OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 25, 2014, 08:48:50 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Questions for Orthodox.  (Read 536 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Raylight
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy.
Posts: 1,767



« on: June 02, 2014, 06:31:20 PM »

I have to say that these questions are not mine personally. However, I read them and some of them rang a bill in my head and thought of what my Orthodox friends think of such questions.

This link has several questions for Catholics and Orthodox, I'm not really interested in the Catholic Church.

I just have to say couple of things before getting to the questions.

1 / May some criticize the website which ask these questions, as the other day I used a website where turns out of be a "joke" for some members here, I can't deny that, because I myself disagreed with many of their articles after reading some of them today. However, on this website. I would rather you answer me the questions, and lets forget if the website is good or bad...etc.

2/ The website is Protestant clearly. Which may lead some people to argue against Protestantism itself. However, if the other side is wrong, that doesn't make you right.  


These are the questions the writer asked and I and many other people might ask the Orthodox Christians.


1 / If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?

Personal note: The Ethiopian version of the Bible includes extra books. Also from my personal experience with an Orthodox person, believed that their Church didn't accept the what called "Apocrypha" books in the Old Testament, yet they were written in a different section of their own. Also, and again this is from my personal experience, I got a book in my native language where it showed the books included in the Bible and something was indeed interesting, that the "Apocrypha" books were put in a different category that seemed to be less important than the other books of the Old Testament Bible. Again, this also surprised me. So, if the Holy Spirit truly guided the Orthodox Church to decide which books are from the Bible and which are not. How could come that there are different versions of the Bible in several Orthodox Churches ?


2 / Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

Personal note : I'm actually very interested in this question and I've asked it before under the title " What does Tradition has that the Holy Bible doesn't have ? ". But I believe that the way the writer wrote this question is much better and more clear than the way I asked it.

3 / Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?

4 / The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16).

Peace  Smiley


The source  http://www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 06:35:28 PM by Raylight » Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,550



« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2014, 06:43:43 PM »

1. The Church Fathers debated the "inspiration' of the books since the beginning. It was nothing new historically, that the Orthodox did the same. But, the main reason why Revelation in particular, was because (from what I have heard) St. John the Apostle may or may not have written it's contents. Some people thought it was a different John, not the Apostle. The Church only wanted books with Apostolic origins in the canon. Which is why they were unsure about it.

"So, if the Holy Spirit truly guided the Orthodox Church to decide which books are from the Bible and which are not. How could come that there are different versions of the Bible in several Orthodox Churches ?"

You are always viewing the Bible first, and the Church second. If you do the opposite, it's not that hard to accept or understand. Whether it's only the Jewish canon that is inspired, or whether it's the Alexandrian canon (that is, with the 'Apocrypha') that is inspired is irrelevant, because the Church is what is truly inspired. It's how the Church utilizes these texts and teachings that is inspired.

2. Infant Communion, Baptism, Fasting on Wednesdays and Thursdays, etc. (Early Fathers mention the first two, the Didache from the first century mentions the latter)

3. It doesn't 'differ' it compliments.

Someone else can do #4 since, I don't have adequate knowledge of those details.

Bible.ca is also a loony website.

How about trying http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/ next time?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 07:00:39 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Raylight
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy.
Posts: 1,767



« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2014, 07:07:11 PM »

1. The Church Fathers debated the "inspiration' of the books since the beginning. It was nothing new historically, that the Orthodox did the same. But, the main reason why Revelation in particular, was because (from what I have heard) St. John the Apostle may or may not have written it's contents. Some people thought it was a different John, not the Apostle. The Church only wanted books with Apostolic origins in the canon. Which is why they were unsure about it.

"So, if the Holy Spirit truly guided the Orthodox Church to decide which books are from the Bible and which are not. How could come that there are different versions of the Bible in several Orthodox Churches ?"

You are always viewing the Bible first, and the Church second. If you do the opposite, it's not that hard to accept or understand. Whether it's only the Jewish canon that is inspired, or whether it's the Alexandrian canon (that is, with the 'Apocrypha') that is inspired is irrelevant, because the Church is what is truly inspired. It's how the Church utilizes these texts and teachings that is inspired.

