OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 05:57:51 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Re: A Few of Drake's Points  (Read 997 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Olivianus
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaizer
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Posts: 50



WWW
« on: March 24, 2014, 02:24:29 AM »

This debate started here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,57159.msg1100958.html#msg1100958

- PtA



I will respond to a few of Drake's points, but do not have the time to write a detailed analysis....

Fr. John W. Morris



“I will respond to a few of Drake’s points”

>>>Why not all of them?

“but do not have the time to write a detailed analysis.”

>>>You get paid to talk about religion and you don’t have time? I gave up my scholarship from school, both opportunities to have a career and a family, which cost me my health and every friend I have had since I was a child over these issues of religion. I live in borderline poverty and have been for 13 years though I have been forced to work two jobs most of this time.  Yet, I found the time to study every last stich of your religion though I didn’t believe it. And yet you don’t have time?

“He makes a great deal of comments in the New Testament that in “later times,” many will fall away from the truth. He adjective “later” means just that “later” not immediately, but in the distant future.”

>>> Acts 20:29 states clearly that the apostasy would arise among Paul’s disciples.

“Instead, he claims that the very people who learned the Gospel from the Apostles fell away. As an historian, I find that claim incredible. Men like Sts. Ignatius of Antioch,  Clement or Rome who actually heard the Apostles, or St. Irenaeus of Lyons who learned from St. Polycarp, who learned from the Apostle John have much more credibility than someone like John Calvin who lived 1,400 years later and had no contact with the Apostles.”

>>>I know you Christians hate the Bible but this is incredible.

“I do not think that he really understands Orthodox theology because he does not present an accurate statement of what we believe.”

>>>I know your religion better than you know yourself. Debate me formally on whatever forum you like. I would love to publicly humiliate you for all to see.

“Part of the problem is that he is cannot get past the fact that we do not use the same language as Calvinists.”

>>>Oh yeah, that was why I wrote my almost 800 page Systematic Theology comparing language in Eastern Orthodoxy and Calvinism the whole way through.

“For example, although we do not use the Anselmic language of penal substitution”

>>>I don’t either but how you justify your doctrine of hell without some type of juridical language and divine retribution remains IMPOSSIBLE.

“or vicarious atonement, that does not mean that we do not believe that Christ died for our sins on the cross.”

>>>It just means that his humanity was a universal and thus eternal and thus not consubstantial with any human person.

“The difference is that we put the Cross in its proper context of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. The Cross is only part of Christ’s saving work which began with the Incarnation and ended with the Ascension. In Christ. God assumed all that is human”

>>>See, there you go. Messiah was not all that is human. He was a male not a female. He was a Hebrew not a Greek. He was not huperousia as much as you want him to be.

“to deify humanity and reunite us to Him. That is why St. Gregory the Theologian wrote, “That which is not assumed is not healed.”

>>>Which assumes the problem with man is his ontology, not his activity or tendency. You conflate all these categories because you are just as enslaved to Neoplatonism as the Romanists are.

“The problem with the doctrine of the vicarious atonement is that it is based on a partial view of salvation which is confined to the forgiveness of sins, and does not understand that God not only declares the believer righteous, God also makes the believer righteous.”

>>>Which assumes that righteousness refers to the genus of being. That it is a being and not the activity of a being. You are still laboring under Occam sir.

“There is a judicial aspect to salvation, but it is only one aspect, not the totality of salvation, which includes deification.”

>>>Asserting it is not justifying it. You are using ad hoc reasoning.

“Drake makes the point that in the New Testament the titles “presbyter” literally elder, and “eposkopos,” overseerer or Bishop are used interchangeably. That is correct. However, the New Testament was written while the Apostles were still alive. Drake does not consider what happened when they began to die. We know from the example of St. Matthias, and historical documents such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement of Rome, and St. Irenaeus of Lyons that when the Apostles realized that Christ was not coming again during their lifetime, that they appointed successors, who were called Bishops to distinguish them from the Presbyters. Thus, although it is only hinted at in the New Testament, we know from the history of the Church that the Apostles left the leadership of the Church in the hands of Bishops who acted as their successors. The Apostles acted as Bishops over the Churches they founded. For example in Acts 14:23, refers to the ordination of priests for the Churches they founded by Sts. Paul and Barnabas; “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.”  The Greek word translaed “appointed” really means ordained, and “elders” is “presbyters” which is the source of our English word Priests.”

>>>The problem is Deut. 4:1-3, 12:29-32, does not allow innovation like that. The Bible teaches the regulative principle.

“He fails to understand that there is a difference between forbidding to marry and placing restrictions on when one may marry.”

>>>A person must get married at a specific time. Deny the massive evidence I presented that marriage was prohibited by your tradition if breaking the 9th command is your thing.

“There is no prohibition of marriage in the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Indeed, unless one wishes to be a monastic, it celibacy is strongly discouraged among the parish clergy. However a man must marry before he undertakes the sacred office of the Priesthood. (actually Diaconate) Here Drake is twisting words instead of honestly dealing with the issue.”

>>>You replied to not a single quotation or reference from my writings and I am not being honest?

“There is a difference between fasting for a time and forbidding eating certain foods. Our Lord, Himself spoke of fasting. In Matthew 6:16, Christ says, “When you fast…” He does not say, “If you fast,” but “When you fast,” because fasting is a part of the Christian life. Besides the citation from Acts 14, there are several references to fasting among the earliest Christians in the Book of Acts.”

>>>Was it for the purpose of recoiling from the burden of physical constitution and for the purpose of penance? Nope.

“He accuses the Orthodox Church of being Gnostic. This is laughable.”

>>>I’m laughing at you not with you.

“Gnosticism taught that the material world is evil.”

>>>And that is why your monks fast to control their evil flesh with its desires for sex which brings the monk away from angelic celibacy.

“Orthodox bless the material world.”

>>>So why do you seek to escape the body at death? Why is celibacy better than marriage contrary to Gen. 2:18?

“We bless everything, our homes, our cars, our food, firetrucks, railroad, everything. Our worship is very physical.”

>>>So is Hinduism.

“Calvinism, on the other hand has no place for the blessing of the material world.”

>>> I’m no longer a Christian. I think all Christians are gnostics but maybe they don’t do it because it is superstitious nonsense that is not mentioned in the bible.

