# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Mary the Queen of Heaven

## TER

*Mary the Queen of Heaven*




  August 14, 2014 by *Dn. Joseph Gleason* 

link *HERE*


  Before God became man, an important sign of Gods presence was the Ark of the Covenant.

 In the wilderness, Moses placed it in the Holy of Holies. The  Israelites crossed the Jordan River with it, and they marched around  Jericho with it. King David danced before it. And after King Solomon  built the temple in Jerusalem, the Ark was again placed in the Holy of  Holies. The lid of the Ark was decorated with golden statues of angels,  and a number of people were permitted to see the uncreated light of God,  as the Shekinah glory literally shone between the wings of the  cherubim.


*Mary the New Ark of the Covenant*

 In the Book of Revelation, the Ark of the Covenant is described in  connection with a highly exalted woman who gave birth to a great King:
Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark  of His covenant was seen in His temple. And there were lightnings,  noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail. Now a great sign  appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under  her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Then being with  child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. . . . And the  dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her  Child as soon as it was born. She bore a male Child who was to rule all  nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His  throne. Rev. 11:1912:5

As King David himself had prophesied in Psalm 2, the Messiah is the  great King who comes to rule all nations with a rod of iron. He was born  of a virgin, crucified, resurrected, and in the Ascension, he was  caught up to God and His throne. In Revelation 12, this male child is Jesus.

 And Mary is his mother. She is this great woman, clothed with the  sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve  stars. And ever since the very early days of the Church, Christians have  recognized Mary as the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant. St.  Hippolytus in the second century, and St. Gregory Thaumaturgus in the  third, are among the many saints who have identified Mary with the Ark.

 The Ark of the Covenant had some impressive contents:


Moses two stone tablets of the Ten Commandments
A jar of manna from the wildernessAarons staff which had budded with life  
 Mary herself being the new Ark of the Covenant, she contained the fulfillment of all these things:


Instead of Gods Word written in stone,
Marys womb contained the *Word made flesh*Instead of manna from the wilderness,
Marys womb contained the *Bread of Life*Instead of a staff from the first Levitical high priest, Marys womb contained the great *High Priest* himself, Jesus Christ, whose priesthood is after the order of MelchizedekInstead of a budded staff symbolizing resurrection, Marys womb contained *the Resurrection and the Life* himself  
 Thus, it is fitting that the apostle John honors Mary and the Ark at  the same time, and in the same breath. In the book of Revelation, St.  John sees the Ark of the Covenant in the heavenly temple, and then he  immediately describes this woman who gave birth to Christ, this woman  who now wears the sun, moon, and stars for her clothing.

 Just as we see early Christians identifying Mary as the new Ark, we  also see early Christians recognizing Mary in the twelfth chapter of  Revelation. In the fourth century, Epiphanius of Salamis mentions this  passage in reference to Mary. And in the fifth century, in the  oldest-existing Greek commentary on the book of Revelation, Oecumenius  says the following:_And a sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet._  As I said, it is speaking about the mother of our Savior. And the  vision appropriately depicts her as in heaven and not on the earth, for  she is pure in soul and body, equal to an angel and a citizen of heaven.  She possesses God who rests in heavenfor heaven is my throne, it  saysyet she is flesh, although she has nothing in common with the  earth, nor is there any evil in her. Rather, she is fully exalted,  wholly worthy of heaven, even though she possesses our own human nature  and substance.
_William C. Weinrich, Greek Commentaries on Revelation, p. 51_*
All True Christians are Royalty*

 When early Christians praise Mary in this way, and when Scripture  itself gives her such great honor, there are still some people who  wonder:

_Should any human being be honored in this way?_

_It makes sense that Jesus is King, because he is God. But Mary is not God._

_Surely there is no king in heaven except Jesus, and surely heaven has no queen._

 Of course, it is true that Jesus is exalted far above everyone. He is  God, and there is no man, woman, or angel who is equal with Him. He  alone is God. You, me, Mary, and the Saints are all human beings who  have been redeemed by God, being conformed to the image of Christ.

 But what does it _mean_ to be conformed to the image of  Christ? If Jesus is a great king, and you are conformed perfectly to his  image, that means you yourself will be a king (or queen). In fact,  Scripture itself tells us this. Believe it or not, Jesus is not the only  king in the Church. According to the fifth chapter of the book of  Revelation, Jesus has redeemed us to God by his blood, out of every  tribe and tongue and people and nation, and has made us kings and  priests to our God.  (Rev. 5:910)

 In other words, Mary is not the only person in heaven to be exalted  as royalty. Mary is queen, the apostles are kings, and by the grace of  God, you and I will join their sides as both kings and queens. In Gods  presence, every saint will be recognized as royalty. And Jesus alone  will bear the title King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.

*Mary is the Queen Mother*

 Revelation is not the only place in Scripture that recognizes Mary as  the Queen of Heaven. We also see prophecies of her in the Old Testament  Scriptures.

 In Israel, many generations of kings were born in the Davidic line,  pointing forward to the eventual birth of Jesus, the King of Kings. 2 Samuel 7:12, Psalm 72, and Psalm 89  were initially written about King Solomon, and later these Scriptures  find their fulfillment in Christ himself. Solomon was the seed of  David who reigned in peace, prosperity, and wisdom. Jesus is the  ultimate seed of David who completely fulfills these prophecies.

 But in Israel, they did not recognize the kings wife as a queen. Instead, the kings mother had this great honor.

 Solomon had many wives, but only Bathsheba his mother was recognized  as his queen. She was the Queen mother over Israel. She was subordinate  to the King, to be sure. But she sat on a throne, and was granted the  status of royalty and great political power.

 Scripture doesnt tell us the names of all the kings wives. But it  does tell us who their mothers were. For hundreds of years, from the  time of Queen Bathsheba, to Queen Naamah, to Queen Maachah, to Queen  Azubah, to Queen Athaliah, to Queen Jehoaddan, to Queen Jecholiah, to  Queen Jerusha, to Queen Abi, to Queen Hephzibah, to Queen Meshullemeth,  to Queen Jedidah, to Queen Hamutal, to Queen Zebudah, to Queen Nehushta,  the mothers of the Davidic kings retained this exalted status.

 Also notice 1 Kings 2:19,  where the Queen Mother is granted a royal place of honor, sitting at  the right hand of the King. The King himself even rises in her presence,  and bows down to her! He is still the King, but he shows his mother an  immense amount of honor. Now think about Jesus, the long-awaited seed of  David who will sit upon the throne permanently in the Kingdom of  Heaven.  If Jesus is the rightful heir to the Davidic throne, then who  is the Queen Mother? Its Mary.

 Psalm 45 also prophesies of both King Jesus and his Queen. Hebrews 1:8 reveals that Psalm 45:6 is a reference to Jesus. And Psalm 45:9  refers to his Queen. Remember that the Queen in the Davidic kingdom was  always the Kings mother, not the Kings bride. And since Mary is the  mother of Jesus, Psalm 45:9 is a reference to Queen Mary.

 So it is not surprising when we see Mary, the Mother of God, highly  honored as a queen in the book of Revelation, clothed with the sun, with  the moon at her feet, and a garland of twelve stars around her head. As  the Kings mother, she is royalty.

*The Dormition and Assumption of Mary*

 On this feast, we celebrate the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary,  and her bodily Assumption into heaven. She is the prototype for all  Christians, as the first person literally to invite Jesus to live within  her. Long before the 12 apostles walked and talked with Christ, Mary  was already very close to her Son.


The apostles heard Jesus speak; _Mary taught Jesus how to speak_The apostles ate food provided by Jesus; _Mary fed Jesus with milk from her own body_The apostles saw Jesus sleeping on a boat; _Mary rocked Jesus to sleep on her lap_The apostles walked with Jesus for 3 years; _Mary walked with Jesus for 33 years_At the crucifixion, almost all the apostles ran away; _Mary stood at the foot of the cross, beside St. John_ 
 At Pentecost, Mary was among the 120 in the upper room, and she  participated in the first massive outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the  Church. As she aged, she lived in Ephesus with John the apostle. When  she died, Jesus received her soul directly into heaven. And three days  after her death, she followed her Son in resurrection, and was assumed  bodily into heaven. Mary is the first Christian to experience the  fullness of salvationincluding resurrection and glorification. This is a  belief that has been passed down in the Church from generation to  generation, throughout the ages.

 And while Scripture does not record the time of her assumption into  heaven, it does record a glorious vision of her in heaven after her  assumption had already taken place. The apostle John had stood with Mary  at the foot of the cross, he had taken Mary to live in his own house,  and then in the final book he wrote, St. John tells us of Mary, exalted  in the heavens.

 When St. John and Mary stood at the foot of the cross, Jesus told  Mary that John was now her son, and that Mary was now Johns mother. In Revelation 12:17,  the apostle John talks about the rest of her offspring, who keep the  commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev. 12:17), letting us know that Mary is our mother, too.

 Therefore, like the archangel Gabriel, we say, Hail Mary, full of  grace, the Lord is with you. Like St. Elizabeth, we say, Who am I,  that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Like Mary herself, we say  she is blessed among women. And like St. John the apostle, we  recognize Mary as the Mother of God (_Theotokos_), highly exalted  in heaven as a magnificent queen, clothed with the sun, the moon at her  feet and a garland of twelve stars around her head.


2+1

48Like

2Tweet

----------


## TER

*Dormition of the Theotokos (2014)
*
 



Posted on August 15, 2014

by Fr. Ted

link *HERE*

 Each August 15, we Orthodox celebrate as a Feast the Dormition of the Theotokos: the event of the death of Mary, Mother of God.    Her death is celebrated in faith as her translation from the world to  life in the world to come.  For Orthodoxy does believe that those who  are united to Christ are deified by the incarnate God.  Union with  Christ is salvation.  Mary is the subject of much theological reflection  which is expressed in the liturgical poetry of the Church.  In Mary,  truth and beauty reside together for the salvation of the world.


_
The  single most important source concerning the Virgin Mary and her place  in Gods redemption is found already in the second century designation  of Mary as the New Eve or the Second Eve. This idea was introduced by  the first Christian philosopher and theologian Justin the Martyr, and developed by Irenaeus especially. Irenaeus elaboration of the contrast between the two virgins, Eve and Mary, is of profound soteriological  significance and illustrates Marys role in the history of salvation.  This contrast symbolizes two possible uses of created freedom by man: in  their first, a surrender to the devils offer of false deification; in  the second, humble acceptance of the will of God. The Old Testament is  the history of the preparation of the human race for the coming of  Christ, a story in which human freedom is constantly put to the test by  God. All of the sacred history and tradition of the Jews is the tale of  the slow and laborious journey of fallen humanity toward the fullness of  time. In the entire Patristic Tradition the Virgin Mary is viewed as the goal of Old Testament history, which began with the children of Eve.[]_ 

_
__
The  election of the Virgin Mary is therefore the culmination point of  Israels progress toward reconciliation with God, but Gods final  response to this progress and the beginning of new life comes with the Incarnation of the Word, because mans salvation could be realized only by God, His sinless Son. The answer of Mary to the angelic annunciation,  Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word  (Lk. 1:38), resolves the tragic problem of fallen humanity. All that God  required of human liberty since the Fall  is accomplished: conformity of human will and purpose to the Divine  Will and Purpose. Divine Will is accepted and responded to. And this  human response is highly relevant at this point. The obedience of Mary  counter-balances the disobedience of Eve. And now the work of  redemption, which only the sinless Incarnate Word can effect, may take  place._ (Constantine N. Tsirpanlis, *Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox Theology*, pp 53-54)

 The Virgin Mary is significant for the salvation of each of us, for  in her the union of God and humanity took place, healing a division  which had separated the Creator from His creation from the time of the  first sin of Eve and Adam.   So Mary is the focus of poetry and love in  the Orthodox tradition.  Here is a portion of a poem in the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition from about the 15th Century:


_My Lady Mary _

_That House visited by God,_

_Whose greatness is inexpressible_

_Whose beautiful appearance is ineffable,_

_It was for you that the prophets of Israel_

_Built up their tower of prophecy._

_O Holy One, set me back firmly_

_In the discipleship of your beloved Son.
_
 (*Harp of Glory*, p 142)


 * 
*The  Dormition of the Virgin Mary is not an event mentioned in the New  Testament.  For all Feasts in the Church there are assigned Scriptural  readings for the Feast.   Like the other major Orthodox feasts centered  on the Theotokos, the scripture readings for the Feast of the Dormition  are not about the event being celebrated, but were selected for other  reasons.  A Gospel lesson is proclaimed through the Feast.   Bishop Job  (Getcha) offers an explanatory note about how the readings for Marys  Feasts were chosen:

 A pericope may be selected on the basis of typology.   This is the case for most of the Old, as well as New Testament passages  read on feasts of the Mother of God, whether the periope about Jacobs  ladder (Gen 28:10-17), read at vespers, or the pericope about Martha and  Mary (Lk 10:38-42; 11:27-28), which presents two types of the Mother of God.   _(THE TYPIKON DECODED,  p 57)

_

The  Gospel lesson from Luke mentions Mary but in this case not the Lords  Mother, but Mary, sister of Martha.   The selection of this reading is  not accidental.  In both ancient Jewish and early Christian scriptural  interpretation, one method  used to explicate a text relies on a word  list approach to interpreting a passage.  Basically this method takes  one word in a biblical passage and then uses other biblical passages  where the exact same word occurs to interpret the text.  From a modern  point of view we might point out that there is absolutely no logical  connection between the texts except that one word appears in both  passages.  But since the ancients assumed the Scripture being inspired  by God was arranged by God, they concluded there are no accidental or  coincidental occurrences of words in the bible.  So they would carefully  consider what the relationship between two otherwise unrelated texts  must be if they both contain the same significant word.   The reference  to Mary in Luke 10:38-42 is  enough to use this passage in reference to Mary, the Theotokos.  As Dr.  Pelikan noted above both sisters Martha and Mary are seen as types of  the Virgin Mother of Christ.

 Thus simply attending the festal liturgies of the church and  listening to the Scripture readings already puts us in touch with the  mind of the ancient Christians!  We come to experience the depth and  riches they saw in all Scripture passages, and the treasury they  represent in helping us to know God.

----------


## TER

Someone asked me this question with regards to this thread:




> Why do people in these depictions always have those globes around their heads?


One must always bear in mind that the images in iconography are never intended to convey realistic "photographs" of history, although many will do this. The primary intention of iconography is _theological_, to teach about and facilitate an encounter with the True God, unimpeded by artistic style and variation.  Whereas the pages in the Bible convey theological truths using words, icons convey theological truths in pictures and color.

On icons, images of holy personages bear a "halo" (or nimbus).  In alot of Western art, this has been depicted as a halo over their heads, while in the Eastern tradition, the holy light reflecting the faces of saints in Orthodox icons does not stand above the heads of the holy ones, but rather settles on them, as part of them.

Just as Christ humbled Himself to become man, so too does the uncreated light of God surround the images of His holy ones, those who bear the likeness of Christ and the Holy Spirit of God within them. 


Here is a western depiction below.  The thing to note is the use of the halo around the head.  Indeed, the iconographic use of halos signify theosis, not unlike what the Prophet Moses, St. Stephen, and many other saints experienced.


So that what you see in an Orthodox icon would be drawn like this:


Whenever Christ is written on an icon, His halo looks like this:


The three letters are the Greek letters spelling out "I AM", signifying Christ as the "I AM".

----------


## Kevin007

Israel, not Mary is the "woman" referred to in Revelation Ch. 12.

----------


## TER

Mary is seen as a type as a type of the Church, and the Church as the new Israel, therefore prophecies such as Rev 12 and titles like Daughter of Sion are generally applied to Mary, the Church, and Israel.

From Lumen Gentium:
"...she is hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity."

"63. By reason of the gift and role of divine maternity, by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer, and with His singular graces and functions, the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united with the Church. As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity and perfect union with Christ.(18*) For in the mystery of the Church, which is itself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion as exemplar both of virgin and mother. (19*) By her belief and obedience, not knowing man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the new Eve she brought forth on earth the very Son of the Father, showing an undefiled faith, not in the word of the ancient serpent, but in that of God's messenger. The Son whom she brought forth is He whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren,(299) namely the faithful, in whose birth and education she cooperates with a maternal love."

----------


## TER

From here: http://www.theorthodoxfaith.com/mary...een-of-heaven/

In the Jewish culture, a Davidic King would have his mother as Queen rather than his wife, because he rarely had one wife, but many wives. Sharing power with many wives would be much too difficult, but he had only one mother and she was given the title of Queen. Almost every time a new king is introduced in 1 and 2 Kings, the king’s mother is mentioned. She was a member of the royal court, wore a crown, sat on a throne, and shared in the king’s reign (2 Kings 24:12, 15; Jer. 13:18–20). She acted as counselor to her son (Prov. 31), an advocate of the people, and as an intercessor for the citizens of the kingdom (1 Kings 2:17–20). Since Jesus is a King based on the order of David, it makes sense that His mother would be called Queen.


Psalm 45 depicts Christ as King and at his side is a Queen.





> PSALM 45:9
> At Your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir


So who is this Queen? Scripture puts forth Mary as our Queen in a grandiose description found in Revelation. In a vision of heaven, we are shown that the Ark of the Covenant is present in the temple.





> REVELATION 11:19
> Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.


The mention of the Ark is odd, since it had been done away with when the Glory of God had left that Ark, but the Orthodox teaching is that Mary is a type of the new Ark. This is further expressed by the verses that follow showing a sign of a woman in heaven.





> REVELATION 12:1
> And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.


And then to specifically designate who this woman is,





> REVELATION 12:5
> She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne.


The male child described is Jesus, which implies that the woman is Mary.


Some will argue that the woman is not Mary, but Israel, as some of the verses do not appear to reference Mary. And they would be correct. There are many prophecies that have multiple meanings or multiple references. A good example is a prophecy many Christians are familiar with.





> ISAIAH 7:14
> Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


We all are familiar with this verse and know it refers to the virgin birth. But when you read more of the prophecy it gets a bit more complicated.





> ISAIAH 7:14-18
> Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings. The Lord will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father’s house—days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.”


It would be a strange theology to teach that there was a time when Jesus didn’t know how to refuse the evil and choose the good. This prophecy was also partially fulfilled in the time before Christ’s birth when a child named Immanuel was born as a sign that God was still with Israel.(Isaiah 8:8) Given the way this very popular prophecy was used to speak of Christ in the New Testament as well as Immanuel in the Old Testament, it is reasonable that the prophecy in Revelation could be used the same way. It can describe both Israel and Mary.


The prophecy describes Mary in very grand terms pointing to her royal status. She wears a royal crown pointing to the 12 tribes or to the 12 apostles symbolizing her queenship in the new kingdom. The moon under her feet represents her dominion and victory over her enemies. Then finally clothed with the sun. This is an important woman! This is the Queen of Heaven!

----------


## TER

*The Theotokos and Mother of the Light*




By His Eminence Metropolitan Hierotheos
of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou


The feast we are festively celebrating in the middle of August indicates to us the all-revered person of our Panagia. The feast is designated as the "Dormition of our Most-Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary". In these words are hidden the entire mystery of our Panagia, which is associated with the mystery of Christ. In the sermon today we will make a short analysis of the words in this title "Dormition of our Most-Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary".


The death of the Panagia is called "*Dormition*", because on the one hand death after the Resurrection of Christ is a sleep, since all will be raised bodily at the Second Coming of Christ, and on the other hand because our Panagia after her Dormition was translocated to the heavens. Thus, according to the tradition of the Church, that which will take place with everyone at the Second Coming of Christ, took place with the Panagia at her Dormition.


Next, the Panagia is called "*Most-Holy*", because she is not only holy, sanctified, but she is above all those who are holy. She is "more honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim". Saint Gregory Palamas says that the Panagia is the peak and perfection of all the saints. Indeed, all the Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Fathers, Venerable Ones, and generally all the saints sing her praises and glorify her.


Also, the Panagia is called "*Lady*", because she is the Mother of the Master Christ. Indeed, Christ is the Lord and Master of heaven and earth, as consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, while His Mother, from whom He received His human nature, is the Lady, having a special place in the mystery of the divine economy, as well as a special place in the life of the Church, and she constantly intercedes for us.


In addition, the Panagia is designated as "*Theotokos*", because she simply did not give birth to a man of stature, but the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Nestorius and those heretics like-minded with him were repulsed by the epithet "Mother of God", as well as the term "Theotokos", because they argued that the Virgin gave birth to Christ the man, not God, Who "came forth", or was "passed forth", or was "brought forth" through her, but was not born "from her". Yet the Third Ecumenical Synod established the faith of the Church, that the Panagia is the Theotokos, she gave birth to God, she gave flesh to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and this is why she should be called "Theotokos". This is not simply a philosophy, but theology, since the Apostles who saw Christ shining in the Light of His divinity came to know by experience that He is "Light from Light, true God from true God", which is why the Panagia is the Theotokos and Mother of the Light. Thus, in the ninth ode of the Service of Matins the priest makes the pronouncement: "The Theotokos and the Mother of the Light, honoring with hymns let us magnify."


In the title of today's feast of the Panagia, she is also referred to as "*Ever-Virgin Mary*". The word "Mary" is her name, and the word "Ever-Virgin" shows the mystery of ever-virginity, her perfect purity, since she was a virgin before giving birth, during her pregnancy and after birth. In every icon of the Panagia the iconographer paints three stars - one on her forehead, one on her right shoulder and one on her left shoulder, which denote the ever-virginity of our Panagia. This is a mystery. And this is verified through the experience of divine glory.


Therefore, the feast of the "Dormition of our Most-Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary" shows us the entire wondrous and blessed Person of our Panagia, who we must honor with fasting, prayer, repentance, doxology and Divine Communion of the Body and Blood of her Son, with spiritual joy. Also, honor is given with the revered offering of her honorable name and with supplications and prayers to her who intercedes for all of us.


Today, we must be glad on this day because we are given the opportunity to take a vacation and to visit beloved places and persons, otherwise why are we given an opportunity to celebrate, except that the honorable and blessed person of our Panagia is celebrated, who also was honored by Christ Himself.


Many years, my brethren, and may the Panagia intercede for all of us and protect us from all evil.


Source: Ekklesiastiki Paremvasi, "Ἡ Θεοτόκος καί Μητέρα τοῦ Φωτός", July 2014. Translated by John Sanidopoulos.

----------


## Terry1

Thank God for the faith of Mary.  Beautiful thread TER.

----------


## TER

I am happy you appreciate it.  She is the greatest saint in Heaven and her prayers availeth much.  

Christ alone saves us, for He alone has united our nature with His divine nature and redeemed us unto eternal resurrection.  However, the Virgin has played an important role in this which should not be ignored.  It is after all her purity and perfect obedience which established a worthy womb for the sinless One to be born within her.  It is the flesh of the Theotokos whereby Christ received His own flesh from.  It is in _this same flesh_ that ours is healed and given new life.  In this way, the Theotokos is our mother as well and we, like her Son does, should honor her and respect her.

----------


## pcosmar

And the scripture records,,



> While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed." But He said, *"On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."*

----------


## TER

> And the scripture records,,


So you think you are more or even as much as blessed as the one who bore the Savior?  Do you think you or anyone you know has listened and obeyed The Lord better than the one who gave her pure and virginal flesh to him and who alone was with Him at both the time he was born and the time He died on the cross?

Perhaps you misinterpret the passage you quoted?  Perhaps Christ is not putting down His mother here but only more fully revealing how blessed she as a person must then be?

----------


## Kevin007

The title “Queen of Heaven” by which many              Catholics refer to Mary, was first used of Semeramis, wife of Nimrod              the founder of Babylon, and mother of Tammuz. Semeramis declared              herself a goddess, claimed that Tammuz was born of a supernatural              conception involving the Sun god, and began the first counterfeit              religion, a mother-child cult.
             According to legend, while out hunting one              day Tammuz was killed by a wild animal. Semeramis mourned for 40              days at the end of which Tammuz was raised from the dead.  She              formed a celibate priesthood to commemorate this and named a chief              priest who she declared to be infallible. The 40 day mourning (now              called Lent), the Yule log, evergreen tree, mistletoe and hot cross              buns were all used in the rituals they instituted, and the              mother-child cult was born.
             Later the Romans adapted these to the death              and re-birth of the Sun at the winter solstice, but in the 4th              century the traditions surrounding Semeramis and Tammuz were              attributed to Mary and Jesus and came almost unchanged into              Catholicism, where they remain to this day.
             Semeramis is symbolically called Jezebel in              the letter, leading people away from the truth into idolatry. But              the real Jezebel is also in view here. She was a daughter of the              King of Phonecia, a pagan princess best known for her advice to her              Israelite husband King Ahab on how to obtain a vineyard he wanted.               She brought trumped up charges against the vineyard’s owner, hired              witnesses to bear false testimony, and had him convicted and              executed. Then she confiscated the vineyard in the name of the King              (*1 Kings 21:1-16*).              Centuries later the Catholic Church would obtain much of its wealth              in the same way. Fortunes beyond measure were gained during these              inquisitions.

https://www.raptureready.com/featured/kelley/rev3.html

----------


## Kevin007

*   Queen of Heaven

*   Pius the 12th 1950 said of Mary “reigns in heaven with her son.”
   God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and Earth (966).   She is to be praised with special devotion. Catechism of the Catholic Church,   (2675)
   The name of the Lord is to be praised, for He alone is exalted above heaven   and earth. (Psalms 148:13).

   The Catholic Church has made Mary the “Queen of Heaven”. The mention of   the “queen of heaven” in the Bible makes God angry, it is not a good thing   for the simple reason there is no biblical queen. The similarities of the   practices of these people who worshiped her in the OT and the Catholic Church   are not to be overlooked.

*Jeremiah 7:18*, “The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire,   and _the women knead their dough, to make cakes_ (wafers?) to the QUEEN OF   HEAVEN, and to pour out drink offerings (wine) unto other gods, that they may   provoke me to anger.” Why would God be angry? Because He is a jealous God, and   does not want any false replacements.

*Jeremiah 44:15-25*, “Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned   incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude,   even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered   Jeremiah, saying, As _for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name   of the Lord, we will not harken unto thee._ But we will certainly do   whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense (candles,   worship?) unto the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as   we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of   Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and   were well, _and saw no evil_. But since we left off to burn incense to the   QUEEN OF HEAVEN, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all   things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. And when we   burned incense to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, and poured out drink offerings unto her,   did we make her cakes (wafers) to WORSHIP HER, and pour out drink offerings unto   her, without our men? Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying;   Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your   hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn   incense to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye   will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.”

   The word to make cakes in Hebrew _atsab_ has the connotation of carving   in worship, this was done by the women. They were in rebellion to God, notice   they say, “for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord,   we will not harken unto thee.” They didn’t listen, without obedience to the   word they went into idolatry. Incense, burnt drink offerings made her cakes and   worshiped her. As Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun. False worship   is practiced today and is just as wrong as when this was written. As we can see   the Queen of heaven is not a good thing but a rebuke.
*
   There is no Queen mentioned in Scripture*, but we do have a King.
   Mary never had so many problems until the Roman Catholic church gave her the   offices and positions that God did not.

http://www.letusreason.org/RC8.htm

----------


## pcosmar

> So you think you are more or even as much as blessed as the one who bore the Savior?


There were many obedient to the will of God recorded in the scriptures. People of Faith.. Both Men and Women of God.
Fine examples and inspiration.

I simple posted the words of Jesus on the subject.

----------


## TER

> There were many obedient to the will of God recorded in the scriptures. People of Faith.. Both Men and Women of God.
> Fine examples and inspiration.
> 
> I simple posted the words of Jesus on the subject.


And I am simply telling you how you are misinterpreting it according to the fathers of the church. And according to those same fathers, there is none greater in blessedness then the Virgin Mary, neither in the old or the new testament.

----------


## TER

Btw, the correct translation from the Greek is not 'on the contrary' but 'more that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."  The woman Mary was not blessed simply because she gave birth to our Lord, but because she humbly and obediently obeyed Him'.

----------


## pcosmar

> And I am simply telling you how you are misinterpreting it according to the fathers of the church. And according to those same fathers, there is none greater in blessedness then the Virgin Mary, neither in the old or the new testament.


OK,,do as you will.

I will take the Words of Christ over any man,, or hundred men, or any ten thousands that have come since.




> It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in humans.

----------


## TER

> OK,,do as you will.
> 
> I will take the Words of Christ over any man,, or hundred men, or any ten thousands that have come since.


You mean, you will take your interpretation of Christ's words over anyone else.

----------


## acptulsa

> Btw, the correct translation from the Greek is not 'on the contrary' but 'more that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."  The woman Mary was not blessed simply because she gave birth to our Lord, but because she humbly and obediently obeyed Him'.


Pete didn't say, my friend, that he was more saintly or more blessed than the mother of our Lord.  He said that the wisest course of action is to do as she did.  Which, since we don't have the advantage of having raised Him and being able to hear Him in person, means attending the Teaching of the Teacher some other way.

And I sincerely doubt you would ever argue that paying homage to the lady is a suitable substitute for learning what the Teacher said about the Way and the Light.

I don't see what the argument is about...

----------


## pcosmar

> You mean, you will take your interpretation of Christ's words over anyone else.


Scripture will interpret scripture,, And the Spirit of God will teach.

Yes.. I will take the words of the Lord over the teachings of men every time.

----------


## TER

> Scripture will interpret scripture,, And the Spirit of God will teach.
> 
> Yes.. I will take the words of the Lord over the teachings of men every time.


And where in scripture does it say that scripture will interpret scripture? No Jew ever thought that. And no Christian until the Reformation.

And there are many spirits which try to interpret the Scriptures for us. Most dangerously, the spirit of pride.

----------


## lilymc

The intentions might be good, but this thread is promoting something false.     I added the bold:


The phrase the queen of heaven appears in the Bible twice, both times in the book of Jeremiah. The first incident is in connection with the things the Israelites were doing that provoked the Lord to anger. Entire families were involved in idolatry. The children gathered wood, and the men used it to build altars to worship false gods. The women were engaged in kneading dough and baking cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven (Jeremiah 7:18). *This title referred to Ishtar, an Assyrian and Babylonian goddess also called Ashtoreth and Astarte by various other groups.* She was thought to be the wife of the false god Baal, also known as Molech. The motivation of women to worship Ashtoreth stemmed from her reputation as a fertility goddess, and, as the bearing of children was greatly desired among women of that era, worship of this queen of heaven was rampant among pagan civilizations. Sadly, it became popular among the Israelites as well.

The second reference to the queen of heaven is found in Jeremiah 44:17-25, where Jeremiah is giving the people the word of the Lord which God has spoken to him. He reminds the people that their disobedience and idolatry has caused the Lord to be very angry with them and to punish them with calamity. Jeremiah warns them that greater punishments await them if they do not repent. They reply that they have no intentions of giving up their worship of idols, promising to continue pouring out drink offerings to the queen of heaven, Ashtoreth, and even going so far as to credit her with the peace and prosperity they once enjoyed because of Gods grace and mercy.

It is unclear where the idea that Ashtoreth was a consort of Jehovah originated, but its easy to see how the blending of paganism that exalts a goddess with the worship of the true King of heaven, Jehovah, can lead to the combining of God and Ashtoreth. And since Ashtoreth worship involved sexuality (fertility, procreation, temple prostitution), the resulting relationship, to the depraved mind, would naturally be one of a sexual nature. Clearly, the idea of the queen of heaven as the consort or paramour of the King of heaven is idolatrous and unbiblical.

*There is no queen of heaven. There has never been a queen of heaven.* There is most certainly a King of Heaven, the Lord of hosts, Jehovah. He alone rules in heaven. He does not share His rule or His throne or His authority with anyone. The idea that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the queen of heaven has no scriptural basis whatsoever, stemming instead from proclamations of priests and popes of the Roman Catholic Church. While Mary was certainly a godly young woman greatly blessed in that she was chosen to bear the Savior of the world, she was not in any way divine, nor was she sinless, nor is she to be worshipped, revered, venerated, or prayed to. All followers of the Lord God refuse worship. Peter and the apostles refused to be worshipped (Acts 10:25-26; 14:13-14). The holy angels refuse to be worshipped (Revelation 19:10; 22:9). The response is always the same, "Worship God!" To offer worship, reverence, or veneration to anyone but God is nothing short of idolatry. Marys own words in her Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) reveal that she never thought of herself as immaculate and deserving of veneration, but was instead relying on the grace of God for salvation: And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. Only sinners need a savior, and Mary recognized that need in herself.

Furthermore, Jesus Himself issued a mild rebuke to a woman who cried out to Him, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you" (Luke 11:27), replying to her, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." By doing so, He curtailed any tendency to elevate Mary as an object of worship. He could certainly have said, Yes, blessed be the Queen of Heaven! But He did not. He was affirming the same truth that the Bible affirmsthere is no queen of heaven, and* the only biblical references to the queen of heaven refer to the goddess of an idolatrous, false religion.*

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Queen-of...#ixzz3AaGg5VYn

----------


## TER

> Yes.. I will take the words of the Lord over the teachings of men every time.


No, as stated above, what you are doing is taking your interpretation of the words of The Lord over anyone else's.   Is that the humility Christ talked about to enter into the Kingdom?  Should the Ethiopian eunuch relied on his own interpretation? Should he have told Saint Philip his teacher that he's wrong? Do you think Saint Philip would've baptizing him then?

----------


## pcosmar

> And there are many spirits which try to interpret the Scriptures for us. Most dangerously,* the spirit of pride*.


And I would say,,check yourself right there.

You are the one trying to put the word of fallible men above scripture..
I posted the words of Christ.

And you take offense and defend the words of men above the words of God. 

Your argument is not with me.

----------


## TER

> And I would say,,check yourself right there.
> 
> You are the one trying to put the word of fallible men above scripture..
> I posted the words of Christ.
> 
> And you take offense and defend the words of men above the words of God. 
> 
> Your argument is not with me.


Your argument is not with me either.  It is with the saints and fathers of the Church which you seem to put yourself above in wisdom. You, a fallible man, make an interpretation which is at odds with the church fathers. Both you and the Church Fathers know to read the words of Christ.  Why is it that you put yourself above them in interpretation?  Are you less fallible then they?  How is it that you know better then them?  I know I am not, what makes you so sure ?

----------


## pcosmar

> Your argument is not with me either.  It is with the saints and fathers of the Church which you seem to put yourself above in wisdom. You, a fallible man, make an interpretation which is at odds with the church fathers. Both you and the Church Fathers know to read the words of Christ.  Why is it that you put yourself above them in interpretation?  Are you less fallible then they?  How is it that you know better them?  I know I am not, what makes you so sure ?


I make no such claims.. 
You are making a claim of something found NO WHERE in scripture.. And is only supported by a massive twisting of scripture to justify it.

I disagree with the whole idea. I simply disagree.

I place absolutely no weight or confidence on those who you take above scripture. None of them,, all the way back to the Counsel of Laodicea.
Though I am sure that the corruption was long before that.

----------


## TER

> I make no such claims.. 
> You are making a claim of something found NO WHERE in scripture.. And is only supported by a massive twisting of scripture to justify it.
> 
> I disagree with the whole idea. I simply disagree.
> 
> I place absolutely no weight or confidence on those who you take above scripture. None of them,, all the way back to the Counsel of Laodicea.
> Though I am sure that the corruption was long before that.


Very well. At least we are clear now.

----------


## TER

> I place absolutely no weight or confidence on those who you take above Scripture.


This does need a response though because it is a lie. I am not putting anyone over the Scriptures. I am putting the _interpretation_ of the Scriptures of the church fathers over _mine_, not relying on my own interpretation knowing how limited my knowledge, wisdom, and experience is. 

My question is why do _you_ put so much confidence of your interpretation?  My only guess is that you believe you are more illumined and less fallible than the church fathers. You can believe that but I still am not seeing why I should put your interpretation over theirs.

----------


## pcosmar

> My question is why do _you_ put so much confidence of your interpretation? .


And my answer would be from scripture,, and the words of Christ.



> "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.





> "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.…





> These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.


And this I have posted in the past (in another thread)




> For all in this thread,, and other threads of contention..
> 
> *Never, Never, Never* try to force scripture to fit your theology.
> 
> Let the Word reshape your theology. The writings of scholarly men,, the traditions of men can be misleading. They write from their understanding,, which may sometimes be helpful,and may also be misleading.
> 
> Let the Word and the Spirit teach you.
> 
> We all,, only see part of the picture and that dimly. myself included. But my experience is,, that God has corrected some of my misconceptions in the past. and I have had to readjust my thinking accordingly.
> ...

----------


## TER

Your response only more clearly demonstrates your self assurance and pride, under the cover of the Holy Spirit. So you had the Holy Spirit, and the saints and fathers of the Church did not?  How are you so sure and confident in this?  Are you a prophet we should heed and ignore what the Godbearing saints of the church have defended since the beginning?  Why should I put your interpretation over the fathers?

----------


## lilymc

TER, you seem to be relying heavily on the words of the church fathers.  I'm just curious, which church fathers stated that Mary is the "Queen of Heaven" and the woman of Revelation 12?

Could you please post their names, and if possible, their exact quotes?

----------


## TER

> TER, you seem to be relying heavily on the words of the church fathers.  I'm just curious, which church fathers stated that Mary is the "Queen of Heaven" and the woman of Revelation 12?
> 
> Could you please post their names, and if possible, their exact quotes?


I can when I get home. 

Lilly, whose interpretation of the Holy Scriptures do you weigh heavily on apart from yourself?

----------


## TER

My point is this. If someone wants to say they weigh Calvin's or Luther's interpretation heavily, I can respect that even if I think they are mistaken. But for someone to tell me that they don't need a teacher or that the Holy Spirit is their guide even if the rest the history of the Church contradicts them, then I find a big problem with that. Pride does not open one's eyes or their hearts to the truth.  Obedience and humility does.

----------


## pcosmar

> Why should I put your interpretation over the fathers?


You can put faith in anything you like. It is your choice.

You can follow any spirits you choose. Follow any men you choose. you can pray to any angels  or any other beast you choose.

I choose Jesus Christ.  I never asked you to follow me.
I posted the words of scripture.

----------


## TER

> You can put faith in anything you like. It is your choice.
> 
> You can follow any spirits you choose. Follow any men you choose. you can pray to any angels  or any other beast you choose.
> 
> I choose Jesus Christ.  I never asked you to follow me.
> I posted the words of scripture.


You posted the words of scripture, but you follow your own interpretation of it. You want to conform Jesus and the Scriptures to your own theology, which is ironic since you are the one who has railed against that. You simply don't see it and I as a friend am trying to shake you out of that. It is your choice to make. I am trying to help you see how your choice may be more from a spirit of pride then you might realize. 

Btw Peter, I am not trying to hurt you or saying that you are damned or condemned. I am being brutally honest with you. You put yourself above the saints and that is not a very spiritually helpful position to take.

----------


## lilymc

> I can when I get home. 
> 
> Lilly, whose interpretation of the Holy Scriptures do you weigh heavily on apart from yourself?


Thanks.  Apart from studying the bible prayerfully and asking God for wisdom and revelation and discernment....  I like to read what the early Christian writers had to say, and what other people have to say  - people who I feel have a solid understanding and knowledge of the bible.   I read a lot of different bible commentaries, and I read what bible teachers, pastors, apologists, and other Christians have to say, if I can see that they are genuine, strong followers of Christ.

I don't put my trust in any one church, and I don't believe that merely having a title (like pope,  priest or deacon or whatever) automatically makes one a trustworthy authority on the bible.   I believe that many churches were infiltrated and that's why I think it's important that everyone studies the bible for themselves, of course with the guidance of the Holy Spirit... instead of relying too much on what any priest or church leader has to say.