2. Infant Communion, Baptism, Fasting on Wednesdays and Thursdays, etc. (Early Fathers mentions the first two, the Didache from the first century mentions the latter)

3. It doesn't 'differ' it compliments.

Someone else can do #4 since, I don't have adequate knowledge of those details.


The first point. But we are left with the issue of having different versions of the Old Testament canon among Orthodox Christians. If the Ethiopian Orthodox Church include more books that are "inspired", it means that the Greek Orthodox Bible is missing several inspired books and that is not something good. And in the case of that Ethiopian have extra books that are not inspired, then that is adding uninspired books to the Bible and that is also not something good. The Church that is guided by God, should get it right and clear.

And yes, I do always view the Bible first. No, wait, I view God first then His word second. I tried to view the church first at one point but didn't work for me, it didn't even feel right. Maybe it's just me.


The second point. Infant Communion is interesting, I will look it up. However, what about Baptism ? It is right in the Bible. About Fasting, I like it, but I don't see it as vital issue where the soul may be lost because of it. We all can fast whenever we want and however we want.

The third point. good. How does Tradition compliment the Bible ?


Smiley
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 07:08:58 PM by Raylight » Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,550



« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2014, 07:15:31 PM »

1. The Church Fathers debated the "inspiration' of the books since the beginning. It was nothing new historically, that the Orthodox did the same. But, the main reason why Revelation in particular, was because (from what I have heard) St. John the Apostle may or may not have written it's contents. Some people thought it was a different John, not the Apostle. The Church only wanted books with Apostolic origins in the canon. Which is why they were unsure about it.

"So, if the Holy Spirit truly guided the Orthodox Church to decide which books are from the Bible and which are not. How could come that there are different versions of the Bible in several Orthodox Churches ?"

You are always viewing the Bible first, and the Church second. If you do the opposite, it's not that hard to accept or understand. Whether it's only the Jewish canon that is inspired, or whether it's the Alexandrian canon (that is, with the 'Apocrypha') that is inspired is irrelevant, because the Church is what is truly inspired. It's how the Church utilizes these texts and teachings that is inspired.

2. Infant Communion, Baptism, Fasting on Wednesdays and Thursdays, etc. (Early Fathers mentions the first two, the Didache from the first century mentions the latter)

3. It doesn't 'differ' it compliments.

Someone else can do #4 since, I don't have adequate knowledge of those details.


The first point. But we are left with the issue of having different versions of the Old Testament canon among Orthodox Christians. If the Ethiopian Orthodox Church include more books that are "inspired", it means that the Greek Orthodox Bible is missing several inspired books and that is not something good. And in the case of that Ethiopian have extra books that are not inspired, then that is adding uninspired books to the Bible and that is also not something good. The Church that is guided by God, should get it right and clear.

And yes, I do always view the Bible first. No, wait, I view God first then His word second. I tried to view the church first at one point but didn't work for me, it didn't even feel right. Maybe it's just me.


The second point. Infant Communion is interesting, I will look it up. However, what about Baptism ? It is right in the Bible. About Fasting, I like it, but I don't see it as vital issue where the soul may be lost because of it. We all can fast whenever we want and however we want.

The third point. good. How does Tradition compliment the Bible ?


Smiley

I'll just answer your reply to #1 because I want to go outside and enjoy the weather.  Smiley So, here's the deal. Just because the Ethiopians have a canon that contains books that the Greeks don't have doesn't mean that the Church is any 'less' inspired in anyway.

Furthermore, those books may simply not be inspired. Some books may be, some may not. They may all be, or they may not all be. But since the Church is inspired, it can can utilize books that may or may not be inspired to their utmost, since the Church is inspired.

I'm not making a claim, I am just trying to explain. Say, for example, that Tobit isn't 'truly' inspired by itself, but the Church was inspired to canonize Tobit, and use Tobit. Genesis may be inspired by itself, and the Church canonizes it, it's already inspired so there is no worry. But in both cases, since the Church is inspired, it's irrelevant whether the books themselves are, although they may be.