“The Sacraments are symbols and not real means of grace”

>>>First your sacraments are a laughing stock. They are inventions of heretics and anti-semites. Read Leviticus 23 and then seriously ask yourself how God could introduce a new feast without defining the timing of it. When is the Lord’s Supper supposed to be held again? How often? And how do you know? Second, even Calvinists believe that the Lord’s supper is a means of grace. You are thinking of Baptists.

“and the central act of worship is the sermon, which turns Christianity into an exercise of the mind or emotions.”

>>>That is hysterical. That was the way synagogue worship was performed for centuries.

“The model for the arrangement of a Calvinist Church is a medieval university lecture hall”

>>> I dealt with all your ridiculous lies when I was still a Christian:

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/the-regulative-principle/the-synagogue-and-the-regulative-principle-by-drake-shelton

“The truth is that Calvinism is Gnostic because it denies the sanctification of matter.”

>>>Could you show me from the bible why the physical world needs sanctifying?

“He dismisses free will and does not understand that although God knows how we will respond to the Gospel, that does not mean that He predestines some to salvation and some to damnation.”

>>>Asserting it is not proving it. Again you didn’t quote a single statement I made. You are arguing against a straw man. Foreknowledge is causal enough. And don’t even try to play the game where you conflate a formal with an efficient cause.

“This goes completely against the entire spirit of the Gospel which teaches again and again that Christ died for all.”

>>>Those in hell as well?

“Drake contradicts the words of St. Paul, who wrote that God, “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

>>>You are conflating a decree and a moral will.

“I Timothy 2:4. This verse alone demolishes the entire Calvinist system for if God desires that all be saved and there is no free will, one must assume that all are saved.”

>>>Playing games with the word free will.

“However, we know that not all are saved.”

>>>On your theology they are all saved at the level of nature.

“Since God desires that all be saved and all are not saved, it is obvious that God has given us the ability to accept or reject His offer of salvation.”

>>>Given? Not innate? Be careful father, you may becoming a Calvinist.

“In other words, free will. Calvinism with its denial of free will makes God into a sadistic monster who sends people to hell without giving them a chance to be saved.”

>>>Sadistic according to what standard?

“Such a God is not the God of love described in the New Testament.”

>>>Romans 9. One vessel for honor, another for dishonor.

“Drake accuses Orthodox of being Arians and Monophysites.”

>>>Quote me now Father don’t keep punching those straw men you keep putting up.

“Thus at the same time, we deny the divinity of Christ and teach that the divinity of Christ absorbed His humanity. That is obviously a major contradiction. Actually, if one studies Calvin, his Christology is highly defective. He has a strong tendency towards Nestorianism.”

>>>So? Calvin is not the measure of truth.

“He denies the deification of the human nature of Christ and the “Communication of Attributes,” both of which are important doctrines from the age of the Holy Fathers.”

>>>Because your Jesus is a pagan deity. An attribute of God is omnipresence. If the human nature of messiah shares divine attributes then the human nature is omnipresent and thus not consubstantial with any human person.

“Finally, Drake uses all sorts of philosophical language to discredit Orthodoxy. However, this simple verbiage that really has no meaning. He actually uses high language to hide the shallowness of his theology and basic misunderstanding of Orthodoxy. Calvinism has become the latest fad among American Evangelicals.”

>>Fascinating because most Eastern Orthodox people I know know that Calvinism is Augustine’s Theology. That is the stage from which traditional Orthodoxy has implicated Rome on the Filioque. You have just embarrassed yourself beyond repair Father. It is time to retire from the religion and apologetics gig. Time to find a new job.

“However, like all fads it lacks depth. Instead, Calvinism provides easy answers to complex questions and falsely relies on human reason to understand the mysteries of God.”

>>>How else can a human understand something?

“Calvinism also appeals to people because it tells them that they are special because God has chosen them for salvation out of the mass of sinful humanity. As Orthodox Christians know the worst sin of all is the sin of pride, a sin produced by Calvinism.”

>>>Total depravity, pride? Actually it is your Pelagian system that states that God chose you because of some intrinsic good in you. That is the pride.

“St. John Chrysostom.”

>>>This man was the hero of the Nazis with his Nine Homilies Against the Jews. He was a scumbag piece of filth.

Thank you for affirming just how bankrupt your religion is sir.

Alpha Judaizer over and out

Considering that your only apparent purpose for visiting our forum was to post this polemic defense of your point of view, I'm going to bypass all the niceties of a private warning and just give you this. Our rules require that you speak of our saints with, at the very least, the modicum of respect that one would afford them in academic discourse. That means not using pejoratives. For your failure to employ this standard to our St. John Chrysostom, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 21 days. During this time, please read our Forum Rules so you can learn what we expect of our posters.

If you think this warning wrong, please appeal it to me via private message (and only via private message).

- PeterTheAleut
Orthodox-Protestant Discussion Moderator


Due to blaspheming against our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I am increasing your warning to 40 days.  Please reread the Rules in the third tab in your upper left.  If they are not clear or you do not understand why you were given this warning, please feel free to send me a PM.

- LizaSymonenko
Global Moderator
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 08:52:09 AM by LizaSymonenko » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2014, 05:00:37 AM »

“Drake makes the point that in the New Testament the titles “presbyter” literally elder, and “eposkopos,” overseerer or Bishop are used interchangeably. That is correct. However, the New Testament was written while the Apostles were still alive. Drake does not consider what happened when they began to die. We know from the example of St. Matthias, and historical documents such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement of Rome, and St. Irenaeus of Lyons that when the Apostles realized that Christ was not coming again during their lifetime, that they appointed successors, who were called Bishops to distinguish them from the Presbyters. Thus, although it is only hinted at in the New Testament, we know from the history of the Church that the Apostles left the leadership of the Church in the hands of Bishops who acted as their successors. The Apostles acted as Bishops over the Churches they founded. For example in Acts 14:23, refers to the ordination of priests for the Churches they founded by Sts. Paul and Barnabas; “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.”  The Greek word translaed “appointed” really means ordained, and “elders” is “presbyters” which is the source of our English word Priests.”