----------


## TER

I appreciate your response. Then do you reject the ordained priesthood when the Scriptures, the Apostles, and the early Church established them as a vocation within the Church?  Or the episcopate?  Or the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?  Do you agree with the Nicene Creed?  It says that there is one Church. The Scriptures and the Apostolic Fathers said the same thing as they were contending against the heresies of their own day.  It is very easy to pick and choose from here and there, what is called cafeteria Christianity which has become a staple in the western world since the reformation since relativism and individualism has become the spirit of these times, but it was not always like that. People sought out the Church of the Apostles, and to become members of it and share in sacramental communion with the rest of the body of Christ, both in this world and those who have left it. Unity of faith and mind and spirit, conforming to the faith handed down in steadfastness. Do you think the early Christians would even recognize the doctrines and worship which is being done now in many churches? I am not saying that there is no benefit to these things, I am simply saying that there has indeed been one Church which can rightly claim to be that one, with the apostolic, historical, and liturgical proofs to back it up.  Every saint and father of the Christian Church has confessed this, even those who were excommunicated on account of their heresies.  One can choose which path they wish to take, but whether they believe or refuse to believe, there is indeed one Church which links directly to those saints of the New Testament and the early Church.  Not only doctrinally and historically, but most importantly, in communion through the very same cup of the Holy Eucharist. I have chosen that Church. A person can choose otherwise, but they do lacking the fullness of the faith and real assurance made possible in the grace filled sacramental life of the Church.  This is not saying that I have such grace and fullness above another, but that I have chosen the path which gives me the best chance.  And my efforts here, as poor as they are, is to give this great news to those who haven't heard so that our joy might be full.

----------


## lilymc

> I appreciate your response. Then do you reject the ordained priesthood when the Scriptures, the Apostles, and the early Church established them as a vocation within the Church?  Or the episcopate?  Or the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?  Do you agree with the Nicene Creed?  It says that there is one Church. The Scriptures and the Apostolic Fathers said the same thing as they were contending against the heresies of their own day.  It easy to pick and choose from here and there, what is called cafeteria Christianity which has become a staple in the western world since the reformation since relativism and individualism has become the spirit of these times, but it was not always like that. People sought out the Church and to become members of it and share in sacramental communion with the rest if the body of Christ, both in this world and those who have left it. Do you think the early Christians would even recognize the doctrines and worship which is being done now?  I am not saying that there is no benefit to these things, I am simply saying that there has indeed been one Church which can rightly claim to be that one, with the apostolic, historical, and liturgical proofs to back it up.  One can choose which path they which to take, but whether they believe or refuse to believe, there is indeed one Church which links directly to those saints of the New Testament and the early Church.  Not only doctrinally and historically, but most importantly, in communion through the very same cup of the Holy Eucharist. I have chosen that Church. A person can choose otherwise, but the do lacking the fullness of the faith and real assurance made possible in the grace filled sacramental life of the Church.


I don't agree at all with "cafeteria christianity" or "buffet style religion."   In fact, I disagree with that so much that I wrote a *blog post* about that last year.   

I'm not sure how my reply - about taking the interpretations of others who are far more knowledgable and wise than me - into consideration... has anything to do with "cafeteria christianity."     Cafeteria christianity (at least in my view) means a person who picks and chooses what to believe in the bible, rather than believing in the scriptures as a whole.   That is an entirely different topic than what we were talking about.

When you say "there is indeed one Church"  - were you talking about the Catholic church?  

If so, I completely disagree, but it was not my intention to get into a debate on that.  Besides, that's not really the topic of this thread.

----------


## TER

No, I mean the Orthodox Church. 

Cafeteria Christianity includes ignoring certain verses of scriptures or applying innovative interpretations apart from the testimony handed down and confessed from the beginning, which is what many Protestant faiths do, starting with their very corpus of writings which lack original canonical books.

----------


## lilymc

> No, I mean the Orthodox Church. 
> 
> Cafeteria Christianity includes ignoring certain scriptures, which is what many Protestant faiths do, starting with their very corpus of writings which lack the original canonical books.


This is also getting off topic, but since you mentioned it, what books are in the Orthodox church bible that aren't in other bibles?

And just out of curiosity, what would you say (in a nutshell) are the main differences between the Orthodox church and - as you put it- Protestant faiths?

For the record, I don't belong to any denomination.    I come from a Catholic background, but I wasn't a believer back then, or for most of my life.  When I finally did become a Christian many years later, it was because God opened my eyes in a very direct and amazing way, it was just between God and me.

I believe that Christianity should be in its simplest form... not religious or "churchy" but walking with God daily, being fully surrendered, and doing what Jesus says to do....which, incidentally, is exactly what Mary said.  (John 2:5)

When people start using words like "episcopate", "liturgical" etc, my eyes start to glaze over and frankly, I begin to lose interest. heh  

 But I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just being honest.

----------


## TER

I'm driving home now but will happily answer your questions when I get home. 

In the meantime I will bump one of the books the Protestants have turned a blind eye to which has always considered to be part of the canon.

----------


## pcosmar

> Btw Peter, I am not trying to hurt you or saying that you are damned or condemned. I am being brutally honest with you. You put yourself above the saints and that is not a very spiritually helpful position to take.


And I am not attempting to be argumentative.

I was raised in the Catholic Church,, went to Catholic school and through confirmation. I have some idea of some of their ideas.
And I do not agree with them, and I believe that many individuals in that church do in fact believe in Jesus. I believe they are saved.
Some stuff is not important to know for the salvation of your soul. Some people can believe some error, and God will judge that too,,though they still are saved they may be chastised.. I expect I will as well.

"He will wipe tears from the eyes"

I believe there is a lot of error,, Error in understandings.. (Blame that on Babel if you wish) and I believe that some are very old...

That does not mean that the simple faith, the basic message, the Gospel (good news) is all that is necessary for salvation,, and that by the Grace of God.

Disagreements on points that are of other matters,, is not a personal attack on you. 
It is a disagreement on the doctrine.

I take a scriptural stance. Those are the words that spoke to me when I first read them.. and that is the message of salvation.

I will always take scripture over some guy that might have gotten it wrong. It is what I have left,, after some folks decided to remove much,,( and some other decisions)

I use the known scripture,, as my basis for any doctrine. I have started looking at some of those other books though.
And I judge them by the known scripture, as well.

No TER,, I do believe that some stupid stuff happened long in the past,, and error.
And that is not a judgement against you, but you might check your self.. and see if you are putting the doctrine of man before that of God.
Is your faith in the institution you are a part of more than your faith in God,,?

I would guess that you are a priest..
My Mom wanted me to become one.. but I like girls. And there was that whole "years of intensive training and education" didn't seem particularly inviting.

So I'll ask you,,to ask yourself,,
Where is your Faith? In an institution of fallible men? Or in the Word of God?

Ask your self. Ask God. Don't worry about my interpretation.

----------


## TER

> For the record, I don't belong to any denomination.    I come from a Catholic background, but I wasn't a believer back then, or for most of my life.  When I finally did become a Christian many years later, it was because God opened my eyes in a very direct and amazing way, it was just between God and me.


The last few generations has seen a great amount of Catholics lapse from the faith.  Many go to Protestantism, agnosticism/atheism, or Buddhism. It seems to be quite popular here in these forums.  It is the sad result of years of innovative doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church as well as the mandate for celibacy for priests.  Since the Great Schism, the theological errors (much actually stemming from the little filioque believe it or not) have introduced certain false teachings and changed the church for the worse. These include Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, legalism and an over emphasis of rationalism over mystical union, and a dictatorship style of governance rather than the republic and federation structure which the Church spread across ancient cities has always been.

Thankfully, Pope Francis has proven to be a reformer, and what he has done in his short while has been commendable.  He seems to have a reverence and attention to the Orthodox Church.  There is talk about rescinding the ban on married priests and reverting to the orthodox and more ancient practice.  His actions and personality is helping bring many young people to the Catholic Church and reintroducing for older lapsed ones a renewed hope.  May the Lord bless him in his work to the glory of God.

May He bless him as He has blessed you.  Like the Good Shepard our Lord came out to get you when you strayed from one path and became lost (or better yet, when the church strayed away and lost you).  He did not abandon you but revealed Himself to you and renewed your trust, devotion and love for Him.  What blessedness!   This is the work of the Holy Spirit!  A life reborn in God's own Spirit, the Holy Ghost enlightening the mind of the faithful and illuminating the soul.  These reborns happen not once, but often, and even daily in the life of the believer.  

Yet the next day we may stumble and fall.  The Church is there to help us get up.





> I believe that Christianity should be in its simplest form... not religious or "churchy" but walking with God daily, being fully surrendered, and doing what Jesus says to do....which, incidentally, is exactly what Mary said.  (John 2:5)
> 
> When people start using words like "episcopate", "liturgical" etc, my eyes start to glaze over and frankly, I begin to lose interest. heh


These words are uninteresting to you because you have a bad taste in your mouth from earlier years.  You have abandoned fundamental teachings and practices of the Christian Church because of your bad experiences in the Roman Catholic Church.  But do not throw away the baby with the bathwater!  Do not allow your bad personal experiences blind you from certain wonders and truths.

  Words like episcopate and liturgy are important and exist in the life of the Church because that is what Christ wants.  It is how He built His Church in the days of the New Testament.  It is found in the Scriptures and has existed since the early Church.  It is the fulfillment of the days of the kings and prophets. It is the beauty of the worship and a taste of the eschaton and future life in the Kingdom.

The traditions are a part of the beauty and the majesty of the Bride of Christ.  These traditions exalt the glory given to God by His Church, and add to the fullness and richness of the faith and the life in Christ.  These things also are what has held the Church firm through all the ages and allowed it to preserver and overcome miraculous odds.  These are the practices and teachings held timeless by the faithful in steadfast and unwavering devotion to the Lord.  

These traditions, handed down both orally and in letters, consist of an important part of the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles.  It is the original methods approved and designed by the Holy Spirit in the Church for encounter and healing of those who are sick and in need of Christ.  These are the things which the very Scriptures wrote about, as described in the New Testament by the Apostles.  The oil, the bread, the wine, the incense, the candles, the hymning, the psalming, the reading, the instruction, the communion, the celebration.  These bring beauty and grace in the world and restorative and transfiguring powers to the members of the body of believers.  This has been so since the first century.  It is what gained the Church so many followers in those formative years and established the faith as legitimate and powerful even under intense persecution.  These are proven means for people to encounter, commune, and abide with Christ.

   The way of the ancient Church is not the only way but it is in fact the surest, fullest and most beautiful way towards living a life in Christ, and available for all who come and see.

----------


## William Tell

> OK,,do as you will.
> 
> I will take the Words of Christ over any man,, or hundred men, or any ten thousands that have come since.


Me too.

----------


## William Tell

> This does need a response though because it is a lie. I am not putting anyone over the Scriptures. I am putting the _interpretation_ of the Scriptures of the church fathers over _mine_, not relying on my own interpretation knowing how limited my knowledge, wisdom, and experience is. 
> 
> My question is why do _you_ put so much confidence of your interpretation?  My only guess is that you believe you are more illumined and less fallible than the church fathers. You can believe that but I still am not seeing why I should put your interpretation over theirs.


I am not going to believe something that seems false to me just because some preacher or church father says too.

----------


## Terry1

> TER, you seem to be relying heavily on the words of the church fathers.  I'm just curious, which church fathers stated that Mary is the "Queen of Heaven" and the woman of Revelation 12?
> 
> Could you please post their names, and if possible, their exact quotes?


Lily, I'm curious too, who do you think that Revelation 12 is referring to here then when it makes reference to the *church using Mary as a metaphor and symbol of that church?

1And *there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet*, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Why do you think the dragon is trying to destroy the "woman and her child"?

13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. 14And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 15And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. 16And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

This is symbolic of the birth of Christ and Mary and Joseph having to flee into the wilderness.  Revelation is clearly giving reference here to Mary as being the "Mother of the earthly church which are the believers and followers of Christ.  

"Queen of heaven" follows revelations description of Mary "arrayed with the sun"--"a crown of twelve stars" and the "moon under her feet".  She is described like royalty and is royalty being the earthly Mother of God.    I can not see how this would would/could be offensive to anyone by reading exactly what John wrote and how he described Mary and the church.

----------


## William Tell

> My point is this. If someone wants to say they weigh Calvin's or Luther's interpretation heavily, I can respect that even if I think they are mistaken. But for someone to tell me that they don't need a teacher or that the Holy Spirit is their guide even if the rest the history of the Church contradicts them, then I find a big problem with that. Pride does not open one's eyes or their hearts to the truth.  Obedience and humility does.


Who did Calvin, Luther, or the Catholic Church fathers obey? Are they special just because they were born hundreds of years  before us?

----------


## TER

> I am not going to believe something that seems false to me just because some preacher or church father says too.


What is it that the Church Fathers teach which seem false to you?

----------


## TER

> Who did Calvin, Luther, or the Catholic Church fathers obey? Are they special just because they were born hundreds of years  before us?


The Church Fathers are not special because they were born hundred of years before us, but because they have adhered to the apostolic traditions and teachings of the Church.

----------


## TER

> "Queen of heaven" follows revelations description of Mary "arrayed with the sun"--"a crown of twelve stars" and the "moon under her feet".  She is described like royalty and is royalty being the earthly Mother of God.    I can not see how this would would/could be offensive to anyone by reading exactly what John wrote and how he described Mary and the church.


Well said Terry.

The Scriptures often have multiple and deeper meanings.  This is especially in such words as the Book of Revelation where there is much symbolism. 

Some of the Church Fathers have written that the woman in Revelation represents the Church (Isreal) (Hippolytus, Victorinus, Methodius).  This is in fact the view found written in the earlier fathers. Other Church Fathers have taught that_ in addition_, the woman is the Virgin Mary, who is a type of the Church (Oecumenius, Andrew of Crete, Epiphanius, Quodvultdeus).  In the many multilayered dimensions and allergorical meanings to the Scriptures, especially in the highly symbolic vision given to St. John, both are correct.

----------


## TER

> Where is your Faith? In an institution of fallible men? Or in the Word of God?


My faith is in God.  My aim is to become a member of His body, as fallible as I am.  That is, to become a citizen in heaven by becoming a member of His Church.  The Church is the Bride which awaits for the Bridegroom to return and fulfill the holy matrimony between God and man.  I want to be properly dressed for that occasion lest I get tossed out of the wedding feast. 

The only way to do this is to allow Him to enter into my heart and fill me with His Holy Spirit, so that transfigured into His likeness, I too might rise and enter into the new creation as a new man.  To help me with this, Christ instructed His Apostles to establish a Church as a means of encounter, guidance, instruction and healing. 

God alone saves us.  The Church helps us when we stumble and fall to reorient us into the correct path, the time-honored and proven path, to reconciliation and communion.  It is the divine-human organism, in Christological structure of the God-Man (thus it is called His Body).  The Holy Spirit is active and illuminates the Church.

 If someone thinks they do not need any assistance and they know enough and is so spiritually excelled that they have no need of the Church or the wisdom of the saints and teachers of the faith, then they do not need to apply.  The Church is for the humble and for the sinners who acknowledge their weaknesses and their fallibility, and yearn for the Holy Spirit to guide them into real communion and relationship with God and in unity of faith, mind, and spirit with those who have already run the race and earned their crowns of martyrdom and victory.

----------


## Terry1

> Well said Terry.
> 
> The Scriptures often have multiple and deeper meanings.  This is especially in such words as the Book of Revelation where there is much symbolism. 
> 
> Some of the Church Fathers have written that the woman in Revelation represents the Church (Isreal) (Hippolytus, Victorinus, Methodius).  This is in fact the view found written in the earlier fathers. Other Church Fathers have taught that_ in addition_, the woman is the Virgin Mary, who is a type of the Church (Oecumenius, Andrew of Crete, Epiphanius, Quodvultdeus).  In the many multilayered dimensions and allergorical meanings to the Scriptures, especially in the highly symbolic vision given to St. John, both are correct.


Yes, this all ties perfectly in with scripture and follows correctly with the symbolism that St. John uses in this particular context regarding the church.

I think that many people have a fear of following the teachings of the early church fathers because they're afraid using anything other than the guidance of the Holy Spirit would lead them astray.  This is a valid fear to have absent the wisdom and knowledge that God calls us to have also.  But if one is walking in the spirit of the Lord, then they will eventually be led to see that there are instructions that were divinely given by the early Saints and revelations of truth from God also.  The Holy Spirit allows us to ferret out the lies and deceptions.  

Although we all have to live our own convictions, God gave us these wonderful forefathers of faith as keepers and protectors with regard to the most true teachings of the synoptic gospels Christ.  St. Paul mentions this also referring to the church of Ephesus in the Bible--they were entrusted with his message.

----------


## pcosmar

> My faith is in God.  My aim is to become a member of His body, as fallible as I am.  That is, to become a citizen in heaven by becoming a member of His Church.


As do I.

Or actually,, I did. 34 years ago.

I think we have a different understanding of what that church is.

----------


## TER

> As do I.
> 
> Or actually,, I did. 34 years ago.
> 
> I think we have a different understanding of what that church is.


Then let us explore what the Church is.  What do you think the Church is?

----------


## Terry1

The earthly church is our physical connection and our testimony to the world that God is real and He does exist.  I think we have to use good wisdom in understanding that the earthly church plays a large role regarding our witness to the world of unbelievers.  

It's also important to be knowledgeable as to why the split between the East and West Catholic church and the split between the protestant reformers and the church of Rome.  This will give you better insight as to why and how and less fear about following the teachings of the early apostolic forefathers of faith.

Calvin's doctrine dominates a very large portion of Protestantism and his doctrinal teachings are amazingly similar to the Quran also.  While all protestants don't follow all of Calvin's doctrine--most of them have adopted portions of it into their teachings.  Attention needs to be given to the fact that none of Calvin's doctrine was ever taught by the early apostolic Saints until Calvin.

The word of God tells us that His people perish for lack of knowledge.

----------


## Terry1

> And I am not attempting to be argumentative.
> 
> I was raised in the Catholic Church,, went to Catholic school and through confirmation. I have some idea of some of their ideas.
> And I do not agree with them, and I believe that many individuals in that church do in fact believe in Jesus. I believe they are saved.
> Some stuff is not important to know for the salvation of your soul. Some people can believe some error, and God will judge that too,,though they still are saved they may be chastised.. I expect I will as well.
> 
> "He will wipe tears from the eyes"
> 
> I believe there is a lot of error,, Error in understandings.. (Blame that on Babel if you wish) and I believe that some are very old...
> ...


Ask yourself why God gave us the earthly church and those inspired through His revelations of truth to teach it.  We are both physical and spiritual and as such called to be lights in a dark world through the earthly vessels that the Lord gave us.  It's our responsibility to seek using the Holy Spirit as our guide and to witness to the world of unbelievers through those things God has provided both physical and spiritual.

We are called to know and to have knowledge through our seeking via the Holy Spirit.  God said His people perish for lack of knowledge.  The knowledge is there--we must be led to it so we can understand and teach what we were called to as witnesses for Christ.

----------


## pcosmar

> Then let us explore what the Church is.  What do you think the Church is?


All Gods people from all time. I look forward to seeing and talking to a bunch of folks. To see all the folks that came before,, and are still being added.

Several that I particularly want to meet face to face,, Talking to Methuselah is going to take a while. The stories he could tell,,,,,

And don't even get me started on the girls,. Oh, sure,, I do want to talk to Adam,, But Eve... She has to be the ultimate hottie.

And all the daughters of eve ever since. All of the saints for all time. Known and unknown.

All brothers and sisters with Christ,, That is the church.

----------


## Terry1

> As do I.
> 
> Or actually,, I did. 34 years ago.
> 
> I think we have a different understanding of what that church is.


In this life and the here and now--the "church" is both physical and spiritual.  We have to acknowledge both because we live in a dark evil world that we are called to be lights and witnesses of the gospel of Christ.  Without the earthly physical church--there is no evidence to the physical world of unbelievers.

We must have a physical church with physical doors and saints who reside in them to teach just as shepherds lead their flocks.  We must have physical evidence just as the word of God tells us that there is enough that mankind has no excuse for unbelief.

----------


## pcosmar

> In this life and the here and now--the "church" is both physical and spiritual.  We have to acknowledge both because we live in a dark evil world that we are called to be lights and witnesses of the gospel of Christ.  Without the earthly physical church--there is no evidence to the physical world of unbelievers.
> 
> We must have a physical church with physical doors and saints who reside in them to teach just as shepherds lead their flocks.  We must have physical evidence just as the word of God tells us that there is enough that mankind has no excuse for unbelief.


There are lots of those.  all over the world.. Lots of shepherds.

----------


## lilymc

> Lily, I'm curious too, who do you think that Revelation 12 is referring to here then when it makes reference to the *church using Mary as a metaphor and symbol of that church?
> 
> 1And *there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet*, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
> 
> Why do you think the dragon is trying to destroy the "woman and her child"?
> 
> 13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. 14And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 15And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. 16And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
> 
> This is symbolic of the birth of Christ and Mary and Joseph having to flee into the wilderness.  Revelation is clearly giving reference here to Mary as being the "Mother of the earthly church which are the believers and followers of Christ.  
> ...


I haven't yet done an in-depth study of Revelation  (I think I mentioned to you on another thread that I've been studying the bible again chronologically, so I'm in another book right now) but based on what I've learned so far, I don't agree with the interpretation that it is Mary.

Pretty much every commentary I've read says that it is Israel.  The 12 stars in the crown refer to the twelve tribes of Israel.

I definitely do not believe that Mary is the "Queen of heaven."  In fact, I think there is a growing (and disturbing) trend of Marian worship that is leading many people away from God and into idolatry.  Here in Mexico it's very common... people worshipping Mary or "Virgin of Guadalupe."    In Mexico city, people walk for long distances on their knees just to go idolize her image.  You can see that *here* (fast forward to about :43 to see the knee walking)    

And not to get off topic, but there is also a much more obvious idolatry, Santa Muerte, but I believe that the same deceptive spirit is behind all of the above.

Here is something to read:  http://carm.org/revelation12mary

----------


## TER

Mary worship is strictly forbidden. It is unfortunate that some do.  I assure you, it is not the teaching, praxis or worship of the Orthodox Church (or the Catholic Church from my understanding).  I love her like I love my own mother, but I worship neither of them as my God.  This may be difficult for someone on the outside to comprehend who does not have the same understanding of the saints and the important role the Virgin has played in our salvation, but it true nonetheless.  The Theotokos is beyond the Seraphim and the Cherubim in honor in the Kingdom of Heaven, but she finds her existence, being and salvation through Christ as we all do.

As for the woman in Revelation, I understand that you have not come across in your readings that she is being symbolized in Chapter 12.  If you read commentary from Orthodox writers, you will find that both Israel (the Church) and Mary is being symbolized by the woman in those verses.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Mary worship is strictly forbidden. It is unfortunate that some do.*  I assure you, it is not the teaching, praxis or worship of the Orthodox Church (or the Catholic Church from my understanding).  I love her like I love my own mother, but I worship neither of them as my God.  This may be difficult for someone on the outside to comprehend who does not have the same understanding of the saints and the important role the Virgin has played in our salvation, but it true nonetheless.  The Theotokos is beyond the Seraphim and the Cherubim in honor in the Kingdom of Heaven, but she finds her existence, being and salvation through Christ as we all do.
> 
> As for the woman in Revelation, I understand that you have not come across in your readings that she is being symbolized in Chapter 12.  If you read commentary from Orthodox writers, you will find that both Israel (the Church) and Mary is being symbolized by the woman in those verses.


Indeed.  It is unfortunate when people go beyond veneration into worship/idolatry.

----------


## Kevin007

> *Mary is seen as a type as a type of the Church*, and the Church as the new Israel, therefore prophecies such as Rev 12 and titles like Daughter of Sion are generally applied to Mary, the Church, and Israel.
> 
> From Lumen Gentium:
> "...she is hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity."
> 
> "63. By reason of the gift and role of divine maternity, by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer, and with His singular graces and functions, the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united with the Church. As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity and perfect union with Christ.(18*) For in the mystery of the Church, which is itself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion as exemplar both of virgin and mother. (19*) By her belief and obedience, not knowing man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the new Eve she brought forth on earth the very Son of the Father, showing an undefiled faith, not in the word of the ancient serpent, but in that of God's messenger. The Son whom she brought forth is He whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren,(299) namely the faithful, in whose birth and education she cooperates with a maternal love."


not true at all. Which Apostle said this? This is the RCC incorrect interpretation so they can build a false Gospel.

----------


## TER

> not true at all. Which Apostle said this? This is the RCC incorrect interpretation so they can build a false Gospel.


The Gospels were written as an aid and tool for the Church to spread the message that the Messiah had come.  They are Christocentric in their scope and purpose.  They were not written as a complete anthology of everything that Christ did nor as a complete hagiography of the people mentioned within them.  For example, the remaining lives of the Apostles were not written in the NT but we know things about them and their ministries through the oral traditions passed down in the churches they established.  

If someone limits themselves to the Holy Bible and in this apart from the witness and tradition of the Church, then a lot of the wonder and beauty of the Christian faith is missed.  The Church after all did not stop functioning at the end of Acts and the Holy Spirit did not stop working in it after the last page of the Bible was written.  Neither is the Holy Scriptures the complete story.  While there is sufficient wisdom in the Holy Scriptures to bring a person to Christ, the fullness of the faith is not and has never been limited to the Bible. Just because something is not explicitly written in the Bible, it does not mean it is not true and or wasn't part of the deposit of the faith which preexisted the New Testament.

----------


## Kevin007

> The Gospels were written as an aid and tool for the Church to spread the message that the Messiah had come.  They are Christocentric in their scope and purpose.  They were not written as a complete anthology of everything that Christ did nor as a complete hagiography of the people mentioned within them.  For example, the remaining lives of the Apostles were not written in the NT but we know things about them and their ministries through the oral traditions passed down in the churches they established.  
> 
> If someone limits themselves to the Holy Bible and in this apart from the witness and tradition of the Church, then a lot of the wonder and beauty of the Christian faith is missed.  The Church after all did not stop functioning at the end of Acts and the Holy Spirit did not stop working in it after the last page of the Bible was written.  *Neither is the Holy Scriptures the complete story.*  While there is sufficient wisdom in the Holy Scriptures to bring a person to Christ, the fullness of the faith is not and has never been limited to the Bible. Just because something is not explicitly written in the Bible, it does not mean it is not true and part of the deposit of the faith which preexisted the New Testament.


The Bible disagrees.

----------


## TER

> The Bible disagrees.


So do you think everything Christ did in His three year ministry was written in the Bible?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The Bible disagrees.


False.  (Especially if the Bible in question is Protestant)  A great deal of what we know about Christ and His Gospel comes to us from tradition, oral and otherwise.  Reading scripture simply wasn't an option for Christians till ~70 AD or so, depending on who you ask.  And even then not many could read.  The texts were not even available to the masses till Gutenberg invented his press.  So, I'd like to see proof of your claim.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> not true at all. Which Apostle said this? This is the RCC incorrect interpretation so they can build a false Gospel.


d00d, not every Christian practice comes from the Bible.  Do you take communion every Sunday?  That's not biblical.  In fact, Christians only partook of the Eucharist a few times a year until a few centuries ago (IDR the exact date now).  Do you consider the bread and cup to be figurative?  That's not biblical.  Etc, etc.

----------


## TER

In the book of Acts we read how for 40 days after Christ rose from the dead, He was with His Apostles and taught them things pertaining to the Kingdom of Heaven. Oh how wonderful it would have been if the Apostles wrote down those things!  But they didn't have to, because those teachings were written in their hearts and they became living ministers to these truths in their divinely given roles of constructing and leading the Church as He commanded. Perhaps it was unlawful at the time to write some of those things down according to the circumstances of those times and the timing.  In other words, spiritual meat when the the majority of the listeners where still struggling to digest milk. Indeed, in the earliest years the mission was to spread the news that the Messiah had come and Jesus has risen from the dead.   That was sufficient for those times. The other wonders and teachings, though important, we're not the priorities. It was not until later, when the persecutions stopped and the Church came out of hiding and the good news had spread far and wide did the Church turn to the other wonders and treasures of the faith in debate and contemplation.  Sort of like how in this movement the priority is to get the message out about limited Constitutional governance. When those things become more established and mainstream, then the other more specific and even isoteric questions could be more clearly debated and widespread.

----------


## TER

> d00d, not every Christian practice comes from the Bible.  Do you take communion every Sunday?  That's not biblical.  In fact, Christians only partook of the Eucharist a few times a year until a few centuries ago (IDR the exact date now).  Do you consider the bread and cup to be figurative?  That's not biblical.  Etc, etc.


HB, according to Acts, the faithful would get together every Lord's Day (namely Sunday) for fellowship, prayer, and partaking of the Holy Eucharist. Of course, when the persecutions ramped up, that became difficult and impossible for many. But your point remains that the Scriptures are but one (albeit important) part of Holy Tradition.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> HB, according to Acts, the faithful would get together every Lord's Day (namely Sunday) for fellowship, prayer, and partaking of the Holy Eucharist. Of course, when the persecutions ramped up, that became difficult and impossible for many. But your point remains that the Scriptures are but one (albeit important) part of Holy Tradition.


Yes, that's what I meant to say. :/ thanks   ~hugs~

----------


## TER

Council of Ephesus 431 AD

We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her.

----------


## TER

Theodore of Mopsuestia _The Incarnation 15_ [A.D. 405]

"When, therefore, they ask, Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God? we answer, Both! The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation".

----------


## TER

St. Ambrose of Milan _The Virgins 2:2[7]_ [A.D. 377]

The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?

----------


## TER

St. Cyril of Jerusalem _Catechetical Lectures 10:19_ [A.D. 350]

The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness.

----------


## TER

St. Methodius _Oration on Simeon and Anna 7_ [A.D. 305]

Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away.

----------


## TER

St. Peter of Alexandria _The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria_ [A.D. 305]

They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs.

----------


## Kevin007

> St. Methodius _Oration on Simeon and Anna 7_ [A.D. 305]
> 
> Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away.


this isnt in the bible, nor any of the other things. Only the Apostles who were moved by the Holy Spirit completed the Bible.

----------


## TER

> this isnt in the bible, nor any of the other things.


I understand that.  Thank you.

----------


## TER

St. Gregory of Nazianzus _Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101_ [A.D. 382]

If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead.

----------


## TER

St. Hippolytus _Discourse on the End of the World 1_ [A.D. 217]

Too all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism].

----------


## TER

*Types of Mary in the Old Testament*

March 30, 2013 by Fr. Evan

Link HERE


From the Orthodox Study Bible (Old Testament): Types of both Christ and Mary, His Mother, fill the Old Testament. Indeed, most of the Old Testament types of Mary – a natural consequence of her essential role in the Incarnation of her Son, Jesus Christ – reveal the awesome marvel of her womb which contained the almighty God. Referring to Genesis 2:9, the hymnography of the Church sees the garden of Eden as a type of Mary: “Rejoice, . . . O living Paradise, having the Lord, the Tree of Life, in your midst” (Akathist Hymn). The burning bush beheld by Moses in the wilderness (Ex 3:1-6) is one of the most often mentioned types of Mary. For example, “She is the Bush springing from barren ground [her mother, St. Anna, had been barren] and burning with the immaterial fire that cleanses and enlightens our souls” (Small Vespers, Nativity of the Theotokos). St John of Damascus observes, “The burning bush is an image of God’s Mother . . . If, therefore, the ground where the image of the Theotokos was seen by Moses is holy ground [Ex 3:5], how much more holy is the image itself?”

The tabernacle in the wilderness, where God dwelt among the wandering Israelites (Ex 25:1-27:19), also prefigures Mary: “The tabernacle that is to hold God, the sanctuary of the glory, has chosen to dwell in the holy temple” (Matins, Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple). Another hymn from this service addresses her as “O Holy of Holies,” identifying her with the most holy inner place of the tabernacle and the temple (Ex 26:33; 3Kg 8:6).

Other Old Testament types of Mary relating to the Lord dwelling in her womb include the jar of manna (Ex 16:33, 34); Aaron’s rod that budded (Nm 17:16-23); the tablet of the Law “written with the finger of God” (Ex 31:18); the ladder reaching from earth to heaven (Gn 28:10-17); the fleece that received the dew (Jdg 6:36-38; see Ps 71:1-6); the tongs bearing the live coal (Is 6:6); and the fiery furnace in Babylon (Dan 3:19-50). Concerning this last image, the hymnographer St. Cosmas of Maiuma writes, “The furnace moist with dew was the image and figure of a wonder past nature. For it burned not the Children whom it had received, even as the fire of the Godhead consumed not the Virgin’s womb into which it had descended” (Matins, Nativity of Christ).

The miracle of the Virgin Birth is another prominent theme among the Old Testament types of Mary. One of the most striking of these is found in Ezekiel 43:27 – 44:4, the only Old Testament passage read at all four of the major Feasts of the Theotokos. This reading tells about the east gate of the heavenly temple remaining shut even as the Lord God of Israel, and He alone, goes in and out through it. This is prophetic of the Lord entering Mary’s womb and being born nine months later with her virginity remaining intact. Hence in various hymns the Church proclaims her as “the Gate that looks towards the East,” “the Gate through which none may pass,” and “the East Gate . . . [who] awaits the entrance of the Great Priest.”

Another such image occurs in Daniel 2:45, where the Theotokos is the mountain out of whom a stone (that is, Christ; 1Co 10:4) is cut “without hands.” This refers to Christ’s birth from the Virgin, untouched by a man.

Mary is the culmination of the whole history of the ancient Hebrews. She is the perfection to which all of faithful Israel aspired through the long centuries of preparation for the coming of the Messiah, beginning with the promise given to Abraham: “God promised to our forefather Abraham that in his seed the Gentiles would be blessed [Gn 22:18], O pure Lady; and through thee today, the promise receives its fulfillment” (Matins, Annunciation).

----------


## Kevin007

There is no reason to believe that God would present further revelation 
to add to His Word. The Bible begins with the very beginning of 
humanity—Genesis—and ends with the end of humanity as we know 
it—Revelation. Everything in between is for our benefit as believers, to
 be empowered with God's truth in our daily living. We know this from 2 
Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for 
teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that 
the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”<br><br>
If further books were added to the Bible, that would equate to saying 
that the Bible we have today is incomplete—that it does not tell us 
everything we need to know. 

Although it only applies directly to the book of Revelation, Revelation 22:18-20 teaches us an important truth about adding to God's Word: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the 
prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to 
him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away 
from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the
 tree of life and in the holy city...”


We have all that we need in the current 66 books of the Bible. There is 
not a single situation in life that cannot be addressed by Scripture. 
What was begun in Genesis finds conclusion in Revelation. The Bible is 
absolutely complete and sufficient. Could God add to the Bible? Of 
course He could. However, there is no reason, biblically or 
theologically, to believe that He is going to do so, or that there is 
any need for Him to do so.



http://www.gotquestions.org/books-added-Bible.html

----------


## TER

> There is no reason to believe that God would present further revelation 
> to add to His Word. The Bible begins with the very beginning of 
> humanity—Genesis—and ends with the end of humanity as we know 
> it—Revelation. Everything in between is for our benefit as believers, to
>  be empowered with God's truth in our daily living. We know this from 2 
> Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for 
> teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that 
> the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”<br><br>
> If further books were added to the Bible, that would equate to saying 
> ...



Do you realize that the bible you are using is not the same as the Scriptures of the earliest Christians?  I mean the Apostles themselves used Scriptures significantly different from the one found in most Americans' homes.  These bibles are missing some very important books of the Holy Writ, like the Book of Tobit which is a must read.  

These bibles are also using a version of the Old Testament which was drafted by Jewish leaders hundreds of years after Christ rose from the dead.  The Church has, since the days of Christ's earthly ministry, used the Septuagint, indeed, it is the version referred to by far and the official texts from the beginning. 

I found it slightly amusing that the author prefaces with:

_We have all that we need in the current 66 books of the Bible._

Yep, because some people 1600 years later were humiliated by a few of them, so they sought to hide them because it revealed certain divine revelations which sinks several of Protestantism's innovative doctrines and theology.  

And this assertion that "the Bible is absolutely complete and sufficient" is found nowhere in any writings or councils in the history of the Church until the Reformers.  It wasn't even a passing reference let alone a blimp on a radar.  It is a doctrine which did not exist until the Reformers made it up.   These are the facts Kevin.  You will not here Sola Scriptura out of the voices of the Holy Fathers, most of them who were monks living in ascetic obedience or ordained Priests and Bishops.

----------


## Kevin007

http://www.roseavenue.org/Who%20we%2...%20perfect.htm

----------


## lilymc

TER, Mary did not continue to be a virgin her entire life, and she was not sinless, and she is not "Queen of heaven."  The bible says none of those things.

There are way too many things here to debate right now.  Let's just say I disagree with the Catholic Church on numerous things.  

And whenever I read stuff from the Catholic church, it saddens me that people believe all those added on, man-made traditions and ideas that are not scriptural at all.  It truly depresses me.  

Even the language used is unnecessary, imo.  It's so _religious_  and churchy.     

That is one of the reasons why I didn't go back to the Catholic church when I became a believer many years later.... because I don't agree with all the extra, unnecessary religious stuff, in addition to the things that are unbiblical.

I'm sorry if that was offensive. I'm just being honest, and I know that there are Catholics here who will probably hate me now.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Do you realize that the bible you are using is not the same as the Scriptures of the earliest Christians?  I mean the Apostles themselves used Scriptures significantly different from the one found in most Americans' homes.  These bibles are missing some very important books of the Holy Writ, like the Book of Tobit which is a must read.  
> 
> These bibles are also using a version of the Old Testament which was drafted by Jewish leaders hundreds of years after Christ rose from the dead.  The Church has, since the days of Christ's earthly ministry, used the Septuagint, indeed, it is the version referred to by far and the official texts from the beginning. 
> 
> I found it slightly amusing that the author prefaces with:
> 
> _We have all that we need in the current 66 books of the Bible._
> 
> Yep, because some people 1600 years later were humiliated by a few of them, so they sought to hide them because it revealed certain divine revelations which sinks several of Protestantism's innovative doctrines and theology.  
> ...


 +rep  If Reformers and Protestants generally really mean what they say when they insist on _Sola Scriptura_, it would undermine most of their philosophy and theology. :/  It is good that many heterodox people are returning to the ancient Church to get away from "innovative" and false teachings.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> TER, Mary did not continue to be a virgin her entire life, and she was not sinless, and she is not "Queen of heaven."  The bible says none of those things.
> 
> There are way too many things here to debate right now.  Let's just say I disagree with the Catholic Church on numerous things.  
> 
> And whenever I read stuff from the Catholic church, it saddens me that people believe all those added on, man-made traditions and ideas that are not scriptural at all.  It truly depresses me.  
> 
> Even the language used is unnecessary, imo.  It's so _religious_  and churchy.     
> 
> That is one of the reasons why I didn't go back to the Catholic church when I became a believer many years later.... because I don't agree with all the extra, unnecessary religious stuff, in addition to the things that are unbiblical.
> ...


Incorrect.  Please read the bible in its entirety: not the cherry-picked canon most often read in the US.

----------


## lilymc

> Incorrect.  Please read the bible in its entirety: not the cherry-picked canon most often read in the US.


I have read it, and studied it.  Where does it say that Mary was a perpetual virgin?   We know she was a virgin, of course, when Jesus was conceived.  But where does it say she was a virgin her entire life?

----------


## Kevin007

> I have read it, and studied it.  Where does it say that Mary was a perpetual virgin?   We know she was a virgin, of course, when Jesus was conceived.  But where does it say she was a virgin her entire life?


It doesn't. They add thousands of untrue things to the Word.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I have read it, and studied it.  Where does it say that Mary was a perpetual virgin?   We know she was a virgin, of course, when Jesus was conceived.  But where does it say she was a virgin her entire life?


Among others, Ezikiel 44:1-4.  