Anyway, I'm starting to sound like a Scholastic. Let's not try to go to deep into this if we can avoid it.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 07:16:12 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Raylight
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy.
Posts: 1,767



« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2014, 07:20:09 PM »

1. The Church Fathers debated the "inspiration' of the books since the beginning. It was nothing new historically, that the Orthodox did the same. But, the main reason why Revelation in particular, was because (from what I have heard) St. John the Apostle may or may not have written it's contents. Some people thought it was a different John, not the Apostle. The Church only wanted books with Apostolic origins in the canon. Which is why they were unsure about it.

"So, if the Holy Spirit truly guided the Orthodox Church to decide which books are from the Bible and which are not. How could come that there are different versions of the Bible in several Orthodox Churches ?"

You are always viewing the Bible first, and the Church second. If you do the opposite, it's not that hard to accept or understand. Whether it's only the Jewish canon that is inspired, or whether it's the Alexandrian canon (that is, with the 'Apocrypha') that is inspired is irrelevant, because the Church is what is truly inspired. It's how the Church utilizes these texts and teachings that is inspired.

2. Infant Communion, Baptism, Fasting on Wednesdays and Thursdays, etc. (Early Fathers mentions the first two, the Didache from the first century mentions the latter)

3. It doesn't 'differ' it compliments.

Someone else can do #4 since, I don't have adequate knowledge of those details.


The first point. But we are left with the issue of having different versions of the Old Testament canon among Orthodox Christians. If the Ethiopian Orthodox Church include more books that are "inspired", it means that the Greek Orthodox Bible is missing several inspired books and that is not something good. And in the case of that Ethiopian have extra books that are not inspired, then that is adding uninspired books to the Bible and that is also not something good. The Church that is guided by God, should get it right and clear.

And yes, I do always view the Bible first. No, wait, I view God first then His word second. I tried to view the church first at one point but didn't work for me, it didn't even feel right. Maybe it's just me.


The second point. Infant Communion is interesting, I will look it up. However, what about Baptism ? It is right in the Bible. About Fasting, I like it, but I don't see it as vital issue where the soul may be lost because of it. We all can fast whenever we want and however we want.

The third point. good. How does Tradition compliment the Bible ?


Smiley

I'll just answer your reply to #1 because I want to go outside and enjoy the weather.  Smiley So, here's the deal. Just because the Ethiopians have a canon that contains books that the Greeks don't have doesn't mean that the Church is any 'less' inspired in anyway.

Furthermore, those books may simply not be inspired. Some books may be, some may not. They may all be, or they may not all be. But since the Church is inspired, it can can utilize books that may or may not be inspired to their utmost, since the Church is inspired.

I'm not making a claim, I am just trying to explain. Say, for example, that Tobit isn't 'truly' inspired by itself, but the Church was inspired to canonize Tobit, and use Tobit. Genesis may be inspired by itself, and the Church canonizes it, it's already inspired so there is no worry. But in both cases, since the Church is inspired, it's irrelevant whether the books themselves are, although they may be.

Anyway, I'm starting to sound like a Scholastic. Let's not try to go to deep into this if we can avoid it.



Thanks for the answer and enjoy the weather  Wink
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 07:20:36 PM by Raylight » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,350


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2014, 07:27:07 PM »

The first point. But we are left with the issue of having different versions of the Old Testament canon among Orthodox Christians. If the Ethiopian Orthodox Church include more books that are "inspired", it means that the Greek Orthodox Bible is missing several inspired books and that is not something good. And in the case of that Ethiopian have extra books that are not inspired, then that is adding uninspired books to the Bible and that is also not something good. The Church that is guided by God, should get it right and clear.

Raylight,

In another thread, I mentioned how, from the time the apostles Thomas and Bartholomew came to India until about the fourth century or so, my best guess would be that the local Church started by those apostles had, at best, the entire Old Testament (whether or not it included the deuterocanon I cannot say for sure) and just the Gospel of St Matthew from the New Testament. 

Certainly I would agree with you that it was a shame they didn't have the other New Testament books, but my question to you is this: did they lack anything necessary in order to know Christ, believe in him, and be saved? 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Raylight
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy.
Posts: 1,767



« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2014, 07:32:50 PM »

The first point. But we are left with the issue of having different versions of the Old Testament canon among Orthodox Christians. If the Ethiopian Orthodox Church include more books that are "inspired", it means that the Greek Orthodox Bible is missing several inspired books and that is not something good. And in the case of that Ethiopian have extra books that are not inspired, then that is adding uninspired books to the Bible and that is also not something good. The Church that is guided by God, should get it right and clear.