>>>The problem is Deut. 4:1-3, 12:29-32, does not allow innovation like that. The Bible teaches the regulative principle.
The problem for you is, that it doesn't.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Olivianus
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaizer
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Posts: 50



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2014, 05:07:09 AM »

“Drake makes the point that in the New Testament the titles “presbyter” literally elder, and “eposkopos,” overseerer or Bishop are used interchangeably. That is correct. However, the New Testament was written while the Apostles were still alive. Drake does not consider what happened when they began to die. We know from the example of St. Matthias, and historical documents such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement of Rome, and St. Irenaeus of Lyons that when the Apostles realized that Christ was not coming again during their lifetime, that they appointed successors, who were called Bishops to distinguish them from the Presbyters. Thus, although it is only hinted at in the New Testament, we know from the history of the Church that the Apostles left the leadership of the Church in the hands of Bishops who acted as their successors. The Apostles acted as Bishops over the Churches they founded. For example in Acts 14:23, refers to the ordination of priests for the Churches they founded by Sts. Paul and Barnabas; “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.”  The Greek word translaed “appointed” really means ordained, and “elders” is “presbyters” which is the source of our English word Priests.”

>>>The problem is Deut. 4:1-3, 12:29-32, does not allow innovation like that. The Bible teaches the regulative principle.
The problem for you is, that it doesn't.

An assertion is not an argument.
Logged
Skydive
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2014, 05:27:49 AM »

hello.

i find many of the Orthodox arguments in defense of the early church to be very compelling. though i do have a potential confound in my mind that i'd like to present to see what Orthodoxy might say to the matter.

one defense i often hear is that, if the early church fell into heresy and those teachings were not expunged, then the consequences of that would be that Christ would be a liar (He wasn't with us) and/or the Holy Spirit was weak and could not protect the church and lead into all truth, thus destroying the whole faith.

my thought is, God made creation and He made it good. the devil, however, seemingly jumped in there very early to muck things up and incite creation to head on a trajectory that was off the mark. this being true, though, doesn't seem to negate God's goodness, power or reliability, nor His eventual restoration of all things.

given that, is it really fair to say that the whole faith comes into question if God hadn't protected the early church in precisely the way we might think or want to believe? rather, hasn't God historically seemed to work in ways other than how we expect them to be?

also considering the parable of the wheat and tares, might this all not suggest the possibility that the Church is more a mystery of the heart than an institution? it would have to be, if it's not the institution that is to be protected, but those of a circumcised heart.

i don't personally find this potential objection to be in any way strong, but i would like it addressed.

any thoughts are appreciated. thanks for your time, patience and effort.

God bless.

Perhaps a more relevant question would be, would God allow His Church to fall into fundamental error immediately after the death of the Apostles and let His people remain in error until the 16th century. Or who is more reliable people like St.Ignatius of Antioch who heard Sts.Peter and Paul preach, or St. Irenaeus of Lyons who learned from St. Polycarp who learned from St. John or Luther or Calvin who lived 1400 year later and never heard an Apostle preach.

Fr. John W. Morris

The preaching of Christ seems to focus more on charity and well doing, well being, socialism, humanity, morality like that is the Church, not some institution. The institutional religion is what condemned and murdered Christ and against whom Christ focussed most of his refutation.
Logged

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll
Skydive
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2014, 05:28:52 AM »

I will respond to a few of Drake's points, but do not have the time to write a detailed analysis....

Fr. John W. Morris



“I will respond to a few of Drake’s points”

>>>Why not all of them?

“but do not have the time to write a detailed analysis.”

>>>You get paid to talk about religion and you don’t have time? I gave up my scholarship from school, both opportunities to have a career and a family, which cost me my health and every friend I have had since I was a child over these issues of religion. I live in borderline poverty and have been for 13 years though I have been forced to work two jobs most of this time.  Yet, I found the time to study every last stich of your religion though I didn’t believe it. And yet you don’t have time?

+1

Logged

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll
Skydive
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2014, 05:47:04 AM »

hello.

i find many of the Orthodox arguments in defense of the early church to be very compelling. though i do have a potential confound in my mind that i'd like to present to see what Orthodoxy might say to the matter.

one defense i often hear is that, if the early church fell into heresy and those teachings were not expunged, then the consequences of that would be that Christ would be a liar (He wasn't with us) and/or the Holy Spirit was weak and could not protect the church and lead into all truth, thus destroying the whole faith.

my thought is, God made creation and He made it good. the devil, however, seemingly jumped in there very early to muck things up and incite creation to head on a trajectory that was off the mark. this being true, though, doesn't seem to negate God's goodness, power or reliability, nor His eventual restoration of all things.

given that, is it really fair to say that the whole faith comes into question if God hadn't protected the early church in precisely the way we might think or want to believe? rather, hasn't God historically seemed to work in ways other than how we expect them to be?

also considering the parable of the wheat and tares, might this all not suggest the possibility that the Church is more a mystery of the heart than an institution? it would have to be, if it's not the institution that is to be protected, but those of a circumcised heart.

i don't personally find this potential objection to be in any way strong, but i would like it addressed.

any thoughts are appreciated. thanks for your time, patience and effort.

God bless.

Perhaps a more relevant question would be, would God allow His Church to fall into fundamental error immediately after the death of the Apostles and let His people remain in error until the 16th century. Or who is more reliable people like St.Ignatius of Antioch who heard Sts.Peter and Paul preach, or St. Irenaeus of Lyons who learned from St. Polycarp who learned from St. John or Luther or Calvin who lived 1400 year later and never heard an Apostle preach.

Fr. John W. Morris

Even if some of them knew or heard the Apostles it still doesn't mean anything even though that is highly unlikely and doubtful by the 70-90 A.D all of the Apostles except one were death. Even so there were many Johns, James, Andrews,Simons etc, you get my point. Some scholars even believed there were different John's penning in the New Testament. And afaik this "Apostolic Fathers" only speak of hearing of the apostles not meeting them in flesh and living with them. Even so you expect us to believe that people from diametrical opposite and different cultures would have communicated without problems and not get a distorted message? Just look nowadays when people of different cultures,religions communicate how much of the message is understood and how much is distorted. I recommend you observe countries with a lot of immigrants.

And there were "heretics" all the time. Why can't the real church be those that were labeled "heretics" ? If it is an option then there is a mathematical probability.
Logged

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll
Hawkeye
Onomatodoxicologist
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: With a schismatic twist.
Jurisdiction: An American soglasie
Posts: 563

Not today.


« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2014, 05:51:06 AM »

The preaching of Christ seems to focus more on charity and well doing, well being, socialism, humanity, morality like that is the Church, not some institution. The institutional religion is what condemned and murdered Christ and against whom Christ focussed most of his refutation.

Whether the Jews held it up properly or not, didn't Christ institute that same religion?
Logged

When I die, I figure the worst I'll get is what I deserve. Any injustice on the part of God will certainly be because He is all too merciful.
Skydive
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2014, 05:52:15 AM »

The preaching of Christ seems to focus more on charity and well doing, well being, socialism, humanity, morality like that is the Church, not some institution. The institutional religion is what condemned and murdered Christ and against whom Christ focussed most of his refutation.

Whether the Jews held it up properly or not, didn't Christ institute that same religion?

Then why aren't Christians, Jews?
Logged

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll
Hawkeye
Onomatodoxicologist
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: With a schismatic twist.
Jurisdiction: An American soglasie
Posts: 563

Not today.


« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2014, 05:53:15 AM »

The preaching of Christ seems to focus more on charity and well doing, well being, socialism, humanity, morality like that is the Church, not some institution. The institutional religion is what condemned and murdered Christ and against whom Christ focussed most of his refutation.

Whether the Jews held it up properly or not, didn't Christ institute that same religion?

Then why aren't Christians, Jews?

The Jews of yesterday are Christians. The Jews of today are not.
Logged

When I die, I figure the worst I'll get is what I deserve. Any injustice on the part of God will certainly be because He is all too merciful.
Skydive
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2014, 05:56:02 AM »

The preaching of Christ seems to focus more on charity and well doing, well being, socialism, humanity, morality like that is the Church, not some institution. The institutional religion is what condemned and murdered Christ and against whom Christ focussed most of his refutation.

Whether the Jews held it up properly or not, didn't Christ institute that same religion?

Then why aren't Christians, Jews?

The Jews of yesterday are Christians. The Jews of today are not.

Christianity has some concepts that are totally foreign and antijewish.
Logged

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll
Olivianus
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaizer
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Posts: 50



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2014, 06:31:20 AM »

The preaching of Christ seems to focus more on charity and well doing, well being, socialism, humanity, morality like that is the Church, not some institution. The institutional religion is what condemned and murdered Christ and against whom Christ focussed most of his refutation.

Whether the Jews held it up properly or not, didn't Christ institute that same religion?

Your religion teaches the rejection of that same religion:

"Canon XXIX.

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians.  But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.vii.iii.xxxiv.html

Your religion is a calculated rejection of the bible and the jewish people, messiah being one of those jewish people you Christians despise. 
Logged
Olivianus
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaizer
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Posts: 50



WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2014, 06:32:13 AM »

The preaching of Christ seems to focus more on charity and well doing, well being, socialism, humanity, morality like that is the Church, not some institution. The institutional religion is what condemned and murdered Christ and against whom Christ focussed most of his refutation.

Whether the Jews held it up properly or not, didn't Christ institute that same religion?

Then why aren't Christians, Jews?

The Jews of yesterday are Christians. The Jews of today are not.

Christianity has some concepts that are totally foreign and antijewish.

That is an honest Christian there.
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,237


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2014, 06:33:57 AM »


Your religion is a calculated rejection of the bible and the jewish people, messiah being one of those jewish people you Christians despise.  


Orthodox church services, hymns and prayers are stuffed with passages and whole sections from the Bible, far more than any other Christian tradition. As for the Messiah, who do you say he is, Olivianus?
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 06:34:37 AM by LBK » Logged
Skydive
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2014, 07:03:46 AM »

Jesus looks nothing like a common religious Jew of the 1st century or ever. He looks like a visionare, a man of perspective, of human worth and value.
Logged

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll
Olivianus
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaizer
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Posts: 50



WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2014, 07:43:57 AM »


Your religion is a calculated rejection of the bible and the jewish people, messiah being one of those jewish people you Christians despise.  


Orthodox church services, hymns and prayers are stuffed with passages and whole sections from the Bible

Butchered versions from your greek TRANSLATIONS.

Quote
far more than any other Christian tradition. As for the Messiah, who do you say he is, Olivianus?

The messiah. Did you mean to ask another more specific question?

Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,839



« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2014, 08:13:13 AM »

The preaching of Christ seems to focus more on charity and well doing, well being, socialism, humanity, morality like that is the Church, not some institution. The institutional religion is what condemned and murdered Christ and against whom Christ focussed most of his refutation.

Whether the Jews held it up properly or not, didn't Christ institute that same religion?

Your religion teaches the rejection of that same religion:

"Canon XXIX.

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians.  But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.vii.iii.xxxiv.html

Your religion is a calculated rejection of the bible and the jewish people, messiah being one of those jewish people you Christians despise. 


It's a rejection of the false interpretation of the Pharisees. Not of Judaism or Jews.
Logged

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” -Martin Luther King Jr.
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,839



« Reply #16 on: March 24, 2014, 08:13:53 AM »

The preaching of Christ seems to focus more on charity and well doing, well being, socialism, humanity, morality like that is the Church, not some institution. The institutional religion is what condemned and murdered Christ and against whom Christ focussed most of his refutation.

Whether the Jews held it up properly or not, didn't Christ institute that same religion?

Then why aren't Christians, Jews?

The Jews of yesterday are Christians. The Jews of today are not.

Christianity has some concepts that are totally foreign and antijewish.

That is an honest Christian there.

Based on Rashi's 11th century teachings; and not on the Apostle's 1st century teachings.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 08:15:43 AM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” -Martin Luther King Jr.
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,839



« Reply #17 on: March 24, 2014, 08:14:39 AM »


Your religion is a calculated rejection of the bible and the jewish people, messiah being one of those jewish people you Christians despise.  


Orthodox church services, hymns and prayers are stuffed with passages and whole sections from the Bible

Butchered versions from your greek TRANSLATIONS.

Quote
far more than any other Christian tradition. As for the Messiah, who do you say he is, Olivianus?

The messiah. Did you mean to ask another more specific question?



The Septuagint wasn't written by Christians, but by Jews. Blame them.
Logged

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” -Martin Luther King Jr.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,476


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2014, 10:22:39 AM »

I gave up my scholarship from school, both opportunities to have a career and a family, which cost me my health and every friend I have had since I was a child over these issues of religion.