> The Eastern outer gate is seen by the Fathers as the womb of the Virgin, which was shut because the Lord God had entered by it.  The Church sees this passage as describing the ever-virginity of Mary.  Though many modern denominations reject this doctrine, it was held to be true by Luther, Calvin, and John Wesley.  St. Jerome writes that the east gate images the Virgin Mary, whose womb is "always shut and always shining, and either concealing or revealing the Holy of Holies, and through her 'the Son of Righteousness', our 'high priest after the order of Melchizedek' goes in and out."


Study MOAR, young lady.  You know not of what you speak.




> It doesn't. They add thousands of untrue things to the Word.


False.  We use the ENTIRE Word.  Not just what suits us any particular day.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> TER, Mary did not continue to be a virgin her entire life, and she was not sinless, and she is not "Queen of heaven."  The bible says none of those things.
> 
> There are way too many things here to debate right now.  Let's just say I disagree with the Catholic Church on numerous things.  
> 
> And whenever I read stuff from the Catholic church, it saddens me that people believe all those added on, man-made traditions and ideas that are not scriptural at all.  It truly depresses me.  
> 
> Even the language used is unnecessary, imo.  It's so _religious_  and churchy.     
> 
> That is one of the reasons why I didn't go back to the Catholic church when I became a believer many years later.... because I don't agree with all the extra, unnecessary religious stuff, in addition to the things that are unbiblical.
> ...


The traditions are not "extra".  They are what distinguish a Church from an ecclesiastical community.  Nobody hates you.  Ignorance is forgivable (even though it's blissful).

----------


## lilymc

> Among others, Ezikiel 44:1-4.  
> Study MOAR, young lady.  You know not of what you speak.


Did you mean Ezekiel?   I didn't see anything about Mary in that verse. 




> The traditions are not "extra".  They are what distinguish a Church from an ecclesiastical community.  Nobody hates you.  Ignorance is forgivable (even though it's blissful).


Ha!  I'm glad you don't hate me. You are very likeable, I just don't agree with you on the RCC.  

But I don't feel like getting into a whole list of things here.... and that would be getting off topic anyway.

Btw, I did write a blog post on praying to saints earlier this year... in case anyone wants to check it out.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Did you mean Ezekiel?   I didn't see anything about Mary in that verse. 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha!  I'm glad you don't hate me. You are very likeable,* I just don't agree with you on the RCC.* 
> 
> But I don't feel like getting into a whole list of things here.... and that would be getting off topic anyway.
> 
> Btw, I did write a blog post on praying to saints earlier this year... in case anyone wants to check it out.


I'm writing from the EO view, not the RC, FYI. 

You need an editor for your blog.  You don't support your points well.  i.e.-You cite 1 Corinthians to support your claim 


> The bible says that saints are all genuine believers, all who are saved and set apart for God.


, but that passage does not support your claim.  The commas in 1:2 distinguish "those who are called to be saints" from "all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord".

WRT Ezikiel, I also quoted an explanation from the Orthodox Study Bible.  Plz read that.




> The Eastern outer gate is seen by the Fathers as the womb of the Virgin, which was shut because the Lord God had  entered by it.  The Church sees this passage as describing the  ever-virginity of Mary.  Though many modern denominations reject this  doctrine, it was held to be true by Luther, Calvin, and John Wesley.   St. Jerome writes that the east gate images the Virgin Mary, whose womb  is "always shut and always shining, and either concealing or revealing  the Holy of Holies, and through her 'the Son of Righteousness', our  'high priest after the order of Melchizedek' goes in and out."




Sweet dreams! ~hugs~

----------


## lilymc

> I'm writing from the EO view, not the RC, FYI. 
> 
> You need an editor for your blog.  You don't support your points well.  i.e.-You cite 1 Corinthians to support your claim , but that passage does not support your claim.  The commas in 1:2 distinguish "those who are called to be saints" from "all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord".


We are all called to be saints.  It sounds like you are so used to the idea of a special "saint" that maybe it's hard for you to switch your mind to the idea that ALL true followers of Christ are called saints.  There are numerous scriptures that say that, it isn't based on one scripture.




> WRT Ezikiel, I also quoted an explanation from the Orthodox Study Bible.  Plz read that.
> 
> 
> Sweet dreams! ~hugs~


WRT Ezikiel?   I still couldn't find that.  

And I did read that commentary.  That is a perfect example of pulling something out of thin air, to try to support a doctrine.   But anyway, what I asked for was scriptures, not commentary in the notes of study bible by men who are fallible.

good night!

----------


## Kevin007

> We are all called to be saints.  It sounds like you are so used to the idea of a special "saint" that maybe it's hard for you to switch your mind to the idea that ALL true followers of Christ are called saints.  There are numerous scriptures that say that, it isn't based on one scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> WRT Ezikiel?   I still couldn't find that.  
> 
> And I did read that commentary.  That is a perfect example of pulling something out of thin air, to try to support a doctrine.   But anyway, what I asked for was scriptures, not commentary in the notes of study bible by men who are fallible.
> 
> good night!


exactly.

----------


## TER

> Btw, I did write a blog post on praying to saints earlier this year... in case anyone wants to check it out.


Lilly, if you don't feel comfortable asking for the prayers of the saints to intercede for you, then don't pray to them.  However it is biblical, even though it was ignored and some of it censored out of your bible by the Reformers.  Every church which has apostolic succession prayed for the intercessions of the saints.  How many saints have to be wrong in order for the Reformers to be right?  Apparently all of them.

This is a classic example of cafeteria Christianity, picking whatever parts one wants to fit their theology and ignoring the rest.

----------


## Terry1

> TER, Mary did not continue to be a virgin her entire life, and she was not sinless, and she is not "Queen of heaven."  The bible says none of those things.
> 
> There are way too many things here to debate right now.  Let's just say I disagree with the Catholic Church on numerous things.  
> 
> And whenever I read stuff from the Catholic church, it saddens me that people believe all those added on, man-made traditions and ideas that are not scriptural at all.  It truly depresses me.  
> 
> Even the language used is unnecessary, imo.  It's so _religious_  and churchy.     
> 
> That is one of the reasons why I didn't go back to the Catholic church when I became a believer many years later.... because I don't agree with all the extra, unnecessary religious stuff, in addition to the things that are unbiblical.
> ...


Lily, I don't think anyone will hate you for simply disagreeing on some scriptural context.  There are many things that I still question also, but St. Paul did say that we shouldn't debate such things and allow that to come between the brethren.  He called them vain disputations. 

I came from a protestant background myself and it's taken literally decades for me to come to see some of the greatest errors in what is being taught in some of the churches out there.  For me myself, I had to spiritually take a look as those errors and weigh the impact upon the eternal soul as just how detrimental they would be regarding our belief in them.

Take for instance the belief that people are once saved always saved, that is taught in many Baptist and non-denominational protestant churches today.  Also the belief that we have no free will and that our choices have no bearing on our eternal destinies, which are not true IMO.  These beliefs in these things impact our eternal destinies because these beliefs are the core reason some who think they will inherit the kingdom of heaven may indeed not.  These beliefs lead people to believe that they can live anyway they choose and still inherit the kingdom of heaven.  Also, weighing the effect of these beliefs on the eternal soul against someone who believes that Mary remained a virgin are far more detrimental to the soul than the belief that Mary is or isn't still a virgin or the Queen of Heaven.

Do you see what I'm trying to say here?  There are some beliefs that are far more dangerous and deadly than others to our eternal soul.  When we look at Christian denominations and what they believe as a whole, it's my opinion that we must look at the Gospel of Christ first and make sure that for the most part that teaching spiritually aligns with the word of God.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ must include a choice and the ability to choose which master we will follow.  It must include faith as an action of repentance towards Godliness and Christ.  It must include the fact that we are never once saved always saved, but tested throughout our entire lives to the very end of it and that it's possible to fall from faith and grace.  These are things that are absolutely what will determine our eternal destinies.

Whether or not Mary remained a virgin is not a belief that will place our eternal soul in jeopardy.  I still have my own personal spiritual convictions about this also, but they are not enough to deter me from understanding who the keepers are and have been of the Gospel of Jesus Christ since the early apostles.  

IMO--we can and should never toss the baby out with the bathwater when weighing the impact of certain beliefs that are more dangerous than others.  The spirit guides us to understand what to keep and what to toss out.  Every single protestant church I have ever attended held beliefs that I thought were very dangerous to the soul.  I didn't agree with the Roman Catholics either on the papacy or the worship of Mary and Mariology.  This is also where the church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox are split apart, yet they still share their core belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ--and this is major to me.

The word of God tells us that Jesus is our one and only mediator and that we are not to give anyone the same level of prayer, faith or worship that we do Him because He is our one and only savior.  The angels are our brethren as John was told in Revelation when he attempted to bow down in worship to the angel that rebuked him for it--telling him not to do this because he was simply a messenger and brethren same as John.  So it's fairly well understood that it's okay to respect the work in remembrance of the departed saints and our angel brethren in Christ, but our worship is entirely dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I became an Eastern Orthodox Catholic because I weighed the spiritual facts and came to see that no other Christian denomination has come closer to the truth in the Gospel of Jesus Christ than this church and no other reason.  Does believing that Mary is the queen of heaven or whether she remained a virgin impact that at all?  No--that doesn't matter to me.  Do I believe in using the departed saints as intercessors?  No--but I have no problem looking at their spiritual accomplishments and learning from their faithful witnesses and teaching they left for the living.  It's my belief that when we pray to the Lord Jesus, the messengers of God make way for those prayers to reach the throne of God and they do the will of God by intervening and watching over us as God wills and do His bidding regarding what we are praying for.  The faithful departed saints are just that to me.  They have left us with their work and teaching to the benefit of mankind and in that--I believe in respecting and remembering them for their contribution to the spiritual enlightenment of mankind, but it goes no further than that with me.  

So you see that not all of us will share the exact same beliefs even though we subscribe to the same church.  I believe that traditions are important, because they keep us mindful of what matters spiritually.  The traditions that were condemned by Jesus and the apostles were the ones that the Jews practiced in place of faith--not the traditions that the Christian church practices.  So Christian traditions are very important and play an important role in our worship to the Lord IMO.

I do not place a church or their traditions above the Lord Jesus Christ and I have my own spiritual convictions that allow me to rightly divide what I should be doing and how I should worship, but this is not to say that what's right for me is the same for another.  We all live our own spiritual convictions and we should never condemn another brethren because we disagree with them.

----------


## pcosmar

> However it is biblical, even though it was ignored and some of it censored out of your bible by the Reformers.


Censored out by reformers.

There was much censored out long before the reformers. And much lost from the believers that were murdered.

Long before the "reformers".. An though that is a common term used,, for some did attempt to reform,, it is not accurate.

It was a rejection of much,, more that a reformation.

The Counsel of Laodicea censored much from the Book. And many believers to be Heretics. It was highly politically motivated.
*It was Error*. On a grand scale. And it certainly did not start there,, nor end there.

Error was present in the church before this. But Error gained CONTROL here.

*Books Banned* By the Counsel of Laodicea.
Barnabas
I Clement
II Clement
Christ and Abgarus
The Apostles' Creed
I Hermas-Visions
II Hermas-Commands
III Hermas-Similitudes
Ephesians
I Infancy
II Infancy
Mary
Magnesians
Nicodemus
Paul and Seneca
Paul and Thecla
Philippians
Philadelphians
Polycarp
Romans
Trallians
Letters of Herod and Pilate
	The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Second Book of Adam and Eve
The Secrets of Enoch
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Fourth Book of Maccabees
The Story of Ahikar
The Testament of Reuben
Asher
Joseph
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Issachar
Zebulum
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Benjamin

One of which,, was considered scripture , and quoted in the Book of Jude. I suspect there is much worthwhile in others as well,, though I have yet to study them. The abridged version,, left after the Counsel and the Reformers has enough for salvation.

There were many Christians that did not accept the error. They were hunted and killed.

----------


## Terry1

> Censored out by reformers.
> 
> There was much censored out long before the reformers. And much lost from the believers that were murdered.
> 
> Long before the "reformers".. An though that is a common term used,, for some did attempt to reform,, it is not accurate.
> 
> It was a rejection of much,, more that a reformation.
> 
> The Counsel of Laodicea censored much from the Book. And many believers to be Heretics. It was highly politically motivated.
> ...


I believe that the reformers were the wolves that Paul referred to when speaking to the church of Ephesus.  The protestant reformers have done far more damage to the body of Christ as a whole than the Catholic Church has ever done.  As I said before, you have to do your spiritual homework and find out why the splits happened between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and the reformers from the church of Rome.

When it comes to scripture that was tossed out by the churches and councils, there again, let the spirit be your guide, but keep in mind that if it doesn't align with the Gospel of Jesus Christ it needs to be seriously questioned.  The key is the Gospel of Jesus and those books--everything must fall in full reconciliation spiritually with those books.

----------


## pcosmar

> I believe that the reformers were the wolves that Paul referred to when speaking to the church of Ephesus.


Oh,, I think those wolves were much closer..  even present at the time. And that there were many species of wolf.

one pack eventually gained control of the sheep. (mostly)

----------


## Ronin Truth

Did Joseph end up getting a really cushy job?

----------


## TER

> The abridged version,, left after the Counsel and the Reformers has enough for salvation.


I never said it wasn't.  I am saying that much of the fullness of the faith has been abandoned due to the censorship of the Reformers, such as the intercessions of the saints.    

As for the Council of Laodicea, you are sorely mistaken friend.  First of all, it was a LOCAL council conducted by about 30 clerics.  The major role for this synod was for ecclesiastical and pastoral reasons on how the members of the Church should conduct themselves.  Of the 60 canons, there were only 2 canons which had anything to do with the Scriptures (the one which listed what they considered canonical is questionable by the way in authenticity).  Nevertheless, this local council of clerics came together to address certain specific issues _within their own particular communities_.  Those bishops spoke about those things which were threatening the unity of the faith and the spiritual well-being of the flock.  It was their duty to protect their flock from the forces which were causing many to stumble.  A part of this was protecting the faithful from dubious texts (such as the gnostic texts being passed off as Christian scripture) and texts which were easily misunderstood and could become spiritually harmful to the reader without the guidance and experience of the Church.

So these 30 bishops, acting for the care of their spiritual children, recommended which books should be read _in the Church_. It did not make any statement to say that there was no value or truths in those books which where not placed in the canon (such as Clement, the Apostle's Creed, etc), or collectivized them as all being dubious or fakes or inherently harmful, but rather they compiled a core selections of writings which they held indisputably to be authentic and reliably beneficial to the faithful in their walk, that is, they composed a measuring stick (_kanon_, canon) of writings by which the truths of the faith could be held firm and other writings could be measured against.  

Out of prejudices and what you have been indoctrinated with, you automatically assume some evil intent by the clerics and then confabulate with 'those who did not accept that canon of Laodacea were hunted and killed.'  No, they weren't.  You have been lied to.

The reality is that books which led people away from Christ and the Church sprung up in the course of history.  The bishops did their best to protect the ones they have given their lives to protect by developing a canon as a guide and rule for practice and study.  

If someone wants to make the claim that the Reformers did the same thing, that they removed certain books to protect the faithful, then I can respect that as an argument even as I do not agree with it.  But let us not confabulate about people being hunted down and killed because 30 members of clergy in a local bishop gave a list of 60 canons for the good order and peace of the Church with only 1 or 2 referring to which books should be read in Church.  Such claims do not support your arguments and only demonstrate that you still lack understanding about what a biblical canon is and the role and place of local councils in the life of the Church.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Only 144,000, eh?

----------


## TER

> Oh,, I think those wolves were much closer..  even present at the time. And that there were many species of wolf.
> 
> one pack eventually gained control of the sheep. (mostly)


You mention the wolves a lot.  There were wolves of course, but do you have a judgment on which were the shepherds?  Obviously St. Peter was one of them, right?  

Who were the shepards of the first century, the second century, the third century, the fourth century, the fifth century etc etc?  Were there no shepherds?  Or do you pick and choose which they were to fit your own theology and interpretations?  Have you made your mind and your mind's interpretation to be the canon by which the truths should be held against?  Do you know better than those 30 clergy in Laodecea what was needed to protect the flock in that day and in those times?

This is not the Christian way my friend.  This is far from obedience, faith, and humility which Christ demands of us to enter into His Body and is the reason why so many schisms have occured by people putting themselves over the greater witness of the Church.

----------


## pcosmar

> You mention the wolves a lot. .


Do I..? Care to quote some of what I have mentioned?
*I think you are being deliberately dishonest* as I have posted very little about wolves at all.

I responded to a post about wolves.. 

But Christ did warn of such,,so it is expected.



> Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.


And again in Acts,



> I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.


So such is to be expected.

----------


## TER

> Do I..? Care to quote some of what I have mentioned?
> 
> I responded to a post about wolves.. 
> 
> But Christ did warn of such,,so it is expected.
> 
> And again in Acts,
> 
> 
> So such is to be expected.


Of course there were wolves, even before the Gospels were written.  The one who betrayed the Lord (Judas) is an example. Other examples are listed in the New Testament.  Throughout the history of the Church from the beginning until now there have existed those who have placed themselves above Christ and His body the Church, seeking to gain power for selfish gain.  This unfortunately is the world we live in and in account of the fallen humans who are in it.

 But that there were wolves only clearly demonstrates that there too were shepherds, for what makes them wolves is in their contrast to the shepherds who devoted their lives to protect the flock.  And these great shepherds through the centuries have been called saints and honored for their service to God and His Church.  Not because they were sinless, for Christ alone is sinless, but because they lived lives in service to Chirst to degrees worthy of mention and imitation.

----------


## TER

> Do I..? Care to quote some of what I have mentioned?
> *I think you are being deliberately dishonest* as I have posted very little about wolves at all.


I am just expressing my observation that you seem to often go to an argument that the Church has been corrupted to such a degree that it cannot be trusted, as if the gates of hell have prevailed over it.  That might be true for many churches and groups of people, but because it has happened and happens so frequently does not mean that the original Church has disappeared.  In fact, miraculously, it hasn't and this is what I am trying to make you understand.

----------


## pcosmar

> I am just expressing my observation that you seem to often go to an argument that the Church has been corrupted to such a degree that it cannot be trusted, as if the gates of hell have prevailed over it.


What you call the church and What I call the church are two different things.

Completely and entirely two different things.

The church established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit,, is entirely different than the politicized central rule of men.

The second is error is as old as Nimrod.

----------


## TER

> Lily, I don't think anyone will hate you for simply disagreeing on some scriptural context.  There are many things that I still question also, but St. Paul did say that we shouldn't debate such things and allow that to come between the brethren.  He called them vain disputations. 
> 
> I came from a protestant background myself and it's taken literally decades for me to come to see some of the greatest errors in what is being taught in some of the churches out there.  For me myself, I had to spiritually take a look as those errors and weigh the impact upon the eternal soul as just how detrimental they would be regarding our belief in them.
> 
> Take for instance the belief that people are once saved always saved, that is taught in many Baptist and non-denominational protestant churches today.  Also the belief that we have no free will and that our choices have no bearing on our eternal destinies, which are not true IMO.  These beliefs in these things impact our eternal destinies because these beliefs are the core reason some who think they will inherit the kingdom of heaven may indeed not.  These beliefs lead people to believe that they can live anyway they choose and still inherit the kingdom of heaven.  Also, weighing the effect of these beliefs on the eternal soul against someone who believes that Mary remained a virgin are far more detrimental to the soul than the belief that Mary is or isn't still a virgin or the Queen of Heaven.
> 
> Do you see what I'm trying to say here?  There are some beliefs that are far more dangerous and deadly than others to our eternal soul.  When we look at Christian denominations and what they believe as a whole, it's my opinion that we must look at the Gospel of Christ first and make sure that for the most part that teaching spiritually aligns with the word of God.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ must include a choice and the ability to choose which master we will follow.  It must include faith as an action of repentance towards Godliness and Christ.  It must include the fact that we are never once saved always saved, but tested throughout our entire lives to the very end of it and that it's possible to fall from faith and grace.  These are things that are absolutely what will determine our eternal destinies.
> 
> Whether or not Mary remained a virgin is not a belief that will place our eternal soul in jeopardy.  I still have my own personal spiritual convictions about this also, but they are not enough to deter me from understanding who the keepers are and have been of the Gospel of Jesus Christ since the early apostles.  
> ...


Can't believe I missed this post.  Well said Terry.

----------


## TER

> What you call the church and What I call the church are two different things.
> 
> Completely and entirely two different things.
> 
> The church established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit,, is entirely different than the politicized central rule of men.
> 
> The second is error is as old as Nimrod.


I have to run some errands but I would like to continue this discussion later if you like.  I would only say for now that you are right about your last comments.  The Church is not a mere human organization, in fact no human institution compares to it.  The closest thing which can compare to it is the body of Christ which is how it is defined in the Holy Scriptures.  It is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit. It is a Divine-human organism in the image of Christ Who is the Theanthropos (God-man). 

Please don't judge the sacredness of this body (which St. Paul says is the reason the world was made) with the sinfulness of men.  

Anyway, gotta run.  Thanks for the discussion and I hope we can continue later.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We are all called to be saints.  It sounds like you are so used to the idea of a special "saint" that maybe it's hard for you to switch your mind to the idea that ALL true followers of Christ are called saints.  There are numerous scriptures that say that, it isn't based on one scripture.


I didn't say that we aren't all called to be saints.  I was specifically addressing your blog post.  Edit your blog with the evidence for your claim.




> And I did read that commentary.  That is a perfect example of pulling something out of thin air, to try to support a doctrine.   But anyway, what I asked for was scriptures, not commentary in the notes of study bible by men who are fallible.
> 
> good night!


The commentary quoted scripture to support the point.  It isn't pulled out of thin air at all.

----------


## Ronin Truth

I probably just really need to work on coming up with some easier questions.

----------


## lilymc

> What you call the church and What I call the church are two different things.
> 
> Completely and entirely two different things.
> 
> The church established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit,, is entirely different than the politicized central rule of men.
> 
> The second is error is as old as Nimrod.


That is exactly what I was thinking.   

I don't know what your denomination is, if any,  but like I said earlier on the thread, I don't belong to any denomination and I really, really, really dislike "religion" and churchianity.

The true church does not have the Crusades and Inquisition in their past.   The true church does not teach wrong things about salvation, and other doctrines, or put more emphasis on churchiness than studying the bible and having a relationship with the living God of the universe.  

When I think of the church, I don't think of any denomination, earthly organization, buildings, cathedrals or as you put it, the politicized 'central rule of men.' 

The true church is the body of Christ - meaning born again, true believers and followers of Christ.   Worldwide.

And I'm sorry people.... I can see there are a lot of people here who disagree with me on some of these things.

 So I think I should leave this thread now (I have to get to work anyway!) because I don't want to argue and I don't anyone to get angry.

Terry - great point about not debating and letting things come between brothers and sisters.

 So, at this point I think some of us should agree to disagree.  

Peace!

----------


## pcosmar

> I have to run some errands but I would like to continue this discussion later if you like.  I would only say for now that you are right about your last comments.  The Church is not a mere human organization, in fact no human institution compares to it.  
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, gotta run.  Thanks for the discussion and I hope we can continue later.


I would hope to. There is much more that we agree on than where we differ. (and on issues of greater importance)

This is why I asked you to check yourself (something we should all do continuously)
If your faith is in Jesus Christ,, it will not be shaken by anything I may present.

If your Faith is in any other,, then I hope to shake it. that it may be in Christ alone.

----------


## Terry1

> That is exactly what I was thinking.   
> 
> I don't know what your denomination is, if any,  but like I said earlier on the thread, I don't belong to any denomination and I really, really, really dislike "religion" and churchianity.
> 
> The true church does not have the Crusades and Inquisition in their past.   The true church does not teach wrong things about salvation, and other doctrines, or put more emphasis on churchiness than studying the bible and having a relationship with the living God of the universe.  
> 
> When I think of the church, I don't think of any denomination, earthly organization, buildings, cathedrals or as you put it, the politicized 'central rule of men.' 
> 
> The true church is the body of Christ - meaning born again, true believers and followers of Christ.   Worldwide.
> ...


Yes indeed--"peace" dear sister.   I understand your disagreements, many of them used to be mine as well.  Remember though that there is no *perfect earthly church of four walls and that there will always be something that we disagree with in part, but that's not to say there isn't a church that comes the closest to the truth and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The Gospel is *key!  Understanding the true Gospel eliminates the need to do or practice anything else that doesn't align with it--IMO.  Understanding the Gospel of Jesus and what the Apostles wrote brings salvation.

Many churches have added or taken away in some part, but that doesn't mean that we have to toss the baby out with the bathwater either.  The Lord wants us to gather together and to be lights in this dark world.  If you pray and seek, I have no doubt that you will be led where you are supposed to be.

Peace and love to you Lily.

----------


## TER

> I would hope to. There is much more that we agree on than where we differ. (and on issues of greater importance)
> 
> This is why I asked you to check yourself (something we should all do continuously)
> If your faith is in Jesus Christ,, it will not be shaken by anything I may present.
> 
> If your Faith is in any other,, then I hope to shake it. that it may be in Christ alone.


Thank you for this.  I do check myself, at least I try to, so much in fact that I do not rely on myself to know the answers. If I come up with something while reading the gospels, some kind of conclusion or theological assertion which has not been expressed or taught by the Church fathers, it immediately sends up for me a red flag.  I am very careful not to chalk things up to me 'being in the Holy Spirit' or assert the cause as the Holy Spirit working in me knowing how great a sinner I am and how often times I have been wrong.  I have plenty of spirits, including pride, which seek to destroy me.  

In fact, if what I came up with in my contemplations and meditations are things which the saints have refuted and fought against, it immediately tells me that I am wrong.  So my litmus test to know if it has indeed been the Spirit working in me is after studying further it demonstrates in the history of the Church antiquity, unanimity, and consensus amongst the Fathers.  To believe that I have come up with something that much holier and greater men than me 'missed' or 'got wrong' is because I consider myself more illuminated or wiser then them. It is because of spiritual pride that I would put my own intepretations and experiences above the saints and the Church.  I simply am not smart enough, wise enough, or holy enough to compete, and thus my checking myself involves measuring my thoughts and intepretations against those held fast and handed down faithfully by the saints of the Church.

And I promise you that my faith is in the Holy Trinity, and the things you have said have not shaken my faith, simply because it is not _my_ faith (that is, a faith I have defined) but rather the faith of the 2000 year old apostolic Church.  They bear witness through time and countless people the truths of the faith, and I am simply a member and follower.  I do not presume to make myself the head or attribute willy nilly my thoughts to be divine revelations.  Your questions and remarks do cause me to dig deeper and learn more, and for this I am very appreciative, but nothing as of yet that you have posted has not already been answered and settled centuries ago by men much greater then me.

Where you say that there is much more we agree upon is true.  The greater things and more important things we do agree upon, and for this I rejoice.  I am simply trying to express to you that there exists more to the faith, a fullness to the faith, and beauties and wonders that a thousand lifetimes could not count, measure or fully express.  These are the riches and treasures of the Christian life.

For example, with regards to the intercessions of the saints, I get that you don't believe it is necessary or perhaps it might be dangerous.  Then don't ask for their intercessions!  But don't say it is not biblical when it is or not beneficial when the history of the Church proves otherwise.  Your singular opinions or mine on this matter or any other do not superceed the 2000 year testimony and apostolic traditions of the Church. 

That is not to say that you will not enter then Kingdom!  Indeed, I might be begging you to intercede to The Lord to let me sneak in!  I am just simply saying that when you say "x is all that is necessary" or "y is sufficient", it ignores the traditions and practices which bring fullness and beauty to the faith.

It is sufficient to say that I have been to Paris because I stayed in the airport there for 3 hours on my way to another destination, but does that mean I enjoyed the beauty, wonders, sights, smells and tastes of Paris compared to one who has lived there?  Getting a D as a grade is sufficient to pass, but should we not strive for excellence and work to get the A and experience the joys in fruitful works?  If someone thinks that the Virgin was just simply a nobody who God choose to be born from or that the sacraments are mere symbols and unnecessary or that praying to the saints does not availeth much, then that is fine and I don't question their eternal salvation because these do not define who is or who is not to be saved.  What I do feel is saddened though that on account of false teachers, poor and innovative traditions, and because of the spirit of the times, many will miss some of the greatest treasures in this life on earth which the Christian faith has to offer.  With you my friend, the question is not whether you will get into Heaven or not (that is up to God to decide), the question is why look for what is only sufficient and not seek out the fullness of the faith?  Not to say you have not experienced such moments of blessedness and peace and illumination, but I assure you that there is always more to gain, even in this life.

----------


## TER

> The true church does not have the Crusades and Inquisition in their past.   The true church does not teach wrong things about salvation, and other doctrines, or put more emphasis on churchiness than studying the bible and having a relationship with the living God of the universe.


Check, check, and check.  Welcome to the Orthodox Church!  

The goal and aim is a living relationship with our personal God, to grow into His likeness by His mercy and grace. The traditions, sacraments, and 'churchiness' things are simply time-tested proven aids in our walk towards Him and our growth in Him.  Aids which are in fact biblical and apostolic, appointed by Christ and fulfilled by the Holy Spirit working in it.  One may not need these things to find Christ or to enter into the Kindgom, but when practiced in a spirit of love, obedience, and humility, Christ is truly encountered and life is shown to be full of beauty and wonder.   This is the lasting and enduring legacy of the Orthodox Church and why it has survived since the day of Pentecost, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit and centered around the very life giving Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

The Church is a spiritual hospital for the sick and a meeting place to encounter Christ and find union and communion with God, and not only God but through Him all people and all of creation.  It is for those who know that they are sick, acknowledge that they need help, and wish to find greater, deeper and fuller knowledge and communion with God.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Check, check, and check.  Welcome to the Orthodox Church!  
> 
> The goal and aim is a living relationship with our personal God.  The traditions, sacraments, and 'churchiness' things are simply time-tested proven aids in our walk toward Him and with Him.  Aids which are in fact biblical and apostolic.  One may not need them to enter into the Kindgom, but when practiced in a spirit of love, obedience, and humility, Christ is truly encountered and life is shown to be full of beauty and wonder.  
> 
> The Church is a spiritual hospital for the sick and a meeting place to encounter Christ and find union and communion with God, and not only God but through Him all people and all of creation.  It is for those who know that they are sick and which to find greater and deeper knowledge and communion with God.


  I'm especially fond of the vocal text settings.  Often hymnographers quote directly from scripture.   That orthodox music is always _a capella_ focuses the listeners mind on the text better than the accompanied songs/chorales/hymns of the West.  Indeed, just attending liturgy one can absorb a great deal of the Gospels by listening with focus!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Here's a Greek Orthdox chant and reading of the Gospel: 

It's similar at my church, but the priest chants the text of the day's gospel and epistle reading (both are preceded and followed by standardized choral chants, normally called "before and after the gospel" and "before and after the Epistle")

----------


## TER

> I'm especially fond of the vocal text settings.  Often hymnographers quote directly from scripture.   That orthodox music is always _a capella_ focuses the listeners mind on the text better than the accompanied songs/chorales/hymns of the West.  Indeed, just attending liturgy one can absorb a great deal of the Gospels by listening with focus!


So true.  In fact the earliest methods of teaching and expressing the beliefs and doctrines of the Church, even before the New Testament was written, is found in the hymnology of the Church used in the liturgical worship. Thus, the two great legs of Holy Tradition constitute the written tradition such as the Holy Scriptures and the oral traditions such as the hymns and liturgical worship.  Running the race with one leg doesn't mean one cannot finish the race, but how much more wonderful and enjoyable to have both legs to run with!

----------


## pcosmar

> I am very careful not to chalk things up to me 'being in the Holy Spirit' or assert the cause as the Holy Spirit working in me knowing how great a sinner I am and how often times I have been wrong.  I have plenty of spirits, including pride, which seek to destroy me.


 there is no spirit that can stand against us that can prevail.
I posted scripture,, and you post the opinion of men.. And then question "my interpretation " when you neither know nor can articulate  what my interpretation is.




> If someone thinks that the Virgin was just simply a nobody who God choose to be born from


I have never  said anything , nor have I ever implied anything like that.
She was a daughter of Eve,, offspring of Adam,, from the line of David. She was devout and loved God.
And she is one of the great many daughters of Eve who have been obedient to God. I have nothing but respect for her,, As I do the great men of the Bible.

But I don't bow down before their statues.




> With you my friend, the question is not whether you will get into Heaven or not (that is up to God to decide), the question is why look for what is only sufficient and not seek out the fullness of the faith?


That is what I'm doing. And looking into some of those older and lost books.
Though I think there is still something in Job that I am not seeing yet.. (but that is just a "feeling" I get)




> Not to say you have not experienced such moments of blessedness and peace and illumination, but I assure you that there is always more to gain, even in this life.


 one point I remember is where I was when I first believed.  The rest has he been a long strange trip,, but it has it's moments.

----------


## TER

> there is no spirit that can stand against us that can prevail.


If only that was true my friend.  Greater men then you and me have fallen on account of evil spirits. We shouldn't be so sure we wouldn't or won't.  But I think your point is that the Holy Spirit is Lord over all spirits, and that is true.  If Christ is with us, who can be against us!  (actually, a whole army of demons.  But thank the Lord they are rendered powerless by Him, even by the image of the cross.)




> I posted scripture,, and you post the opinion of men.. And then question "my interpretation " when you neither know nor can articulate  what my interpretation is.


I question those interpretations that you have expressed which run against the teachings of the saints.  It is the posting of your interpretations of the Scriptures that I am challenging, not the Scriptures in themselves.




> I have never  said anything , nor have I ever implied anything like that.
> She was a daughter of Eve,, of spring of Adam,, from the line of David. She was devout and loved God.
> And she is one of the great many daughters of Eve who have been obedient to God. I have nothing but respect for her,, As I do the great men of the Bible.


I did not mean to imply that you do not honor the Virgin Mary.  I was saying that some Christians do not regard her much at all (even though she is the greatest saint) but it may have came out in my post to appear to be directed at you.  Forgive me, it wasn't directed at you.  I think you have a good and healthy respect for the Mother of our Lord.




> But I don't bow down before their statues.


I don't either.  But I do bow down to the one whose image they represent!  Sometimes I don't need a visual stimulus, and I create an image of Christ in my own mind and then bow down.  Other times, I need a reminder, and that is how these works of religious art assist in me in my worship and prayer life.

BTW, do you know that Joshua the Righteous from the Old Testament and all the elders bowed down before the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 7:6). And that had statues of Cherubim on it!  




> That is what I'm doing. And looking into some of those older and lost books.
> Though I think there is still something in Job that I am not seeing yet.. (but that is just a "feeling" I get)


I know you are, and that is why I enjoy discussing these things with you because you are not close minded but wish to seek deeper.

As for the Book of Job, I suggest this book to you.  I have the complete series for the New Testament but haven't started yet on the Old (the books are not cheap!)  I think you might find some answers in there you were looking for and some confirmation of your own beliefs of the book.




> one point I remember is where I was when I first believed.  The rest has he been a long strange trip,, but it has it's moments.


  I wish one day we could sit down together, have a beer (or whatever your poison is!), and you could share with me those moments.  The Lord does work in great and mysterious ways!

----------


## pcosmar

> I know you are, and that is why I enjoy discussing these things with you because you are not close minded but wish to seek deeper.
> 
> As for the Book of Job, 
> 
>  I think you might find some answers in there you were looking for and some* confirmation of your own beliefs* of the book.
> 
> 
> 
>   I wish one day we could sit down together, have a beer (or whatever your poison is!), and you could share with me those moments.  The Lord does work in great and mysterious ways!


Confirmation of my own beliefs? 
I am not looking for confirmation. Some insights perhaps. Understanding of some of the deeper things. Not Confirmation.
I have been stuck in Job for some time,, and learned much,, I just have a gut feeling there is something else He wants me to see, (just a gut feeling)

Yeah I would have a beer with ya,, and talk about the Nature of God and Man.
Not sure how much time is left,,

----------


## TER

> Confirmation of my own beliefs? 
> I am not looking for confirmation. Some insights perhaps. Understanding of some of the deeper things. Not Confirmation.
> 
> Yeah I would have a beer with ya,, and talk about the Nature of God and Man.
> Not sure how much time is left,,


Well, if not in this life, then hopefully the next.  

That is unless you throw that RPF barbeque party which has been mentioned before and rumored about.  Last head count I got was about 5 bands, a few kegs, and something about pies.  If Rand Paul wins the general, will you have no excuse not to host it!

----------


## pcosmar

> Well, if not in this life, then hopefully the next.  
> 
> That is unless you throw that RPF barbeque party which has been mentioned before and rumored about.  Last head count I got was about 5 bands, a few kegs, and something about pies.  If Rand Paul wins the general, will you have no excuse not to host it!


My farm is available,, I'm not sure of any actual arrangements that have ever been made..

I would love to have this whole motley crew over for a week.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If only that was true my friend.  Greater men then you and me have fallen on account of evil spirits. We shouldn't be so sure we wouldn't or won't.  But I think your point is that the Holy Spirit is Lord over all spirits, and that is true.  If Christ is with us, who can be against us!  (actually, a whole army of demons.  But thank the Lord they are rendered powerless by Him, even by the image of the cross.)
> 
> 
> 
> I question those interpretations that you have expressed which run against the teachings of the saints.  It is the posting of your interpretations of the Scriptures that I am challenging, not the Scriptures in themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not mean to imply that you do not honor the Virgin Mary.  I was saying that some Christians do not regard her much at all (even though she is the greatest saint) but it may have came out in my post to appear to be directed at you.  Forgive me, it wasn't directed at you.  I think you have a good and healthy respect for the Mother of our Lord.
> ...


The most apt explanation of veneration of icons I've heard is to think of them like pictures of long passed loved ones.  You may look at the picture with strong feelings and memories-perhaps even kiss it or shed tears-but the pictoral image is clearly not the person(s) in the picture, and you wouldn't think of it as such.

----------


## TER

Just ran across this story about a rocket which struck a Church in eastern Ukraine in front of an image of Christ and did not explode.  The rocket looks like it is 'bowing' before the image of the Lord.  Of course, this is probably just a dud of a rocket landing in an interesting place, but one never knows!










Porphyry D. Staphyla
August 17, 2014
Dimpe News

On the night of the 16th into the 17th of August, the Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul in the town of Mospyne in the region of Dontesk was hit by a rocket 1.5 meters in length by a Grad missile launcher. It entered the church after a strange orbit.

It entered through the window, shattering the glass and throwing to the ground the vase of flowers placed at the veneration icon of the Pantocrator Christ.

The Ukrainian missile was literally pinned to the ground and didn't explode. It remained kneeling before the superiority of the Pantocrator Christ and it was literally made His "footstool". It caused minor damage and a fire was prevented. Immediately after the church celebrated.

----------


## WBFU3411

This is idolatry, plain and simple.

----------


## TER

> This is idolatry, plain and simple.


No, this is love and adoration.

----------


## WBFU3411

> No, this is love and adoration.


But the Bible says that we can't pray to anyone but God. We are only supposed to worship God and prayer = worship.

----------


## TER

To pray means to ask or petition. It does not necessarily mean to worship. 

For example, this is from Merriam dictionary:

transitive verb

1 :  *entreat, implore* —often used as a function word in introducing a question, request, or plea <pray be careful> 2 :  to get or bring by praying


intransitive verb

1 :  *to make a request in a humble manner* 2 :  *to address God or a god with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving*

----------


## WBFU3411

> To pray means to ask or petition. It does not necessarily mean to worship. For example, this is from Merriam dictionary:transitive verb1 :  *entreat, implore* —often used as a function word in introducing a question, request, or plea 
>  2 :  to get or bring by prayingintransitive verb1 :  *to make a request in a humble manner* 2 :  *to address God or a god with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving*


The Bible says we shouldn't speak to dead people. It's not like they can hear us.

----------


## TER

> The Bible says we shouldn't speak to dead people. It's not like they can hear us.


