2.  Here is one of the Collects for Christmas Day from TEC's BCP:  
Quote
Almighty God, who hast given us thy only-begotten Son to take our nature upon him and as at this time to be born of a pure virgin:  Grant that we, being regenerate and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit ever, one God, world without end.
 Further comment (my private opinion only):  It is necessary to distinguish the doctrine of virgin conception, which is scriptural, from the doctrine of "virgin birth", which holds that our Lord's worthy mother gave birth to him without pain or loss of blood.  This latter formulation I reject.  To me it seems almost to deny the Incarnation.  But even if that be not the case, it seems an unreasonable proposition.

3.  and 5.  Point (3) is clearly asserted in the Nicene Creed (point 5) which the rubrics of our Eucharistic synaxis require to be recited on Sundays and major feasts.

4.  Christological interpretations of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and Psalm 22 are implied by the appointment of these readings among the options for the readings on Good Friday.

Further comment (private opinion only):  There is no contradiction between interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures Christologically and asserting that, as a historical matter, the original authors could have had little or no knowledge of the details of how their visions would be understood by future generations to have been fulfilled.

Remarks on other replies to this thread:  

A.  The filioque.  A detailed Anglican-Orthodox dialog on the questions raised by the filioque can be found in the Cyprus Agreed Statement:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical/dialogues/orthodox/docs/pdf/The%20Church%20of%20the%20Triune%20God.pdf

Further comment (private opinion only).  The doctrine of the filioque was asserted against the Arians.  I suppose the thinking was something like, "If the Father and Son don't share all things in common, the Son does not truly know his Father as the Arians teach.  But this cannot be so.  So the Father and the Son must share all things."   The doctrine is orthodox in intention, though the addition to the Creed long ago outlived any usefulness it had.  So the latter is slowly being phased out in Anglicanism, while the former is taught in an orthodox sense.

Any doctrine of the Holy Spirit's procession must incorporate these scriptural facts:  

i.  The Son "who is in the bosom of the Father, has made [God] known".  So the Son must truly know his Father.

ii.  The Holy Spirit is called in Scripture "the Spirit of Jesus" (Acts 16.7), "the spirit of Christ" (Romans 8.9), and "the Sprit of [God's] Son".


B.  The 2nd Psalm.  The translation of Psalm 2.10-12 in my "Protestant Bible" (RSV) is

10.Now therefore, O kings, be wise;*
be warned, O rulers of the earth.

11.  Serve the LORD with fear,*
with trembling [12] kiss his feet,

lest he be angry, and you perish in the way;*
for his wrath is quickly kindled.

Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

In my Book of Common Prayer (1979 edition) Psalm 2.10-13 is

10.  And now, you kings, be wise; *
be warned, you rulers of the earth.

11.  Submit to the LORD with fear,*
and with trembling bow before him;

12.  Lest he be angry and you perish;*
for his wrath is quickly kindled.

13.  Happy are they all*
who take refuge in him.

The problem is that those verses you and Catholic Answers love to quote to defend the filioque, don't mention anything about procession.

It all boils down to this:  It is abundantly clear that the filioque was added in an overzealous effort to combat the Arian heresy in Visigothic Spain in the 6th century and spread eastward, was first rejected by Rome, and then accepted by Rome in the 11th century once they were under the sway of the Frankish Emperors who sought to resurrect the Western Empire and diminish the Eastern Empire as heretics.  To the extent that it talks about eternal procession, the filioque is in error.  To the extent that it talks about temporal procession (proceeding "through," if you will), it is not in error.  But it doesn't belong in the Creed because no Ecumenical Council put it there.  
« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 08:52:19 PM by Yurysprudentsiya »

Offline FormerCalvinist

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #84 on: February 08, 2014, 10:14:57 PM »
So while they will affirm that Christ is one person, the manner in which they treat his two natures results in a theology in which Christ is treated as two persons. They are thus crypto-(hidden)-Nestorians.

WCF 8.2 "...So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion..."
The quotation from the WCF is a paraphrase of the Chalcedonian definition.  It does not support your accusation.

You're correct in that it is not per se an admission of Nestorianism, as the same words could be used in an orthodox manner; but that is not the case here. This is revealed through the rejection of the term "Mother of God," that the Calvinist understands "joined together in one person" as meaning that the person of Christ is the result of the combination of two persons, which he will refer to as "natures." Nestorianism is not only affirming "two persons," but also affirming "one person" but treating the natures as if they are persons. One of the reasons that non-Chalcedonians object to Chalcedon is that they consider the Tome of Leo to treat the natures as persons, i.e. to be Nestorian in content. We do not understand the Tome of Leo in this way. WCF 8.2, however, is clarified as heterodox in the context of the rest of Reformed Christology.