I don't think "issues of religion" are what prevented you from having a career, family, friends, etc. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2014, 01:49:16 PM »

I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with someone who has already made up their mind on an issue. It is obvious that you are not interested in serious honest dialogue. The tone of your reply is offensive. When you call a major Saint of the Church a "scum bag" you show that you are incapable to constructive and serious discourse. Actually, your response shows the truth of my argument, Calvinism produces spiritual pride.
I get paid to minister to my flock, not to waste my time arguing with a fanatic who is only here on this site to insult us.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Trebor135
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 132


« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2014, 02:09:51 PM »

I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with someone who has already made up their mind on an issue. It is obvious that you are not interested in serious honest dialogue. The tone of your reply is offensive. When you call a major Saint of the Church a "scum bag" you show that you are incapable to constructive and serious discourse. Actually, your response shows the truth of my argument, Calvinism produces spiritual pride.
I get paid to minister to my flock, not to waste my time arguing with a fanatic who is only here on this site to insult us.

Online debates rarely lead to one participant changing the mind of the other. Rather, they can prove beneficial and educational to all who are observing attentively.

I would thus ask that you not disengage, for our sakes if nothing else--or that someone else pick up where you left off.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 02:12:18 PM by Trebor135 » Logged

frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2014, 02:48:02 PM »

I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with someone who has already made up their mind on an issue. It is obvious that you are not interested in serious honest dialogue. The tone of your reply is offensive. When you call a major Saint of the Church a "scum bag" you show that you are incapable to constructive and serious discourse. Actually, your response shows the truth of my argument, Calvinism produces spiritual pride.
I get paid to minister to my flock, not to waste my time arguing with a fanatic who is only here on this site to insult us.

Online debates rarely lead to one participant changing the mind of the other. Rather, they can prove beneficial and educational to all who are observing attentively.

I would thus ask that you not disengage, for our sakes if nothing else--or that someone else pick up where you left off.

What more is there to write? Calvinism was officially condemned by the Eastern Orthodox Church as heretical by the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem in 1672. Just a few Bible verses are enough to demolish Calvinism;  I Timothy 2:4 that states that God, "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." I John 2:2, "he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." Romans 5:18, "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men." As Eastern Orthodox we are guided by the Holy Fathers, all of which affirmed the doctrine of free will. The only exception is Augustine, who himself also affirmed free will in some of his writings. For that reason, we cannot take seriously the arguments of someone who calls St. John Chrysostom, one of the greatest of the Fathers and experts on the meaning of the Bible in the history of Christianity a "scum bag."
The problem with this kind of argument is that we each play by different rules. We follow Holy Tradition which includes not only the Bible, but also the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, others follow the teachings of one man like John Calvin or their own personal interpretations of the Holy Scriptures.

Fr. John W. Morris

Fr. John W. Morris

 

 

 
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 02:53:45 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
truthseeker32
Elder
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Posts: 357



« Reply #22 on: March 24, 2014, 03:16:42 PM »

An assertion is not an argument.
From the quality of your arguments I am guessing you learned this principle after publishing them?
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,081



« Reply #23 on: March 24, 2014, 03:35:22 PM »

What more is there to write? Calvinism was officially condemned by the Eastern Orthodox Church as heretical by the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem in 1672.

By no means am I encouraging you to continue any engagement with Olivianus/Drake, but he's pretty clearly not a Calvinist (anymore) and rejects Christianity altogether.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 03:35:43 PM by Nephi » Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,081



« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2014, 03:46:57 PM »

Your religion is a calculated rejection of the bible and the jewish people, messiah being one of those jewish people you Christians despise.

You haven't read much into Second Temple Judaism studies if you're going to make that kind of dialectical assertion. Christianity clearly developed out of that context, with many early Fathers very blatantly making assumptions (using arguments, methods of interpretation, etc.) used by the Rabbis and such. Just read the works of the various scholars on the subject that have come out of, or affiliated with, Marquette University, for example. It's also clear reading James Kugel's (a Jew) works on the Bible, in which he quotes from early Christians alongside Second Temple era Rabbis etc. While not having a complete grasp of the diverse complexities of Second Temple Judaism, Larry Hurtado likewise does a decent job demonstrating the Jewish context for Christianity.

To say Christianity is a "calculated" rejection of Judaism is to either not understand Christianity or to not understand (Second Temple) Judaism, and since you're an ex-Calvinist I'll assume it's primarily the latter.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2014, 04:11:34 PM »

I gave up my scholarship from school, both opportunities to have a career and a family, which cost me my health and every friend I have had since I was a child over these issues of religion.

I don't think "issues of religion" are what prevented you from having a career, family, friends, etc. 

On one hand it would seem admirable to forsake all for God, but then there's being God-forsaken.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 04:14:28 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,237


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2014, 05:25:02 PM »


Your religion is a calculated rejection of the bible and the jewish people, messiah being one of those jewish people you Christians despise.  


Orthodox church services, hymns and prayers are stuffed with passages and whole sections from the Bible

Butchered versions from your greek TRANSLATIONS.

Quote
far more than any other Christian tradition. As for the Messiah, who do you say he is, Olivianus?

The messiah. Did you mean to ask another more specific question?



Greek translations? The Septuagint (LXX) is the oldest extant OT, and it is in Greek. The originals of the NT books were also written in Greek.

As for the Messiah, I asked a straightforward question, which you have refused to answer. Here is is again: Who do you say the Messiah is, Olivianus?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2014, 07:58:43 PM »

“Drake makes the point that in the New Testament the titles “presbyter” literally elder, and “eposkopos,” overseerer or Bishop are used interchangeably. That is correct. However, the New Testament was written while the Apostles were still alive. Drake does not consider what happened when they began to die. We know from the example of St. Matthias, and historical documents such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement of Rome, and St. Irenaeus of Lyons that when the Apostles realized that Christ was not coming again during their lifetime, that they appointed successors, who were called Bishops to distinguish them from the Presbyters. Thus, although it is only hinted at in the New Testament, we know from the history of the Church that the Apostles left the leadership of the Church in the hands of Bishops who acted as their successors. The Apostles acted as Bishops over the Churches they founded. For example in Acts 14:23, refers to the ordination of priests for the Churches they founded by Sts. Paul and Barnabas; “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.”  The Greek word translaed “appointed” really means ordained, and “elders” is “presbyters” which is the source of our English word Priests.”