The part of the bible which your copy is missing but what has always been used by the Christians and held as authoritative does indeed have praying for the dead and the intercession of the saints (2 Maccabees in particular).  According to Christian theology revealed by Christ, the dead are alive to God.  How the departed saints can hear us is a mystery of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, it has been standard and apostolic teachings and practice to all three of the Churches which can trace themselves back to the Apostles, namely the Orthodox, Coptic, and Roman Catholic Churches.  It wasn't until the times of the reformers when it was questioned or considered unbiblical or wrong.

----------


## pcosmar

> Prayer means to ask or petition. It does not necessarily mean to worship. 
> 
> For example, this is from Merriam dictionary:
> 
> transitive verb
> 1 :  entreat, implore —often used as a function word in introducing a question, request, or plea <pray be careful> 2 :  to get or bring by praying
> intransitive verb
> 1 :  to make a request in a humble manner 2 :  to address God or a god with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving


Prayer and Worship are two different things.. but they often do go hand in hand.

But though I do not condemn,, I have no interest in graven images. People do have a habit of such,, all the way back to the Israelite making a calf, while Moses was talking to God.
And through history worshiping in groves,,  and every other culture did the same,, and is recorded as archeological evidence. 

God said don't do it. But people still want to and will try to justify it in any way they can.



> *You shall not make unto yourself any graven image*, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:





> *So watch yourselves carefully*, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky,…


And that requires no "interpretation".

In fact it requires a lot of interpretation to ignore it.

----------


## WBFU3411

> The part of the bible which your copy is missing but what has always been used by the Christians and held as authoritative does indeed have praying for the dead and the intercession of the saints (2 Maccabees in particular).  According to Christian theology revealed by Christ, the dead are alive to God.  How the departed saints can hear us is a mystery of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, it has been standard and apostolic teachings and practice to all three of the Churches which can trace themselves back to the Apostles, namely the Orthodox, Coptic, and Roman Catholic Churches.  It wasn't until the times of the reformers when it was questioned or considered unbiblical or wrong.


My Bible isn't missing anything. It comes straight from the Masoretic text written by the Jews themselves as well as the Greek New Testament.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is idolatry, plain and simple.


Do you idolize pictures of people that are important to you in your life? (family, friends, etc) Not likely.  Likewise, icons are not idolized.  Icons are our spiritual family photo album.

----------


## TER

> Prayer and Worship are two different things.. but they often do go hand in hand.
> 
> But though I do not condemn,, I have no interest in graven images. People do have a habit of such,, all the way back to the Israelite making a calf, while Moses was talking to God.
> And through history worshiping in groves,,  and every other culture did the same,, and is recorded as archeological evidence. 
> 
> God said don't do it. But people still want to and will try to justify it in any way they can.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you condemn Joshua and the elders of Israel for bowing down in worship before the Ark?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Prayer and Worship are two different things.. but they often do go hand in hand.
> 
> But though I do not condemn,, I have no interest in graven images. People do have a habit of such,, all the way back to the Israelite making a calf, while Moses was talking to God.
> And through history worshiping in groves,,  and every other culture did the same,, and is recorded as archeological evidence. 
> 
> God said don't do it. But people still want to and will try to justify it in any way they can.


Non-sequitur.  The Ancient Israelites worshiped the Golden Calf.  Icons are not objects of worship. 



> Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron and said to him, Rise up and make us gods that shall go before us. [...] (Aaron) said, "these are your gods, O  Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt.  So when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it.





> And that requires no "interpretation".
> 
> In fact it requires a lot of interpretation to ignore it.


You will never, ever find Orthodox literature or living people treating icons as such at all.  Clearly it_ does_ need interpretation, as you don't understand it.

See also this thread on the iconoclast heresy- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ighlight=icons
This one on idolatry- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ighlight=icons
This one discussing why icons are not idols- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-are-not-idols

As an aside, here's one about Masoretic v. Septuagint texts- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ighlight=icons

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My Bible isn't missing anything. It comes straight from the Masoretic text written by the Jews themselves as well as the Greek New Testament.


If your bible lacks the Apocrypha and Deutero-canon, it's lacking a LOT.  ~10 whole books, depending on exactly which bible you have.

----------


## TER

> My Bible isn't missing anything. It comes straight from the Masoretic text written by the Jews themselves as well as the Greek New Testament.


The Masoretic text was written and compiled by Jews about 1000 years after Christ rose from the dead. It is slanted and been edited by the Jews. The Church, including Christ and the Apostles, used the Septuagint and it is the version overwhelmingly referred to in the NT.  The truth is, you are indeed using an incomplete Bible.

----------


## pcosmar

You say it ain't what it is. and question my "interpretation".

God said *Don't.*

And I was a Alter-boy growing up,,and learned the "Hail Mary" before I learned much of anything else,, before I even learned to count.

----------


## TER

Here is Joshua and Moses bowing down before a wooden ark with statues of angels on them. 

Pete, who are they paying reverence to in this picture?

----------


## pcosmar

> Here is Joshua and Moses bowing down before a wooden ark with statues of angels on them. 
> 
> Pete, who are they paying reverence to in this picture?


The Ark of the Covenant was given By God and was ,,at that time,  his physical presence in the Camp.
It was not a graven image of Him. It was His Throne.

----------


## TER

> The Ark of the Covenant was given By God and was ,,at that time,  his physical presence in the Camp.
> It was not a graven image of Him. It was His Throne.


Do you believe the Holy Spirit has entered into the world by Christ uniting His divine nature with the created nature?  

Can the Holy Spirit sanctify and work through a created thing, whether a human, a wooden ark, or the bones of Elisha?

----------


## pcosmar

> Do you believe the Holy Spirit has entered into the world by Christ uniting His divine nature with the created nature?  
> 
> Can the Holy Spirit sanctify and work through a created thing, whether a human, a wooden ark, or the bones of Elisha?


I believe that the Holy Spirit enters into those who believe. That we are the vessels.

Not some lifeless work of our hands.




> The LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD drives you. "There you will serve gods, the work of man's hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. "But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul.…






> The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood--idols that cannot see or hear or walk.


God Said *Don't do it.*

And again I ask you to check yourself,, because the teaching of man says do,, what God has said is DO NOT.

Very simple. No interpretations necessary.

----------


## TER

> I believe that the Holy Spirit enters into those who believe. That we are the vessels.
> 
> Not some lifeless work of our hands.


Who constructed the Ark?  Did it fall from the sky?  How is it that the Presence of God was found in a lifeless wooden ark with statues on it which was created by the work of men's hands?

How about the bones of Elisha?  They were lifeless, right?  How is it that the bones raised the dead?  Was it the dead bones of Elisha or the Holy Spirit of God which raised the dead?





> God Said *Don't do it.*
> 
> And again I ask you to check yourself,, because the teaching of man says do,, what God has said is DO NOT.
> 
> Very simple. No interpretations necessary.


The problem is exactly your misinterpretations. 

God said not to worship graven images. Icons, or images, are not worshiped. God is worshiped. The same way you might create an image of Christ in your mind when you worship Him. Are your worshiping your mind's image of Christ or the neurons which have made that possible?  Of course not. So please, again, do not tell me that icons are worshiped.   God alone is worshiped, and images can be used in our prayer life to help concentrate and focus our thoughts and prayers.  Why?  Because of the Incarnation. Because God has revealed Himself in the image of Jesus Christ and because the Holy Spirit is in the world.  We can draw a picture of Christ and worship before it, not of the image we made but of He Who has revealed Himself and who the image is representing.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I believe that the Holy Spirit enters into those who believe. That we are the vessels.
> 
> Not some lifeless work of our hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not to be annoyingly repetitive, but this was more than adequately addressed in these threads: 
This one on idolatry and icons- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ighlight=icons
This one discussing why icons are not idols- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-are-not-idols

----------


## Dr.3D

I know it's a big subject, but here is another reference pertaining to it.

http://www.ldolphin.org/PDFs/The_Two...der_Hislop.pdf

Just my two cents....

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I know it's a big subject, but here is another reference pertaining to it.
> 
> http://www.ldolphin.org/PDFs/The_Two...der_Hislop.pdf
> 
> Just my two cents....


I reckon this book is the most elaborate troll job I've yet seen.  I am impress.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I reckon this book is the most elaborate troll job I've yet seen.  I am impress.


Here is another site with a better copy.
https://archive.org/details/theTwoBabylons



> Originally published as a pamphlet in 1853, and expanded to book length in 1858, The Two Babylons seeks to demonstrate a connection between the ancient Babylonian mystery religions and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Often controversial, yet always engaging, The Two Babylons comes from an era when disciplines such as archeology and anthropology were in their infancy, and represents an early attempt to synthesize many of the findings of these areas and Biblical truth.

----------


## lilymc

It has been a while since I watched this, but I think this is an interesting documentary. 

This is important because even if nobody here does this, the fact is that millions of people around the world DO engage in idolatry, especially Marian worship.   This is not just a harmless thing.... there is a deceptive spirit behind it. 

This is long but worth watching...

----------


## TER

> I know it's a big subject, but here is another reference pertaining to it.
> 
> http://www.ldolphin.org/PDFs/The_Two...der_Hislop.pdf
> 
> Just my two cents....


This thread has nothing to do with the Pope.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Here is another site with a better copy.
> https://archive.org/details/theTwoBabylons


This book has a really _Zeitgiest_-y feel to it.  Epic trollage.

----------


## TER

> It has been a while since I watched this, but I think this is an interesting documentary. 
> 
> This is important because even if nobody here does this, the fact is that millions of people around the world DO engage in idolatry, especially Marian worship.   This is not just a harmless thing.... there is a deceptive spirit behind it. 
> 
> This is long but worth watching...


Can't watch it here at work but will do so when I get home. 

BTW, what are your thoughts about Joshua bowing down and worshiping God before the Ark?  Was he committing idolatry?

----------


## Dr.3D

> This thread has nothing to do with the Pope.


The book covers much more than that.

----------


## lilymc

> Can't watch it here at work but will do so when I get home. 
> 
> BTW, what are your thoughts about Joshua bowing down and worshiping God before the Ark?  Was he committing idolatry?


Can you provide the exact scripture that you're talking about?  I would like to read it before I comment on that.

----------


## TER

> Can you provide the exact scripture that you're talking about?  I would like to read it before I comment on that.


Joshua 7:6-11

----------


## lilymc

> Joshua 7:6-11


I just quickly read that, and it looks like pcosmar is right. Joshua was bowing before God Himself.  The ark was His throne.  It is obvious that Joshua was actually bowing before God, because in verse 10 God speaks directly to Joshua.

I don't see how that example has anything to do with the idolatry that has been brought up on this thread.  Or am I missing something?

----------


## TER

> I just quickly read that, and it looks like pcosmar is right. Joshua was bowing before God Himself.  The ark was His throne.  It is obvious that Joshua was actually bowing before God, because in verse 10 God speaks directly to Joshua.
> 
> I don't see how that example has anything to do with the idolatry that has been brought up on this thread.  Or am I missing something?


Was God in the Ark?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I just quickly read that, and it looks like pcosmar is right. Joshua was bowing before God Himself.  The ark was His throne.  It is obvious that *Joshua was actually bowing before God, because in verse 10 God speaks directly to Joshua.*
> 
> I don't see how that example has anything to do with the idolatry that has been brought up on this thread.  Or am I missing something?


Non-sequitur.  You have to read an awful lot into that passage to get that.  It is clear that God is speaking to Joshua, but it is not clear that Joshua is bowing to God there.  It is more likely in this context that Joshua was bowing to the ark.  (God the Father only made himself visible to Moses)

----------


## pcosmar

> Was God in the Ark?


NO. But it was His Throne.. God specifically commanded the Ark be built,, and very specific rules about it.
It was not a "likeness" of God.

It was his Physical Throne among the people.
It was his presence. 
They were not worshiping the cherubim or the box. They were worshiping God in His direct presence.

----------


## TER

> NO. But it was His Throne.. God specifically commanded the Ark be built,, and very specific rules about it.
> It was not a "likeness" of God.
> 
> It was his Physical Throne among the people.
> It was his presence. 
> They were not worshiping the cherubim or the box. They were worshiping God in His direct presence.


Which is exactly what a Christian does when they worship God standing before an icon of Christ. 

But when you say God was present in the Ark, what do you mean?  Was He present or not?

----------


## lilymc

> Was God in the Ark?


Exodus 25:22

Does that answer your question?

----------


## TER

> Exodus 25:22
> 
> Does that answer your question?


It answers my question, but I don't know what your interpretation is unless you tell me. Was God present in the Ark?

----------


## lilymc

> It was his Physical Throne among the people.
> It was his presence. 
> They were not worshiping the cherubim or the box. They were worshiping God in His direct presence.


^ This.

----------


## TER

> ^ This.


Can either answer my question directly?  Was God present in the Ark?

----------


## lilymc

> It answers my question, but I don't know what your interpretation is unless you tell me. Was God present in the Ark?


The scripture couldn't be more clear.   It was the place where God would meet with them.

That doesn't necessarily mean that God was always with the ark.  But the important point is that in the scripture you posted, they were speaking to GOD, they were worshipping GOD, not the ark!

----------


## TER

> The scripture couldn't be more clear.   It was the place where God would meet with them.
> 
> That doesn't necessarily mean that God was always with the ark.  But the important point is that in the scripture you posted, they were speaking to GOD, they were worshipping GOD, not the ark!


Lilly, I am not arguing with you that Joshua was worshiping the ark and not God. We are in agreement. Joshua was bowing down before the ark but worshiping God. 

According to Jewish and Christian theology, when they say it was the meeting place and the presence of God, it means that God was really present in the Ark. Not that the Ark could contain the uncontainable God but that His very presence was in there. Can we agree on this?

----------


## lilymc

> Lilly, I am not arguing with you that Joshua was worshiping the ark and not God. We are in agreement. Joshua was bowing down before the ark but worshiping God. 
> 
> According to Jewish and Christian theology, when they say it was the meeting place and the presence of God, it means that God was really present in the Ark. Not that the Ark could contain the uncontainable God but that His very presence was in there. Can we agree on this?


I wouldn't word it that way, but yes, of course God's presence was really there when He would meet with His people.  That's what that Exodus scripture I posted said.

So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.  What does any of this have to do with the idolatry brought up on this thread?

Do you believe that Mary is actually there - present in those statues that people are worshipping?

And do you actually agree with worshipping Mary (statue or no statue)?   Because THAT is what is going on, worldwide.

----------


## TER

Let us take this one point at a time. 

You agree then with the Scriptures (Exodus 25:8 "and let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst"), you agree with the Jewish scholars and the Church Fathers that God was indeed present in the ark. 

Now, was God present in the womb of the Virgin Mary?

----------


## RJB

> Which is exactly what a Christian does when they worship God standing before an icon of Christ.


Somehow they keep ignoring this point TER.

I've notice people have a tendency to want to believe the worst of their neighbors rather than taking them at their word.  That accounts for most of the drama in the religion forum.

*  No we don't worship saints.

*  No we don't worship art work of the family albums of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

*  Worship is reserved for one God alone in the mystery of the Trinity.

PERIOD!

----------


## lilymc

> Let us take this one point at a time. 
> 
> You agree then with the Scriptures (Exodus 25:8 "and let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst"), you agree with the Jewish scholars and the Church Fathers that God was indeed present in the ark. 
> 
> Now, was God present in the womb of the Virgin Mary?



With all due respect, this is not the way I like to discuss things.  I'm much more of a get to the point kind of person.  (besides, I shouldn't even be here right now, I've got work I need to do)

What is your point?  How are you comparing Joshua bowing down before God, to people worshipping statues or paintings of Mary?  (I've asked that a few times now.  Please answer.)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Somehow they keep ignoring this point TER.
> 
> I've notice people have a tendency to want to believe the worst of their neighbors rather than taking them at their word.  That accounts for most of the drama in the religion forum.*
> 
> *  No we don't worship saints.
> 
> *  No we don't worship art work of the family albums of our brothers and sisters in Christ.
> 
> *  Worship is reserved for one God alone in the mystery of the Trinity.*
> ...


  You'd think this would only need to be explained once...but people keep trying to bring these up over and over and over.  /facepalm

----------


## lilymc

> You'd think this would only need to be explained once...but people keep trying to bring these up over and over and over.  /facepalm


I take you guys at your word.  No one here (as far as I have seen) has stated that you guys are Mary worshippers.

But it IS happening in many places in the world.  That is demonstrably true.   That is what has been brought up on this thread (see the video I posted)  not about you guys here at RPF.

----------


## TER

> With all due respect, this is not the way I like to discuss things.  I'm much more of a get to the point kind of person.  (besides, I shouldn't even be here right now, I've got work I need to do)
> 
> What is your point?  How are you comparing Joshua bowing down before God, to people worshipping statues or paintings of Mary?  (I've asked that a few times now.  Please answer.)


This is called a dialogue, which is actually a great way to understand one another better.  My eventual point needs unpacking, and this is what I am doing here. Please bear with me because while this might seem the long way around, I am indeed answering your question. 

Was God present in the womb of the Virgin?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *This is called a dialogue, which is actually a great way to understand one another better.*  My eventual point needs unpacking, and this is what I am doing here. Please bear with me because while this might seem the long way around, I am indeed answering your question. 
> 
> Was God present in the womb of the Virgin?


Indeed!   In fact, this thread is playing out basically the way a formal debate would-which is pretty impressive considering how rowdy the internetz tend to be.

----------


## TER

> Indeed!   In fact, this thread is playing out basically the way a formal debate would-which is pretty impressive considering how rowdy the internetz tend to be.


I agree and I wish to thank those who have posted and those who haven't, allowing this to develop into a fruitful discussion about the wonders God has done.

Lilly is out doing work, but I look forward to hearing from her soon.

In the meanwhile, I remind everyone the point of the OP, and reiterate something written from there:

The Ark of the Covenant had some impressive contents:
Moses’ two stone tablets of the Ten Commandments    A jar of manna from the wilderness    Aaron’s staff which had budded with life 
_Mary herself being the new Ark of the Covenant,_ she contained the fulfillment of all these things:
Instead of God’s Word written in stone,
   Mary’s womb contained the Word made flesh    Instead of manna from the wilderness,
   Mary’s womb contained the Manna from Heaven and Bread of Life    Instead of a staff from the first Levitical high priest, Mary’s womb contained the great High Priest himself, Jesus Christ, whose priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek    Instead of a budded staff symbolizing resurrection, Mary’s womb contained the Resurrection and the Life himself.

----------


## pcosmar

> As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee.
> 
>  But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth,* to burn incense unto the queen of heaven,* and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.
> 
>  But since we left off to burn incense to the *queen of heaven*, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.
> 
>  And when we burned incense to the* queen of heaven*, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?
> 
> Then Jeremiah said unto all the people, to the men, and to the women, and to all the people which had given him that answer, saying,
> ...


Very Old Error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_o...28antiquity%29



http://www.churchsupplies.com/store/...aven-865.shtml




God said.
*DON'T DO IT.*

I don't care how long the error has persisted. It is Error.
And Plain scripture and the Direct command from God, trump all the Men who have come since.

----------


## TER

My friend, Joshua was correct in what he said and God was right to be angry, because the person they burned incense to was NOT the Queen of Heaven.  For there is only ONE Queen of Heaven, and she is the Holy Theotokos.  So in time it was proper for God to reveal this.  The Virgin Mary is what the ancient Babylonians (and many other religions) awaited and anticipated and prayer for.  The same for Israel.  She is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant which was a prefiguring of her and the Burning Bush which contained the Divine Word and was not consumed.  Hers is the very living flesh of Christ, the Flesh which has redeemed our own flesh and restored us, for God first gave it to her and in perfect obedience, she offered it freely back to Him.  This is fundamental eucharistic love (thanksgiving) which underlies the entire message of Jesus Christ.

Those ancient types found in basically every religion, they all find their fullness within the Christian faith, for there is One God and One Savior and through Him our kind and this creation finds salvation.  But in man's yearning for truth, there will be prototypes and symbols along the way.  This is only natural, after all there is so much we do not know, so limited is the human brain, that we see through a glass darkly as the Apostle said.  How much more was this the case before the Light of God had entered into the world and revealed our Father in Heaven?  The images and types of Christ and our salvation is found in degrees in every human yearning for divinity and eternal life.

Do not let the similarities between Christianity and more ancient faiths be a cause for worry and concern.  Rather, it should only more strongly show He indeed is the God of all.

----------


## Terry1

> I agree and I wish to thank those who have posted and those who haven't, allowing this to develop into a fruitful discussion about the wonders God has done.
> 
> Lilly is out doing work, but I look forward to hearing from her soon.
> 
> In the meanwhile, I remind everyone the point of the OP, and reiterate something written from there:
> 
> The Ark of the Covenant had some impressive contents:
> Moses two stone tablets of the Ten Commandments    A jar of manna from the wilderness    Aarons staff which had budded with life 
> _Mary herself being the new Ark of the Covenant,_ she contained the fulfillment of all these things:
> ...


Amen!  Very nice thread TER!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My friend, Joshua was correct in what he said and God was right to be angry, because the person they burned incense to was NOT the Queen of Heaven.  For there is only ONE Queen of Heaven, and she is the Holy Theotokos.  So in time it was proper for God to reveal this.  The Virgin Mary is what the ancient Babylonians (and many other religions) awaited and anticipated and prayer for.  The same for Israel.  She is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant which was a prefiguring of her and the Burning Bush which contained the Divine Word and was not consumed.  Hers is the very living flesh of Christ, the Flesh which has redeemed our own flesh and restored us, for God first gave it to her and in perfect obedience, she offered it freely back to Him.  This is fundamental eucharistic love (thanksgiving) which underlies the entire message of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Those ancient types found in basically every religion, they all find their fullness within the Christian faith, for there is One God and One Savior and through Him our kind and this creation finds salvation.  But in man's yearning for truth, there will be prototypes and symbols along the way.  This is only natural, after all there is so much we do not know, so limited is the human brain, that we see through a glass darkly as the Apostle said.  How much more was this the case before the Light of God had entered into the world and revealed our Father in Heaven?  The images and types of Christ and our salvation is found in degree in every human yearning for divinity and eternal life.
> *
> Do not let the similarities between Christianity and more ancient faiths be a cause for worry and concern.  Rather, it should only more strongly show He indeed is the God of all*.


Indeed!  Dr Damick's book "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" demonstrates clearly commonalities between the orthodox faith and many others.  The same could be done with any other religion or denomination.  The Quakers' worship style (from what I've seen) somewhat reminds me of prostrations and other such gestures that are done in a divine liturgy, for example.

----------


## Terry1

> It has been a while since I watched this, but I think this is an interesting documentary. 
> 
> This is important because even if nobody here does this, the fact is that millions of people around the world DO engage in idolatry, especially Marian worship.   This is not just a harmless thing.... there is a deceptive spirit behind it. 
> 
> This is long but worth watching...


I agree Lily that there are some who do engage in Mariology and the worship of her, but there are many Catholics that know the difference and do not do this.  Remember that there are many very charismatic Catholics out there doing the work of God in a very big way and are most certainly our spiritual brethren in Christ--even though they pray to Mary and the departed saints.  This is what I meant when I told you that we should never toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Remember what Paul said in Romans 14:4--God knows the hearts and intentions of His children and only He is able to make them stand even if they err judgment because only God knows their hearts and their love for Him while we do not.  I think in your journey, you will eventually learn this and not be so rigid in your opinions of the brethren that hold to practices and traditions that you do not.  

You are living your convictions and doing what you believe God has called you to do.  I've read some of your wonderful blog and seen that you've had the benefit of sharing the witness of Christ around the world as well.  It's a beautiful thing that you've been blessed with and that you are able to do this.  

At the end of the day--every one of us has to account to our Lord and only He knows our hearts and is most able to make us stand knowing that what we do--we do in love and worship to Him.  Where mankind will impose their own standards and judgments upon the children of the Lord--He is able to make them stand, just as St. Paul told us here.

Do Not Judge Your Brother


(Matthew 7:1-6; Luke 6:37-42)


1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

----------


## TER

It is human nature to not want to be wrong.  It is human nature to fear.

We have all developed our own religion, whether we believe in God or not.  We have elevated some things which cannot be questioned, even though we may be wrong.

Change often times brings on anxiety and is uncomfortable, but one thing we cannot change is the fact that every day we are changing.  Our bodies are changing, our minds are changing, and our relationships are changing. Every day our religion is changing too.  God alone is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

As such dynamic beings, our lives are full of changing priorities and things we love and attach to, sometimes even falling dangerously close to idolizing.  When this done apart from God and His holy will, and becomes habitual, it leads us farther and farther from God and closer and closer to perdition.

But it is not the sign of the Christian man to fall.  That is expected.  It is the sign of the Christian man to get up.  Even from death.

We are all learning as go and we should do this with open minds and open hearts, understanding that there are things we may not have known.  There are other things we may have been taught and instilled into our minds and made foundation stones of which we have built entire ways of thinking and living, which are in fact wrong.   Because of that our thoughts, our convictions and our very religion may need some readjustment.

Our best recourse is to hold back our quick judgements, have more faith in people (for God has worked through many), look into history and read the writings of the saints to understand why there are certain traditions and beliefs, the same way an anthropologist will go back and study any group of people.  Then greater understandings can be made to make a better judgment.  Of course, there are things which cannot easily be explained, and these are the mysteries of the Church which can only be experienced.  But that is a topic for another thread.  For now, it is the humble and Christian way to accept there are things we do not know, things we are wrong about, and things we need to study more on.   In diligence, meekness, and above all prayer (which needs as a prerequisite love, for where there is no love, there is no prayer), the truths are made clearer and divisions are healed and the Kingdom of Heaven comes closer.

----------


## lilymc

> I agree Lily that there are some who do engage in Mariology and the worship of her, but there are many Catholics that know the difference and do not do this.  Remember that there are many very charismatic Catholics out there doing the work of God in a very big way and are most certainly our spiritual brethren in Christ--even though they pray to Mary and the departed saints.  This is what I meant when I told you that we should never toss the baby out with the bathwater.
> 
> Remember what Paul said in Romans 14:4--God knows the hearts and intentions of His children and only He is able to make them stand even if they err judgment because only God knows their hearts and their love for Him while we do not.  I think in your journey, you will eventually learn this and not be so rigid in your opinions of the brethren that hold to practices and traditions that you do not.  
> 
> You are living your convictions and doing what you believe God has called you to do.  I've read some of your wonderful blog and seen that you've had the benefit of sharing the witness of Christ around the world as well.  It's a beautiful thing that you've been blessed with and that you are able to do this.  
> 
> At the end of the day--every one of us has to account to our Lord and only He knows our hearts and is most able to make us stand knowing that what we do--we do in love and worship to Him.  Where mankind will impose their own standards and judgments upon the children of the Lord--He is able to make them stand, just as St. Paul told us here.
> 
> Do Not Judge Your Brother
> ...


Thank you for sharing your thoughts Terry, but this is not about judging people.  I believe that those people have good intentions, my guess is that most of them truly believe that they are doing the right thing, and that the apparitions they're seeing are Godly.  

It's about bringing up the fact that many people are being deceived.  The heart behind this is not about condemnation, but of concern and a genuine desire to raise awareness and remind people to be *vigilant* and to test the spirits. 

I absolutely believe that God wants us to speak the truth (in love) and not stand by and say nothing when millions of people are being deceived, or (unknowingly) engaging in idolatry.   If I were to say nothing, I think that would be just as bad as those who don't share the Gospel at all, with atheists, skeptics or non-Christians.

Did you even watch the documentary?  Please watch it.  It's super interesting.  It's not just a collection of photos or video clips of people worshipping Mary.  It's an in-depth look at something that is going on world-wide, something very real, but not from God.   If you just watch it, you'll see what I mean.

----------


## TER

> Thank you for sharing your thoughts Terry, but this is not about judging people.  I believe that those people have good intentions, my guess is that most of them truly believe that they are doing the right thing, and that the apparitions they're seeing are Godly.  
> 
> It's about bringing up the fact that many people are being deceived.  The heart behind this is not about condemnation, but of concern and a genuine desire to raise awareness and remind people to be *vigilant* and to test the spirits. 
> 
> I absolutely believe that God wants us to speak the truth (in love) and not stand by and say nothing when millions of people are being deceived, or (unknowingly) engaging in idolatry.   If I were to say nothing, I think that would be just as bad as those who don't share the Gospel at all, with atheists, skeptics or non-Christians.
> 
> Did you even watch the documentary?  Please watch it.  It's super interesting.  It's not just a collection of photos or video clips of people worshipping Mary.  It's an in-depth look at something that is going on world-wide, something very real, but not from God.   If you just watch it, you'll see what I mean.


Yes, we understand that there are deceptions and people are falling into idolatry.  This happens with everything.  Even with piece of papers with numbers on them.  It is not unexpected that some would go to the extreme and worship Mary.  Many worship that which they ought not to.  If this is true for piece of paper or drugs, how much more so for the Mother of God?

That there are incorrect ways however does not mean that there is not a correct way.  In fact the Church has revealed that there is indeed a correct way and beneficial way, and this is the way which is being presented to you.  It is not error to honor the Virgin Mary and to pray for her to intercede to her Son on our behalf.  It is error to worship her as God.  I accept that you are trying to expose errors.  I am too.   If we can agree that Mary idolatry is wrong, can we agree that it is right and worthy and indeed Christ-pleasing to glorify her and magnify her as the greatest saint and Mother of God?  What exactly is your objection to this?  That a few might fall into idolatry?  Then should we ban money as well or whatever else causes some to stumble?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, we understand that there are deceptions and people are falling into idolatry.  This happens with everything.  Even with piece of papers with numbers on them.  It is not unexpected that some would go to the extreme and worship Mary.  Many worship that which they ought not to.  If this is true for piece of paper or drugs, how much more so for the Mother of God?
> 
> That there are incorrect ways however does not mean that there is not a correct way.  In fact the Church has revealed that there is indeed a correct way and beneficial way, and this is the way which is being presented to you.  It is not error to honor the Virgin Mary and to pray for her to intercede to her Son on our behalf.  It is error to worship her as God.  I accept that you are trying to expose errors.  I am too.   If we can agree that Mary idolatry is wrong, can we agree that it is right and worthy and indeed Christ-pleasing to glorify her and magnify her as the greatest saint and Mother of God?  What exactly is your objection to this?  That a few might fall into idolatry?  Then should we ban money as well or whatever else causes some to stumble?


This^^  Lily, by your reasoning printed bibles should not be used because many Reformers use it to justify the solas (such as sola scriptura)-which can be considered idolatrous if you use the same standard you are using to judge veneration of the Theotokos.

----------


## pcosmar

> Our best recourse is to hold back our quick judgements, have more faith in people (for God has worked through many),


I have made no judgments. And I have countered the likes of Sola and Nang for doing the same thing,, for condemning people.
I inform. I condemn certain error in doctrine when I see such,, but I do not condemn people.

I have posted scripture.. and you question my interpretation. Even when it is a clear and simple command from God.

You interpret a whole lot and post about scriptures  that have nothing to do with with the subject,, except by broad interpretation.

And you wish to question my interpretation?
You are free to do as you wish. I posted the words of God,, on the subject. 

Your argument is not with me.

----------


## lilymc

> Yes, we understand that there are deceptions and people are falling into idolatry.  This happens with everything.  Even piece of papers with numbers on them.  It is not unexpected that some would go to the extreme and worship that which they ought not.  That should not however erase the fact that there is indeed a correct way and beneficial way, and this is the way which is being presented to you.  It is not error to honor the Virgin Mary and to pray for her to intercede to her Son on our behalf.  It is error to worship her.  I accept that you are trying to expose errors.  I am too.   If we can agree that Mary idolatry is wrong, can we agree that it is right and worthy and indeed Christ-pleasing to glorify her and magnify her as the greatest saint and Mother of God?


These 2 verses sum up how I feel about this.  


As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!”  

But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Luke 11:27-28

It's almost as if Jesus knew this would be an issue in the future - people elevating Mary to an almost God-like status, taking their focus off what is important. He could have just as easily said, "Yes, let us honor the Blessed Mary!"   But instead He clearly corrected her, guiding her back to God.

And here is another verse that I think has more than one meaning....


His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it."

John 2:5

And I see now where you were going with those questions you were asking me earlier...  Your point was that Mary is the new ark of the covenant?

I'm sorry, but I can't even say what I really think about that, because I don't want to be impolite.   It's simply wrong.  And unnecessary, and yet another false doctrine that takes the attention off of God, and puts it onto other things.

Btw, I just want to add that this doesn't mean that I don't think Mary is blessed.  Of course she is.    All true believers are!

So I'm not saying that it's wrong to honor Mary.  I just don't agree with all these unbiblical and extra things like Mary being  the "new ark of the covenant" or the "Queen of Heaven" or someone we can pray to, or someone who appears in those apparitions, etc.

----------


## TER

> I have made no judgments. And I have countered the likes of Sola and Nang for doing the same thing,, for condemning people.
> I inform. I condemn certain error in doctrine when I see such,, but I do not condemn people.
> 
> I have posted scripture.. and you question my interpretation. Even when it is a clear and simply command from God.
> 
> You interpret a whole lot and post about scriptures  that have nothing to do with with the subject,, except by broad interpretation.
> 
> And you wish to question my interpretation.
> You are free to do as you wish. I posted the words of God,, on the subject. 
> ...


I am glad you are back Peter.  I was hoping you might answer the question which amazingly seems hard for some Christians to affirm.  Was God present in the womb of the Virgin Mary?

----------


## pcosmar

> This^^  Lily, by your reasoning printed bibles should not be used because many Reformers use it to justify the solas


Most of the reformers have been attempting that,, to reform the church,, Not to break off from it.. They were pushed out.
And their followers did not always have their same inspiration..


I don't follow the "reformers".. The error was entrenched long before the reformers. 
They were working with a broken thing to start with. Not dead,, but seriously broken. 

Having the Lost books restored would have been a serious reform. Among others.

Even from the abridged version of the Bible we have left to us,, there is enough for salvation.
And for growth.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> These 2 verses sum up how I feel about this.  
> 
> As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!”  
> 
> But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
> 
> Luke 11:27-28
> 
> It's almost as if Jesus knew this would be an issue in the future - people elevating Mary to an almost God-like status, taking their focus off what is important. He could have just as easily said, "Yes, let us honor the Blessed Mary!"   But instead He clearly corrected her, guiding her back to God.
> ...


Incorrect.  Just as we see Matthew portraying Yeshua as the new Moses, Mary is the new Ark because of her place in history and how she fits into Jewish thought/prophecy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Most of the reformers have been attempting that,, to reform the church,, Not to break off from it.. They were pushed out.
> And their followers did not always have their same inspiration..
> 
> 
> I don't follow the "reformers".. The error was entrenched long before the reformers. 
> They were working with a broken thing to start with. Not dead,, but seriously broken. 
> 
> *Having the Lost books restored would have been a serious reform. Among others.
> *
> ...


Those books were never "lost".  They are apocryphal.  Unless you mean relative to most Western denominations-then yes, you could call them "lost".

----------


## pcosmar

> I am glad you are back Peter.  I was hoping you might answer the question which amazingly seems hard for some Christians to affirm.  Was God present in the womb of the Virgin Mary?


Yes,,and he left her when He was born into the world. (a reading of Enoch would so that to be a known  thing)(Jesus is also Captain of the Angels)

I am sure that Mary,, as a believer, (I am sure she believed) was filled with the Holy spirit along with everyone else present at Pentecost. 
And so has it been since.

----------


## TER

> These 2 verses sum up how I feel about this.  
> 
> 
> As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!”  
> 
> But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
> 
> Luke 11:27-28


Your mistranslation and misinterpretation of this verse is part of the reason why you are incorrect and in fact  only strengthens my case.  You must have missed the post earlier in this thread which explained this. 

First of all, the correct translation from the Greek is '_Even more so,_ blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'  

This does not diminish his mother, this simply demonstrates that _even more blessed_ then a womb or breasts is those people who hear the word of God and keep it.  The Virgin Mary, whose whole life is in complete and total obedience to God (so much so that she was worthy in time to be a vessel for Him and give birth to Him), is not only amongst those blessed, but more reason to understand why she is most blessed.  For having given not only a womb and milk and love, she gave humble obedience. 




> It's almost as if Jesus knew this would be an issue in the future - people elevating Mary to an almost God-like status, taking their focus off what is important. He could have just as easily said, "Yes, let us honor the Blessed Mary!"   But instead He clearly corrected her, guiding her back to God.


The person in the crowd was wrong because she said 'blessed is the womb' as if it was the womb that willed anything.   And she was wrong that she said 'blessed is the breasts', as if dumb organs of fat, skin, and milk producing tissues is what obeyed Him.  Had she said 'Blessed is your mother', He would have said, 'Blessed is not only her who has done my will and the will of the Father in Heaven, but all who listen to me and obey me!'




> And here is another verse that I think has more than one meaning....
> 
> 
> His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it."
> 
> John 2:5


It is funny that you bring this verse, because the entire chapter only more clearly demonstrates how much love and honor Christ has for His mother. 

 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.  Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.  *And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.”*

 Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does* your concern* have to do with Me? *My hour has not yet come.*”

 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”
And what did the Christ next do?  He fulfilled the wish for His mother even though His hour had not yet come.  Why, because the same God Who said 'Honor your father and mother' is the same God Who obeyed her out of love.

So you see, the verses you keep picking, when seen through the entire Bible, the entire witness and traditions and lens of the Church, gives the correct interpretation.




> And I see now where you were going with those questions you were asking me earlier...  Your point was that Mary is the new ark of the covenant?
> 
> I'm sorry, but I can't even say what I really think about that, because I don't want to be impolite.   It's simply wrong.  And unnecessary, and yet another false doctrine that takes the attention off of God, and puts it onto other things.


Because you say it is wrong does not make it so.  The Church and the countless saints and martyrs would disagree with you and your innovative interpretation.  This is not to be impolite, this is to be direct since you like direct and to the point.  Your problem is not with me or my interpretation, your problem is with 2000 years of saints.

----------


## pcosmar

> Those books were never "lost".  They are apocryphal.  Unless you mean relative to most Western denominations-then yes, you could call them "lost".


You are referring to those removed by the reformers.
I was referring to those banned (and burned) by the Counsel of Laodicea .

----------


## TER

> Yes,,and he left her when He was born into the world. (a reading of Enoch would so that to be a known  thing)(Jesus is also Captain of the Angels)
> 
> I am sure that Mary,, as a believer, (I am sure she believed) was filled with the Holy spirit along with everyone else present at Pentecost. 
> And so has it been since.


Very good!  And is the Holy Spirit God of God?  Do you affirm the Holy Trinity?  Are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit equal in honor, worship and glory?

----------


## TER

> You are referring to those removed by the reformers.
> I was referring to those banned (and burned) by the Counsel of Laodicea .


The Council of Laodicea did not dictate the final canon or that other books were not helpful.  It was a local Church doing what they could to protect their flock at a time when people were falling away on account of false and heretical teachings.  So it presented a canon of what was known to be beneficial even to those who were immature in the faith.  It was for pastoral reasons, as imperfect as it was.  And even that a canon now has been formally expressed does not mean that the other books left out do not have value and purpose.  But that only through the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth can the correct understanding be known.

----------


## pcosmar

> The Council of Laodicea did not dictate the final canon or that other books were not helpful.  It was a local Church doing what they could to protect their flock at a time when people were falling away on account of false and heretical teachings.


No it wasn't..  It was political church,, getting rid of some enemies. And creating a centrally controlled organization.
A world church. Though I think the beginnings of that were well before,, but, that is where it was codified.

it is the error of Nimrod all over again.

And just for a point of fact,, There are seven churches. There are seven Angels that are over the Seven Churches.

The One World Church is an error as old as,, and exactly like Nimrod.. The rule of men.

And there is one church ,, but it is made from all believers of all time,, All Seven Churches.

----------


## TER

> No it wasn't..  It was political church,, getting rid of some enemies. And creating a centrally controlled organization.