Raylight,

In another thread, I mentioned how, from the time the apostles Thomas and Bartholomew came to India until about the fourth century or so, my best guess would be that the local Church started by those apostles had, at best, the entire Old Testament (whether or not it included the deuterocanon I cannot say for sure) and just the Gospel of St Matthew from the New Testament.  

Certainly I would agree with you that it was a shame they didn't have the other New Testament books, but my question to you is this: did they lack anything necessary in order to know Christ, believe in him, and be saved?  

No. They knew Christ, they believed in Him and lived a very holy life indeed.

I read about some Saints in the east and the west and they had so much love for God and at the same time some of them weren't able to read at that time.

But I have to add one more thing I forgot. We however, know how to read and write...etc, and we live in an age where there are more evil, harm and false teachings, and at this point we need to know what God is telling us and wants from us, who He really is and what His word says about Him and His plan. Therefor at this age we need the Bible more than anytime. Because the further we go away from it, the worse things can get and we saw that. Sadly, people at this age can't enjoy the simple pure faith that the Saints had in previous ages.  Smiley
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 07:59:39 PM by Raylight » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,350


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2014, 08:37:05 PM »

Raylight,

In another thread, I mentioned how, from the time the apostles Thomas and Bartholomew came to India until about the fourth century or so, my best guess would be that the local Church started by those apostles had, at best, the entire Old Testament (whether or not it included the deuterocanon I cannot say for sure) and just the Gospel of St Matthew from the New Testament.  

Certainly I would agree with you that it was a shame they didn't have the other New Testament books, but my question to you is this: did they lack anything necessary in order to know Christ, believe in him, and be saved?  

No. They knew Christ, they believed in Him and lived a very holy life indeed.

I read about some Saints in the east and the west and they had so much love for God and at the same time some of them weren't able to read at that time.

And how were they able to have all this without the full Bible (assuming they even had as much as I said they did)?
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,434



« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2014, 08:41:53 PM »


2 / Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

It isn't doctrine, but the Christian view on abortion. Not talked about in Scripture, but condemned in the Didache which was written contemporaneously with the Apostles.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Raylight
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy.
Posts: 1,767



« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2014, 09:12:21 PM »

Raylight,

In another thread, I mentioned how, from the time the apostles Thomas and Bartholomew came to India until about the fourth century or so, my best guess would be that the local Church started by those apostles had, at best, the entire Old Testament (whether or not it included the deuterocanon I cannot say for sure) and just the Gospel of St Matthew from the New Testament.  

Certainly I would agree with you that it was a shame they didn't have the other New Testament books, but my question to you is this: did they lack anything necessary in order to know Christ, believe in him, and be saved?  

No. They knew Christ, they believed in Him and lived a very holy life indeed.

I read about some Saints in the east and the west and they had so much love for God and at the same time some of them weren't able to read at that time.

And how were they able to have all this without the full Bible (assuming they even had as much as I said they did)?


Here is an answer from the Bible itself.


2 Peter 3:16

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Here is clearly Saint Peter saying that Saint Paul's writings are Scriptures.


And here another answer for your point in general.

"  Did the Early Christians Possess the Scriptures?

Question: You need the guidance of Sacred Tradition to help you figure out the truth. In the early church the people could not have listened to the apostles speak and then gone home to check what they said in their Bibles. People had to accept what the apostles told them by word of mouth because it had not been written down or put into a text for anyone to read.

Answer: Over the past couple of years I have encountered every kind of argument seeking to undermine the centrality and the ultimate authority of the Holy Bible. A popular argument notes that the early Christians did not have the complete Bible and that it took almost four centuries before the canon of Scripture was finally and officially recognized. Hence, the implication that the Bible could not be that important.

This argument is flawed because it fails to recognize that the church was going through a maturation phase, and it is rather silly to belittle the perfection of the mature state on the grounds that it was not always that way. It is like arguing that we don’t really need our lungs because there was a time when we lived well without them in our mothers' womb! Or that it was not really necessary that Christ should come to this world because before him, God still spoke to His people by the prophets!