>>>The problem is Deut. 4:1-3, 12:29-32, does not allow innovation like that. The Bible teaches the regulative principle.
An assertion is not an argument.
That's right, which is how your assertion in bold fails as an argument. Unless you are a Samaritan, in which you haven't added the books of Joshua and thereafter in violation of Deuteronomy.  But you then would have other problems.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2014, 08:01:24 PM »

hello.

i find many of the Orthodox arguments in defense of the early church to be very compelling. though i do have a potential confound in my mind that i'd like to present to see what Orthodoxy might say to the matter.

one defense i often hear is that, if the early church fell into heresy and those teachings were not expunged, then the consequences of that would be that Christ would be a liar (He wasn't with us) and/or the Holy Spirit was weak and could not protect the church and lead into all truth, thus destroying the whole faith.

my thought is, God made creation and He made it good. the devil, however, seemingly jumped in there very early to muck things up and incite creation to head on a trajectory that was off the mark. this being true, though, doesn't seem to negate God's goodness, power or reliability, nor His eventual restoration of all things.

given that, is it really fair to say that the whole faith comes into question if God hadn't protected the early church in precisely the way we might think or want to believe? rather, hasn't God historically seemed to work in ways other than how we expect them to be?

also considering the parable of the wheat and tares, might this all not suggest the possibility that the Church is more a mystery of the heart than an institution? it would have to be, if it's not the institution that is to be protected, but those of a circumcised heart.

i don't personally find this potential objection to be in any way strong, but i would like it addressed.

any thoughts are appreciated. thanks for your time, patience and effort.

God bless.

Perhaps a more relevant question would be, would God allow His Church to fall into fundamental error immediately after the death of the Apostles and let His people remain in error until the 16th century. Or who is more reliable people like St.Ignatius of Antioch who heard Sts.Peter and Paul preach, or St. Irenaeus of Lyons who learned from St. Polycarp who learned from St. John or Luther or Calvin who lived 1400 year later and never heard an Apostle preach.

Fr. John W. Morris

The preaching of Christ seems to focus more on charity and well doing, well being, socialism, humanity, morality like that is the Church, not some institution. The institutional religion is what condemned and murdered Christ and against whom Christ focussed most of his refutation.
You mean like this?
Quote
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #29 on: March 24, 2014, 08:04:31 PM »

I will respond to a few of Drake's points, but do not have the time to write a detailed analysis....

Fr. John W. Morris



“I will respond to a few of Drake’s points”

>>>Why not all of them?

“but do not have the time to write a detailed analysis.”

>>>You get paid to talk about religion and you don’t have time? I gave up my scholarship from school, both opportunities to have a career and a family, which cost me my health and every friend I have had since I was a child over these issues of religion. I live in borderline poverty and have been for 13 years though I have been forced to work two jobs most of this time.  Yet, I found the time to study every last stich of your religion though I didn’t believe it. And yet you don’t have time?

+1
-2
The internet suffers no shortage of false prophets, and the day doesn't have enough hours for a priest of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic-i.e. the only True-Church to waste, er, spend lots of time with every one of them, especially when he has to tend to the flock entrusted to him. How big is the flock that you pastor?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2014, 08:06:17 PM »

hello.

i find many of the Orthodox arguments in defense of the early church to be very compelling. though i do have a potential confound in my mind that i'd like to present to see what Orthodoxy might say to the matter.

one defense i often hear is that, if the early church fell into heresy and those teachings were not expunged, then the consequences of that would be that Christ would be a liar (He wasn't with us) and/or the Holy Spirit was weak and could not protect the church and lead into all truth, thus destroying the whole faith.

my thought is, God made creation and He made it good. the devil, however, seemingly jumped in there very early to muck things up and incite creation to head on a trajectory that was off the mark. this being true, though, doesn't seem to negate God's goodness, power or reliability, nor His eventual restoration of all things.

given that, is it really fair to say that the whole faith comes into question if God hadn't protected the early church in precisely the way we might think or want to believe? rather, hasn't God historically seemed to work in ways other than how we expect them to be?

also considering the parable of the wheat and tares, might this all not suggest the possibility that the Church is more a mystery of the heart than an institution? it would have to be, if it's not the institution that is to be protected, but those of a circumcised heart.

i don't personally find this potential objection to be in any way strong, but i would like it addressed.

any thoughts are appreciated. thanks for your time, patience and effort.

God bless.

Perhaps a more relevant question would be, would God allow His Church to fall into fundamental error immediately after the death of the Apostles and let His people remain in error until the 16th century. Or who is more reliable people like St.Ignatius of Antioch who heard Sts.Peter and Paul preach, or St. Irenaeus of Lyons who learned from St. Polycarp who learned from St. John or Luther or Calvin who lived 1400 year later and never heard an Apostle preach.

Fr. John W. Morris

Even if some of them knew or heard the Apostles it still doesn't mean anything even though that is highly unlikely and doubtful by the 70-90 A.D all of the Apostles except one were death. Even so there were many Johns, James, Andrews,Simons etc, you get my point. Some scholars even believed there were different John's penning in the New Testament. And afaik this "Apostolic Fathers" only speak of hearing of the apostles not meeting them in flesh and living with them. Even so you expect us to believe that people from diametrical opposite and different cultures would have communicated without problems and not get a distorted message? Just look nowadays when people of different cultures,religions communicate how much of the message is understood and how much is distorted. I recommend you observe countries with a lot of immigrants.

And there were "heretics" all the time. Why can't the real church be those that were labeled "heretics" ? If it is an option then there is a mathematical probability.
because, unlike heretics, the Church doesn't die out.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2014, 08:07:17 PM »

The preaching of Christ seems to focus more on charity and well doing, well being, socialism, humanity, morality like that is the Church, not some institution. The institutional religion is what condemned and murdered Christ and against whom Christ focussed most of his refutation.

Whether the Jews held it up properly or not, didn't Christ institute that same religion?

Then why aren't Christians, Jews?

The Jews of yesterday are Christians. The Jews of today are not.