 Did you know that bishops have no authority over any other bishops?  Forget about the Roman Catholic errors you grew up with.  There is no Supreme Leader of the Church apart from Christ.  The Church is a centrally controlled organization only in that it's head is Christ and is controlled by the Holy Spirit, and not any man. 

The Patriarch of Antioch for example has never had authority over the people of Jerusalem or what the Patriarch of Jerusalem did there or taught.  Neither did the Patriarch of Rome have any authority over the people of Alexandria or Constantinople or any other see or their Bishops.  So your ideas of centrally controlled organization is way off.  What kept them central was the common faith and the common Eucharist.  If they could be called anything, it would be a republic or federation, and one which has lasted unbroken for 2000 years.

And the fact that members of the Church entered into political life is not a surprise, it is the natural circumstance when the persecutions were lifted and people began to come out of hiding and were able to freely express and live out their faith.

The Church is a dynamic organization which contends in this world and lives in the world, even as she prays and anticipates for the next one. _ Of course_ people who were baptized entered into politics.  Why?  For the same reasons they do today!  Some out of service for others or to make their nation a better place.  Others for purely selfish and evil reasons, who have scandalized the Church because of their sins.  No one is claiming that no sins have been done by those in the Church.  After all, it is a Church of sinners, so that is to be expected.  There have been times of peace and prosperity when good and virtuous Christian men have been political leaders, and there have been horrible times of injustice and evil from other men who have called themselves Christians.  Do not judge the good of the Church by the bad sins of the members of the Church, even though the bad is much more memorable on account of the hypocrisy.




> A world church. Though I think the beginnings of that were well before,, but, that is where it was codified.
> 
> it is the error of Nimrod all over again.


That there is one Church, as there is one Jesus Christ, is biblical and apostolic teachings.  This one Church, having spread around the world is indeed a world Church.  This is not the error of Nimrod, this is the glory of God.




> And just for a point of fact,, There are seven churches. There are seven Angels that are over the Seven Churches.
> 
> The One World Church is an error as old as,, and exactly like Nimrod.. The rule of men.
> 
> And there is one church ,, but it is made from all believers of all time,, All Seven Churches.


Can you please provide patristic support for this interpretation?  I am not familiar with it.  Can you point to where it is said that the Orthodox Church is an error like Nimrod's?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No it wasn't..  It was political church,, getting rid of some enemies. And creating a centrally controlled organization.
> A world church. Though I think the beginnings of that were well before,, but, that is where it was codified.


All Churches and churches are political.  Jesus is the King of all as well as head of the Church.  God Establishing his presence on Earth through His son made the politics unavoidable.  Yeshua's trial and crucifixion were HIGHLY political.  The Jewish political and banking classes faced a great threat, philosophical and religious, in Jesus.  The jews expected the Messiah to be a new David to rule and lead them-not someone who would die such a horrible death.




> And just for a point of fact,, There are seven churches. There are seven Angels that are over the Seven Churches.
> 
> The One World Church is an error as old as,, and exactly like Nimrod.. The rule of men.
> 
> And there is one church ,, but it is made from all believers of all time,, All Seven Churches.


There is one Church.  It is one, holy, catholic("universal", not post-schism Roman), and apostolic.  The reason there are a variety of "types" of Orthodox parishes (Russian, Greek, etc) are for a number of reasons practical and historical.  I don't have time to list them all ATM.

Though all believers are part of the Body Of Christ, the heterodox are not part of Christ's Church established by Him through the apostles.

----------


## TER

By the way friend, I was hoping you might answer these questions first:




> And is the Holy Spirit God of God?  Do you affirm the Holy Trinity?  Are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit equal in honor, worship and glory?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Did you know that bishops have no authority over any other bishops?  Forget about the Roman Catholic errors you grew up with.  There is no Supreme Leader of the Church apart from Christ.  The Church is a centrally controlled organization only in that it's head is Christ and is controlled by the Holy Spirit, and not any man. 
> 
> The Patriarch of Antioch for example has never had authority over the people of Jerusalem or what the Patriarch of Jerusalem did there or taught.  Neither did the Patriarch of Rome have any authority over the people of Alexandria or Constantinople or any other see or their Bishops.  So your ideas of centrally controlled organization is way off.  What kept them central was the common faith and the common Eucharist. 
> 
> And the fact that members of the Church entered into political like is not a surprise, it is the natural circumstance when the persecutions were lifted and people began to come out of hiding and were able to freely express their faith.
> 
> The Church is a dynamic organization which contends in this world and lives in the world, even as they pray for the next one.  Of course people who were faithful entered into politics.  Why?  For the same reasons they do today!  Some out of service for others or to make the nation a better place.  Others for purely selfish and evil reasons, who have scandalized the Church because of their sins.  No one is claiming the Church no sins have not been done by those is the Church.  After all, it is a Church of sinners, so that is to be expected.  There have been times of peace and prosperity when good and virtuous Christian men have been political leaders, and there have been horrible times of injustice and evil from other men who have called themselves Christians.  Do not judge the good of the Church by the bad sins of the members of the Church, even though the bad is much more memorable on account of the hypocrisy.
> 
> [quote}A world church. Though I think the beginnings of that were well before,, but, that is where it was codified.
> ...


That there is one Church, as there is one Jesus Christ, is biblical and apostolic teachings.  This one Church, having spread around the world is indeed a world Church.  This is not the error of Nimrod, this is the glory of God.



Can you please provide patristic support for this interpretation?  I am not familiar with it.  Can you point to where it is said that the Orthodox Church is an error like Nimrod's?[/QUOTE]
An excellent post^^

----------


## pcosmar

> By the way friend, I was hoping you might answer these questions first:


Yes,,
though "the trinity" is not mentioned in scripture,, the concept is.

----------


## TER

> Yes,,
> though "the trinity" is not mentioned in scripture,, the concept is.


Knowing that the Holy Spirit is God just as the Father is God and the Son is God, of one essense, will, and power, when the day of Pentecost arrived and the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles and the Virgin who was present, was God abiding in them?

----------


## pcosmar

> "Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. "As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.


Scripture says Seven. And each has an Angel over it.

----------


## pcosmar

> Knowing that the Holy Spirit is God just as the Father is God and the Son is God, of one essense, will, and power, when the day of Pentecost arrived and the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles and the Virgin who was present, was God abiding in them?


Yes . but this is not at all strange. 

God breathed the breath of life into man.

Angels has procreated with Daughters of Man

Demons poses men. These are all known.

Yes, scripture teaches that the Spirit of God resides within us who believe.

----------


## Kevin007

> I believe that the Holy Spirit enters into those who believe. That we are the vessels.
> 
> Not some lifeless work of our hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Amen!

----------


## TER

> Yes . but this is not at all strange.


Not strange at all my friend.  My point is that the chasm has been crossed and Christ is the bridge.  Creation now has a real and living relationship with the divine.  For this reason St. Peter's handkerchief healed the sick and raised the dead.  It was the Holy Spirit working in the world performing these wonders, not the mere cloth and fabric.  And even before Christ was born, the Holy Spirit was active in the world.  For we read about the bones of Elisha having raised the dead.  It was not the mere dried bones but the Holy Spirit of God acting through it which raised the dead.  The same for Moses' staff.  The list goes on and on.  

And that is why Aaron's staff was venerated and placed in the Ark.  That is why Manna was placed there as well and the Two Tablets of stone which God wrote His Commandments.  For these are not just mere wood and stone, these have been conduits and vessels of the Holy Spirit of God, worthy to be placed in the very Holy of Holies and before the presence of God.

If these things happened before the Light of the World came and before the Holy Spirit descended down _en masse_ into the world, how much more so is it true now!!  How many more wonders can be possible now that Pentecost has arrived!  And indeed, countless are the miracles which have occurred within the life of the Church whether through inanimate or animate objects.  Countless are the demonstrations of God in the Holy Spirit working within the world!  The lives of the saints are inexhaustive.  The writings of the Fathers and the history of the Church are resplendent.  And what has always been understood, what has always been proclaimed is that it is not the object or vessel in itself which is what is holy, but the Holy Spirit working in it or through it which is so and makes it holy. These objects are venerated, such as were the contents of the Ark, but it is God alone Who is worshiped.  Thus Joshua could bow down before the Ark of the Covenant and be worshiping God in truth even as His very presence was contained in it. Likewise we venerate the icon because of who it is representing, but it is not the wood or the paint that is worshiped, but God and the Holy Spirit working within it. 




> God breathed the breath of life into man.
> 
> Angels has procreated with Daughters of Man
> 
> Demons poses men. These are all known.
> 
> Yes, scripture teaches that the Spirit of God resides within us who believe.


What good news!  Indeed, THE good news!  For God loved us so much that He has come down to save us since we could not do it ourselves having fallen under the rule of death and the power of satan.  God came so that we too might have Him in us, so that we might be restored into the original blessedness for which we were created!  We become by grace what Christ is by nature, that is a divine-human person, and sons and daughters of the Most High God in the image and likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  Conformed into His image, partaking of His divine nature, having the very Spirit of God within us, we too can rise in glory and ascend like Christ, from glory to glory as the Apostle proclaims as adopted co-heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven.  This is the good news!  God has not forgotten us!  Our Father has not abandoned us!  And by His love He has saved us and leads us to eternal life! 

This has been made possible because God the Holy Spirit has come down, fulfilling the prophecy of Joel:


“ And it shall come to pass afterward
*That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh*;
      Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
      Your old men shall dream dreams,
      Your young men shall see visions.
      And also on My menservants and on My maidservants
* I will pour out My Spirit in those days.*
This is the post Pentecostal life of the Church, whereby the world has experienced the coming down of God and where the  members of the Church have become God-bearing vessels of the uncontainable God Himself.   It is the reversal of Babel, for this reason we see the Apostles speaking and all the hearers of every language understanding it in their native tongues.  It is the culmination of all the work of Christ in His ministry in offering us a new life reborn in the Spirit.

  The saints have 'put on Christ' (Romans 13:14) and been empowered and transformed into the 'fullness and stature of Christ' (Ephesians 4:13) because the Holy Spirit is present within them.  Whereby the Ark was once the meeting place for God and a sanctuary whereby He would dwell amongst men, in time this became fulfilled by the Holy Theotokos who is the living Ark of the Covenant, the New Covenant.  For this New Covenant is based on the flesh of her own flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ,  and through her obedience and  willful offering has brought our humanity even greater glory by the power of God.  For she became the meeting place whereby God would dwell in the world, having carried God within her for 9 months.  She became the living Tabernacle, containing within her flesh the very infinite Creator of all.  She became the Holy of Holies, enhousing within her womb the Most Holy and Almighty God.  She became the Mother of God because God had chosen her to be so, for none had ever lived more perfect as her until the birth of her own Son and God.

But alas, this is not the only glory of God, but points to a deeper and more wondrous revelation.  For Christ, taking upon Himself created substance through His incarnation and allowing the Holy Spirit to come down and fill all things, all people can share in this divine glory.  His cosmic work on the Cross has made all of creation potential partakers of the divine nature.  Thus God has made holy not only an Ark, or the Virgin, but all those who have been graced by the Holy Spirit of God.

----------


## lilymc

> Your mistranslation and misinterpretation of this verse is part of the reason why you are incorrect and in fact  only strengthens my case.  You must have missed the post earlier in this thread which explained this. 
> 
> First of all, the correct translation from the Greek is '_Even more so,_ blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'  
> 
> This does not diminish his mother, this simply demonstrates that _even more blessed_ then a womb or breasts is those people who hear the word of God and keep it.  The Virgin Mary, whose whole life is in complete and total obedience to God (so much so that she was worthy in time to be a vessel for Him and give birth to Him), is not only amongst those blessed, but more reason to understand why she is most blessed.  For having given not only a womb and milk and love, she gave humble obedience.


You're barking up the wrong tree, because I never argued that Mary was not blessed, in fact I made a point to state that she indeed was, at the end of post #189.

And I never said that she was diminished in that verse.  I said that it was as if Jesus knew this issue of people focusing on Mary would be a problem, by taking that opportunity to teach the woman who said that (and by doing so, everyone) what was more important.




> The person in the crowd was wrong because she said 'blessed is the womb' as if it was the womb that willed anything.   And she was wrong that she said 'blessed is the breasts', as if dumb organs of fat, skin, and milk producing tissues is what obeyed Him.  Had she said 'Blessed is your mother', He would have said, 'Blessed is not only her who has done my will and the will of the Father in Heaven, but all who listen to me and obey me!'


It sounds to me like you're trying to rationalize things with this verse.   The woman used the words womb and breasts, but her adoration was not for fleshly organs, but for MARY.    That is why Jesus replied the way He did.

If what you are saying is true, then He could have replied with, "No, it's not her organs that are blessed, but SHE is blessed."

But that's not what He said.  He specifically made a point to lead her back to God in His reply, by stating that it is more blessed to hear the word of God and obey it.





> It is funny that you bring this verse, because the entire chapter only more clearly demonstrates how much love and honor Christ has for His mother. 
> 
>  On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.  Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.  *And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.”*
> 
>  Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does* your concern* have to do with Me? *My hour has not yet come.*”
> 
>  His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”
> And what did the Christ next do?  He fulfilled the wish for His mother even though His hour had not yet come.  Why, because the same God Who said 'Honor your father and mother' is the same God Who obeyed her out of love.
> 
> So you see, the verses you keep picking, when seen through the entire Bible, the entire witness and traditions and lens of the Church, gives the correct interpretation.


Once again, you're arguing something I never stated.  Of course Jesus demonstrated love and honor to His mother.  Jesus is sinless and wouldn't go against His own word...  Of course it is right to honor our parents.

I posted that verse because I think it has a sort of second meaning, it's not merely about the wedding in Cana, but a reminder for ALL people who might take their focus off of God, to - as Mary put it - "Whatever He says to you, do it."




> Because you say it is wrong does not make it so.  The Church and the countless saints and martyrs would disagree with you and your innovative interpretation.  This is not to be impolite, this is to be direct since you like direct and to the point.  Your problem is not with me or my interpretation, your problem is with 2000 years of saints.



Which one are you talking about?  I mentioned 3 or 4 things.    If you can back those doctrines up biblically - not based only on one verse, and certainly not based only on the words of fallible men just because they were associated with a church... then please do so.  

Where does the bible say that Mary is the new ark of the covenant?      And where does the bible say that Mary is the Queen of Heaven? The only references to "Queen of Heaven" that I have seen in the bible are spoken about in a negative sense, in Jeremiah.   And where does the bible say that we should pray to Mary?

I don't mean to put you on the spot... but you're the one who keeps insisting these things, and then telling others we are wrong.

It has to be based FIRST on the scriptures.... not on what some 7th century priests or church officials said.  I'm interested in what the scriptures say, and if you could please post specific verses with the  chapter and verse number, that would be helpful.

----------


## HVACTech



----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It has to be based FIRST on the scriptures.... not on what some 7th century priests or church officials said.  I'm interested in what the scriptures say, and if you could please post specific verses with the  chapter and verse number, that would be helpful.


Why is that?  The first gospel was not even written until ~64-70 AD! The Gospel was preserved by the Church in spoken and iconographic form until that time.  There literally is no higher authority on the Gospels than the Church.

----------


## TER

> It sounds to me like you're trying to rationalize things with this verse.   The woman used the words womb and breasts, but her adoration was not for fleshly organs, but for MARY.    That is why Jesus replied the way He did.
> 
> If what you are saying is true, then He could have replied with, "No, it's not her organs that are blessed, but SHE is blessed."


Lilly, you are the one prooftexting here.  She said 'blessed is the womb and blessed are the breasts', and indeed blessed is the womb which contained Him and blessed are the breast which fed Him, for how could they not be having contained the pure and sinless Son of God and having been suckled on by the most pure lips of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  The very hem of His garment has holy and cured the woman with the issue of blood.  Even St. Peter's handkerchief rose the dead because of the Holy Spirit of God working within Peter. _Of course_ the Virgin's womb and breasts were blessed, for that reason the women proclaimed it!  He did not deny that the Virgin's womb was blessed.  You are stuck on the modern mistranslation made by modern Protestants which turns the word into 'rather' to imply contradiction.  But you are falsely understanding the passage because of this innovative distortion of the Scriptures.

Christ's actual answer according to the original Greek text was (paraphrasing) GREATER then the womb and the breasts is the one who does His will, so indeed the womb and breasts were blessed, and greatest is the _woman_ who had this womb and who had these breasts, for her blessedness and holiness was not limited to these organs of life giving service, but on account of her own free will in perfect obedience to Him.  Thus she is thrice blessed.




> Once again, you're arguing something I never stated.  Of course Jesus demonstrated love and honor to His mother.  Jesus is sinless and wouldn't go against His own word...  Of course it is right to honor our parents.
> 
> I posted that verse because I think it has a sort of second meaning, it's not merely about the wedding in Cana, but a reminder for ALL people who might take their focus off of God, to - as Mary put it - "Whatever He says to you, do it."


What you think means little in the overall existence of the universe Lilly, and this is not an insult.  This is a humbling truth you need to acknowledge for your own spiritual well being.  What you (who are fallible) thinks is in fact different from what the Fathers of the Church taught.  Yes, they were fallible too, but they also contained within themselves the Holy Spirit of God.  Are you right and they all wrong?  Are you abiding in the Holy Spirit more then they?  Do you even know anything about their lives to even make a real judgement to compare yourself with them?  I implore you to read about the lives of the saints and then you can compare yourself to them and figure out who is the more holier and who the more illumined.  And in doing so, you might learn some things which will not only greater strengthen your faith but fill your mind with even greater wonder at the majesty and power of God.

Going back to the verse about the wedding in Cana, Christ performed the wish of His mother, even whilst His hour had not come because of two reasons.  Because He loves and honors His mother and this is the righteousness of God, and second because even after expressing His will that is was not time yet, He made a dispensation on account of her perfect obedience in her reply to the servants "Whatever He says to you, do it".  She got her wish _even when it was not the immediate will of her Son's_ because she answered in perfect obedience.  Saying in effect what she said at the Annunciation 'Not my will, but His will be done', which too is the same thing Christ said in the Garden of Gethsemane.

 This perfect and humble obedience and His response demonstrates the power of her intercessions towards her Son, that while we might be tumbling headlong into perdition, she can and does intercede on our behalf.  Her prayers do availeth much.  Indeed, more than anyone else who has ever lived except for Christ Who answers them.  For this reason she is not just merely honored by every apostolic Church as being the greatest Saint, but the very Queen of Heaven, just as her adopted son St. John the Theologian described her in the Book of Revelation.




> Which one are you talking about?  I mentioned 3 or 4 things.    If you can back those doctrines up biblically - not based only on one verse, and certainly not based only on the words of fallible men just because they were associated with a church... then please do so.  
> 
> Where does the bible say that Mary is the new ark of the covenant?      And where does the bible say that Mary is the Queen of Heaven? The only references to "Queen of Heaven" that I have seen in the bible are spoken about in a negative sense, in Jeremiah.   And where does the bible say that we should pray to Mary?
> 
> I don't mean to put you on the spot... but you're the one who keeps insisting these things, and then telling others we are wrong.
> 
> It has to be based FIRST on the scriptures.... not on what some 7th century priests or church officials said.  I'm interested in what the scriptures say, and if you could please post specific verses with the  chapter and verse number, that would be helpful.


And would it matter if I posted more and more Scriptures?  The ones I post to you now you scoff at and give your own interpretation and say what I write are just the musings of fallible 7th century priests, and then proceed to put your interpretation above them.  If you wish to stick to the 27 books of the New Testament as the only source of knowledge about the innumerable wonders of God, then you are free to do so.  But you are missing out of a lot my friend.  Not saying it is not enough to find the Kingdom of God, but missing a lot nonetheless.

The Holy Spirit entering into the world in Pentecost comes in towards the end of the New Testament, but the workings of Him in the Church did not end in the last page of Acts.  There is much you are ignoring unfortunately and multitudes of saints in the heavens right now whom you have placed yourself above, putting too much confidence in your own mind and your experience above the 2000 year old mind and experience of the Church.  If you don't think you need the wisdom of the saints, or their prayers, or that such things are not beneficial, then that is your prerogative.  But this great and holy cloud of witnesses stand before the altar of God, offering prayers and incense for the world (Rev 8:4), and do you not know that these same saints will judge the world? (1 Cor 6:2)

----------


## Kevin007

a Queen and a King denote Marriage and share of power and responsibility. Jesus is not married to His earthly Mother, but He sure is married to the Bride, His Church. Jesus does not share anything including His power with anyone, living or dead.

----------


## TER

> a Queen and a King denote Marriage and share of power and responsibility. Jesus is not married to His earthly Mother, but He sure is married to the Bride, His Church. Jesus does not share anything including His power with anyone, living or dead.


You may have missed this from earlier in the thread:

In the Jewish culture, a Davidic King would have his mother as Queen rather than his wife, because he rarely had one wife, but many wives. Sharing power with many wives would be much too difficult, but he had only one mother and she was given the title of Queen. Almost every time a new king is introduced in 1 and 2 Kings, the king’s mother is mentioned. She was a member of the royal court, wore a crown, sat on a throne, and shared in the king’s reign (2 Kings 24:12, 15; Jer. 13:18–20). She acted as counselor to her son (Prov. 31), an advocate of the people, and as an intercessor for the citizens of the kingdom (1 Kings 2:17–20). Since Jesus is a King based on the order of David, it makes sense that His mother would be called Queen.

********


BTW Kevin, Jesus does share His power and even His reign with those who do His will. That is the great news of our salvation as co-heirs and adopted sons of the Kingdom of God.  We become by grace what Christ is by nature and grow forever from glory to glory into His image and likeness.

----------


## pcosmar

Israel never had a Queen. ( a Queen never ruled Israel) Though it did have some wicked women that attempted to do so.

There have been several Godly women that have had influence,, in several courts.
But they did not rule as Queen.

----------


## TER

The members of the royal family had power and reign and influence on the people (and even the King!) even as it was the King who was the supreme leader of the people.  Now you are just being argumentative!  No one is claiming that the queen or anyone else in the royal family was above the king, but to deny that there were no queens in the history of Israel is silly.  The mothers of the kings were by definition queens by virtue of their sons being kings.

----------


## TER

Link HERE

Orthodox Christians commemorate the death (Dormition) of the Virgin Mary during the month of August (New Calendar, the 15th, Old Calendar, the 28th). For those for whom such feasts are foreign, it is easy to misunderstand what the Orthodox are about – and to assume that this is simply a feast to Mary because we like that sort of thing. Flippant attitudes fail to perceive the depths of the mystery of our salvation. The Dormition of the Mother of God is one of many doorways into that mystery – all of which are Christ – who alone is our salvation.


The Christian life, as taught by the Scriptures and the fathers, is grounded in the mystery and reality of communion. We do not exist alone, nor do we exist merely as a collection. Our lives are a communion of lives. We share one another in ways that permeate the whole of our being. I am unique, and yet I am also the child of Jim and Nancy, the husband Beth, etc. Though I am unique, so much of who I am and what I am is their lives and the lives of generations of human beings and culture – not just genetic relatives – but all of humanity. Without such knowledge (whether conscious or unconscious), we do not love as we should and will not live as we should. Your life is my life; God help us.


The belief that God became man in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, makes no sense and has but little value apart from the reality of life understood as communion. It is thus crucial that the Creed confesses, “He took flesh of the Virgin Mary and was made man.” The womb of the Virgin was not “borrowed space” which God inhabited until His birth. The womb of the Virgin is also that place and that source by which God “took flesh of the Virgin Mary.”


There are many theological accounts of Christ and His work of salvation that center almost solely upon the idea of Christ as a sacrifice on the Cross, a payment for the penalty of our sins. This account tends to “stand on its own.” There is nothing inherent within Christ’s birth from a Virgin to such a view of the Atonement. Nor is the Virgin seen to have any inherent connection to the saving acts of God as made known to us in the Scriptures. Thus those who profess her virginity in such cases only do so because it is recorded in the Scripture – but they do not do so because they understand its true role in our salvation. They believe in the fact of her virginity, but do not understand its mystery.


Our salvation is not achieved by an objective payment (even if the image of payment may be found in the Scriptures). The unifying teaching of the Scriptures with regard to Christ is that our salvation is through union with Him, through true communion in His life. 


His Incarnation (God-become-man) is thus a foundational reality of God’s restoration of our communion with Him. Christ becomes a partaker of our life, that we might become partakers of His. This reality is made profoundly clear in that God not only comes to dwell among us, but comes to do so as a man, having taken flesh of the Virgin Mary. He becomes “flesh of her flesh and bone of her bone” (Ge. 2:23). And yet another image: “And a sword will pierce your own soul also” (Lk. 2:35). Mary is united to Christ in the flesh, and mystically in her soul as well.


Her role in the salvation of the world (through union with Christ) is so profound that it is prophesied in the early chapters of Genesis (Ge. 3:15). She, and the Virgin Birth, are pre-figured repeatedly throughout the Old Testament (as interpreted by the fathers). There is a traditional hymn, sung during the vesting of a Bishop, that makes reference to just a small sample of such prefigurements:

Of old the Prophets aforetime proclaimed thee,
the Golden Vessel, the Staff, the Tablet, the Ark,
the Lampstand, the Table, the Uncut Mountain,
the Golden Censer, the Gate Impassible,
and the Throne of the King,
thee did the Prophets proclaim of old.

Perhaps the greatest collection of such references can be found in the 6th century hymn called the Akathist to the Theotokos.


This prefigurement and its abundant use in the fathers, all flows from the fundamental understanding of salvation as communion. Thus she, as the Mother of God, belongs with Christ. She belongs with Him as the Golden Vessel belonged with the Manna (she is the vessel who contained the Bread of Heaven); she belongs with Him as Aaron’s Rod belongs with the buds which sprang forth (that He should be born from her virginal womb is like the life which springs forth from Aaron’s lifeless rod); she is the Tablet as Christ is the words inscribed; she is the lampstand as Christ Himself is the Light, etc.


As the Creed tells us, Christ died, in accordance with the Scriptures. This does not mean in “accordance with the Gospel writings”, but “in accordance with the Scriptures of the Old Testament” (we first see the phrase in 1 Corinthians 15:3). Through the eyes of the fathers and the Tradition of the Church we begin to see that “in accordance with the Scriptures” is more than the few references that can be found that refer to payment or sacrifice or that point to the Cross. The Gospel given to us includes a very holistic understanding of salvation and its story that unfolds from beginning to end.


The union with the flesh of the Virgin is the union with our humanity – indeed with the whole created order. What Christ takes to Himself in that action, He takes with Himself throughout His ministry, taking it into death and Hades and raising it again with Himself on the third day. Thus St. Paul can say:


Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin (Romans 6:4-6).


These comments on death and resurrection in the context of Baptism, in which “we have been united together,” only make sense in an understanding of salvation as communion.


The death of the Mother of God (for He who was born of her was truly God as well as truly man), commemorated in the Feast of the Dormition, is something in which all of creation shares. For the point of the Incarnation was not simply to take flesh of the Virgin, but to be united with the whole created order. And so creation itself “groans and travails” as it awaits the final completion of our salvation (Romans 8). Or as the Church sings:


All of creation rejoices in Thee, O Full of Grace,
the assembly of angels and the race of men.
O sanctified temple and spiritual paradise,
the glory of virgins,
from whom God was incarnate and became a child.
Our God before the ages,
He made thy body into a throne,
and thy womb He made more spacious than the Heavens.
All of creation rejoices in thee,
O Full of Grace, glory to thee!


Her Dormition is indeed a day the earth stood still – for the Mother of us all passes from death to life.

----------


## pcosmar

> *The members of the royal family*


Stop right there.

$#@! your Royal Families. Israel was *NEVER* supposed to have a King. It was WRONG.

The people wanted a King to be like the Pagans. God allowed it, but gave a warning. It was a curse that the people invited on themselves.

They got a King because they rejected God. "Royal Families" are still a curse to this day.

----------


## TER

> *The members of the royal family* /QUOTE]
> 
> Stop right there.
> 
> $#@! your Royal Families. Israel was *NEVER* supposed to have a King. It was WRONG.
> 
> The people wanted a King to be like the Pagans. God allowed it, but gave a warning. It was a curse that the people invited on themselves.
> 
> They got a King because they rejected God. "Royal Families" are still a curse to this day.


So King David was a curse to Israel?  How about King Solomon?  From my understanding, his was a time of great peace and when the Temple was constructed.  Perhaps God should have waited for a libertarian society to accomplish this?  And I always thought these kings of Israel were anointed, some by the hands of great and holy prophets!

Your hatred for monarchy blinds you from basic facts, to the extreme where you will deny the existence of queens in the history of Israel.

----------


## pcosmar

> So King David was a curse to Israel?  How about King Solomon?  From my understanding, his was a time of great peace and when the Temple was constructed.  Perhaps God should have waited for a libertarian society to accomplish this?  And I always thought these kings of Israel were anointed, some by the hands of great and holy prophets!


Had the error of a King,, (the error of Nimrod) not infected the people there would have been no King.
And David could have still been a servant of the Most High,, As a Judge or Prophet raised up by God,,  just as the Judges were in time of need.

As could have Solomon,, Even without the adultery and murder,, As he could have still been born another way,,
God works with what we are..

I constantly question the different forks in my road,, that bring me to where I am today. Many choices would have led to different paths.

Some of them, I would have liked to avoid.

A King was a curse. The Human Government of a King. was a rejection of a Government by God.



> But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you,* but they have rejected Me from being king over them.* "Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day-- in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods-- so they are doing to you also.…


Thus sayeth the Lord.



> *That we also may be like all the nations*; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.


Like all the Nations.. What were all those nations? Pagans.?. Followers of Nimrod.? 

Was not supposed to be. Is not good now.

----------


## TER

At the beauty,,, of thy virginity,,, and at the exceeding splendor,,, of thy purity,,,

Gabriel stood amazed,,, and cried out unto thee,,, "Oh Theotokos

What hymn of praise,,, is meet for me to bring to thee,,, 

what shall I call thee,,, I hesitate and stand in wonder.

Wherefore,,, as I was commanded,,, I cry out unto to thee,,, 

HAIL!!!,,, Oh thou who are full of grace!!!"

----------


## Terry1

> Had the error of a King,, (the error of Nimrod) not infected the people there would have been no King.
> And David could have still been a servant of the Most High,, As a Judge or Prophet raised up by God,,  just as the Judges were in time of need.
> 
> As could have Solomon,, Even without the adultery and murder,, As he could have still been born another way,,
> God works with what we are..
> 
> I constantly question the different forks in my road,, that bring me to where I am today. Many choices would have led to different paths.
> 
> Some of them, I would have liked to avoid.
> ...


Let's take a look at where the words "queen of heaven are mentioned in the Bible.  Jeremiah 44:18King James Version (KJV)

18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.

This is referring to a pagan Babylonian goddess.  Throughout the history of the Bible the devil/satan has always mocked God and used evil to confuse mankind.  Why do you think that the pagan worshipers have so many mother and child dieties?  You can find these mother with child deities in many pagan religions today.  They exist for the express purpose to confuse mankind seeking to destroy the genuine and real Mother and child deity in Mary and the baby Jesus.  Mary and Jesus have been mocked and copied by satan for a reason in all of these other religions.  Just as for the same reason satan will call his Babylonian pagan goddess the queen of heaven instead of Mary, attempting to strip her and Jesus and of their true natures.  We know that Mary is the Mother of Jesus who bore God in her womb.   satan wants to discredit the birth of Christ and to destroy the witness of Mary's faith--hence the devil has created his own version of the "queen of heaven" and his own version of the child giving then his version of the mother of child the title of goddess and power over the child.  This is what satan does to confuse mankind.

So do you still believe that the Orthodox Catholics who use Mary to intercede for them are that far off while they recognize that Jesus is their Lord and savior and Mary His mother?  Do you think that they're worshiping Ishtar, Isis or Semiramis when they acknowledge Mary the Mother of Jesus?  No, they are not and they are fully respectful of the fact that they are not worshiping Mary, but rather Jesus through her.  Do you think that God knows their hearts as they worship Jesus through Mary?  

Do you worship the pagan phallic goddess Semiramis when you celebrate Christmas with the evergreen tree adorned with ornaments that is used in pagan worship to symbolize the rebirth?  Do you worship the pagan goddess when you hang a wreath on your front door that also symbolizes the pagan phallic celebration of rebirth?  

satan has placed these stumbling blocks in the paths of humanity to confuse them.  People celebrate pagan holidays without even knowing they're doing so.  Does that make them guilty of pagan worship even though these are ignorant innocent Christians who simply like to decorate?  Does this make them guilty of pagan phallic worship?  No--because everything that God sees is our intentions behind the things we do and why we do them.  Only God can look upon our hearts and know what we do and why we do it.  This is also why St.  Paul said--"God is able to make them stand knowing their hearts".

So if a Christian understands that Jesus is his or her Lord and savior and that Mary was His earthly Mother who gave birth to God in the flesh and respects her as that--does that make them a pagan phallic worshiper?  No--it does not.

satan works at attempting to rob God and His children of their titles and roles with regard to the salvation of humanity.  Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.   satan made his own queen of heaven--Christians have given that title to the only one worthy to carry the title as John in revelation uses a metaphor to describe the virgin birth as it relates to the spiritual church and depicts the Mother of the Child with a crown of twelve stars arrayed with the sun as indeed--*royalty*.  And for that matter--we who believe in the Son of God as our Lord and savior are *ALL royalty in that same light.  So it's not out of bounds to call the Mother of Jesus Queen of Heaven as St. John depicted in the book of Revelation.

----------


## Terry1

I also wanted to add that we will not all have the same ranks in the Kingdom of heaven.  Our Lord tells us that those of greater faith will receive higher rewards in heaven and be given more power and authority, just as God has higher and lower angels--it's the same with those who have revealed greater levels of faith in this life--we will be rewarded for that in our heavenly perfected bodies the same.

Mary certainly deserves the title of Queen of Heaven given who she was on earth and her level of faith having gave birth to and being a virgin to the Son of God and God Himself.  St. John seemed to believe so also in his divine royal depiction of her in Revelation.



*Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.*

So although Mary is being used as a type and shadow and symbol to describe the spiritual church of God--she is being described as royalty.  So just what is St. John doing here?  Is he worshiping Mary or what she stands for through her faith?  It was the faith and work of Mary that brought our savior into this world.  She is representative of the very church itself in this scripture.

----------


## erowe1

> Why is that?  The first gospel was not even written until ~64-70 AD!


First of all, how do you know that?

Second of all, 64-70 AD is pretty early.

Third of all, why do you only mention the first Gospel, when we know that multiple books of the New Testament were written in the 40's and 50's AD?

Throughout the world, and throughout history, lots of Christians have said lots of things, many of them contradicting one another. If we want to evaluate all those claims to figure out which ones represent the apostolic faith, then we have to do that using a historical method, checking them against the earliest and best representations we have of that apostolic faith. And those are the books of the New Testament.




> The Gospel was preserved by the Church in spoken and iconographic form until that time.


Spoken, yes. But Christians didn't use or approve of the use of icons until many decades or even centuries later than that.




> There literally is no higher authority on the Gospels than the Church.


If you believe this, then why would you accept the view that the earliest Gospel is from AD 64-70, rather than accept the traditions of the Church that say otherwise?

----------


## TER

Excellent posts above Terry.  You hit the nail on the head!

I wanted to repeat this small part because I sometimes get the feeling that Christians (especially Westernized Christians who have been brought up in a society that 'preaches' egalitarianism) do not realize this or are forgetful.  Getting into Heaven of course would be good enough but there certainly is different ranks of glory to those who will enter within.  Who would be more so than the mother of our very Savior who has perfect obedience and love for Christ?  




> I also wanted to add that we will not all have the same ranks in the Kingdom of heaven.  Our Lord tells us that those of greater faith will receive higher rewards in heaven and be given more power and authority, just as God has higher and lower angels--it's the same with those who have revealed greater levels of faith in this life--we will be rewarded for that in our heavenly perfected bodies the same.

----------


## TER

> Throughout the world, and throughout history, lots of Christians have said lots of things, many of them contradicting one another. If we want to evaluate all those claims to figure out which ones represent the apostolic faith, then we have to do that using a historical method, checking them against the earliest and best representations we have of that apostolic faith. And those are the books of the New Testament.


Unfortunately, some people don't understand what the role of the Gospels were, which was completely Christocentric in purpose.  It was developed to be sufficient to express Who Christ is but never intended to include and present all the depths of the mysteries of the faith.  Even if it wanted to, it couldn't.  So those who hand everything in their faith and limit it to the pages of the Gospels will indeed miss out on certain aspects and truths which may not have been written down implicitly in the book but rather is known within the life of the Church through the hymns, iconography, sacraments and oral teachings and traditions.  This is why St. Paul in the NT clearly states to hold on to the traditions from both the written and oral teachings because one alone is not enough to deliver the fullness of the faith.

----------


## erowe1

> Unfortunately, some people don't understand what the role of the Gospels were, which was completely Christocentric in purpose.  It was developed to be sufficient to express Who Christ is but never intended to include and present all the depths of the mysteries of the faith.  Even if it wanted to, it couldn't.  So those who hand everything in their faith and limit it to the pages of the Gospels will indeed miss out on certain aspects and truths which may not have been written down implicitly in the book but rather in the life of the Church through hymns, iconography and oral teachings and traditions.  This is why St. Paul in the NT clearly states to hold on to the traditions from both the written and oral teachings because one alone is not enough to deliver the fullness of the faith.


But when individual human beings present some teaching which they claim to be a tradition passed down to them through the generations from the apostles, we can test that claim and see if it's true. Their belonging to some organization doesn't make it so.

For example, it's easy to prove that many views later Christians had about Mary, such as what happened to her body, were not passed down to them through the generations from the apostles, but arose later on through the speculations of human beings lacking any real knowledge of the subject.

----------


## Terry1

> Unfortunately, some people don't understand what the role of the Gospels were, which was completely Christocentric in purpose.  It was developed to be sufficient to express Who Christ is but never intended to include and present all the depths of the mysteries of the faith.  Even if it wanted to, it couldn't.  So those who hand everything in their faith and limit it to the pages of the Gospels will indeed miss out on certain aspects and truths which may not have been written down implicitly in the book but rather in the life of the Church through hymns, iconography and oral teachings and traditions.  This is why St. Paul in the NT clearly states to hold on to the traditions from both the written and oral teachings because one alone is not enough to deliver the fullness of the faith.


Exactly TER!  We are told to hold fast to our *Christian traditions*.  The traditions that St. Paul condemned were those of the Jews who refused to accept Jesus and who practiced them to obtain righteousness through their traditions instead of Jesus.  Those are the traditions that St. Paul called "dead works" and absent *Faith/Jesus.

----------


## Terry1

> Excellent posts above Terry.  You hit the nail on the head!
> 
> I wanted to repeat this small part because I sometimes get the feeling that Christians (especially Westernized Christians who have been brought up in a society that 'preaches' egalitarianism) do not realize this or are forgetful.  Getting into Heaven of course would be good enough but there certainly is different ranks of glory to those who will enter within.  Who would be more so than the mother of our very Savior who has perfect obedience and love for Christ?


Yes, and St. John in Revelation is definitely telling us that Mary and what she stands for is representative of the very body of Christ's believers themselves.  Her spiritual womb is blessed being that which embodies and gives birth to the body of Christ.  Just as she did in the flesh on this earth to our savior--St. John depicts Mary representative of giving birth to the very spiritual body of Christs church.

----------


## TER

> But when individual human beings present some teaching which they claim to be a tradition passed down to them through the generations from the apostles, we can test that claim and see if it's true.


For many things regarding the Christian faith this is true, but not for _all_ things, not even with regards with Who Christ is. For example, much of orthodox Christology is based on what is taught and written in the NT, _but not everything is so black and white_.  That is why there have been so many heresies and schisms!  