We are living in an age when we have the complete written Word of God in our hands. What, or who can replace the Bible in the heart of the church? Or who can claim to have equal or higher authority to the Word of God?

You seem to be preoccupied that Evangelicals do not blindly accept the Church’s teachings but insist on verifying everything by the Bible. Well, we have biblical precedent for doing so. Once an apostle of Jesus Christ and his associate preached the Gospel in a certain city. They proclaimed the Gospel and the people listened attentively. But the people of that city did something more. Every day they studied the holy scriptures to check whether the things they heard were true or not.

What do you think? Isn't it a little bit arrogant and presumptuous to question the teaching of an apostle? Isn't the teaching magisterium of the apostle the highest authority on earth? Is it not the prerogative of the apostle to interpret the Bible infallibly, rather than for common, ordinary people to check his teaching by the Bible? And how can they understand the Scripture since they didn’t have the guidance of 'Sacred Tradition'?

As you may have realized, I am referring to the Bereans mentioned in Acts 17:10-12. Luke says (v 11): 'These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.'

Two important points can be deduced from this passage:

    For the Bereans the ultimate and highest authority was the holy Scriptures. They did well to receive the words of the apostle for he is the messenger of Christ; but they did better to check out his doctrine by the standard of the written Word of God. As a Protestant, I believe that every Christian must submit to the teaching authority of the teachers that Christ gave to His church as far as their teaching is consistent with the Holy Scriptures.

    The Berean believers already had the Scriptures (evidently not the whole of our Bible) to which they could refer. And they knew that they were the Word of God even before any pope or council declared them to be so. Many are deceived by the Catholic propaganda which insists that a person could not know what is authoritative Scripture if it was not for the authority of the church.  "


About how they knew about Christ ? They knew by the Apostles, however, many people went back to the Scriptures like mentioned above. Also, that was the time of the Apostles, now thanks to God, we have the full Bible, and again as mentioned above, we don't need anything else beside it. We are mature now and God is guiding His followers.

So here is two types of answer to your question Smiley



« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 09:15:36 PM by Raylight » Logged
Raylight
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy.
Posts: 1,767



« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2014, 09:18:41 PM »


2 / Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

It isn't doctrine, but the Christian view on abortion. Not talked about in Scripture, but condemned in the Didache which was written contemporaneously with the Apostles.

Abortion is act of murder. And murder is very well known to be wrong.

Like masturbation, I don't think there is any direct clear mention of it, but it is not science to figure out that such act is a sin.

 Smiley
Logged
Raylight
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy.
Posts: 1,767



« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2014, 09:31:36 PM »

NOTE: I don't want anyone to think I'm here to just argue. I'm not here for that. I'm here to learn, to ask questions and to hopefully get answers. And when I do get answer that is true and make sense, I right away accept it. If I don't find the answer enough, then I might seem like I'm arguing but I'm simply trying to get closer and closer to the answer.  Smiley
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,434



« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2014, 10:16:16 PM »

Quote
2 Peter 3:16

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Here is clearly Saint Peter saying that Saint Paul's writings are Scriptures.
How do you know 2 Peter can be trusted? What Scripture reference tells you that?
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Raylight
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy.
Posts: 1,767



« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2014, 10:25:08 PM »

Quote
2 Peter 3:16

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Here is clearly Saint Peter saying that Saint Paul's writings are Scriptures.
How do you know 2 Peter can be trusted? What Scripture reference tells you that?

How do I know that 2 Peter can be trusted ?!?!
Well, 2 Peter is one of the New Testament Books.

Why shouldn't I trust 2 Peter ?
Logged
DeniseDenise
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,601


« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2014, 10:27:43 PM »

Quote
2 Peter 3:16

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Here is clearly Saint Peter saying that Saint Paul's writings are Scriptures.
How do you know 2 Peter can be trusted? What Scripture reference tells you that?

How do I know that 2 Peter can be trusted ?!?!
Well, 2 Peter is one of the New Testament Books.

Why shouldn't I trust 2 Peter ?