Christianity has some concepts that are totally foreign and antijewish.
Judaism has lots of concepts that are totally foreign and antichristian.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #32 on: March 24, 2014, 08:08:04 PM »

The preaching of Christ seems to focus more on charity and well doing, well being, socialism, humanity, morality like that is the Church, not some institution. The institutional religion is what condemned and murdered Christ and against whom Christ focussed most of his refutation.

Whether the Jews held it up properly or not, didn't Christ institute that same religion?

Your religion teaches the rejection of that same religion:

"Canon XXIX.

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians.  But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.vii.iii.xxxiv.html

Your religion is a calculated rejection of the bible and the jewish people, messiah being one of those jewish people you Christians despise. 

What Bible?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #33 on: March 24, 2014, 08:09:23 PM »

Jesus looks nothing like a common religious Jew of the 1st century or ever. He looks like a visionare, a man of perspective, of human worth and value.
Oh?  And how do you know what a common religious Jew of the 1st century looked like?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #34 on: March 24, 2014, 08:10:31 PM »


Your religion is a calculated rejection of the bible and the jewish people, messiah being one of those jewish people you Christians despise.  


Orthodox church services, hymns and prayers are stuffed with passages and whole sections from the Bible

Butchered versions from your greek TRANSLATIONS.
Which were translated by the Hebrews before the birth of Christ, and predate the Jews' Masoretic text.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #35 on: March 24, 2014, 08:14:02 PM »

What more is there to write? Calvinism was officially condemned by the Eastern Orthodox Church as heretical by the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem in 1672.

By no means am I encouraging you to continue any engagement with Olivianus/Drake, but he's pretty clearly not a Calvinist (anymore) and rejects Christianity altogether.
Yes, it seems he is a Olivianian, a sect that was begotten by him and in all likelihood will die with him.  Since the Olivianians are not legitimate children of Abraham, Moses or Christ, but the estranged child of Calvin, they need not detain us.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 08:15:42 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,839



« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2014, 08:32:34 PM »

.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 08:34:07 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” -Martin Luther King Jr.
Olivianus
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaizer
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Posts: 50



WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 25, 2014, 01:24:13 AM »

The preaching of Christ seems to focus more on charity and well doing, well being, socialism, humanity, morality like that is the Church, not some institution. The institutional religion is what condemned and murdered Christ and against whom Christ focussed most of his refutation.

Whether the Jews held it up properly or not, didn't Christ institute that same religion?

Your religion teaches the rejection of that same religion:

"Canon XXIX.

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians.  But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.vii.iii.xxxiv.html

Your religion is a calculated rejection of the bible and the jewish people, messiah being one of those jewish people you Christians despise. 


It's a rejection of the false interpretation of the Pharisees. Not of Judaism or Jews.

"PROFESSION OF FAITH, FROM THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE...in one word, I renounce absolutely everything Jewish"

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/jewish-oaths.asp

Logged
Olivianus
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaizer
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Posts: 50



WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 25, 2014, 01:26:53 AM »

The preaching of Christ seems to focus more on charity and well doing, well being, socialism, humanity, morality like that is the Church, not some institution. The institutional religion is what condemned and murdered Christ and against whom Christ focussed most of his refutation.

Whether the Jews held it up properly or not, didn't Christ institute that same religion?

Then why aren't Christians, Jews?

The Jews of yesterday are Christians. The Jews of today are not.

Christianity has some concepts that are totally foreign and antijewish.

That is an honest Christian there.

Based on Rashi's 11th century teachings; and not on the Apostle's 1st century teachings.

You don't believe the apostle's 1st century teachings:

Rom. 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Rom. 7:12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Rom. 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Rom. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

1 John 3:4 Sin is a transgression of the law
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,237


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #39 on: March 25, 2014, 01:27:22 AM »


Your religion is a calculated rejection of the bible and the jewish people, messiah being one of those jewish people you Christians despise.  


Orthodox church services, hymns and prayers are stuffed with passages and whole sections from the Bible

Butchered versions from your greek TRANSLATIONS.

Quote
far more than any other Christian tradition. As for the Messiah, who do you say he is, Olivianus?

The messiah. Did you mean to ask another more specific question?



Greek translations? The Septuagint (LXX) is the oldest extant OT, and it is in Greek. The originals of the NT books were also written in Greek.

As for the Messiah, I asked a straightforward question, which you have refused to answer. Here is is again: Who do you say the Messiah is, Olivianus?

Waiting for your answers, Olivianus.
Logged
Olivianus
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaizer
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Posts: 50



WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 25, 2014, 01:28:49 AM »


Your religion is a calculated rejection of the bible and the jewish people, messiah being one of those jewish people you Christians despise.  


Orthodox church services, hymns and prayers are stuffed with passages and whole sections from the Bible

Butchered versions from your greek TRANSLATIONS.

Quote
far more than any other Christian tradition. As for the Messiah, who do you say he is, Olivianus?

The messiah. Did you mean to ask another more specific question?



The Septuagint wasn't written by Christians, but by Jews. Blame them.

The context was clearly the New Testament.

The original writings of the New Covenant were in hebrew:

http://drakeshelton.com/2013/07/10/was-the-new-testament-originally-written-in-hebrew/

http://drakeshelton.com/2013/08/01/excursus-on-the-semitic-roots-of-the-new-testament/
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,237


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #41 on: March 25, 2014, 01:30:02 AM »


Your religion is a calculated rejection of the bible and the jewish people, messiah being one of those jewish people you Christians despise.  


Orthodox church services, hymns and prayers are stuffed with passages and whole sections from the Bible

Butchered versions from your greek TRANSLATIONS.

Quote
far more than any other Christian tradition. As for the Messiah, who do you say he is, Olivianus?

The messiah. Did you mean to ask another more specific question?



The Septuagint wasn't written by Christians, but by Jews. Blame them.

The context was clearly the New Testament.

The original writings of the New Covenant were in hebrew:

http://drakeshelton.com/2013/07/10/was-the-new-testament-originally-written-in-hebrew/

http://drakeshelton.com/2013/08/01/excursus-on-the-semitic-roots-of-the-new-testament/

Just before we go on: are the New Testament and the New Covenant the same in your eyes?
Logged
Olivianus
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaizer
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Posts: 50



WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 25, 2014, 01:30:22 AM »

I gave up my scholarship from school, both opportunities to have a career and a family, which cost me my health and every friend I have had since I was a child over these issues of religion.