Much is known through the living experience of the Church as it has contended in the world and witnessed to it.   For example, there has been one deposit of faith handed down, but it's expression of it may have needed greater clarity at times because of threatening schism.  So this is why you get centuries later the Monophysite controversy or any other of the numerous heresies.  It has been the Church expressing better what it has always known and experienced but for one reason or another did not have reason as of yet to fully proclaim or express. This is especially true for a persecuted Church which lived underground for the first many generations. 




> Their belonging to some organization doesn't make it so.


Indeed, the Arians used the same books as did the orthodox Christians and composed their theology pointing to 'proofs' within the Scriptures.  The reason why they are regarded as Arians now is because following the arch heretic Arius and not the catholic Church, they have excluded themselves from the Church and the unity of faith, mind, and spirit.  The outward sign which is also an ontological reality is found in their excommunication from the Eucharist which is what has always binded the Church through the different ages and controversies.

  We have a different understanding of the Church which makes it difficult for us to understand one another.  The organization which has held sacramentally to the Apostles does indeed grant it merit and authority mystically by the power of the Holy Spirit, for it is the Holy Spirit of Truth within the Church which gives it the title of the pillar and foundation for truth.




> For example, it's easy to prove that many views later Christians had about Mary, such as what happened to her body, were not passed down to them through the generations from the apostles, but arose later on through the speculations of human beings lacking any real knowledge of the subject.


This is your opinion based upon the lack of written testimony in the first centuries regarding her Dormition.  If one limits themselves to the earliest writings as the complete picture, then you are correct that there seems to be a time gap between the open celebration and remembrance in honor of the Theotokos from the books of the NT to the later centuries. This, as you would agree, does not mean there was no such honoring but that we do not see it in the limitd information we have now.

 But first we must understand that while the apostolic truths may have always been the same, the expressions have changed according to the conditions surrounding the Church.  In the beginning, it was primarily to teach Christ crucified and risen from the dead during times when doing so was punishable.  The early apostolic mission was fixed on these greater Christian truths.  Later, when the persecutions ceased and other important aspects of the faith became more easily and widespread discussed and debated was the Church forced to more clearly express what was handed down within the life of the Church even when it was not discussed as much earlier.  Thus in the fifth century we get the Christotokos and Theotokos debate which is really a Christological debate.  And to confirm and express what the Church believes, we then begin to see the writings of the men in those days reflect that.

But how can the Church make such claims on this topic without the written evidence which so many desire?  The answer is by the Holy Spirit which guides the Church, which is not limited to humankind's ability to transmit information in written or oral modes.  This may not seem like a good enough answer or proof for a logical and doubting mind however God does not work within the boundaries of human logic but through divine revelation and faith.  To the extreme where it can be said that the dormition of the Theotokos was once well known within the Church at the time of it happening and then completely forgotten and then remembered by the providence of God through the Holy Spirit.  This is NOT the answer the Church gives on this subject, for the answer of the Church is that it has always been known even as it was not found in the limited writings of the early Church or celebrated in the way it was later.  My point is to say that even in the extreme case where it occurred and was lost in time does not necessarily negate its veracity, even as it makes it seem much less likely to the human mind.  That is because the Church does contend and express truths on its own, but through the mystery and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

----------


## erowe1

> This is your opinion based upon the lack of written testimony in the first centuries regarding her Dormition.


Not just what isn't written, but also what is written. If your belief were passed down from the apostles through the generations, then it would have been impossible for Epiphanius to say what he did as late as AD 400, for example.




> For one option is that the holy virgin died, and was buried, her sleep in honor, her end in chastity and crowned in her virginity. Or perhaps she was killed, just as it is written, and a sword will pierce through her soul, her credit into the martyrs, her body holy in blessedness, through which light entered the world. Or she remained. For is it not possible for all things to be done by God, whatever He wishes? For no one knows her end.


When other people who came much later than Epiphanius give their beliefs about what happened to Mary, we have recourse to historical sources to test how ancient their beliefs are.

I wonder, by the way, if there even exist any ancient sources, or even medieval sources, that claim that their view on the assumption of Mary was passed down to them by oral tradition from the apostles. There may be. But it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the belief that this is such a tradition is itself a very recent innovation.

----------


## TER

> Not just what isn't written, but also what is written. If your belief were passed down from the apostles through the generations, then it would have been impossible for Epiphanius to say what he did as late as AD 400, for example.


But the truths of the Church do not hinge on one man's opinion or thoughts, so while Epiphanius could say this, he does not speak on behalf of all Christians everywhere in in all times.




> When other people who came much later than Epiphanius give their beliefs about what happened to Mary, we have recourse to historical sources to test how ancient their beliefs are.


Again, if you use Epiphanius writing as the more ancient source (which I agree is a good approach) it still does not give the definitive picture, for even he admits he does not know.  So can we use the opinion of someone who doesn't know as proof that the dormition did not happen?  No.  All we can say is that Epiphanius, in his mind and his experience, does not know what happened.  This neither affirms nor negates the dormition.




> I wonder, by the way, if there even exist any ancient sources, or even medieval sources, that claim that their view on the assumption of Mary was passed down to them by oral tradition from the apostles. There may be. But it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the belief that this is such a tradition is itself a very recent innovation.


I first would admit that I chuckled when you said 'very recent innovation' for something expressed in the 5th century.  Much of what we understand about Who Christ was not fully explained and expressed until centuries after Christ rose from the dead, and this as a result of the schisms which threatened the Church when the Church was forced to speak up.  The same is with regards to the Dormition.  It was not until later, in God's good time and according to what the Church was contending against, that this feast would become mainstream within the Church, after having to contend for it against those who were teaching heretical teachings regarding Mary as simply Christotokos and not Theotokos.

----------


## TER

This book is an excellent primer on the Virgin Mary and the Fathers of the Church:

Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought

----------


## erowe1

> But the truths of the Church do not hinge on one man's opinion or thoughts, so while Epiphanius could say this, he does not speak on behalf of all Christians everywhere in in all times.


He doesn't need to. He provides us with evidence for what views existed in his time. If there had been a unified authoritative tradition about what happened to Mary's body passed down through the generations from the apostles, he could not have written these words.

You call it a truth of the Church. But the question is, is it really a truth of the Church? When an individual human being makes such a claim, we can test it by historical inquiry. In the case of the assumption of Mary, it doesn't pass the test. As you say, the truths of the Church don't hinge on one man's opinion.

----------


## erowe1

> This book is an excellent primer on the Virgin Mary and the Fathers of the Church:
> 
> Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought


I predict that if you read that book you will find that it confirms exactly what I just said about the assumption of Mary.

----------


## TER

I would add that the relics of the saints have been treasured by the Church from the very beginning, since the Holy Spirit was active within these relics during the life of the saint (and even afterwards through the miracles which God has worked through them as He did with Elisha's bones).  We see that to this day have fragments of relics from the Apostles and Saints of the early Church.

How much more so would the relics of the very Mother of God been treasured!  

Yet while we have to this day passed down through the Church various articles of clothing of the Virgin, such as her sash and belt, there are no relics and there has never been any speak of any relics.  This may not be complete proof which some would like, but it is quite telling for those who are willing to believe.

----------


## TER

> I predict that if you read that book you will find that it confirms exactly what I just said about the assumption of Mary.


I have read it.

----------


## erowe1

> I have read it.


And it does, doesn't it?

----------


## erowe1

> I would add that the relics of the saints have been treasured by the Church from the very beginning


That is also clearly not true. The treasuring of relics from the people you refer to as saints began in the late second century. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars of Church history will back me up on this too.

----------


## TER

> He doesn't need to. He provides us with evidence for what views existed in his time. If there had been a unified authoritative tradition about what happened to Mary's body passed down through the generations from the apostles, he could not have written these words.
> 
> You call it a truth of the Church. But the question is, is it really a truth of the Church? When an individual human being makes such a claim, we can test it by historical inquiry. In the case of the assumption of Mary, it doesn't pass the test. As you say, the truths of the Church don't hinge on one man's opinion.


Epiphanius can only express what he know from his own experience with the limited resources and sources he had.  He does not speak for the Church.

I call it a truth of the Church because it is what the Church proclaims to be the truth.  Does this require faith?  Yes, much of the Christian faith does.  I understand that I cannot give you the proof that you want which would be historical documents which clearly and unequivically express these claims.  I am okay with that.  After all, even if we did have such documents, we might still be arguing about the interpretations of it!  After all, we argue on much about what is written in the NT itself regarding the Eucharist and the priesthood.

The Assumption of Mary does not pass your test.  It passes my test which is one of obedience to the Church which knows better than any one man and much better than me.

----------


## TER

> That is also clearly not true. The treasuring of relics from the people you refer to as saints began in the late second century. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars of Church history will back me up on this too.


We have the relics of the Apostles.  Are they not from the first century?

----------


## TER

> And it does, doesn't it?


It expresses what I have said above, that those who are looking for written direct historical proofs will not find it.  But an argument of silence is not definitive proof.

----------


## erowe1

> It expresses what I have said above, that those who are looking for written direct historical proofs will not find it.  But an argument of silence is not definitive proof.


My comment wasn't about what you said above. It was about the belief in the assumption of Mary. The book confirms my claim that this belief was not held by the earliest Christians. Does it not?

I am not talking about an argument from silence. I am talking about an argument based on an objective evaluation of all available evidence.

----------


## erowe1

> We have the relics of the Apostles.  Are they not from the first century?


We have human beings from many centuries later than the first century claiming that various things are relics from the apostles (as well as multiple different heads of John the Baptist). We have the ability to test these claims by historical inquiry, considering all available evidence. When we do, we find that none of these claims are true.

No, we have no such relics from the first century.

----------


## TER

> My comment wasn't about what you said above. It was about the belief in the assumption of Mary. The book confirms my claim that this belief was not held by the earliest Christians. Does it not?
> 
> I am not talking about an argument from silence. I am talking about an argument based on an objective evaluation of all available evidence.


And I am saying that on all the _available_ evidence, there seems to be silence on the issue, which is not proof, though that may be enough proof for you.

----------


## TER

> No, we have no such relics from the first century.


We will have to agree to disagree.

----------


## erowe1

> And I am saying that on all the _available_ evidence, there seems to be silence on the issue


I already showed you proof that this is false.

Speaking of arguments from silence. It's rather conspicuous that you're not answering my question about what the book that you claim to have read says about the matter.

----------


## TER

> I already showed you proof that this is false.


I am sorry, but you have not proved this to be false.  You have proved that according to your standards, it is false.  However, an argument of silence is not definitive proof, neither scientifically or otherwise.  

The Assumption of Mary is something that requires faith, just as with much of the teachings and traditions of the Church.  You need more proof.  Fine, I get that.  I don't and am quiet happy.  Truths are not limited to human expressions or study but also through divine revelation, and I already explained even if the entire world forgot what happened to the Virgin Mary, the Church through the Holy Spirit has revealed it.  This is the will of God.  Why?  I dont know.  Maybe to prevent confusion in the early life of the Church when other things were required.  You are seeing truths through your lens and your evaluation of the available evidence.  I am stating I don't have all the evidence and my basis and foundation for the truth is not on my own mind but through the Church.

----------


## Kevin007

> Epiphanius can only express what he know from his own experience with the limited resources and sources he had.  He does not speak for the Church.
> 
> I call it a truth of the Church because it is what the Church proclaims to be the truth.  Does this require faith?  Yes, much of the Christian faith does.  I understand that I cannot give you the proof that you want which would be historical documents which clearly and unequivically express these claims.  I am okay with that.  After all, even if we did have such documents, we might still be arguing about the interpretations of it!  After all, we argue on much about what is written in the NT itself regarding the Eucharist and the priesthood.
> *
> The Assumption of Mary does not pass your test.  It passes my test which is one of obedience to the Church which knows better than any one man and much better than me.*


*

the bible is silent about Mary's death.* In 1950, Pope Pius XII introduced another dogma as a consequence of the  previous dogmas--they called it *The Assumption of Mary into Heaven, body and soul*.  The RCC is divided regarding the details of Marys ascension into heaven. They dont agree whether she died first or was living and taken up. The Bible is silent about it. Mary most likely died like everyone else. You cannot read something into the text because you want to make a dogma about it.

----------


## Kevin007

Mary was not sinless; she needed a Savior just like the rest of humanity. The biblical witness from the  words of the historical Mary herself testify her need for a Savior. Mary was a Jew was bounded by the Law to make the rituals signifying her guilt  and state as a sinner. The bible states this;

*Romans 3:10-12- New International Version (NIV)* 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11     there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”[a]


and;

Isaiah 53:6-


(NIV)

We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

----------


## lilymc

> Mary was not sinless; she needed a Savior just like the rest of humanity. The biblical witness from the  words of the historical Mary herself testify her need for a Savior. Mary was a Jew was bounded by the Law to make the rituals signifying her guilt  and state as a sinner. The bible states this;
> 
> *Romans 3:10-12- New International Version (NIV)* 10 As it is written:
> There is no one righteous, not even one;
> 11     there is no one who understands;
>     there is no one who seeks God.
> 12 All have turned away,
>     they have together become worthless;
> there is no one who does good,
> ...


Exactly!

I honestly don't get this preoccupation with Mary some people have.  It truly baffles me.

She was not sinless.  *Only God is sinless.* 

She did  not remain a virgin her entire life.  (And there's nothing wrong with that. God created marriage, marriage and having children is a good thing. A blessing!)

I think it's sad that we are even having this debate.   

There is no need to elevate Mary to a near deity.    Isn't God enough???

/rant

----------


## Terry1

> Exactly!
> 
> I honestly don't get this preoccupation with Mary some people have.  It truly baffles me.
> 
> She was not sinless.  *Only God is sinless.* 
> 
> She did  not remain a virgin her entire life.  (And there's nothing wrong with that. God created marriage, marriage and having children is a good thing. A blessing!)
> 
> I think it's sad that we are even having this debate.   
> ...


Lily, I actually agree with you on some things regarding Mary.  In the Gospels where Mary entered their home town where Jesus grew up, the neighbors and people that knew them were questioning each other about Jesus.  They remark about knowing Jesus and his brothers and sisters, the children of Mary.  Now this is where I find it hard to agree with the Catholic interpretation of this portion of the Gospel, because they believe that this is giving reference to "brothers and sisters" as in "brethren of the Lord".  This does not seem to fit with scripture being that these old friends and neighbors were referring to the family of Joseph and Mary because they knew them growing up together.  This is the reason that Jesus had such a hard time witnessing to the people that knew him as a child in his own home town and why He had to leave them in the first place.  

I also have a hard time believing that Mary was always a virgin because of these scriptures and knowing that at that time in history--the more children one had--the more blessed they were.  It's difficult to imagine that God would deny Mary and Joseph this blessing given the level of their faith to God.  These scriptures also indicate that Jesus was first born of many other brothers and sisters of Mary and Joseph.  So--because of this that seems to reconcile with with the rest of scripture, I then must disagree that Mary was always a virgin and that she had no other children.

Now to make peace with my fellow EOC brethren here, I must also add that although I do not share this same belief about Mary always being a virgin, this to me is not detrimental to ones salvation with regard to whether she was or was not always a virgin.  The EOC also does not share the same belief with the Roman Catholics that Mary was without original sin--(Immaculate conception).  The EOC does not believe in the Papacy or that the Pope is the head of the church.  They believe that Jesus is the head of the church--hence the *split* between these two Catholic churches, although they still consider themselves "sister churches".

So why do I follow the EOC then?  Because what I saw within their teaching are the core precepts and values that are most important regarding our salvation.  First being that we are not "once saved always saved" and that repentance is required throughout our entire lives to the very end of it because it's most certainly possible to fall away from grace and faith.  Jesus is the head of their church--not the Pope.  I agree that the Mariology doctrine is a hindrance, but not detrimental to one's salvation.  We are told in the Gospels and the Ten Commandments not to bow down and worship other gods or deities because God is a jealous God.  So then, even with full understanding that they are not worshiping these saints or Mary-- would using Mary or the departed saints as intercessors be an unpardonable sin?  No--I don't believe so because God knows their hearts and intentions, but we are also warned about praying to the departed spirits of the saints because this could be very dangerous not fully comprehending which spirits we could be contacting being in our human fallible state.  This would not be something that I personally would practice at all being my current understanding of the possible outcome and effects that could come from this practice.

The word of God also tells us that in these end times--satan will use earthly icons as signs and miracles to deceive mankind and we are to be ever watchful for these particular events.

So then you're probably wondering why I would subscribe to a church that practiced these things and I would tell you because what the EOC has preserved is the core biblical teaching that saves and that is that we are not once saved always saved and that it's possible to fall away from grace and faith and that we are tested to the very end our lives until our deaths.  Only then will God either choose us or not because of our life, faith and witness here on this earth.  This is paramount and huge and the key to our salvation.

We have to remember that this church is ancient and this teaching has never once changed despite other practices that I believe do not coincide with the Gospel since the time of the apostles.  As the church has adopted using saints and Mary as intercessors--this was not always practiced in the earliest church history at Ephesus.  We must never toss the baby out with the bathwater when discerning and rightly dividing the word of God.  The apostle Paul never used the departed saints as intercessors that I'm aware of biblically and John of revelation was rebuked by the angel of God when John attempted to do the same as "bowing down" to the angel.  The angel corrected John and told him "not to do this" because like himself, he was only a brethren in the Lord and a messenger of God.  Again--I do not believe this is an unpardonable sin, but we are clearly instructed not to use the angels or the departed as intercessors for our own spiritual well-being because it is dangerous not always being able to discern the nature of the spirits in our human state.

Intercessory prayers as I understand it biblically is used amongst the living.  We can do this for one another when one is weak in the Lord needing intercession and prayer.  We are also instructed by the word of God not to disturb those "who sleep" or those who have already departed this life.  There is also an example in the bible where this was done by the witch of Endor to summon the prophet Samuel with very bad results.

I realize that my EOC brethren will disagree with me on this, but like I said--I do not believe this practice is detrimental to our eternal souls--God knowing their hearts and able to make them stand in light of this truth as John of Revelation made this very same mistake and was rebuked for it.

God calls us all to be lights in this world and to be spiritually knowledgeable and aware.  We must make sure that what we do reconciles with the word of God always--no matter what we've been previously taught or how much or how long we have believed something else. 

Peace and love to all of my brothers and sister in Christ.

----------


## Terry1

I also wanted to add to the above by saying that we all won't always agree 100 percent on every jot and tittle of the word of God.  The Apostle Paul told us that we would all see through the glass darkly in this life and that more is given to those who sincerely seek it out and more often.  There are people with varying levels of faith and God rewards those who seek honestly, diligently and often with prayer and trust in Him.

What I have come to know and to see spiritually are my personal convictions having studied and experienced many different faiths and denominations of the Christian faith.   Having been a follower of the protestant churches for so long, I failed to see and to make the connections that I have most recently in my journey in faith.  Here are some of my observations if you're interested.

Most protestant churches have been infected with Calvinism and Lutheranism that teach such things as that there is no need for repentance after a one time confession of faith and that they are once saved always saved--being a part of the perseverance of the saints and Calvin's doctrinal teaching.   Some protestant churches teach legalism and that they must follow the Jewish traditions of dead works also.  Some protestant churches teach differing levels of the TULIP doctrine to one degree or another as in total depravity and irresistible grace.  None of these teachings reconcile with the gospel of Jesus Christ and are--IMO--very dangerous and detrimental to the soul being that they can place people in a state of spiritual complacency leaving them to believe they can live any way they choose and still be saved after a one time confession of belief.

Most--if not all protestant churches are infected with these teachings that directly impair or annihilate the chance of salvation and are indeed very dangerous to the eternal soul.  

Comparing this to what the EOC Catholics believe and some of their practices I don't agree with, but are not as dangerous to the eternal soul as what the protestants teach.  Because the EOC Catholics have preserved the very key to salvation in their teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that is that our salvation in this life is never secured by a one time confession of faith.  The EOC teaches that we must live Godly lives and that we must keep our Christian traditions and hold fast to doing the good works that Jesus has called us to do in faith and full belief.  And reconciles with all of the apostle words such as James and Paul who taught us that faith without our good works to back that up is dead and we have no faith at all at that point and can fall from grace as Paul tells us.

For these reasons--I understand that there is no perfect earthly church, but the core message of what actually can save mankind has been preserved by the EOC--despite the Mariology and using the departed saints as intercessors that I don't agree with--they have preserved the core biblical message that saves mankind.

----------


## TER

> Exactly!
> 
> I honestly don't get this preoccupation with Mary some people have.  It truly baffles me.


What is baffling to me is why some people who call themselves Christians are scandalized by people honoring the Mother of Christ.  Even Luther, will all his errors, was correct in many parts, and this includes in his agreement with the patristic witness that the Theotokos was ever-virgin and that she is to be honored above all saints.
 *The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.       * 
_(Sermon, September 1, 1522)_

*[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ*        . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor        her enough.
_(Sermon, Christmas, 1531)_

     No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all        nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. 
_(Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537)_

     One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in        the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her?        *The true honor of Mary is the honor of God*, the praise of God's grace .        . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ        . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. 
_(Explanation      of the Magnificat, 1521)_

Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother"      for Christians:
 
Mary is the Mother of Jesus and *the Mother of all of us* even though it        was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought        to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that        he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. 
_(Sermon, Christmas,      1529)_
      It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected        without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also        purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure        soul infused by God; *thus from the first moment she began to live she was        free from all sin*" 
_(Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the      Mother of God," 1527)_

*She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin*- something        exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes        her devoid of all evil. 
_(Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book_,        1522)
 *Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity*

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of      Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and      *she remained a virgin after that.   * 
    {_Luther's Works_, eds. Jaroslav      Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia      Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955,      v.22:23 / _Sermons on John_, chaps. 1-4 (1539)} 

 *Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin      Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those      who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and      the Jews always call cousins brothers.*     {Pelikan, _ibid.,_ v.22:214-15 / _Sermons    on John_, chaps. 1-4 (1539)} 

  A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed      to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin      either before or after the birth of Christ . . .     {Pelikan, _ibid.,_v.45:199 / _That Jesus    Christ was Born a Jew_ (1523)}

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost      her virginity . . .          When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know        Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that        he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know        her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither        noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.{Pelikan, _ibid.,_ v.45:206,212-3 / _That    Jesus Christ was Born a Jew_ (1523) }    

". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . .        . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all        evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is        divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected        her from all that might be hurtful to her." (Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann,    Fortress, 1968) 

 ". . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the        Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and        true God."{Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav,        Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)} 

"Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb.        . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and* she remained a virgin        after that*." (On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed.        Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)

"Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God.        No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as        there are leaves on the trees."




> She was not sinless.  *Only God is sinless.*


She was not sinless by nature, for only Christ is sinless by nature.  She was made sinless by grace, for having been overcome by the grace of the Holy Spirit Who purified her, she became a sinless tabernacle to give _flesh_ and birth to the Sinless Christ.




> She did  not remain a virgin her entire life.  (And there's nothing wrong with that. God created marriage, marriage and having children is a good thing. A blessing!)


There is nothing wrong with having children, but the Virgin Mary only had one.  She remained a virgin her whole life, that is the testimony of the saints and the Church, until it was changed by the later Reformers.  Christ's brothers were cousins and half brothers/sisters which Joseph had in a prior marriage (he was an older widow when he was betrothed to the Virgin Mary).  To think that Joseph would have sex with Mary after he knew she gave birth to the Son of God is impious.  People live lives in total virginity now, for example in monasteries, and the Mother of God who gave Her flesh to our God could not keep her self pure and inviolate?  Why?  Because you misinterpret the Scriptures against the testimony of the 2000 year old Church?  Do you know better then the saints and martyrs of the first centuries how the term 'brothers, applied to Christ?  Where do you get this confidence?  How are you so right and every one is so wrong?  I personally would not feel comfortable in such a position, knowing how much of a sinner I am.  Are you perhaps sinless that you do not need the testimony of the earliest Saints? I dare not do such a thing. 

Mary is All Holy by the Grace of God.  In the Holy Spirit, she is Ever-pure, having received the full healing made possible by Christ, which we will not know until the Last Day.   For that reason we glorify and honor the Mother of God!  For she is what we aspire to be!  To be Christ-bearers in imitation of her, through living holy lives of humility and obedience to God's will.  We too share in the same glory as she does when we become filled by the Holy Spirit of God.  Let us learn from those who too have lived such holy lives, namely the saints, and learn what obedience to God is and true faith.  That way we too might grow in light and life and in the likeness of Jesus Christ, entering into the communion of His saints and the future resurrection and life in the Kingdom of God.




> I think it's sad that we are even having this debate.


What is sad is that people are scandalized by the Theotokos and her important role in our salvation.  




> There is no need to elevate Mary to a near deity.    Isn't God enough???


She is near deity because of the Holy Spirit in her, but she is not God, and while she was born a daughter of Eve and became the Mother of God, she too died, for Christ alone was born without any sin and only by Christ was the curse of Adam reversed.  Christ is the Savior to the Theotokos just as He is the Savior to all men.  The Theotokos has received the great honor of ascending bodily to heaven after her death due to the special dispensation and love of God.  While Christ is the Firstfruits of our future resurrected nature, the Theotokos by special dispensation of God is living that future life now in the Kingdom.

How is this possible?  By the Almighty God!

----------


## lilymc

> Lily, I actually agree with you on some things regarding Mary.  In the Gospels where Mary entered their home town where Jesus grew up, the neighbors and people that knew them were questioning each other about Jesus.  They remark about knowing Jesus and his brothers and sisters, the children of Mary.  Now this is where I find it hard to agree with the Catholic interpretation of this portion of the Gospel, because they believe that this is giving reference to "brothers and sisters" as in "brethren of the Lord".  This does not seem to fit with scripture being that these old friends and neighbors were referring to the family of Joseph and Mary because they knew them growing up together.  This is the reason that Jesus had such a hard time witnessing to the people that knew him as a child in his own home town and why He had to leave them in the first place.  
> 
> I also have a hard time believing that Mary was always a virgin because of these scriptures and knowing that at that time in history--the more children one had--the more blessed they were.  It's difficult to imagine that God would deny Mary and Joseph this blessing given the level of their faith to God.  These scriptures also indicate that Jesus was first born of many other brothers and sisters of Mary and Joseph.  So--because of this that seems to reconcile with with the rest of scripture, I then must disagree that Mary was always a virgin and that she had no other children.
> 
> Now to make peace with my fellow EOC brethren here, I must also add that although I do not share this same belief about Mary always being a virgin, this to me is not detrimental to ones salvation with regard to whether she was or was not always a virgin.  The EOC also does not share the same belief with the Roman Catholics that Mary was without original sin--(Immaculate conception).  The EOC does not believe in the Papacy or that the Pope is the head of the church.  They believe that Jesus is the head of the church--hence the *split* between these two Catholic churches, although they still consider themselves "sister churches".
> 
> So why do I follow the EOC then?  Because what I saw within their teaching are the core precepts and values that are most important regarding our salvation.  First being that we are not "once saved always saved" and that repentance is required throughout our entire lives to the very end of it because it's most certainly possible to fall away from grace and faith.  Jesus is the head of their church--not the Pope.  I agree that the Mariology doctrine is a hindrance, but not detrimental to one's salvation.  We are told in the Gospels and the Ten Commandments not to bow down and worship other gods or deities because God is a jealous God.  So then, even with full understanding that they are not worshiping these saints or Mary-- would using Mary or the departed saints as intercessors be an unpardonable sin?  No--I don't believe so because God knows their hearts and intentions, but we are also warned about praying to the departed spirits of the saints because this could be very dangerous not fully comprehending which spirits we could be contacting being in our human fallible state.  This would not be something that I personally would practice at all being my current understanding of the possible outcome and effects that could come from this practice.
> 
> The word of God also tells us that in these end times--satan will use earthly icons as signs and miracles to deceive mankind and we are to be ever watchful for these particular events.
> ...


Hi Terry, thanks for your thoughts and for the detailed post.

I want to reply, but I have to get going now, so I'll try to get back to this thread later.  But I appreciate you taking the time to clarify what you believe. Blessings!

----------


## TER

> Hi Terry, thanks for your thoughts and for the detailed post.
> 
> I want to reply, but I have to get going now, so I'll try to get back to this thread later.  But I appreciate you taking the time to clarify what you believe. Blessings!


We should glorify God Who is bringing Terry back to her roots.  For He tugs at the heart and reveals Himself within the soul of the honest seeker.  This is the image of Martha's sister Mary, who hears the words and listens and whose life is centered solely upon the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  For when the person truly humbles themselves before the Lord, then true grace is experienced.  Then do the depths and weights of the truth become more clearly understood and known.  Then the fullness of the story of Christ's work in this world begins to be perceived.  Not apart from history and time, but in it and through it.  Not disconnected but in full mystical communion, in and by the divine energies of God.  (These are heavy theological points, but they are the teachings of the Church).  

Terry is looking for the fuller life in Christ, in the image of Lazarus' sister Mary, and as Christ said 'it shall not be taken away from her'.  In time and through prayer, she too will be received into the same Church of St. Mary of Bethany.  To the glory of Christ our God!

----------


## Terry1

> We should glorify God Who is bringing Terry back to her roots.  For He tugs at the heart and reveals Himself within the soul of the honest seeker.  This is the image of Martha's sister Mary, who hears the words and listens and whose life is centered solely upon the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  For when the person truly humbles themselves before the Lord, then true grace is experienced.  Then do the depths and weights of the truth become more clearly understood and known.  Then the fullness of the story of Christ's work in this world begins to be perceived.  Not apart from history and time, but in it and through it.  Not disconnected but in full mystical communion, in and by the divine energies of God.  (These are heavy theological points, but they are the teachings of the Church).  
> 
> Terry is looking for the fuller life in Christ, in the image of Lazarus' sister Mary, and as Christ said 'it shall not be taken away from her'.  In time and through prayer, she too will be received into the same Church of St. Mary of Bethany.  To the glory of Christ our God!


Amen brother TER!   I fully respect and honor the Mother Mary for her contribution that is beyond compare in the history of this world.  She deserves the title Queen of Heaven!  As all of the beloved departed saints of God who gave their lives and testimony to the witness of Christ.  I'm not going anywhere, but back to my roots in the EOC.   There is no stronger earthly witness with the true message of salvation other than the EOC--and that is what I will cling to.

----------


## erowe1

> In time and through prayer, she too will be received into the same Church of St. Mary of Bethany.  To the glory of Christ our God!


If she has faith in Christ, then she is already a part of His Church, as all who have faith in him are.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What is baffling to me is why some people who call themselves Christians are scandalized by people honoring the Mother of Christ.  Even Luther, will all his errors, was correct in many parts, and this includes in his agreement with the patristic witness that the Theotokos was ever-virgin and that she is to be honored above all saints.


 +rep for the whole post

----------


## TER

> If she has faith in Christ, then she is already a part of His Church, as all who have faith in him are.


My friend, being in Christ Who is the infinite Word of God has degrees.  She has chosen the fullest and most assured way.

----------


## erowe1

> My friend, being in Christ Who is the infinite Word of God has degrees.  She has chosen the fullest and most assured way.


There is only one true Church. You're either in it, or you're not. All who have faith in Christ are in it.

----------


## TER

> There is only one true Church. You're either in it, or you're not. All who have faith in Christ are in it.


The sad truth is that many who think they are in the Church will not be on that day, and many who thought they were will be shut out.

----------


## erowe1

> The sad truth is that many who think they are in the Church will not be on that day, and many who thought they were will be shut out.


Yes. And, according to Jesus and His apostles, the way in is by faith in Christ.

It is through one's relationship with Jesus that one is joined to the Church, and not through one's relationship with the Church that one is joined to Christ.

----------


## TER

> Yes. And, according to Jesus and His apostles, the way in is by faith in Christ.
> 
> It is through one's relationship with Jesus that one is joined to the Church, and not through one's relationship with the Church that one is joined to Christ.


Yes, faith goes a long way.  But faith without works is dead.  Our works are to seek Christ and enter into communion with His Church, not create our own.

----------


## Terry1

> If she has faith in Christ, then she is already a part of His Church, as all who have faith in him are.


Yes, but faith is not an illusive or obscure state of mind.  Faith is something we do in response to back up our belief.  Faith is an action and a response to our belief.  Without a work of faith by actually doing something to contribute to the spiritual well-being of mankind--we have no faith or witness--they are both dead.  What good is our faith when we can't hear the Holy Spirit telling us to feed the hungry, help heal and care for the sick and the poor.  We do what our conscience tells us when we walk in the spirit of the Lord.  We live in a spontaneous state of reaction to what is being prompted upon our conscience.  That is believing--that is backing up our belief with faith.  Faith is indeed an action of which without--is dead faith and we can fall from grace if we ignore the voice of the Holy Spirit for too long.  This is the message of true salvation in Christ.

----------


## lilymc

> Yes. And, according to Jesus and His apostles, the way in is by faith in Christ.
> 
> It is through one's relationship with Jesus that one is joined to the Church, and not through one's relationship with the Church that one is joined to Christ.



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to erowe1 again.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, faith goes a long way.  But faith without works is dead.  Our works are to seek Christ and enter into communion with His Church, not create our own.


Amen TER!   I was typing as you wrote this.

----------


## lilymc

> Yes, faith goes a long way.  But faith without works is dead.  Our works are to seek Christ and enter into communion with His Church, not create our own.


In the above sentence, how are you defining "His Church"?

----------


## TER

> In the above sentence, how are you defining "His Church"?


The Church of the New Testament.

----------


## lilymc

> The Church of the New Testament.


Ok, thanks for the reply.   So, can you elaborate on what exactly you meant by "not create your own" (church) ?


 .

----------


## Terry1

> In the above sentence, how are you defining "His Church"?


Christ's church are the keepers of the true saving Gospel message.  We are not eternally secure in this life.  We are not once saved always saved.  We are not chosen in this life.  This life is a test--God chooses whom He will after we've been tested and proven true.  We are only of the Elect of God as long as we abide in Christ in this life.  Fall from faith--and we are no longer Elect.  Hence Paul tells us 2 Timothy 2:  10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Why else would Paul state that the Elect *MIGHT OBTAIN* something that the word "Elect" indicates they already have?  Because as Paul tells us--in this life and to the very end of it that it's possible to fall away.  Jesus tells us that the "overcomers"--those who endure till the end are the only ones He will confess before the Father in Heaven--Rev. 3:5.

----------


## TER

> Ok, thanks for the reply.   So, can you elaborate on what exactly you meant by "not create your own" (church) ?
> .


Actually, I would much rather us understand what we mean by the New Testament Church.  This seems like a more important thing to know and we must actually first understand it before we can begin to know what it means to create your own church.

----------


## lilymc

> Actually, I would much rather us understand what we mean by the New Testament Church.  This seems like a more important thing to know and we must actually first understand it before we can begin to know what it means to create your own church.


We've already talked about this a few times.  All who have a true, saving faith in Christ are the church.   Those who have been born again...and not merely going to church on Sunday, but are surrendered to God, and have a changed life that is evidence of their faith.

So can you please answer my previous question -   If you were talking about the same church that erowe1, Kevin, myself, Dr.3d and others have been talking about.... then why did you say, "not create your own church"?    I'm just curious.

----------


## lilymc

> Christ's church are the keepers of the true saving Gospel message.  We are not eternally secure in this life.  We are not once saved always saved.  We are not chosen in this life.  This life is a test--God chooses whom He will after we've been tested and proven true.  We are only of the Elect of God as long as we abide in Christ in this life.  Fall from faith--and we are no longer Elect.  Hence Paul tells us 2 Timothy 2:  10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
> 
> Why else would Paul state that the Elect *MIGHT OBTAIN* something that the word "Elect" indicates they already have?  Because as Paul tells us--in this life and to the very end of it that it's possible to fall away.  Jesus tells us that the "overcomers"--those who endure till the end are the only ones He will confess before the Father in Heaven--Rev. 3:5.


I disagree, but I honestly don't feel like getting into a big discussion on that, at the moment.  

I just wanted to know what TER had in mind when he said "enter into communion with His Church".

This is why I really dislike religion, and denominations.   People end up putting way, way, way too much emphasis on their _church_, their doctrines and their religious stuff, instead of just getting back to the basics.   And doing what is important - God's will.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We've already talked about this a few times.*  All who have a true, saving faith in Christ are the church.* *  Those who have been born again...and not merely going to church on Sunday, but are surrendered to God, and have a changed life that is evidence of their faith.*
> 
> So can you please answer my previous question -   If you were talking about the same church that erowe1, Kevin, myself, Dr.3d and others have been talking about.... then why did you say, "not create your own church"?    I'm just curious.


You're getting into OSAS and similar doctrinal territory.  That doesn't stand up to scriptural or historical tests.

----------


## TER

> We've already talked about this a few times.  All who have a true, saving faith in Christ are the church.   Those who have been born again...and not merely going to church on Sunday, but are surrendered to God, and have a changed life that is evidence of their faith.


Lily, I am not doubting that Christ is active in your life.  I am not denying that the Holy Spirit is in your life.  

The question is in regards to the Church we learn about in the New Testament.  In this Church, having faith was not enough.  You also had to be baptized.  Are you aware of that?

----------


## Terry1

> I disagree, but I honestly don't feel like getting into a big discussion on that, at the moment.


If you don't mind me asking respectfully, I would appreciate a reason as to why you disagree with my statements above.  Do you believe that we are eternally secure in this life outside of continually abiding in Christ?  If so--how so?




> I just wanted to know what TER had in mind when he said "enter into communion with His Church".


  The church of this world is both physical and spiritual and there is a correct way to believe and a true Gospel message that is taught by that church.  This is all about being led of the Spirit and the ability to *rightly divide* what is and isn't of God.  Just because you don't believe in the practice of one thing--is not an indication that the baby must be tossed out with the bathwater.  We are called to spiritually discern and rightly divide the word of God as to what is and is not true.




> This is why I really dislike religion, and denominations.   People end up putting way, way, way too much emphasis on their _church_, their doctrines and their religious stuff, instead of just getting back to the basics.   And doing what is important - God's will.


God's will is what you personally are led to believe as a result of "walking in the spirit of the Lord".  I can not sit here and tell you that you are wrong.  All I can disagree with is what is biblically correct and what isn't according to what I've been spiritually led to believe.  It all has to reconcile with the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and if it does not--then we have to question as to why what we believe isn't matching up with the rest of scripture.

The EOC teaches the ancient message of the Gospel and can be literally traced to the original teachings of the apostles and the New Testament church--not the new age reformed protestant version of the 15th century reformers.  I am talking about the Gospel message here and nothing else because nothing else saves like the Gospel of Jesus Christ that match up with the teachings of the Apostle Paul and James as well.  No other church in this world comes closer to the truest Gospel message than the EOC.

----------


## lilymc

> Lily, I am not doubting that Christ is active in your life.  I am not denying that the Holy Spirit is in your life.  
> 
> The question is in regards to the Church we learn about in the New Testament.  In this Church, having faith was not enough.  You also had to be baptized.  Are you aware of that?


Yes, I have been baptized.  Click on the video below for a quick clip of it.   However,  if you believe that being dunked in water is an absolute requirement for salvation, I'm going to have to disagree.   I'm noticing a pattern here.  You seem to place so much emphasis on physical things....in this case, the physical act of being dunked in water.  The important thing is not what is not physical, but the inner change that takes place in someone, a true spiritual birth. 

Without that, it really doesn't matter if one is baptized - either as a baby or adult - because we are not saved by physical acts.

----------


## lilymc

Btw, TER, you still didn't answer my question.  I think this is the 3rd time now, so hopefully you will answer it.  

Here it is again, in case you forgot:  "So can you please answer my previous question - If you were talking about the same church that erowe1, Kevin, myself, Dr.3d and others have been talking about.... then why did you say, "not create your own church"? I'm just curious."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, I have been baptized.  Click on the video below for a quick clip of it.   However,  if you believe that being dunked in water is an absolute requirement for salvation, I'm going to have to disagree.   I'm noticing a pattern here.  You seem to place so much emphasis on physical things....in this case, the physical act of being dunked in water.  The important thing is not what is not physical, but the inner change that takes place in someone, a true spiritual birth. 
> 
> Without that, it really doesn't matter if one is baptized - either as a baby or adult - because we are not saved by physical acts.