His point is that....you are -trusting- that whoever decided that 2 Peter is a genuine NT book....knew what they were talking about...
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,204


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2014, 10:31:44 PM »

Not to mention trusting that the letters of St. Paul the church decided to be preserved were exactly the ones that should have been preserved and included. 2 Pet. doesn't give a list, after all; the particular books were collected and verified over the course of generations.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,434



« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2014, 10:37:41 PM »

Quote
2 Peter 3:16

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Here is clearly Saint Peter saying that Saint Paul's writings are Scriptures.
How do you know 2 Peter can be trusted? What Scripture reference tells you that?

How do I know that 2 Peter can be trusted ?!?!
Well, 2 Peter is one of the New Testament Books.

Why shouldn't I trust 2 Peter ?
How do you know that 2 Peter should be in the New Testament?  What Scripture reference tells you that it should be included? How do you know it was the Apostle Peter that wrote it?  Seems like you need to rely on some sort of outside information to determine if 2 Peter is legit.  If only there was something like, oh say Tradition, that might assist in such an endeavor...  Wink
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 10:40:13 PM by TheTrisagion » Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Old Rite)
Posts: 620


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2014, 10:42:15 PM »

1.) If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?

The New Testament canon took centuries to ultimately decide. Regardless of what denomination you adhere to, no one denies this.  Therefore, to question the Holy Spirit's guidance on this matter for Orthodox Christians is to reject that the Holy Spirit had any role in the formation of the canon for all of Christianity.

Personal note: The Ethiopian version of the Bible includes extra books. Also from my personal experience with an Orthodox person, believed that their Church didn't accept the what called "Apocrypha" books in the Old Testament, yet they were written in a different section of their own. Also, and again this is from my personal experience, I got a book in my native language where it showed the books included in the Bible and something was indeed interesting, that the "Apocrypha" books were put in a different category that seemed to be less important than the other books of the Old Testament Bible. Again, this also surprised me. So, if the Holy Spirit truly guided the Orthodox Church to decide which books are from the Bible and which are not. How could come that there are different versions of the Bible in several Orthodox Churches ?


The Ethiopian church is not in communion with the Greek and Slavic Churches commonly referred to as "Eastern Orthodox".  Therefore, if the Ethiopian church wants to form it's own canon, it can, it means nothing to us because it's not a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The placement of the what you call the "Apocrypha" in a separate section of the Bible only began after the Protestant reformation in the West.  Many bibles used by Orthodox Christians in the West come from Western publishers who are largely catering to Protestants. It's worth noting that the Orthodox Study Bible, published by Orthodox Christians for Orthodox Christians, does not put the "Apocrypha" in a separate section.


2.) Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

Personal note : I'm actually very interested in this question and I've asked it before under the title " What does Tradition has that the Holy Bible doesn't have ? ". But I believe that the way the writer wrote this question is much better and more clear than the way I asked it.

The perpetual virginity of Mary comes to mind.  This belief, in addition to being attested to by the Fathers, comes from the "Protoevangelium of James", which, even if you don't accept the author to be the Apostle James, comes from a time when Fathers who knew the Apostles were still writing.  It's also worth noting that none of the early reformers questioned this belief.

3.) Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?

This isn't what the Church teaches, but makes a great question for Protestants to answer.

4.) The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16).

Do we really want to have a conversation on how the Church Fathers interpenetrated the bible as opposed to even doctrinally conservative Protestantism? I should also point out that none of the Fathers cited in the question are "Apostolic Fathers", i.e., those who themselves heard the Apostles preach.

Read what the Fathers taught on the nature of the Church.  It puts the rest of their teaching in context.

I hope this helps.


Logged

All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Old Rite)
Posts: 620


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2014, 10:43:55 PM »

How do I know that 2 Peter can be trusted ?!?! Well, 2 Peter is one of the New Testament Books.

Because the Fathers tell you so.

It's also in the New Testament because the Fathers tell you so.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 10:44:45 PM by Sam G » Logged

All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.
Raylight
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy.
Posts: 1,767



« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2014, 10:44:38 PM »

Quote
2 Peter 3:16

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Here is clearly Saint Peter saying that Saint Paul's writings are Scriptures.
How do you know 2 Peter can be trusted? What Scripture reference tells you that?

How do I know that 2 Peter can be trusted ?!?!
Well, 2 Peter is one of the New Testament Books.

Why shouldn't I trust 2 Peter ?

His point is that....you are -trusting- that whoever decided that 2 Peter is a genuine NT book....knew what they were talking about...