I think their error is due to a misreading of Chalcedon, as they will make similar statements to that of St. Leo the Great, but they understand these statements in a Nestorian manner. For example, from the Tome of Leo: "For each 'form' does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh." On its face this is problematic because it appears to treat the natures as actors (persons), but again we do not understand the Tome in this manner, having clarified any ambiguity regarding Chalcedon and Nestorianism at Constantinople II. The Reformed, unsurprisingly, reject Constantinople II and only accept the first four ecumenical councils (albeit as "normed norms"). But yes WCF 8.2 is not a smoking gun as is 2.3.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 10:16:45 PM by FormerCalvinist »

Offline Mockingbird

  • Mimus polyglottos
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Episcopal Church
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #85 on: February 09, 2014, 04:19:00 PM »
To the extent that it talks about eternal procession, the filioque is in error.  To the extent that it talks about temporal procession (proceeding "through," if you will), it is not in error.
The addition to the creed makes no such distinction.  Some teachers may make this distinction, others not.  If you want to develop the doctrine along these lines, be careful.  God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  So say otherwise is modalism.

But it doesn't belong in the Creed because no Ecumenical Council put it there.
On this point, your crowd have already won.  The Episcopal Church's General convention has already resolved that the next revision of the Prayer Book will use a translation of the original Greek text of the Nicene Creed.  A trial-use translation of the original Greek text is already in use in some parishes.  The Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops has already resolved that the various national churches will not break communion with any national church that uses the original form of the Creed.   But your lot go on and on about it.  Sometimes it gives the impression that your party's hatred of us is your only unvarying principle, and things like the filioque are mere excuses. 
Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey

Online Shlomlokh

  • 主哀れめよ!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,323
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #86 on: February 09, 2014, 09:46:22 PM »
Wouldn't it just be easier if we considered those inside the Orthodox Church to be Christians and not worry about whether those outside of her are? It would save a lot of headaches and wishy-washy coddling.

In Christ,
Andrew
"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Offline Cackles

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #87 on: February 09, 2014, 10:17:29 PM »
Unfortunately, what the Orthodox and Protestants have in common is the KJV. Im amazed the Orthodox would have anything to do with that Bible, considering the circumstances amd motives behind it.
The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,858
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #88 on: February 09, 2014, 10:18:49 PM »
Unfortunately, what the Orthodox and Protestants have in common is the KJV. Im amazed the Orthodox would have anything to do with that Bible, considering the circumstances amd motives behind it.
How many Orthodox actually use the King James Version of the Bible? None that I know of.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,484
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #89 on: February 09, 2014, 10:22:03 PM »
Unfortunately, what the Orthodox and Protestants have in common is the KJV. Im amazed the Orthodox would have anything to do with that Bible, considering the circumstances amd motives behind it.

What do you think the "motives" were when the King James Version was done, please? 
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Maximum Bob

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,172
  • Personal Text? We can have personal text?
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #90 on: February 09, 2014, 10:28:38 PM »
Isn't the KJV the version that was used for the Orthodox Study Bible?  If so,  I would guess at least some of us would use it.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 10:29:41 PM by Maximum Bob »
Psalm 37:23 The Lord guides a man safely in the way he should go.

Prov. 3: 5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Partisan Pro-Chalcedonian Fanatic
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,505
  • St. John the Merciful
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #91 on: February 09, 2014, 10:37:25 PM »
To the extent that it talks about eternal procession, the filioque is in error.  To the extent that it talks about temporal procession (proceeding "through," if you will), it is not in error.
The addition to the creed makes no such distinction.  Some teachers may make this distinction, others not.  If you want to develop the doctrine along these lines, be careful.  God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  So say otherwise is modalism.

But it doesn't belong in the Creed because no Ecumenical Council put it there.
On this point, your crowd have already won.  The Episcopal Church's General convention has already resolved that the next revision of the Prayer Book will use a translation of the original Greek text of the Nicene Creed.  A trial-use translation of the original Greek text is already in use in some parishes.  The Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops has already resolved that the various national churches will not break communion with any national church that uses the original form of the Creed.   But your lot go on and on about it.  Sometimes it gives the impression that your party's hatred of us is your only unvarying principle, and things like the filioque are mere excuses.  