They're not just "physical things".  They are sacraments given to us by God for our benefit.  The waters of baptism are our death, burial, and resurrection in union with Christ.  Baptism is the means by which we enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:5), are joined to Christ (Romans 6:3), and are granted the remission of our sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

There is importance to all the other sacraments (communion, etc) to Christian life, but I don't have time to get into that.

----------


## lilymc

> If you don't mind me asking respectfully, I would appreciate a reason as to why you disagree with my statements above.  Do you believe that we are eternally secure in this life outside of continually abiding in Christ?  If so--how so?
> 
>   The church of this world is both physical and spiritual and there is a correct way to believe and a true Gospel message that is taught by that church.  This is all about being led of the Spirit and the ability to *rightly divide* what is and isn't of God.  Just because you don't believe in the practice of one thing--is not an indication that the baby must be tossed out with the bathwater.  We are called to spiritually discern and rightly divide the word of God as to what is and is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> God's will is what you personally are led to believe as a result of "walking in the spirit of the Lord".  I can not sit here and tell you that you are wrong.  All I can disagree with is what is biblically correct and what isn't according to what I've been spiritually led to believe.  It all has to reconcile with the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and if it does not--then we have to question as to why what we believe isn't matching up with the rest of scripture.
> 
> The EOC teaches the ancient message of the Gospel and can be literally traced to the original teachings of the apostles and the New Testament church--not the new age reformed protestant version of the 15th century reformers.  I am talking about the Gospel message here and nothing else because nothing else saves like the Gospel of Jesus Christ that match up with the teachings of the Apostle Paul and James as well.  No other church in this world comes closer to the truest Gospel message than the EOC.


I don't consider myself a "protestant."   I don't have to agree with everything that the "reformers" believed, because I never identified myself as a protestant, or as belonging to any denomination.   I'm just a Christian.  A born again Christian, an adopted child of God.   I'm someone who went through such a profound change in my heart/mind and life, that I devoted the rest of my life to serving God, using my gifts and talents for His kingdom.   

I read and study the bible on my own, prayerfully, asking the Holy Spirit to be my teacher.   I listen to what people I respect and trust have to say, but I don't believe that simply having the title of "pope," "priest,"  "deacon" or whatever automatically makes someone trustworthy.

As for the other stuff you brought up....  let's talk about it another time.    We'll probably have to agree to disagree overall, because it seems that I disagree with the EO (and the Roman Catholic Church) on numerous things.  But especially on the focus and emphasis you guys place on religion and the "church" - and by church I don't mean the worldwide church that some of us have been talking about, but the EO church.)   Catholics do the same thing.  They put so much emphasis on the Catholic church, to the point where they seem to think of themselves as "Catholic" rather than just Christian.  I know this, because my mom is Catholic, as are many of my relatives on her side of the family.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't consider myself a "protestant."   I don't have to agree with everything that the "reformers" believed, because I never identified myself as a protestant, or as belonging to any denomination.   I'm just a Christian.  A born again Christian, an adopted child of God.   I'm someone who went through such a profound change in my heart/mind and life, that I devoted the rest of my life to serving God, using my gifts and talents for His kingdom.   
> 
> I read and study the bible on my own, prayerfully, asking the Holy Spirit to be my teacher.   I listen to what people I respect and trust have to say, but I don't believe that simply having the title of "pope," "priest,"  "deacon" or whatever automatically makes someone trustworthy.
> 
> As for the other stuff you brought up....  let's talk about it another time.    We'll probably have to agree to disagree overall, because it seems that I disagree with the EO (and the Roman Catholic Church) on numerous things.  But especially on the focus and emphasis you guys place on religion and the "church" - and by church I don't mean the worldwide church that some of us have been talking about, but the EO church.)   Catholics do the same thing.  They put so much emphasis on the Catholic church, to the point where they seem to think of themselves as "Catholic" rather than just Christian.  I know this, because my mom is Catholic, as are many of my relatives on her side of the family.


Certainly there are "church worshipers" among Orthodox and Roman Catholics.  But the same happens in all the heterodox denominations and the non-denominationals have a variety of ways to do something similar.  Have you visited a mega church?  It's more of a pop/rock concert than a congregation in His name.  That concert hall becomes an idol for many. (I've seen it happen)

A parish is a place set aside from all "normal" places where we have our dinner date with Christ (Divine Liturgy or Mass) and celebrate Him and the saints.  That is what makes it special.  

IDK about everyone, but I call myself "Orthodox" instead of simply "Christian" because there are so many denominations who split away from Christianity that the word as first coined in Antioch has lost its original meaning.

You're right that a title does not make one automatically trustworthy.  It is a primary duty of the laity to keep the clergy in check on this matter.

----------


## lilymc

> They're not just "physical things".  They are sacraments given to us by God for our benefit.  The waters of baptism are our death, burial, and resurrection in union with Christ.  Baptism is the means by which we enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:5), are joined to Christ (Romans 6:3), and are granted the remission of our sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).
> 
> There is importance to all the other sacraments (communion, etc) to Christian life, but I don't have time to get into that.


We'll have to agree to disagree.  Baby baptism, First communion, confirmation, etc, etc.... I went through all that, growing up.   None of that meant anything to me, because I wasn't even a believer at that time.   The only reason I was there is because my Mom took me there.   

If I would've died back then -  I would not have gone to heaven - even though I went through those "sacraments."     

THAT is why I believe religiousness is so dangerous.  It teaches lies - either directly or by omission... and causes people to think they're saved, just because they had some water sprinkled on them as a baby, and went through first communion and confirmation.     Meanwhile, they are usually unaware of Jesus' very clear words,* "you must be born again."*... Why?  Because their church never taught them that, or encouraged them to open up a bible and read it.

----------


## lilymc

> Certainly there are "church worshipers" among Orthodox and Roman Catholics.  But the same happens in all the heterodox denominations and the non-denominationals have a variety of ways to do something similar.  Have you visited a mega church?  It's more of a pop/rock concert than a congregation in His name.  That concert hall becomes an idol for many. (I've seen it happen)
> 
> A parish is a place set aside from all "normal" places where we have our dinner date with Christ (Divine Liturgy or Mass) and celebrate Him and the saints.  That is what makes it special.  
> 
> IDK about everyone, but I call myself "Orthodox" instead of simply "Christian" because there are so many denominations who split away from Christianity that the word as first coined in Antioch has lost its original meaning.
> 
> You're right that a title does not make one automatically trustworthy.  It is a primary duty of the laity to keep the clergy in check on this matter.


Yes, I agree that idolatry or focusing on the wrong things can happen in any denomination.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We'll have to agree to disagree.  Baby baptism, First communion, confirmation, etc, etc.... I went through all that, growing up.   None of that meant anything to me, because I wasn't even a believer at that time.   The only reason I was there is because my Mom took me there.   
> 
> If I would've died back then -  I would not have gone to heaven - even though I went through those "sacraments."     
> 
> THAT is why I believe religiousness is so dangerous.  It teaches lies - either directly or by omission... and causes people to think they're saved, just because they had some water sprinkled on them as a baby, and went through first communion and confirmation.     Meanwhile, they are usually unaware of Jesus' very clear words,* "you must be born again."*... Why?  Because their church never taught them that, or encouraged them to open up a bible and read it.


The same can be said of "non-religionism" or "non-denominationalism", though.  Plenty of such people believe in OSAS or something similar and never actually heed what Jesus says. (my sister is like this in her non-denominational church) If someone ignores Jesus' clear words (or doesn't even read it), part of the blame belongs to clergy, but part also belongs to the laity.

~hugs~

----------


## TER

> Yes, I have been baptized.  Click on the video below for a quick clip of it.   However,  if you believe that being dunked in water is an absolute requirement for salvation, I'm going to have to disagree.   I'm noticing a pattern here.  You seem to place so much emphasis on physical things....in this case, the physical act of being dunked in water.  The important thing is not what is not physical, but the inner change that takes place in someone, a true spiritual birth. 
> 
> Without that, it really doesn't matter if one is baptized - either as a baby or adult - because we are not saved by physical acts.


The video was beautiful. Thank you for sharing it.  

Of course one does not _need_ triple water immersion to enter into the Church, for God is not limited in Who He saves and allows into the Wedding Feast.  

But Christ _has_ established a real physical Church within the world, and this is the Church in which He desires us to become a member of.  This does not limit what God can do of course as mentioned above, -this simply reveals what God is pleased with, 'to fulfill all righteousness' as He said at His own baptism.  And in His teachings He tells us that we are saved in 'water and Spirit', and such is the way in which the Church has accepted its members, through baptism.  This is the way of the early Church of the Apostles, the one which you read about in the New Testament, the one we are trying to determine to find.

And we also read in the Scriptures that the churches spread about were in communion through a unity of faith and worship, a communion and worship centered around the Holy Eucharist.  To ensure that this communion would endure and be passed on through the ages and that the deposit of faith would be jealously guarded and protected, the Apostles followed the instructions of Christ and established bishops, priests, and deacons to carry on as guardians of the faith (and the Holy Eucharist) the apostolic Church, the Bride of Christ which He will bring into the Kingdom of Heaven. 

This is the Church of the New Testament, the one which all those who will be saved in the end will be part of, either starting in this world within the the One, Holy, Apostolic Church which is called the Orthodox Church, or drafted upon by the will and mercy of God at the appointed time (for God alone knows the true heart of the individual and He alone knows the limits of the Church).

If you want to prove to me to that you are in the Church (or the community of baptized same minded believers in unity of faith, worship and communion in the Body and Blood of Christ with the Apostles), then show me who your bishop is.  Let me judge your confident claims against the Church described in the New Testament.  What are your similarities with the Church of the New Testament?  For you deny what that Church has faithfully passed down!  You take the poor interpretations of modern day innovators and mistranslators, ignore the earlier saints, and then pick and choose from the Scriptures to form your own doctrines and faith.  Indeed, your own religion and church is made after the image of your own mind, and not in the image of the body of Christ described in the Holy Scriptures (particularly Acts and the Epistles).  Instead of humbling yourself and conforming to Christ and entering His body the Church, you pick and choose whatever seems good to you.  Designer Christianity!   I'm sorry but that is exactly the reason St. Paul spent the last years of his life going around defending the Church because of people's wrong desires to put their own selves and own minds above the mind of the Church.  And those who confessed right belief with the entire Church and wished to enter into communion as members of the body, St. Paul then baptized in water.  And to seal it, and sanctify it, and ultimately to be in full communion (body and soul) share in the divine communion of the Holy Eucharist and be one in Christ.  And those who after doing so rejected the teachings which the Church as one voice proclaimed, St. Paul and the other Apostles ejected and excommunicated. 

So this tralala idea that 'I believe in Jesus, so now I am saved,' and 'whoever believes in Christ is now a member of His Church even though they deny the true and saving power of baptism, the Holy Eucharist and a myriad other apostolic beliefs' are simply fooling themselves.  St. Paul and all the Apostles spent their lives testifying against such people. 

This is NOT to say that on account of living holy lives of love to their neighbors (and by the mercy and love of God) that these same cannot be saved.  But to say that they are in the same Church as the ones the Apostles passed down through the laying of hands in the Holy Spirit, is a not certain, Scripturally, historically, and spiritually.  The body of Christ is not divided, and there is no confusion in God.  Just as there is one Christ there is one Church, and this real Church in the real world with real unity of doctrine and faith and communion.  It is the one which Christ is preparing His Kingdom for, and those who seek it in earnest will be rewarded.  May you too find this Church, if not in this world, then in the next, when we will be standing facing the Saints of that Church who are gathered around the Throne of God and intercede for the world.

----------


## TER

> I'm noticing a pattern here.  You seem to place so much emphasis on physical things....in this case, the physical act of being dunked in water.  The important thing is not what is not physical, but the inner change that takes place in someone, a true spiritual birth.


Salvation involves more than just our souls, it involves our flesh and indeed the very material world.  God became incarnate so that our entire human nature and being can be saved.  Mental assent to be saved is the heresy of the Gnostics.  We must worship in spirit _and truth_, and part of that truth is that Christ is resurrected and has redeemed us entirely, flesh and and all.  Part of this involves our immersion in water, for this is the will of God.  The next is to use our bodies as well as our minds in order to follow Christ.  This includes works of love, charity, mercy and forgiveness, and for divine sustenance and spiritual and physical nourishment, He offers His very life in the real Holy Eucharist.

We cannot separate the physical from the spiritual, for the good news is that Christ has redeemed both, and in such fullness and His image and likeness will the faithful enter into the Kingdom.

----------


## Kevin007

> I also wanted to add to the above by saying that we all won't always agree 100 percent on every jot and tittle of the word of God.  The Apostle Paul told us that we would all see through the glass darkly in this life and that more is given to those who sincerely seek it out and more often.  There are people with varying levels of faith and God rewards those who seek honestly, diligently and often with prayer and trust in Him.
> 
> What I have come to know and to see spiritually are my personal convictions having studied and experienced many different faiths and denominations of the Christian faith.   Having been a follower of the protestant churches for so long, I failed to see and to make the connections that I have most recently in my journey in faith.  Here are some of my observations if you're interested.
> 
> *Most protestant churches have been infected with Calvinism and Lutheranism that teach such things as that there is no need for repentance after a one time confession of faith* and that they are once saved always saved--being a part of the perseverance of the saints and Calvin's doctrinal teaching.   Some protestant churches teach legalism and that they must follow the Jewish traditions of dead works also.  Some protestant churches teach differing levels of the TULIP doctrine to one degree or another as in total depravity and irresistible grace.  None of these teachings reconcile with the gospel of Jesus Christ and are--IMO--very dangerous and detrimental to the soul being that they can place people in a state of spiritual complacency leaving them to believe they can live any way they choose and still be saved after a one time confession of belief.
> 
> Most--if not all protestant churches are infected with these teachings that directly impair or annihilate the chance of salvation and are indeed very dangerous to the eternal soul.  
> 
> Comparing this to what the EOC Catholics believe and some of their practices I don't agree with, but are not as dangerous to the eternal soul as what the protestants teach.  Because the EOC Catholics have preserved the very key to salvation in their teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that is that our salvation in this life is never secured by a one time confession of faith.  The EOC teaches that we must live Godly lives and that we must keep our Christian traditions and hold fast to doing the good works that Jesus has called us to do in faith and full belief.  And reconciles with all of the apostle words such as James and Paul who taught us that faith without our good works to back that up is dead and we have no faith at all at that point and can fall from grace as Paul tells us.
> ...


wrong, utterly wrong. Proof?

----------


## Kevin007

> Salvation involves more than just our souls, it involves our flesh and indeed the very material world.  God became incarnate so that our entire human nature and being can be saved.  Mental assent to be saved is the heresy of the Gnostics.  We must worship in spirit _and truth_, and part of that truth is that Christ is resurrected and has redeemed us entirely, flesh and and all.  Part of this involves our immersion in water, for this is the will of God.  The next is to use our bodies as well as our minds in order to follow Christ.  *This includes works of love, charity, mercy and forgiveness, and for divine sustenance and spiritual and physical nourishment,* He offers His very life in the real Holy Eucharist.
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot separate the physical from the spiritual, for the good news is that Christ has redeemed both, and in such fullness and His image and likeness will the faithful enter into the Kingdom.



these are all works of the flesh. You cannot add legalism and works to Jesus' finished work. Salvation is a FREE GIFT.

----------


## Kevin007

> We'll have to agree to disagree.  Baby baptism, First communion, confirmation, etc, etc.... I went through all that, growing up.   *None of that meant anything to me, because I wasn't even a believer at that time.   The only reason I was there is because my Mom took me there.  * 
> 
> If I would've died back then -  I would not have gone to heaven - even though I went through those "sacraments."     
> 
> THAT is why I believe religiousness is so dangerous.  It teaches lies - either directly or by omission... and causes people to think they're saved, just because they had some water sprinkled on them as a baby, and went through first communion and confirmation.     Meanwhile, they are usually unaware of Jesus' very clear words,* "you must be born again."*... Why?  Because their church never taught them that, or encouraged them to open up a bible and read it.


AGREE 100%. No decision made on the part of the sinner to understand God's plan of Salvation, and accept His free gift.

----------


## Kevin007

> Lily, I am not doubting that Christ is active in your life.  I am not denying that the Holy Spirit is in your life.  
> 
> The question is in regards to the Church we learn about in the New Testament.  In this Church, having faith was not enough.  *You also had to be baptized*.  Are you aware of that?


no you do not. *Baptism      never saves!*  The only thing that can save someone is the atoning      Blood of Jesus and a personal relationship with *Him*. Baptism is a public confession of an inward profession of faith.  Baptism      symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You should already be saved BEFORE being baptized.

----------


## lilymc

> If you want to prove to me to that you are in the Church (or the community of baptized same minded believers in unity of faith, worship and communion in the Body and Blood of Christ), then show me who your bishop is.


Wow.  I wish you could hear how that sounds.  On a number of levels.

TER, feel free to believe what you want about me.   

It doesn't matter to me, because the only opinion that matters is God's.  





> Salvation involves more than just our souls, it involves our flesh and indeed the very material world.  God became incarnate so that our entire human nature and being can be saved.  Mental assent to be saved is the heresy of the Gnostics.  We must worship in spirit _and truth_, and part of that truth is that Christ is resurrected and has redeemed us entirely, flesh and and all.  Part of this involves our immersion in water, for this is the will of God.  The next is to use our bodies as well as our minds in order to follow Christ.  This includes works of love, charity, mercy and forgiveness, and for divine sustenance and spiritual and physical nourishment, He offers His very life in the real Holy Eucharist.
> 
> We cannot separate the physical from the spiritual, for the good news is that Christ has redeemed both, and in such fullness and His image and likeness will the faithful enter into the Kingdom.


You're arguing a straw man, because I never claimed that salvation was merely about "mental assent" or any of the other points you brought up.

I can see that we're not going to get anywhere here.  

So go ahead and focus on the things you're focused on.      And we'll just agree to disagree..... on just about everything. 

But thank you for the kind words on the video I posted.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> no you do not. *Baptism      never saves!*


He didn't say that it saves. 




> The only thing that can save someone is the atoning      Blood of Jesus and a personal relationship with *Him*. Baptism is a public confession of an inward profession of faith.  Baptism      symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. *You should already be saved BEFORE being baptized*.


Non-sequitur.  Baptism is but one step toward salvation (though one of the most important ones).  Salvation is a lifelong process.  OSAS and predetermination are man-made, non-biblical, non-Christian doctrines.

----------


## TER

> Wow.  I wish you could hear how that sounds.  On a number of levels.
> 
> TER, feel free to believe what you want about me.   
> 
> It doesn't matter to me, because the only opinion that matters is God's.  
> 
> 
> 
> You're arguing a straw man, because I never claimed that salvation was merely about "mental assent" or any of the other points you brought up.
> ...


You are welcome. 

I am sorry to be blunt, but your persistence of doubt with regards to basic apostolic teachings cannot just be silently ignored when on an open forum.  If you were as some who have no love for Christ, I would try and ignore it. But being that you are indeed a Christian who strives for Christ, I offer my hand as a friend. 

And I don't doubt you to be a loving person who loves Christ even as I believe there is much you get wrong in your rejection of the teachings of His saints.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> these are all works of the flesh. You cannot add legalism and works to Jesus' finished work. Salvation is a FREE GIFT.


No.  Salvation is freely offered, but can be declined if one does not put forward the effort in a relationship with God.  ("Running the race", as Paul calls it)  It seems you don't understand what legalism is, because it has nothing to do with the post you quoted, btw.  Orthodoxy completely shuns legalism, Scholasticism, and other such philosophies and doctrines.

----------


## lilymc

> no you do not. *Baptism      never saves!*  The only thing that can save someone is the atoning      Blood of Jesus and a personal relationship with *Him*. Baptism is a public confession of an inward profession of faith.  Baptism      symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You should already be saved BEFORE being baptized.


Amen! 

Like I said earlier, if I would have died before the year 2000 (when I came to Christ) I would not have gone to heaven, even though I went through all the "sacraments" including baby baptism.





> You are welcome. 
> 
> I am sorry to be blunt, but your persistence of doubt with regards to basic apostolic teachings cannot just be silently ignored when on an open forum.  If you were as some who have no love for Christ, I would try and ignore it. But being that you are indeed a Christian who strives for Christ, I offer my hand as a friend. 
> 
> And I don't doubt you to be a loving person who loves Christ even as I believe there is much you get wrong in your rejection of the teachings of His saints.


I didn't think you were blunt.  That wasn't what stunned me about your post.

And I don't reject the teaching of God's "saints."  (I don't even agree with the idea of special saints, if that's what you meant)   I just don't put them above what the bible says.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Amen! 
> 
> *Like I said earlier, if I would have died before the year 2000 (when I came to Christ) I would not have gone to heaven, even though I went through all the "sacraments" including baby baptism.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think you were blunt.  That wasn't what stunned me about your post.
> 
> And I don't reject the teaching of God's "saints."  (I don't even agree with the idea of special saints, if that's what you meant)   I just don't put them above what the bible says.


Incorrect, most likely.  You would have had the opportunity to join the Old Covenant (as many did).  You could have availed yourself of it or not.  You also could have been saved by Grace.  As was mentioned earlier, even accepting Christ alone is not sufficient no matter what time you are born in.

----------


## Kevin007

> Incorrect, most likely.  *You would have had the opportunity to join the Old Covenant* (as many did).  You could have availed yourself of it or not.  You also could have been saved by Grace.  As was mentioned earlier, even accepting Christ alone is not sufficient no matter what time you are born in.


wrong, deadly so. No one is saved under the OC since Jesus came. No one.

----------


## Kevin007

> Incorrect, most likely.  You would have had the opportunity to join the Old Covenant (as many did).  You could have availed yourself of it or not.  You also could have been saved by Grace.  As was mentioned earlier, even a*ccepting Christ alone is not sufficient no matter what time you are born in*.


accepting Christ alone IS THE ONLY way to be saved.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> wrong, deadly so. *No one is saved under the OC since Jesus came. No one*.


I didn't claim otherwise.

----------


## Kevin007

"running the race" isn't salvation, only sanctification. You can add nothing to Jesus' perfect, once for all finished work. Salvation is freely given to all, but only those who accept Jesus as their Savior recieve the free gift. No one can save themselves.

----------


## Kevin007

> I didn't claim otherwise.


 oh, really? you sure did- she said she was saved in 2000. If she had died in 1999, she would have not been saved. You are saying, because she took the sacraments she would have been saved under the OC?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> accepting Christ alone IS THE ONLY way to be saved.


No more than waving a magic wand is.  Accepting Christ is only the beginning of a lifetime journey toward salvation.  Otherwise you could accept Christ and spend the rest of your life sinning deliberately and being a generally horrible person and still somehow wind up saved.  Also, your standard excludes people too young or mentally impaired to accept Christ.  Fail.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> oh, really? you sure did- she said she was saved in 2000. If she had died in 1999, she would have not been saved. You are saying, because she took the sacraments she would have been saved under the OC?


No I didn't.  You're just making this up, which is why you can't quote me as saying such.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> "running the race" isn't salvation, only sanctification. You can add nothing to Jesus' perfect, once for all finished work. Salvation is freely given to all, but only those who accept Jesus as their Savior recieve the free gift. No one can save themselves.


No, it's about salvation.  No one can save themselves, but there is also no free pass.  That doctrine was made up out of thin air by protestants. (though I'm sure others have championed it that I don't know of.  It's a very tempting proposition for those who don't know better-similar to OSAS in that regard.)

----------


## Kevin007

> No more than waving a magic wand is.  Accepting Christ is only the beginning of a lifetime journey toward salvation.  *Otherwise you could accept Christ and spend the rest of your life sinning deliberately* and being a generally horrible person and still somehow wind up saved.  Also, your standard excludes people too young or mentally impaired to accept Christ.  Fail.


this is not true, and impossible; believers are a new creature in Christ and have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. As usual, a catholic or orthodox pulling the "license to sin" card;


1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We  were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order  that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the  Father, we too may live a new life.   5For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. 
  8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. 
  11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do  not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness,  but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from  death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument  of righteousness. 14For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. 
Slaves to Righteousness 
  15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16Don’t  you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves,  you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which  leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But  thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have  come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now  claimed your allegiance. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. 
  19I  am using an example from everyday life because of your human  limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity  and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to  righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But  now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God,  the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.  23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.(Romans 6)

----------


## Kevin007

Rom.6:23  For the wages of sin is death; _but the gift of God is eternal life_ through Jesus Christ our Lord.


 Jn.3:18 _He that believeth on him is not condemned_: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


 Jn.5:24 He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

----------


## Kevin007

> No, it's about salvation.  No one can save themselves, *but there is also no free pass.*  That doctrine was made up out of thin air by protestants. (though I'm sure others have championed it that I don't know of.  It's a very tempting proposition for those who don't know better-similar to OSAS in that regard.)


??? the "free" pass is through Jesus, nothing else- no one else. What must I do to be SAVED? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Good deeds don't save you. Obedience doesn't save you. Amix of grace and works do not save you. Only Jesus does/can. Have you accepted His free gift of Salvation, HB?

----------


## Kevin007

If we see that the scriptures exclude works in any form as a means of  our salvation, then logically, we are saved by faith alone.  Let's take a  look at what the Bible says about faith and works.  Then, afterwards,  we will tackle James' statement about "faith alone". 


Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is only.Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned.Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;" 

http://carm.org/are-we-saved-faith-a...need-works-too

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *this is not true, and impossible;* believers are a new creature in Christ and have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. As usual, a catholic or orthodox pulling the "license to sin" card;
> 
> 
> 1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We  were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order  that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the  Father, we too may live a new life.   5For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. 
>   8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. 
>   11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do  not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness,  but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from  death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument  of righteousness. 14For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. 
> Slaves to Righteousness 
>   15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16Don’t  you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves,  you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which  leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But  thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have  come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now  claimed your allegiance. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. 
>   19I  am using an example from everyday life because of your human  limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity  and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to  righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But  now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God,  the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.  23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.(Romans 6)


It's absolutely true and possible.  One is indeed made anew in Christ, but he still has responsibility to endure the trials demanded of a Christian to the end.  It is very possible to fall along the way and lose salvation.  Your quote proves my point.  


> because you are not under the law, but under grace.


 to be under grace is to endure




> 15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under  grace? By no means! 16Don’t  you know that when you offer yourselves to  someone as obedient slaves,  you are slaves of the one you obey—whether  you are slaves to sin, which  leads to death, or to obedience, which  leads to righteousness? 17But  thanks be to God that, though you used to  be slaves to sin, you have  come to obey from your heart the pattern of  teaching that has now  claimed your allegiance. 18You have been set  free from sin and *have become slaves to righteousness.*


 This entirely supports the Orhtodox position.  This is a present perfective intransitive action in Pauline language.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> ??? the "free" pass is through Jesus, nothing else- no one else. What must I do to be SAVED? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Good deeds don't save you. Obedience doesn't save you.* Amix of grace and works do not save you.* Only Jesus does/can. Have you accepted His free gift of Salvation, HB?


False.  You're confused.   James 2:17-


> So you see, faith by itself isn't enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless

----------


## Kevin007

> False.  You're confused.   James 2:17-


*James 2:24, not by faith alone* The scriptures clearly teach  that we are saved (justified) by faith in Christ and what He has done on  the cross.  This faith alone saves us.  However, we cannot stop here  without addressing what James says in James 2:24, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
 There  is no contradiction.  All you need to do is look at the context.  James  chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us not to show favoritism.  Verses 8-13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the  relationship between faith and works.
 James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith but has no works, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James  2:14).  In other words, James is addressing the issue of a dead  faith--a faith that is nothing more than a verbal pronouncement, a  public confession of the mind, and is not heart-felt.  It is empty of  life and action.  He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an  empty faith is (verses 15-17, words without actions). Then he shows that  type of faith isn't any different from the faith of demons (verse 19).  Finally, he gives examples of living faith that has words followed by  actions.  Works follow true faith and demonstrate that faith to our  fellow man but not to God.  James writes of Abraham and Rahab as  examples of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds.
 In  brief, James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly  works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is  dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20).  But, he is not contradicting the verses above that say salvation/justification is by faith alone.

----------


## Kevin007

to be under grace is not to endure. Where in the Bible is that? Enduring is something we do. God did it all at the Cross. How many works save you HB?

----------


## lilymc

> It's absolutely true and possible.  One is indeed made anew in Christ, but he still has responsibility to endure the trials demanded of a Christian to the end.  It is very possible to fall along the way and lose salvation.  Your quote proves my point.   to be under grace is to endure
> 
>  This entirely supports the Orhtodox position.  This is a present perfective intransitive action in Pauline language.


Salvation and enduring trials are two different things.

Of course we have to endure trials in life.  It takes time to grow spiritually, and to mature, and learn and gain wisdom.  Sometimes we have to learn things the hard way. (I know I have!)

But sanctification is different than salvation.  

I think this is where many people get mixed up.  Evidently, some churches mix up sanctification with salvation. They are two different things.

----------


## lilymc

> *James 2:24, not by faith alone* The scriptures clearly teach  that we are saved (justified) by faith in Christ and what He has done on  the cross.  This faith alone saves us.  However, we cannot stop here  without addressing what James says in James 2:24, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
>  There  is no contradiction.  All you need to do is look at the context.  James  chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us not to show favoritism.  Verses 8-13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the  relationship between faith and works.
>  James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith but has no works, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James  2:14).  In other words, James is addressing the issue of a dead  faith--a faith that is nothing more than a verbal pronouncement, a  public confession of the mind, and is not heart-felt.  It is empty of  life and action.  He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an  empty faith is (verses 15-17, words without actions). Then he shows that  type of faith isn't any different from the faith of demons (verse 19).  Finally, he gives examples of living faith that has words followed by  actions.  Works follow true faith and demonstrate that faith to our  fellow man but not to God.  James writes of Abraham and Rahab as  examples of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds.
>  In  brief, James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly  works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is  dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20).  But, he is not contradicting the verses above that say salvation/justification is by faith alone.


Excellent post.  I'd give you rep, if I could.   

A true, alive faith inevitably leads to good works.  

The two go hand in hand, but we are justified by faith, not works.   To think otherwise is putting the cart before the horse.


Thank you for all your posts, Kevin!

----------


## erowe1

> You're getting into OSAS and similar doctrinal territory.  That doesn't stand up to scriptural or historical tests.


Yes it does. According to Scripture, every person who has ever been justified is guaranteed to be ultimately glorified. Paul dwells on and repeats this point very explicitly in Romans 5 and 8. And there are many other Scriptures from various authors that affirm it. On the other hand, the number of places where the Bible entertains the possibility of anyone who had once been justified ending up not being glorified is zero.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, faith goes a long way.  But faith without works is dead.  Our works are to seek Christ and enter into communion with His Church, not create our own.


Dead faith is not saving faith. It is the same as no faith at all. But the way into the Church is by saving faith. Nobody has ever had such faith without belonging to Christ's one true, holy catholic, orthodox, Church.

----------


## erowe1

> The Church of the New Testament.


This is encouraging.

----------


## erowe1

> You're getting into OSAS and similar doctrinal territory.  That doesn't stand up to scriptural or historical tests.


Now that I have read more of the thread, and what you're replying to, I don't even see how you reached that conclusion from what she said.

She made no mention of OSAS. How did you get it from her post? And on what basis could you possibly disagree with what she said about the Church in that post?

----------


## erowe1

> Non-sequitur.  Baptism is but one step toward salvation (though one of the most important ones).  Salvation is a lifelong process.  OSAS and predetermination are man-made, non-biblical, non-Christian doctrines.


The word "salvation" is used in various ways in the Bible. Sometimes it refers to ultimate, final, salvation from punishment for sin on Judgment Day, which is a yet future salvation. Sometimes it refers to salvation from sin's power and effects right now, as an ongoing process. Sometimes it refers to what has been accomplished already on the cross, not as a process, but as an already completed event.

So what you said is true depending on what sense of the word you mean to use, which doesn't clarify anything.

However, if we want to get precise, and to agree with what the Bible says on the matter consistently, all who have ever been saved in that past tense sense (or justified, to use the word I used earlier), will without exception be saved from God's wrath in that future sense and spend eternity in Heaven (or glorified, to use the word I used earlier). When you pay attention to these distinctions between what has already been accomplished for the believer and what is yet to be accomplished, you will see how consistent the Bible is on this.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't consider myself a "protestant."


Same here. What defines my beliefs, and determines where I stand on the points where I differ with other professed Christians, is not defined by my protesting against anything. My faith is the faith of the apostles, centered on the message that was the heart of their preaching, the Gospel, without adopting much later innovations just because various individual human beings claim them to be Christian beliefs. So it's much more accurate to call the brand of Christianity apostolic, or evangelical.

----------


## erowe1

> Incorrect, most likely.  You would have had the opportunity to join the Old Covenant (as many did).  You could have availed yourself of it or not.  You also could have been saved by Grace.


Source?

----------


## erowe1

> wrong, deadly so. No one is saved under the OC since Jesus came. No one.


No one was ever saved under the Old Covenant before Jesus came either, nor did the terms of that covenant, written in Exodus through Deuteronomy, ever say that anyone could be. The blessings and curses of that covenant were earthly ones not heavenly ones. Spiritual salvation from sin for those living before Jesus, just as much as those living since his time, has only ever been by grace through faith, where sinners are forgiven on account of Jesus's sacrifice for them.

----------


## erowe1

> to be under grace is to endure


Correct. Ergo, those who do not endure were not under grace in the first place. Those who are under grace will endure.

Your belief is often called "perseverance of the saints," which is a form of OSAS.

According to this doctrine, you cannot accept Christ and then go on the rest of your life sinning deliberately, bearing no fruit of the Holy Spirit having changed you from the inside out. It is the exact opposite of what you said. Anyone who does that (as judged by God's eyes, not mine) did not really accept Christ in the biblical sense.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't consider myself a "protestant."   I don't have to agree with everything that the "reformers" believed, because I never identified myself as a protestant, or as belonging to any denomination.   I'm just a Christian.  A born again Christian, an adopted child of God.   I'm someone who went through such a profound change in my heart/mind and life, that I devoted the rest of my life to serving God, using my gifts and talents for His kingdom.   
> 
> I read and study the bible on my own, prayerfully, asking the Holy Spirit to be my teacher.   I listen to what people I respect and trust have to say, but I don't believe that simply having the title of "pope," "priest,"  "deacon" or whatever automatically makes someone trustworthy.
> 
> As for the other stuff you brought up....  let's talk about it another time.    We'll probably have to agree to disagree overall, because it seems that I disagree with the EO (and the Roman Catholic Church) on numerous things.  But especially on the focus and emphasis you guys place on religion and the "church" - and by church I don't mean the worldwide church that some of us have been talking about, but the EO church.)   Catholics do the same thing.  They put so much emphasis on the Catholic church, to the point where they seem to think of themselves as "Catholic" rather than just Christian.  I know this, because my mom is Catholic, as are many of my relatives on her side of the family.


I agree with you that we are all not spiritually called to the same ministries, works of faith and labor of love in the Lord.  The word tells us that we are the body of Christ made up of many parts, each having their own function and purpose wherever the Lord will have us go with our witness and works that we're called to do.  In that I can not tell you that you are wrong in following your own spiritual convictions.  We all grow in faith at different paces in our journey towards the kingdom of heaven.

What I want to stress and not just to you here is that I don't think that many Christians fully comprehend just how much our Father in heaven is willing to over-look as far as our inability in our corrupted human state of flesh to grasp the fullness of His truth in the message of salvation.  God is patient, merciful and forgiving understanding fully what we are battling against here in this world in our flesh.  

When the Apostle Paul said that God is able to make the children of the Lord stand--despite their traditions and practices--he wasn't lying or being facetious--Paul was telling the truth there.  God knows the hearts of every single believer and their intentions despite whatever they might believe or do otherwise that isn't consistent with what we have been told we should be doing.  This is also why the Apostle Paul said that we are never to judge another brethren based upon their practices or traditions.  Where this becomes a problem is when believers fall short in their understanding on exactly what does save mankind.  Beliefs matter because we are what we believe and that is either we're saved or we're not because of those same beliefs.  Because we will inevitably always act on those beliefs or we do not act upon those beliefs.

Confessions of belief mean nothing without an action prompted by the Holy Spirit to do what we have been called to do in Christ.  Gods grace is His empowerment and the vehicle which empowers the believer to either act upon his/her belief or not.  Faith is the fuel that moves the vehicle of grace forward.  Faith is what we do--a physical reaction to grace and our belief.  The Apostle Paul calls this a "work of faith" and "labor of love" of which both Paul and James tell us without--our faith dies and it's possible to then fall from grace if we remain in this state of mind for too long--ignoring the voice of the Holy Spirit.

1 Thessalonians 1:2We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; 3Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; 4Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God



We are the "Elect" of God only as long as we walk in the spirit and continually abide in Christ--those are the terms that our Lord has set forth and paramount to maintaining our faith.  Without abiding in Christ and doing these "works of faith"--we have no faith--we are ignoring the voice of the Holy Spirit.

This is what the EOC teaches and is right on the mark in accordance with the word of God.  This is the Gospel truth that saves mankind.  Our beliefs and works of faith are absolutely essential for salvation--otherwise we can and people do fall from grace and can no longer remain of the "Elect".  The Apostle Paul most certainly tells us to hold fast to our Christian traditions.  These *are* physical traditions and the worldly evidence to the unbelievers of this world that God exists and that He's real.  They are the provocation that draws mankind to God in this world.  It is the physical evidence of the hope and the salvation to those who are lost, hurting and suffering.

So you say that you don't feel that the worldly church is that important?  I can tell you just the opposite and this world of so many lost souls absolutely need that physical evidence to draw them into the body of Christ.  It's far more important than many realize.

There is no such thing as a one time confession of faith that saves people no matter how they choose to live their lives after this confession.  We are accountable for everything we say and do in this life.

----------


## Terry1

> "running the race" isn't salvation, only sanctification. You can add nothing to Jesus' perfect, once for all finished work. Salvation is freely given to all, but only those who accept Jesus as their Savior recieve the free gift. No one can save themselves.


This teaching is what has infected the protestant churches.  OSAS is a deadly doctrine created by the reformers--mainly Calvin with his "perseverance of the saints".  I have a very good example that just recently happened.  

A woman I know who attends a Baptist church here and is also a legal guardian of her father in law and her brother in law.  Every time you would meet this woman, she would greet you with these words that came out of her mouth--"praise Jesus--God is good!"  She would greet you with a strong hug and a sweet smile and quote scripture all day long.  She is also a believer in the OSAS doctrine.

What we just discovered about her is that she's been living a secret life beyond her marriage to her husband.  She'd been seeing another man for years and went through hundreds of thousands of dollars that she was entrusted with by her father in law and her disabled brother in law and supporting this other man in some apartment.  When the money was finally questioned because not only had she spent it all on this guy, but she was now writing bad checks on their accounts as well.  She was physically abusing the father in law as well and they were now bankrupt and unable to pay their bills because she had spent all of the money.   Her husband was unaware for years that she was carrying on this relationship with another man also.

Long story short here--when she finally got caught--she had no remorse for what she had done.  When she was confronted about her Christian life as opposed to her secret life--all she said was that she was still saved no matter what she did or how she lived her life.  And she's still running around spouting the words "praise Jesus!" without so much as a worry as to whether she's accountable or not for what she's done.

If she was truly walking in the spirit of the Lord and in faith--she would have never committed these crimes thinking that she is not accountable and needing to repent.  Because as far as she's been taught in her Baptist church--she can do anything she likes and still be saved and obtain the kingdom of heaven.  This is what OSAS does and the effect it has on those who believe it.