I don't think "issues of religion" are what prevented you from having a career, family, friends, etc. 

Based on what?
Logged
Olivianus
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaizer
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Posts: 50



WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 25, 2014, 01:31:27 AM »

I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with someone who has already made up their mind on an issue. It is obvious that you are not interested in serious honest dialogue. The tone of your reply is offensive. When you call a major Saint of the Church a "scum bag" you show that you are incapable to constructive and serious discourse. Actually, your response shows the truth of my argument, Calvinism produces spiritual pride.
I get paid to minister to my flock, not to waste my time arguing with a fanatic who is only here on this site to insult us.

Fr. John W. Morris

 laugh
Logged
Olivianus
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaizer
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Posts: 50



WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 25, 2014, 01:45:34 AM »

frjohnmorris

Quote
What more is there to write? Calvinism was officially condemned by the Eastern Orthodox Church as heretical by the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem in 1672.

And the Bible was condemned as judaizing at The Council of Laodicea. I care not what your councils have declared.

Quote
Just a few Bible verses are enough to demolish Calvinism;  I Timothy 2:4 that states that God, "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Restating your arguments does not somehow brush away refutations already given.

Quote
I John 2:2, "he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

 
            First,  I would like to deal with the fact that in every other verse, “propitiation” is used in a limited sense.  It is used in Romans 3:25-26 when Messiah is said to, “be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Yehoshuwah.” It is used in Hebrews 2:17 where Messiah is said, “to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”  It is lastly used in 1 John 4:10 where the Son is, “the propitiation for our sins.”
 
            Secondly, to give a proper scope to this text I would like to give the exact meaning of the wording that we have here.  Long ago it was prophesied some 700 years before the coming of Christ in the flesh, that the Servant of God would restore the preserved ones of Israel (Isaiah 49:6-7).  What is interesting is in the next sentence Isaiah says:
 
“I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth."
 
            Isaiah shed light on a subject that had been mentioned before but was never taken very seriously and would continue to be neglected.  The truth that Yahuwah would bring his saving light not only to the Jews but also to those of the whole world received little consideration.  When this “Servant” was manifested in the flesh and became a man, it was prophesied of Him that He, “was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. (John 11:51-52).” I believe this is the exact thing going on in 1 John 2:2.   
 
 Thirdly, there was a strange thing about the way the early congregation conducted itself after the death and resurrection of Messiah.  Yehoshuwah had plainly told them to, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations".  It was plain and clear that the prophecies of the Gentiles coming into covenant with God were blossoming.  However, we find that the early church seemed to totally ignore that due to all the tradition and history of the true religion.  We as Americans that have been raised as Gentiles with much Christian influence in this country have a hard time understanding this and I believe to our detriment. To a Jew, the thought of Gentiles in any number coming to the true God was laughable.  Even after Yehoshuwah had clearly given His will for the Gentiles in Matthew 28:19-20 we find the apostles in Acts 11 still not taking seriously this command.   Peter is harassed by the brethren (!) in Acts 11 due to his recent dealings with the Gentiles.  Even after the clear command of Messiah in Matthew 28 believers are uncomfortable with the Gentiles hearing the Word of God and Peter eating with them. This ethnic distinction is even clearer in verse 15 when he says, "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning.”  The chapter progresses to shed light even on the reaction of the brethren, when they say, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."  The most telling passage in this chapter is in verses 19-20 where we read, "So then those who were scattered because of the persecution that occurred in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone. vs. 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Yehoshuwah." This verse makes very clear that for a time the Jews thought that Yehoshuwah died to be the propitiation for theirs sins and not to those of the whole world.
 
This is the exact sense I believe John is using in 1 John 2 when he addresses the Jews and corrects their thinking that salvation belongs only to them.  Now the task that most see pertinent to address is this assumption that I make, namely that John is writing to Jews here in 1 John 2:2.
 
First, I would like to defend this position with Galatians 2:7-9:
 
“But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”
 
This, "they" Paul speaks of is obviously James and Cephas and John as mentioned earlier and their ministry was admittedly to the circumcised.
 
Second,  I defend this position by the way John speaks to his audience.
 
“ 1 John 2:7  Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard.”
 
This has to be referring to Jews who had the law of God because Paul describes the Gentiles as being, “excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise(Eph 2:12)”, and “darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them(Eph 4:18)”.  Some commentators reject the notion that this, “from the beginning” means the beginning of time but believe it refers to the beginning of Christ’s ministry.  The problem I have with that is John uses this phrase numerous times and if you stay consistent with that position you do violence to the text.  For example:
 
1Jo 1:1  What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life
 
This is the exact same way he opens his gospel and here as well this refers to Messiah who has existed from the beginning of time, not the beginning of the N.T.
 
1Jo 2:14  I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
 
Here the apostle speaks of the Lord again, and the beginning of Messiah’s ministry is not when He came into existence.
 
1Jo 3:8  the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
 
Here the devil is in context and he has been sinning much longer than 2000 years, or the beginning of Messiah's ministry.
 
1Jo 3:11  For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another;
 
This text is especially telling because the next verse mirrors this commandment in violation of it, when he refers to the incident between Cain and Abel.
 
            Now the final argument that I will address in the 1 John 2:2 passage is the semantic argument developed from the word, “world.”  First, seeing already that, “propitiation” used in this passage, would be at odds with every other passage using, “propitiation” in the, “general ransom” position, I conclude that the word, “world” cannot be in reference to ever single human being.  Not only do I take this position because of the use of, “propitiation” but I am also persuaded by the way, “world” is used in soteriological context.  For example:
 
“Mat 28:19  "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations”
 
      “Mar 16:15  And He said to them, "Go into all the world”
 
            This is a context where the word of God is being preached and men are being saved. Mark 16 is the direct cross reference to Matthew 28. This is a good context and sense of the way 1 John 2:2 is using, “world”.

See also Romans 11 for the gentile use of the word world.

Quote
"Romans 5:18, "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."

>>>Forcing you to believe all men everywhere receive justification of life, and that is absurd seeing that there will be men in hell. Maximus won't help you here because Paul said justification, not immortality. 



 

 

 
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.214 seconds with 72 queries.