You're reading in motives and intentions that don't exist. The filioque was one of the main factors of schism between the East and West and remains so. To just call the objection to the filioque as simply 'hatred' of Anglicans, is downright disingenuous. It's a historical objection that has been raised plenty of time in the East since it was first added.

Furthermore, Anglicans are not the only group that uses the filioque, so the idea that this is an all-out attack by Orthodox against Anglicans is also a very poor strawman.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 10:39:15 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,754
  • "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #92 on: February 09, 2014, 10:50:27 PM »
Unfortunately, what the Orthodox and Protestants have in common is the KJV. Im amazed the Orthodox would have anything to do with that Bible, considering the circumstances amd motives behind it.

Wait...I thought your preferred Bible translation was The Message.   ???
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Quote
Bartholomew, 270th Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, is spiritual leader to 300 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,858
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #93 on: February 09, 2014, 10:55:22 PM »
Isn't the KJV the version that was used for the Orthodox Study Bible?  If so,  I would guess at least some of us would use it.
No, the New KJV is the version used for the Orthodox Study Bible, and that only for the New Testament.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,858
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #94 on: February 09, 2014, 11:01:29 PM »
To the extent that it talks about eternal procession, the filioque is in error.  To the extent that it talks about temporal procession (proceeding "through," if you will), it is not in error.
The addition to the creed makes no such distinction.  Some teachers may make this distinction, others not.  If you want to develop the doctrine along these lines, be careful.  God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  So say otherwise is modalism.

But it doesn't belong in the Creed because no Ecumenical Council put it there.
On this point, your crowd have already won.  The Episcopal Church's General convention has already resolved that the next revision of the Prayer Book will use a translation of the original Greek text of the Nicene Creed.  A trial-use translation of the original Greek text is already in use in some parishes.  The Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops has already resolved that the various national churches will not break communion with any national church that uses the original form of the Creed.   But your lot go on and on about it.  Sometimes it gives the impression that your party's hatred of us is your only unvarying principle, and things like the filioque are mere excuses.  

You're reading in motives and intentions that don't exist. The filioque was one of the main factors of schism between the East and West and remains so. To just call the objection to the filioque as simply 'hatred' of Anglicans, is downright disingenuous. It's a historical objection that has been raised plenty of time in the East since it was first added.

Furthermore, Anglicans are not the only group that uses the filioque, so the idea that this is an all-out attack by Orthodox against Anglicans is also a very poor strawman.
Except I don't think Mockingbird is saying what you think she's saying.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Jude1:3

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #95 on: February 09, 2014, 11:36:22 PM »
Isn't the KJV the version that was used for the Orthodox Study Bible?  If so,  I would guess at least some of us would use it.
No, the New KJV is the version used for the Orthodox Study Bible, and that only for the New Testament.



   This is interesting, because one of the things that started to draw me into inquiring about Orthodoxy was seeing that the Orthodox Study Bible had the NKJV for the New Testament.  For awhile now I have been trying to study the differences between English Bible Translations. I've noticed that some of the modern English translations are very different from the Older English translations. I trust the Orthodox Way more then I trust modern Liberal Scholars and Harper Collins. Unforunfortunately, Harper Collins owns Thomas Nelson now   :-[

Offline Cackles

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #96 on: February 11, 2014, 03:52:54 AM »
Unfortunately, what the Orthodox and Protestants have in common is the KJV. Im amazed the Orthodox would have anything to do with that Bible, considering the circumstances amd motives behind it.

Wait...I thought your preferred Bible translation was The Message.   ???

No way! The Message is good only if you want a 3 in 1 parallel bible. But The Message does have some portions that are more readable, yet acurate than anything else.

I use 'The Voice' which the leatherbound is AMAZINGLY cheap on ebay right now. Amazed for the price. Its the only Bible which is directly injecting phrases to keep things in context. It will also finish sentences. It italisizes all of the additions of text.

What I recommend people do is Either get The Voice, or, a 3 in 1 parallel with easy translations like The Message with NIRV etc. Then read the portions which seem easiest of the three. Youll notice that different chapters are translated better than others. When you reach a phrase that seems suspicious, or, you want to drill down further to see what they really said, then use the gold standard - The Wycliffe Bible. This is tougher English, but the most direct word of God straight from the Vatican.

Of your not a beginner, or dont struggle with comprehention, then the Knox Bible is a masterpiece. Like fine wine. Fine cigars. The Rolls Royce of Bibles.