Ugh, I hate it when I can't fully understanding the meaning. I got it now thanks Smiley


Not to mention trusting that the letters of St. Paul the church decided to be preserved were exactly the ones that should have been preserved and included. 2 Pet. doesn't give a list, after all; the particular books were collected and verified over the course of generations.

So you are not implying that there is something wrong with 2 Peter in the NT. Phew!

So, here is the story, St Paul's letters were written and sent to many churches nationwide. Then, people started sending them to each other and reading them from time to time. and it was trusted and then that information are passed to the next generation...etc. then people by these passed information, they got to know what letters could be trusted and what not. Until the day when we officially have a complete Bible Canon. So, yes, I guess there was prat where Tradition played by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And that means as I quote...


" The canon of Scripture was not created by the church; rather, the church discovered or recognized it. In other words, God's Word was inspired and authoritative from its inception. and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it. "
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 10:45:15 PM by Raylight » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,434



« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2014, 11:10:52 PM »

Quote
" The canon of Scripture was not created by the church; rather, the church discovered or recognized it. In other words, God's Word was inspired and authoritative from its inception. and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it. "
I suppose the same could be said of Holy Tradition in general. EVERYTHING that Christ passed down to His Apostles was inspired and authoritative. CHRIST is the Word of God. The Church merely holds to the traditions that were passed down from Christ to the Apostles.  The Bible is not a systematic theology book.  It was never intended to be such and attempts to make it that are embarrassing at best.  The books particularly in the NT were written to correct specific errors, for encouragement, or for instruction. It does not lay out a full explanation of doctrines.  When you use the Bible in the method in which it was intended, it is a powerful tool.  When you try to use it for something that it was not intended, you end up with crazy theology and 40,000+ denominations.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,550



« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2014, 11:32:02 PM »

Quote
2 Peter 3:16

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Here is clearly Saint Peter saying that Saint Paul's writings are Scriptures.
How do you know 2 Peter can be trusted? What Scripture reference tells you that?

How do I know that 2 Peter can be trusted ?!?!
Well, 2 Peter is one of the New Testament Books.

Why shouldn't I trust 2 Peter ?

His point is that....you are -trusting- that whoever decided that 2 Peter is a genuine NT book....knew what they were talking about...

Ugh, I hate it when I can't fully understanding the meaning. I got it now thanks Smiley


Not to mention trusting that the letters of St. Paul the church decided to be preserved were exactly the ones that should have been preserved and included. 2 Pet. doesn't give a list, after all; the particular books were collected and verified over the course of generations.

So you are not implying that there is something wrong with 2 Peter in the NT. Phew!

So, here is the story, St Paul's letters were written and sent to many churches nationwide. Then, people started sending them to each other and reading them from time to time. and it was trusted and then that information are passed to the next generation...etc. then people by these passed information, they got to know what letters could be trusted and what not. Until the day when we officially have a complete Bible Canon. So, yes, I guess there was prat where Tradition played by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And that means as I quote...


" The canon of Scripture was not created by the church; rather, the church discovered or recognized it. In other words, God's Word was inspired and authoritative from its inception. and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it. "

You seem to be unable to recognize that those Churches St. Paul sent his letters to were the Orthodox Churches.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,350


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 03, 2014, 12:06:34 AM »

A popular argument notes that the early Christians did not have the complete Bible and that it took almost four centuries before the canon of Scripture was finally and officially recognized. Hence, the implication that the Bible could not be that important.

By whom or what?

Quote
This argument is flawed because it fails to recognize that the church was going through a maturation phase...

There it is...

Quote
...and it is rather silly to belittle the perfection of the mature state on the grounds that it was not always that way. It is like arguing that we don’t really need our lungs because there was a time when we lived well without them in our mothers' womb! Or that it was not really necessary that Christ should come to this world because before him, God still spoke to His people by the prophets!

We are living in an age when we have the complete written Word of God in our hands. What, or who can replace the Bible in the heart of the church? Or who can claim to have equal or higher authority to the Word of God?

In fact, the whole point is that the "complete written Word of God in our hands" was placed there by the Church.  It's not that the Bible can be replaced with something else in the heart of the Church, but that it was the Church who identified it and held it close to her heart.  