To see how good a translation is, I use Isaiah 34:14-15. This is a very important verse with some tough henrew thats hard to 'decode' as at this point we're litterally decoding the source text lol. I believe the Wycliffe got this one almost perfect. In this verse you're looking for the orde Lilith or meantion of Lilith.

Who's Lilith? Never mind.. You dont want to go down that road.. But this is what would have been in the source text.
The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.

Offline Cackles

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: What do we at least agree on ?
« Reply #97 on: February 11, 2014, 02:54:41 PM »
Isn't the KJV the version that was used for the Orthodox Study Bible?  If so,  I would guess at least some of us would use it.
No, the New KJV is the version used for the Orthodox Study Bible, and that only for the New Testament.



   This is interesting, because one of the things that started to draw me into inquiring about Orthodoxy was seeing that the Orthodox Study Bible had the NKJV for the New Testament.  For awhile now I have been trying to study the differences between English Bible Translations. I've noticed that some of the modern English translations are very different from the Older English translations. I trust the Orthodox Way more then I trust modern Liberal Scholars and Harper Collins. Unforunfortunately, Harper Collins owns Thomas Nelson now   :-[

The King James is the birth of corrupted, liberal translation in my opinion. All the new translations are socially liberal and modified.

The best benchmark is 1 corinthians 11:10. Lets see the blasphemy of the NRSV Catholic Edition:

10 For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of[a] authority on her head, because of the angels.

Footnotes:

a. 1 Corinthians 11:10 Gk lacks a symbol of -- WOW!
b. 1 Corinthians 11:10 Or have freedom of choice regarding her head -- Wow!!

Now lets see the New King James which most translations ate based, which is on already modified, altered, later scriptures:

 "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." - i like how they throw in 'ought to'.

Now lets see the inspired word of God - the 1390 Wycliffe Bible. Furthermore, lets quote the origional middle Enlish version:

"Wycliffe(i) 10 Therfor the womman schal haue an hilyng on hir heed, also for aungelis." - what is 'hilyng'? A covering. Hilyng - a) The action of giving clothing or shelter, the action covering up b) blindfolded; concealment.

What does the midernized Wycliffe Bible say?

"Therefore the woman shall have a covering on her head, also for angels." - WOW! An AUTHENTIC translation. Notice the lack of 'aught to'.

What does the VOICE Bible say??

"10 This means that a wife should wear a veil on her head as a sign she is under authority, especially when gathering in the company of heavenly messengers." - WOW!

Notice the quality of the above translation and the added italics of insertion to complete the thought. The child is not under headship of her father. She belongs to God and ionly goes under headship until she is married. This is why until this day Muslims only start waering a covering when their married. Although most wear it all the time. They shouldnt have put in the 'should' part though is it is 'shall'.

What does the Orthodox Jewish Bible say on this matter?

"10 Because of this, the Isha ought to have a kesut rosh (head covering) of marut (authority, discipline) on her rosh because of the malachim." Not that this is an authority version, but even they concede.

The Knox Bible outright calls it a VIEL as the correct wording.

And of course, everyones old favorite - the amplified Bible which summerizes the though of the verse perfectly:

"10 [a]Therefore she should [be subject to his authority and should] have a covering on her head [as a token, a symbol, of her submission to authority, that she may show reverence as do] the angels [and not displease them]."

And there ya have it. So when we talk about liberalism and King James somehow being the Truth... I mean.. That is seriously laughable in my little opinion of course. The ONLY translation that is new, which had the closest meaning and was readable was The Voice. This is why its my current favorite and recommended by myself to anyone. Go to that ebay seller for cheap price. Its full leather, full size quality bound bible. Comes in the retail box too.

The finest English Bibles on earth. Holy. Precious:

The Voice
The Knox Bible
Wycliffe's Bible

The one that good to have and might make reading even shorter and easier in some areas:

3 or 4 in one Parallel bible - KJV (to please everyone else), The Message, NIRV.

For the serious New Testiment disector, although source manuscript is King James, nothing else compares:

John Mitchell New Testement.

Dont believe me? - JMNT(i) 10 Because of this, the woman (or: wife) is continually obligated to be habitually having privilege and right from being (or: permission) upon [her] head – because of the agents (or: normally ought to constantly hold authority from out of being herself, [based] upon the Source, [as shown] through the messengers). [comment: she ought to veil her glory, just as Moses veiled the glory that was on him – 2 Cor. 3:13] -- WOW!!!!!! They give the real reason women are supposed to cover their head. Otice CONTINUALLY OBLIGATED. Not 'ought, should'.
The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.