Quote
Two important points can be deduced from this passage:

    For the Bereans the ultimate and highest authority was the holy Scriptures. They did well to receive the words of the apostle for he is the messenger of Christ; but they did better to check out his doctrine by the standard of the written Word of God. As a Protestant, I believe that every Christian must submit to the teaching authority of the teachers that Christ gave to His church as far as their teaching is consistent with the Holy Scriptures.

    The Berean believers already had the Scriptures (evidently not the whole of our Bible) to which they could refer. And they knew that they were the Word of God even before any pope or council declared them to be so. Many are deceived by the Catholic propaganda which insists that a person could not know what is authoritative Scripture if it was not for the authority of the church.  "

How did the Bereans know that the Scriptures they studied so thoroughly were actually the Word of God?  They knew this because Israel--the Old Testament "Church"--identified them as such.  The covenant community always predates its written Scripture, but it does not predate the Word of God.  In fact, the Word of God calls the community into existence.  Christ is the Word.  

Quote
About how they knew about Christ ? They knew by the Apostles, however, many people went back to the Scriptures like mentioned above. Also, that was the time of the Apostles, now thanks to God, we have the full Bible, and again as mentioned above, we don't need anything else beside it. We are mature now and God is guiding His followers.

So here is two types of answer to your question Smiley

So we needed the Church until the Church gave us the full Bible, and now we don't need the Church.  Where is any of that in the Bible?  Where is it in the Bible that "we are mature now and God is guiding his followers" simply by the Bible?  
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 12:06:50 AM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #23 on: June 03, 2014, 06:13:00 AM »

So, here is the story, St Paul's letters were written and sent to many churches nationwide. Then, people started sending them to each other and reading them from time to time. and it was trusted and then that information are passed to the next generation...etc. then people by these passed information, they got to know what letters could be trusted and what not. Until the day when we officially have a complete Bible Canon. So, yes, I guess there was prat where Tradition played by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And that means as I quote...


" The canon of Scripture was not created by the church; rather, the church discovered or recognized it. In other words, God's Word was inspired and authoritative from its inception. and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it. "

Personally, I think you'd do better to question the equating of the church with Eastern Orthodoxy, but that's your call.  Cool
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,594


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 03, 2014, 07:53:50 AM »

The formulation of the canon was done because of tradition.

Quote
The canon of Scripture was not created by the church
Yes it was. Because the writers were part of the Body of Christ (the Church) whose faith and teachings are still practiced and taught today.

To deny one is to deny the other.

PP
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 07:55:47 AM by primuspilus » Logged

"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
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,550



« Reply #25 on: June 03, 2014, 08:24:32 AM »

The formulation of the canon was done because of tradition.

Quote
The canon of Scripture was not created by the church
Yes it was. Because the writers were part of the Body of Christ (the Church) whose faith and teachings are still practiced and taught today.

To deny one is to deny the other.

PP

Indeed. The canon of Scripture was created by the Church, since Scripture doesn't pre-exist the Church, the Church pre-existed Scripture. Scripture didn't just come into being by itself.

Assuming the Church began in the year 33, the earliest text is from about 20 years after the beginning of the Church. And the New Testament itself, about 350 years after. And still, the vast majority of Christians couldn't read or write, so the Church needed to do it for them.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 08:33:59 AM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Raylight
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy.
Posts: 1,767



« Reply #26 on: June 04, 2014, 04:02:47 AM »



Bible.ca is also a loony website.

How about trying http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/ next time?

I just tried this website you recommended.

It is a JOKE!! The website says that Orthodox Christian Church is Satanic the same like Catholic Church, because there are symbol of two eyes at the altars which is a sing of Satan!! And Orthodox are worshiping Priests and St Mary and worshiping Icons!!  It even says that KJV is the only inspired version of the Bible!! The Pope is vicar of Hell ! Says that many Homosexuals worship a Satanic God made in the image of male+female at the same time!!


This is how I looked like when I'm done surfing the website...




Logged
Raylight
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Jurisdiction: Exploring Orthodoxy.
Posts: 1,767



« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2014, 04:03:50 AM »

Thanks to everyone replied to the thread. I will reread them and try to understand them more clearly  Smiley
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.134 seconds with 55 queries.