Jesus finished *His work on that cross to enable us to believe in such a way that now we have the hope of salvation.  Yes--salvation is a gift, but we are required to live a Godly life with the full understanding that this gift can either be accepted or rejected at any point and time throughout our entire lives.  "Elect" is a spiritual state of being that is not permanent upon a one time confession of belief.  Being of the "Elect" of God is a continual reaction in faith and abiding in Christ in this life and to the very end of it.

This is also what the EOC teaches and is the saving Gospel message of truth.  There are many people running around thinking that they're saved and they are indeed NOT saved at all.  And this is where our Lord tells them---"I never knew you".  OSAS is a very dangerous belief my friend.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Source?


Of which part?  Exodus 34 lays out the conditions of the Old ("renewed") Covenant which includes making "covenants" with Perizzites, Canaanites, etc.  Converts would have to observe these.  IDR now, there is another place in the OT where converts had to be circumcised to intermarry or otherwise join the Israelites.  The bit about Grace I learned so long ago that IDR the exact passage. :/

Time to go to liturgy, but I hope to talk with you again soon! ~hugs~

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This teaching is what has infected the protestant churches.  OSAS is a deadly doctrine created by the reformers--mainly Calvin with his "perseverance of the saints".  I have a very good example that just recently happened.  
> 
> A woman I know who attends a Baptist church here and is also a legal guardian of her father in law and her brother in law.  Every time you would meet this woman, she would greet you with these words that came out of her mouth--"praise Jesus--God is good!"  She would greet you with a strong hug and a sweet smile and quote scripture all day long.  She is also a believer in the OSAS doctrine.
> 
> What we just discovered about her is that she's been living a secret life beyond her marriage to her husband.  She'd been seeing another man for years and went through hundreds of thousands of dollars that she was entrusted with by her father in law and her disabled brother in law and supporting this other man in some apartment.  When the money was finally questioned because not only had she spent it all on this guy, but she was now writing bad checks on their accounts as well.  She was physically abusing the father in law as well and they were now bankrupt and unable to pay their bills because she had spent all of the money.   Her husband was unaware for years that she was carrying on this relationship with another man also.
> 
> Long story short here--when she finally got caught--she had no remorse for what she had done.  When she was confronted about her Christian life as opposed to her secret life--all she said was that she was still saved no matter what she did or how she lived her life.  And she's still running around spouting the words "praise Jesus!" without so much as a worry as to whether she's accountable or not for what she's done.
> 
> If she was truly walking in the spirit of the Lord and in faith--she would have never committed these crimes thinking that she is not accountable and needing to repent.  Because as far as she's been taught in her Baptist church--she can do anything she likes and still be saved and obtain the kingdom of heaven.  This is what OSAS does and the effect it has on those who believe it.
> ...





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Terry1 again.

----------


## erowe1

> Of which part?  Exodus 34 lays out the conditions of the Old ("renewed") Covenant which includes making "covenants" with Perizzites, Canaanites, etc.  Converts would have to observe these.  IDR now, there is another place in the OT where converts had to be circumcised to intermarry or otherwise join the Israelites.  The bit about Grace I learned so long ago that IDR the exact passage. :/


Every part.

Now here you're just changing the subject. In the post in question you made a claim about what would happen after someone died, saying they could either join the Old Covenant or be saved by grace. What's your source for that idea. Nothing you refer to from Exodus 34 has anything to do with it.

----------


## lilymc

> I agree with you that we are all not spiritually called to the same ministries, works of faith and labor of love in the Lord.  The word tells us that we are the body of Christ made up of many parts, each having their own function and purpose wherever the Lord will have us go with our witness and works that we're called to do.  In that I can not tell you that you are wrong in following your own spiritual convictions.  We all grow in faith at different paces in our journey towards the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> What I want to stress and not just to you here is that I don't think that many Christians fully comprehend just how much our Father in heaven is willing to over-look as far as our inability in our corrupted human state of flesh to grasp the fullness of His truth in the message of salvation.  God is patient, merciful and forgiving understanding fully what we are battling against here in this world in our flesh.  
> 
> When the Apostle Paul said that God is able to make the children of the Lord stand--despite their traditions and practices--he wasn't lying or being facetious--Paul was telling the truth there.  God knows the hearts of every single believer and their intentions despite whatever they might believe or do otherwise that isn't consistent with what we have been told we should be doing.  This is also why the Apostle Paul said that we are never to judge another brethren based upon their practices or traditions.  Where this becomes a problem is when believers fall short in their understanding on exactly what does save mankind.  Beliefs matter because we are what we believe and that is either we're saved or we're not because of those same beliefs.  Because we will inevitably always act on those beliefs or we do not act upon those beliefs.
> 
> Confessions of belief mean nothing without an action prompted by the Holy Spirit to do what we have been called to do in Christ.  Gods grace is His empowerment and the vehicle which empowers the believer to either act upon his/her belief or not.  Faith is the fuel that moves the vehicle of grace forward.  Faith is what we do--a physical reaction to grace and our belief.  The Apostle Paul calls this a "work of faith" and "labor of love" of which both Paul and James tell us without--our faith dies and it's possible to then fall from grace if we remain in this state of mind for too long--ignoring the voice of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> 1 Thessalonians 1:2We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; 3Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; 4Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God
> ...



Hi Terry.  I just want to say a couple things right now. And later, if you want, we can discuss this in more depth.  You've made your thoughts on salvation (the position of the EO church) clear, in a number of posts.    So I'm well aware of your viewpoint.

I'm not sure why you felt it was necessary to post all of that to me.   Can I ask you a favor?  I really want to cut to the chase, so can you please sum up what you really were trying to say to me, in 1 or 2 sentences?      

The reason I ask is because I don't want to assume.  I could do that, but it's better that I let you speak for yourself, in a very concise, in a nutshell sort of way.

Thanks!

----------


## Kevin007

thanks Lily; our eternal security is about Jesus' (finished) work at Calvary, not on our work (s).

----------


## Kevin007

> No one was ever saved under the Old Covenant before Jesus came either, nor did the terms of that covenant, written in Exodus through Deuteronomy, ever say that anyone could be. The blessings and curses of that covenant were earthly ones not heavenly ones. Spiritual salvation from sin for those living before Jesus, just as much as those living since his time, has only ever been by grace through faith, where sinners are forgiven on account of Jesus's sacrifice for them.


Under the OC, believers were saved by faith in God but by keeping the  Law. Jesus' sacrifice was CREDITED to them, as it was still yet future.

----------


## Dr.3D

> thanks Lily; our eternal security is about Jesus' (finished) work at Calvary, not on our work (s).


That's right, the works are just evidence of our eternal security.

----------


## TER

> That wasn't what stunned me about your post.


Was it when I asked who your Bishop is?  I ask that, because by knowing your Bishop I can know what your Church believes and confesses and can then understand what your beliefs and traditions are.




> And I don't reject the teaching of God's "saints."  (I don't even agree with the idea of special saints, if that's what you meant)   I just don't put them above what the bible says.


You put your interpretation of the Bible over theirs, so in that way, you are rejecting them.

----------


## Kevin007

> I agree with you that we are all not spiritually called to the same ministries, works of faith and labor of love in the Lord.  The word tells us that we are the body of Christ made up of many parts, each having their own function and purpose wherever the Lord will have us go with our witness and works that we're called to do.  In that I can not tell you that you are wrong in following your own spiritual convictions.  We all grow in faith at different paces in our journey towards the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> What I want to stress and not just to you here is that I don't think that many Christians fully comprehend just how much our Father in heaven is willing to over-look as far as our inability in our corrupted human state of flesh to grasp the fullness of His truth in the message of salvation.  God is patient, merciful and forgiving understanding fully what we are battling against here in this world in our flesh.  
> 
> When the Apostle Paul said that God is able to make the children of the Lord stand--despite their traditions and practices--he wasn't lying or being facetious--Paul was telling the truth there.  God knows the hearts of every single believer and their intentions despite whatever they might believe or do otherwise that isn't consistent with what we have been told we should be doing.  This is also why the Apostle Paul said that we are never to judge another brethren based upon their practices or traditions.  Where this becomes a problem is when believers fall short in their understanding on exactly what does save mankind.  Beliefs matter because we are what we believe and that is either we're saved or we're not because of those same beliefs.  Because we will inevitably always act on those beliefs or we do not act upon those beliefs.
> 
> Confessions of belief mean nothing without an action prompted by the Holy Spirit to do what we have been called to do in Christ.  Gods grace is His empowerment and the vehicle which empowers the believer to either act upon his/her belief or not.  Faith is the fuel that moves the vehicle of grace forward.  Faith is what we do--a physical reaction to grace and our belief.  The Apostle Paul calls this a "work of faith" and "labor of love" of which both Paul and James tell us without--our faith dies and it's possible to then fall from grace if we remain in this state of mind for too long--ignoring the voice of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> 1 Thessalonians 1:2We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; 3Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; 4Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God
> ...




Yes there is. We are accountable at the Bema Seat Judgment, but not a judgment of our salvation, as our salvation was secured the MOMENT WE ACCEPTED JESUS as OUR PERSONAL SAVIOR. We are accountable for our works our lack of. Our salvation is never in question. Our sanctification is measured and we will be rewarded or lose rewards. The reason every Believer will have different rewards and levels of authority will be because we all live our own lives and each one of us is "graded", but we ALL get a PASS, because of Jesus' free gift of salvation- that no man could earn or add to. You cannot mix grace with works.

----------


## TER

> That's right, the works are just evidence of our eternal security.


The doctrine and tradition of eternal security (or the perseverance of the saints) is not an apostolic doctrine.  No Church Father taught that in the history of the Church and this doctrine arose from the teachings of the later Reformers such as John Calvin.   Martin Luther did not teach it, and he is the father of Protestantism.

----------


## Kevin007

> Correct. Ergo, those who do not endure were not under grace in the first place. Those who are under grace will endure.
> 
> Your belief is often called "perseverance of the saints," which is a form of OSAS.
> 
> According to this doctrine, you cannot accept Christ and then go on the rest of your life *sinning deliberately*, bearing no fruit of the Holy Spirit having changed you from the inside out. It is the exact opposite of what you said. Anyone who does that (as judged by God's eyes, not mine) did not really accept Christ in the biblical sense.


I would argue all sin is deliberate. The Holy Spirit lives on the inside of us and testifies to truth or sin.

----------


## Kevin007

> This teaching is what has infected the protestant churches.  OSAS is a deadly doctrine created by the reformers--mainly Calvin with his "perseverance of the saints".  I have a very good example that just recently happened.  
> 
> A woman I know who attends a Baptist church here and is also a legal guardian of her father in law and her brother in law.  Every time you would meet this woman, she would greet you with these words that came out of her mouth--"praise Jesus--God is good!"  She would greet you with a strong hug and a sweet smile and quote scripture all day long.  She is also a believer in the OSAS doctrine.
> 
> What we just discovered about her is that she's been living a secret life beyond her marriage to her husband.  She'd been seeing another man for years and went through hundreds of thousands of dollars that she was entrusted with by her father in law and her disabled brother in law and supporting this other man in some apartment.  When the money was finally questioned because not only had she spent it all on this guy, but she was now writing bad checks on their accounts as well.  She was physically abusing the father in law as well and they were now bankrupt and unable to pay their bills because she had spent all of the money.   Her husband was unaware for years that she was carrying on this relationship with another man also.
> 
> Long story short here--when she finally got caught--she had no remorse for what she had done.  When she was confronted about her Christian life as opposed to her secret life--all she said was that she was still saved no matter what she did or how she lived her life.  And she's still running around spouting the words "praise Jesus!" without so much as a worry as to whether she's accountable or not for what she's done.
> 
> If she was truly walking in the spirit of the Lord and in faith--she would have never committed these crimes thinking that she is not accountable and needing to repent.  Because as far as she's been taught in her Baptist church--she can do anything she likes and still be saved and obtain the kingdom of heaven.  This is what OSAS does and the effect it has on those who believe it.
> ...



there is so much wrong with your post, I'll just reply to this. Jesus isn't talking to Believer's here. He is speaking to FALSE teachers (who preached in His name, cast out demons)- even the devil can do that. Jesus says I NEVER knew you. Meaning He never knew the person. If you are saved, He sure does know you!

----------


## Kevin007

> The doctrine and tradition of eternal security (or the perseverance of the saints) is not an apostolic doctrine.  No Church Father taught that in the history of the Church and this doctrine arose from the teachings of the later Reformers such as John Calvin.   Martin Luther did not teach it, and he is the father of Protestantism.


it sure is. OSAS was taught by Jesus Himself. 

I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
 (John 10:28).


Jn.10:28 “I give them eternal life, and _they shall never perish_, no one shall snatch them out of my hand.”  
 Rom.6:23  “For the wages of sin is death; _but the gift of God is eternal life_ through Jesus Christ our Lord.


 Jn.3:18 “_He that believeth on him is not condemned_: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


 Jn.5:24 “He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” One is made spiritually alive by having true living faith.

Romans 5 is all about eternal security.

----------


## Kevin007

> That's right, the works are just evidence of our eternal security.


hey Doc! I agree. The Horse is salvation, the cart is our works.

----------


## Kevin007

> The doctrine and tradition of eternal security (or the perseverance of the saints) is not an apostolic doctrine.  No Church Father taught that in the history of the Church and this doctrine arose from the teachings of the later Reformers such as John Calvin.   Martin Luther did not teach it, and he is the father of Protestantism.


You are incorrect; as I just posted Jesus Himself, Paul and other taught it. But lets get cut to the chase. Why do you not believe in OSAS?

----------


## Kevin007

> The doctrine and tradition of eternal security (or the perseverance of the saints) is not an apostolic doctrine.  No Church Father taught that in the history of the Church and this doctrine arose from the teachings of the later Reformers such as John Calvin.   Martin Luther did not teach it, and he is the father of Protestantism.


Jesus confirmed OSAS. I don't care what tradition says; I care what Jesus said.

----------


## Dr.3D

> The doctrine and tradition of eternal security (or the perseverance of the saints) is not an apostolic doctrine.  No Church Father taught that in the history of the Church and this doctrine arose from the teachings of the later Reformers such as John Calvin.   Martin Luther did not teach it, and he is the father of Protestantism.


So?  I'm not a protestant!

----------


## Kevin007

Romans 8:38-39- "For I am  sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things  present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor  anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love  of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." There is no power that can separate a  believer in Jesus from Him.

----------


## Kevin007

> So?  I'm not a protestant!


 me neither! I believe in Jesus Christ and His Church, all true Believer's.

----------


## Dr.3D

> me neither! I believe in Jesus Christ and His Church, all true Believer's.


Exactly!  That's the true Church.

----------


## William Tell

> So?  I'm not a protestant!


I don't consider myself a Protestant either, nor Catholic or Orthodox I don't really care what any of the reformation guys taught, nor the Catholic or Orthodox churches. I care what the bible says, I have no problem agreeing with either side when they are scripturally correct. I'm sure I'm wrong on plenty of things myself.

----------


## Kevin007

> Exactly!  That's the true Church.


yep! And His Church isn't a cathedral or building or made with hands. His Church doesn't have a catechism added or extra "sacraments". His church isn't about legalism and dogmas but of grace and faith in Him.

----------


## Kevin007

> I don't consider myself a Protestant either, nor Catholic or Orthodox I don't really care what any of the reformation guys taught, nor the Catholic or Orthodox churches. I care what the bible says, I have no problem agreeing with either side when they are scripturally correct. I'm sure I'm wrong on plenty of things myself.


hey William..I agree (btw- thanks for all your reps) Kev.

----------


## Kevin007

lol, why do you 2 have the same avatar?

----------


## Dr.3D

> lol, why do you 2 have the same avatar?


We don't, I'm the brains of the outfit and he is the bad giraffe.

----------


## William Tell

> lol, why do you 2 have the same avatar?


We don't   Backstory in these threads: 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...457478-The-Ban
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...059-Badgiraffe!!!

----------


## Kevin007

> We don't   Backstory in these threads: 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...457478-The-Ban
> www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?458059-Badgiraffe!!!


lol, cool.. I'm catching up. I haven't posted much lately- been working a lot again But it is nice to see some Believer's on here

----------


## lilymc

> [/B]
> there is so much wrong with your post, I'll just reply to this. Jesus isn't talking to Believer's here. He is speaking to FALSE teachers (who preached in His name, cast out demons)- even the devil can do that. Jesus says I NEVER knew you. Meaning He never knew the person. If you are saved, He sure does know you!



I agree, but I  want to add something here.

They were false teachers, but we can also see in verse 22 that they were people who had a works-based mentality and relied on works.

Because they said, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, *and do many mighty works in your name*?"

They were never saved in the first place, because they thought their works would save them, and we are not saved by works!

Here is the important part for the EO people to think about.

If salvation was something you could lose,  then Jesus would have said, "I _once_ knew you, but I don't anymore."    But that's not what He said. 

He said, *I never knew you.*    So those people in Matt 7:21 who think that they're saved but they're not are not people who were once saved and then lost their salvation.  They're people who trusted in their works, instead of trusting in JESUS and having a true, living faith that HE paid the price for us!

Any church that teaches you have to do this, that, the other, go through this ceremony, then go through this other ceremony, then strive and keep doing good deeds, and keep listening to what the black robed priests say, and follow this, that or the other *is calling God a liar.*

We are saved by Grace, through faith.   Not by works, so no one can boast.

Works inevitably follow a genuine, living faith!   It's not that someone can say a few magic words (_without having a true faith_) and then continue to sin for the rest of their life. That is a huge misunderstanding of salvation. That is typically what atheists and unbelievers think Christianity is about.

A person who falls away and supposedly "loses their salvation" was never actually saved /regenerated in the first place.

----------


## lilymc

> Jesus confirmed OSAS. I don't care what tradition says; I care what Jesus said.


AMEN!  That about sums it up, for me too.

Oh, and btw:  Kevin007 has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space.

----------


## Kevin007

> AMEN!  That about sums it up, for me too.
> 
> Oh, and btw:  Kevin007 has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space.


thanks Lily.

----------


## lilymc

> me neither! I believe in Jesus Christ and His Church, all true Believer's.





> Exactly!  That's the true Church.


Amen, and I couldn't agree more.   

For some reason I feel like sharing this video.  True believers all over the world, in different languages.    We are brothers and sisters, not because of belonging to an earthly institution, not because of religion or churchiness, but because we BELIEVE IN, LOVE and have FAITH in Jesus!!! 

(please watch the whole thing.... it's worth it)

----------


## Kevin007

nice video......Love that song. My fav all time is this one though....   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa8w7mGug0c

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> me neither! I believe in Jesus Christ and His Church, all true Believer's.


The body of Christ (believers) is not the Church.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Jesus confirmed OSAS. I don't care what tradition says; I care what Jesus said.


From a heterodox writer:
(part 1) http://www.preparingforeternity.com/oncesave.htm



> _ "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord,  		Lord, shall enter into 
> 		the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father 
> 		which is in heaven." _  _ Matthew 7:21._  *ONCE*  		saved always saved. That is the cry so often heard from many of the  		pulpits today. "I can do whatever I want, as long as I have accepted  		*Jesus* as my personal Savior. Why I could go out and mow down a crowd of  		people with a *machine gun* and if I were to die at that very moment, I  		would be saved." Many people believe this teaching today, but is it  		true? Once we have accepted Jesus as our personal Savior, can we go on  		living like the world, in open, rebellious sin and still be saved.  Most people  		who believe the above teaching once saved always saved will quote the  		following Bible verse as proof: *"For I am persuaded, that neither  		death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things  		present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other  		creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in  		Christ Jesus our Lord."* Romans 8:38, 39. Now this is  		a wonderful Bible promise that God has given us and it should inspire us  		all. But does it say once a person is born again, it is impossible for  		him to lose his way and be lost? In fact, is this verse talking about  		salvation or *eternal life* at all? No, this verse is clearly talking  		about God's unconditional *love* towards man, not unconditional salvation.  		Salvation is conditional! You might also notice that the word "sin" was  		not included in the list of things which are unable to separate us from  		the love of God.If we  		continue in sin, after we have asked Jesus to be our personal Savior,  		are we really in a saved relationship, are we converted? *"For if  		we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth,  		there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."* Hebrews 10:26. What was the very first  		lie recorded in the Bible? It was the devil, speaking through the  		serpent when he was talking to Eve. "And the serpent said unto the  		woman, Ye shall not surely die:" Genesis 3:4. The devil has been  		deceiving people ever since with this lie. "Once saved always saved", is  		another lie from Satan and people have been believing it for years and  		will be sadly surprised in the judgment...   *Very Important Challenge*   		Let me challenge you by reading the following Bible verses regarding  		eternal *life* and see if you don't agree. And remember, we are not  		talking about an occasional misdeed or occasional sin in a sincere  		Christian's life. We are talking about a person that is living in open  		rebelliousness against God. A person that is living like the devil. A  		person who has turned his back on God, the church, etc. and has gone  		back to his old ways before he accepted Christ as his personal Savoir.  		Will *that person* be in heaven if he has un-confessed or un-forsaken sin  		in his life, even though at one time, he had a saving, loving  		relationship with God? Also, most people that believe in once saved  		always saved say, "well that person was never saved in the first place."  		Well, only God knows that, only God can see their heart, and who are we  		to judge and say, "that person was never saved in the first place?"   Please read also the  		parable of the sower. It really goes into great detail how the Christian  		life is a continuous life of obeying God and being a born again  		Christian. The *bottom line* is, if you turn your back on God, you will  		not enter the *gates of heaven*... You would really rather know now before  		its too late, wouldn't you?  *Only The Pure In Heart Shall  										See God*   		•"Blessed  		are the  										*poor in spirit*: for theirs is the  		kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:3.    		• "Blessed are the  		*meek*: for they shall inherit the earth." Matthew 5:5.   		• "Blessed are the  		*pure in heart*: for they shall see God." Matthew 5:8.   		• "For I say unto  		you, That except  		*your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and  		Pharisees*, ye shall in no case enter into the *kingdom of heaven*."  		Matthew 5:20.   		• "Not every one  		that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of *heaven*;  		but he that *doeth the will of my Father*       	which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21.   		• "And ye shall be  		hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that *endureth to the end*  		shall be saved." Matthew 10:22.   		• "And said, Verily  		I say unto you, Except ye  		*be converted*, and *become as little children*, ye shall not  		enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3.   		• "But he that shall  		*endure unto the end*, the same shall be saved. Matthew 24:13.   										•  										"He that  		*believeth* and is *baptized*       									shall be saved; but he that believeth  										not shall be damned." Mark 16:16.   										•  										"And Jesus said unto him, *No man,  										having put his hand to the plough, and  										looking back, is fit for the kingdom of  										God.*" Luke 9:62.   										•  										"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up,  										and tempted him, saying*, Master, what  										shall I do to inherit eternal life?*  										He said unto him, *What is written in  										the law?* *how readest thou?*       									And he answering said, *Thou shalt  										love the Lord thy God with all thy  										heart, and with all thy soul, and with  										all thy strength, and with all thy mind;  										and thy neighbour as thyself*. And he  										said unto him, *Thou hast answered  										right: this do, and thou shalt live*."  										Luke 10:25-28.   										•  										"Jesus answered and said unto him,  										Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except  										a man *be born* again, he cannot  										see the kingdom of God." John 3:3.   										•  										"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say  										unto thee, Except a man be *born of  										water and of the Spirit*, he cannot  										enter into the kingdom of God." John  										3:5.   										•  										"For God so loved the world, that he  										gave his only begotten Son, that  										whosoever *believeth in him* should  										not perish, but have everlasting life."  										John 3:16.   										•  										"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that  		*heareth my word*, and *believeth on him that sent me*, hath  										everlasting life, and shall not come  										into condemnation; but is passed from  										death unto life." John 5:24.   										•  										"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that  		*believeth*       									on me hath everlasting life." John 6:47.   										•  										"Whoso  		*eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood*, hath eternal life; and I  										will raise him up at the last day." John  										6:54.   										•"*I**f a man abide not in  										me,* he is cast forth as a  										branch, and is withered; and men gather  										them, and *cast them into the  										fire, and they are burned."*   										John 15:6.   										•  										"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except  										a corn of wheat fall into the ground and  										die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it  										bringeth forth much fruit. He that  										loveth his life shall lose it; *and he  										that hateth his life in this world shall  										keep it unto life eternal*." John  										12:24, 25.   										•  										"And it shall come to pass, that  										whosoever shall *call on the name of  										the Lord* shall be saved." Acts 2:21.   										•  										"For not the hearers of the law are just  										before God, but *the doers of the law  										shall be justified*." Romans 2:13.   										•  										"That if thou shalt 		*confess* with thy mouth the *Lord Jesus*, and *shalt believe in  										thine heart that God hath raised him  										from the dead*, thou shalt be saved."  										Romans 10:9.   										•  										"Now * 										the works of the flesh are manifest,  										which are these:* Adultery,  										fornication, uncleanness,  										lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft,  										hatred, variance, emulations, wrath,  										strife, seditions, heresies, envyings,  										murders, drunkenness, revellings and  										such like: of the which I tell you  										before, as I have also told you in time  										past, that *they which do such things  										shall not inherit the kingdom of God.*  										But the fruit of the Spirit is love,  										joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness,  										goodness, faith, meekness, temperance:  										against such there is no law."  										Galatians 5:19-23.    										• "For  		*by grace are ye saved through faith*; and that not of yourselves:  										it is the gift of God:" Ephesians 2:8.   										•  										"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that * 										in the latter times some shall depart  										from the faith,* giving heed to  										seducing spirits, and doctrines of  										devils;" 1 Timothy 4:1.   										•  										"Henceforth there is laid up for me a  										crown of righteousness, which the Lord,  										the righteous judge, shall give me at  										that day: and not to me only, but unto  										all them also that *love his appearing*."  										2 Timothy 4:8.   										•  										"Though he were a Son, yet learned he  										obedience by the things which he  										suffered; and being made perfect, he  										became the author of eternal salvation  										unto all them that *obey him*;"  										Hebrews 5:8, 9.   										• 										"For it is impossible for those who were * 										once enlightened,* and have * 										tasted of the heavenly gift,*  										and were made  		*partakers of the Holy Ghost,* And have tasted the good  										word of God, and the powers of the world  										to come, *If they shall fall  										away, to renew them again* unto  										repentance; seeing they crucify to  										themselves the Son of God afresh, and  										put him to an open shame." Hebrews  										6:4-6.   										• *"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the  										knowledge of the truth, there remaineth  										no more sacrifice for sins."*  										Hebrews 10:26.   										• 										"But exhort one another daily, while it  										is called To day; lest any of you be  										hardened through the deceitfulness of  										sin. *For we are made partakers  										of Christ, if we hold the beginning of  										our confidence stedfast unto the end;"*  										Hebrews 3:13,14.  										•  										"Blessed is the man that  		*endureth temptation*: for when he is tried, he shall receive the  										crown of life, which the Lord hath  										promised to them that love him." James  										1:12.   										•  										"Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not  										God chosen the poor of this world rich  										in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which  										he hath promised to them that *love  										him*?" James 2:5.   										• 										"For the time is come that judgment must  										begin at the house of God: and if it  										first begin at us, what shall the end be  										of them that obey not the gospel of God?  										And if the *righteous scarcely be  										saved*, where shall the ungodly and  										the sinner appear?" 1 Peter 4:17, 18.   										• 										"*For it had been better for them not  										to have known the way of righteousness,  										than, after they have known it, to turn  										from the holy commandment delivered unto  										them.* But it is happened unto them  										according to the true proverb, *The  										dog is turned to his own vomit again;*  										and the sow that was washed to her  										wallowing in the mire. 2 Peter 2:21,22.   										•  										"And this is the record, that God hath  										given to us eternal life, and this life  										is in his Son*. He that hath the Son  										hath life*; and he that hath not the  										Son of God hath not life." 1 John 5:11,  										12.   										• *"Keep yourselves in the love of God*, looking for the mercy of our  										Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life."  										Jude 1:21.   										•"Remember therefore *from whence thou art  										fallen, and repent,* and do the  										first works: or else I will come unto  										thee quickly, and will *remove  										thy candlestick* out of his  										place, *except thou repent.*  										Revelation 2:5.   										•  										"He that hath an ear, let him hear what  										the Spirit saith unto the churches; To  										him that *overcometh* will I give  										to eat of the tree of life, which is in  										the midst of the paradise of God."  										Revelation 2:7.   										•  										"...*be thou faithful unto death*,  										and I will give thee a crown of life."  										Revelation 2:10.   										•  										"He that hath an ear, let him hear what  										the Spirit saith unto the churches; He  										that *overcometh* shall not be hurt  										of the second death." Revelation 2:11.   										•  										"He that  		*overcometh*, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and  		*I will not blot out his name out of the book of life,*  										but I will confess his name before my  										Father, and before his angels."  										Revelation 3:5.   										•  										"The beast that thou sawest was, and is  										not; and shall ascend out of the  										bottomless pit, and go into perdition:  										and they that dwell on the earth shall  										wonder, 		*whose names were not written in the book of life from the  										foundation of the world,  		*when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is."  										Revelation 17:8.   										•  										"Behold, I come quickly:  		*hold that fast which thou hast*, that no man take thy crown."  										Revelation 3:11.   										•  										"To him that  		*overcometh* will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I  										also overcame, and am set down with my  										Father in his throne." Revelation 3:21.   										•  										"He that  		*overcometh* shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and  										he shall be my son." Revelation 21:7.   										•  										"And, behold, I come quickly; and my  										reward is with me, to give every *man  										according as his work shall be*."  										Revelation 22:12.   										•  										"Blessed are they that  		*do his commandments*, that they may have right to the tree of  										life, and may enter in through the gates  										into the city." Revelation 22:14.   										• 										"And if any man shall take away from the  										words of the book of this prophecy,  		*God shall take away his part out of the book of life,*  										and out of the holy city, and from the  										things which are written in this book."   										Revelation 22:19.   										•  										"Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul  										of the father, so also the soul of the  										son is mine*: the soul that sinneth,  										it shall die*." Ezekiel 18:4.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Part 2:



> *There Are No Shortcuts*
>   										The above verses show beyond a shadow of  										a doubt that we can lose our salvation.  										It is there in black and white. All of  										God's promises in the Bible are  										conditional. If we are going to spend  										eternity with Jesus, we must be born  										again, meek, love him, pure in heart,  										converted, baptized, born of the water  										and the spirit, do the will of our  										Father, do His commandments, be an  										overcomer, be obedient, endureth  										temptation, etc. There are no shortcuts  										to heaven... If there were, Jesus would  										not have had to come to this earth, and  										die for us. We can trace all of the  										misery and suffering in the world today  										back to one person's disobedience in the  										Garden of Eden. If God were to take one  										unrepentant sinner to heaven with Him,  										sin would rise up again.  Did you  		notice in Revelation 3:5 that unless you are an overcomer,* Jesus will  		blot your name out of the book of life*.The book of life  		contains the names of all who have ever entered the service of God.  		Jesus bade His disciples, "Rejoice, because your names are written in  		heaven." Luke 10:20. Paul speaks of his faithful fellow workers, "Whose  		names are in the book of life." Phil. 4:3. Also notice in Revelation  		17:8 that *our names are not written in the book of life from the  		foundation of the world,* as many people falsely believe. "The beast  		that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless  		pit, and go into perdition: and *they that dwell on the earth shall  		wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the  		foundation of the world,* when they behold the beast that was, and is  		not, and yet is." Revelation 17:8.    * 										The Parable of the Sower**  Jesus taught the truth about losing  		eternal life in the parable of the sower.  														In explaining the seed  		which fell among the thorns and the rocks, Jesus said, "Those by the way  		side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word  		out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. They on the  		rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and  		these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation  		fall away." Luke 8:12, 13. There are several things to note about  		this parable. First, only one class will finally be saved - the ones who  		brought forth much fruit. The groups represented by the wayside and  		rocks will not be saved. In verse 12, the wayside hearers did not have a  		chance to "believe and be saved," but in the next verse the stony ground  		hearers do "for a while believe." What kind of "believing" is this?  		According to verse 12, it is the kind that saves.  		So the ones who believed for a while were saved for a while, but in  		time of temptation they fell away. Eventually, of course, they were  		lost along with all the others, except the fruit-bearers.  		Here is an unequivocal teaching of our Lord that people can have a  		saving faith for a while, and yet lose it and be lost.   4 And when  		much people were gathered together, and were come to him out of every  		city, he spake by a parable: 		 5 A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed,  		some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the  		air devoured it. 		 6 And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was  		sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.   		 7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up  		with it, and choked it. 8 And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare  		fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He  		that hath ears to hear, let him hear.  		 9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this  		parable be?  		 10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the  		mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that  		seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.  		 11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.  		 12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh  		the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they  		should believe and be saved. 		 13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear,  		receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while  		believe, and in time of temptation fall away.  14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which,  		when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and  		pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.  		 15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an  		honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth  		fruit with patience. 16 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it  		with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a  		candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light. 		 17 For nothing is secret, that shall not be made  		manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come  		abroad.  		 18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever  		hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be  		taken even that which he seemeth to have. Luke 8:4:18    																		Security  																		is  																		Eternal  																		Only for  																		Those
> 																		Whose  																		Faith is  																		Eternally  																		Fixed on  																		Jesus
>  
> Those who read the  														record of the Gospels  														carefully will find  														repeated authority from  														Jesus to renounce the  														doctrine of eternal  														security. In Luke  														12:42-46 Christ  														described in another  														parable how a faithful  														servant could turn into  														an unfaithful one. After  														asking, "Who then is  														that faithful and wise  														steward, whom his lord  														shall make ruler over  														his household. . .  														?"Jesus answers His own  														question: "That servant,  														whom his lord when he  														cometh shall find so  														doing . . . he will make  														him ruler over all that  														he hath."Then  														Christ explains how  														that servant could lose  														his reward.  																		"But and  														if that servant say in  														his heart, My lord  														delayeth his coming; and  														shall begin to beat the  														menservants and maidens,  														and to eat and drink,  														and to be drunken; The  														lord of that servant  														will come in a day when  														he looketh not for him,  														and at an hour when he  														is not aware, and will  														cut him in sunder, and  														will appoint him his  														portion with the  														unbelievers." Verses  														45,46.Here is a  														perfect example by the  														Master Teacher as to how  														a faithful and wise  														servant can be punished  														with the unbelievers.  														Jesus was talking about  														a man whom He had seen  														faithful enough to trust  														with heavy  														responsibilities.  														Undoubtedly, this  														servant represents those  														who carefully served the  														Lord as true believers.  														But what happened?  														That very faithful  														servant departed from  														the path of faithfulness  														and reaped eternal ruin  														and death. Does this  														not also remind us of  														the words of Hebrews  														10:38, 														"Now the just shall  														live by faith: but if  														any man draw back, my  														soul shall have no  														pleasure in him."The  														servant in the parable,  														who was a believer, is  														now punished with the  														unbelievers. The  														faithful can draw back  														to perdition.
>  																						Salvation Can Be Forfeited
>  
> One  																		more  																		parable  																		of  																		Christ  																		spotlights  																		the fact  																		that  																		continued  																		forgiveness  																		is  																		conditional  																		for the  																		believer.  																		The  																		story is  																		found in  																		Matthew  																		18:21-35,  																		and  																		revolves  																		around  																		the  																		forgiveness  																		of God.  																		A  																		certain  																		king  																		responded  																		to the  																		pleas of  																		his  																		servant  																		and  																		forgave  																		him a  																		large  																		debt.  																		That  																		servant  																		went out  																		and  																		found a  																		fellow  																		servant  																		who owed  																		him a  																		small  																		amount  																		and  																		showed  																		no  																		mercy,  																		throwing  																		him in  																		prison  																		because  																		he could  																		not pay.  																		When the  																		king  																		heard  																		what had  																		happened,  																		he  																		rescinded  																		his  																		cancellation  																		of the  																		large  																		debt and  																		had his  																		servant  																		thrown  																		to the  																		tormentors  																		till he  																		paid in  																		full. 																		No one  																		can deny  																		the  																		obvious  																		teaching  																		of this  																		parable.  																		Even  																		though  																		God  																		graciously  																		forgives  																		those  																		who  																		apply  																		for it,  																		that  																		forgiveness  																		is not  																		without  																		conditions  																		for the  																		future.  																		We  																		can lose  																		that  																		forgiveness  																		by being  																		unmerciful  																		to  																		others.  																		This is  																		in  																		harmony  																		with the  																		words of  																		the Lord  																		in  																		Ezekiel  																		33:13,  																		"When I  																		shall  																		say to  																		the  																		righteous,  																		that he  																		shall  																		surely  																		live; if  																		he trust  																		to his  																		own  																		righteousness,  																		and  																		commit  																		iniquity,  																		all his  																		righteousnesses  																		shall  																		not be  																		remembered;  																		but for  																		his  																		iniquity  																		that he  																		hath  																		committed,  																		he shall  																		die for  																		it." The  																		principle  																		is  																		repeated  																		in verse  																		18, 																		"When  																		the  																		righteous  																		turneth  																		from his  																		righteousness,  																		and  																		committeth  																		iniquity,  																		he shall  																		even die  																		thereby."
>  																		The  																		secret  																		consists  																		in  																		maintaining  																		the  																		righteous  																		relationship  																		with the  																		Source  																		of  																		salvation.  																		Jesus  																		said,  																		"He that  																		shall  																		endure  																		unto the  																		end, the  																		same  																		shall be  																		saved."  																		Matthew  																		24:13.  																		No one  																		will be  																		saved  																		finally  																		who does  																		not hold  																		out  																		against  																		a course  																		of  																		deliberate  																		sin in  																		the  																		power of  																		God.  																		Those  																		who do  																		not  																		endure  																		to the  																		end will  																		have  																		their  																		names  																		blotted  																		out of  																		the book  																		of life.  																		Advocates  																		of  																		eternal  																		security  																		deny it  																		could  																		ever  																		happen,  																		but read  																		the  																		frightening  																		possibility  																		for  																		yourself  																		in  																		Revelation  																		3:5,  																		"He  																		that  																		overcometh  																		. . . I  																		will not  																		blot out  																		his name  																		out of  																		the book  																		of  																		life."  																		The  																		implication  																		is clear  																		that  																		those  																		who are  																		not  																		overcomers  																		- who do  																		not  																		endure  																		to the  																		end -  																		will  																		have  																		their  																		names  																		blotted  																		out.
> ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Part 3



> * 																						What Does It Mean For The
> 																						Christian To Leave His "First Love"?
> 
> * *"Nevertheless, I have somewhat against thee,  because thou hast left thy FIRST LOVE. Remember therefore from whence  thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come  unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place,  except thou repent."* Revelation 2:4, 5, emphasis added. 																						For the Christian to leave his first love, is  to backslide, to fall away, to leave the Lord and His service, and to go  over to the service of sin, Satan and the world. The Lord calls upon  all such to repent and do their first works (the fruits of love), or  else - else what? *"I will take thy candlestick out of his place."*  This is an ultimatum from the Lord. If the sinner responds, repents,  returns to his first love, and does his first works, all is well and  good - he will be saved. But it is his to choose. If he does not do  this, his light is removed, goes out, and the backslider is lost. 
> 
> 
>  * 										1 John 3:2-15*   Now lets  						look at the following verses from 1 John 3:2-15. These  						verses really go into depth regarding the born again  						person. Please look at the whole chapter from your Bible  						and read it.
>   2  						"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not  						yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, *when  						he shall appear, we shall be like him*; for we shall  						see him as he is."  3 "And  		every man that hath this hope in him *purifieth himself*, even as  		he is pure."  		
> 
> ...

----------


## TER

I will always believe and confess that the Orthodox Church is the Church started in the New Testament, the Church we read about being founded and developed in Acts, and which formed around the bishops, priest, and deacons who were anointed by the Holy Spirit, just as the priesthood of the Old Covenant.  This Church has historically remained in sacramental communion around the Holy Eucharist through time and through history, enduring the greatest trials and most persecutions.  With regards to me, show me through time which men and women have been considered the greatest Christian Saints, through all the eras starting from the beginning, and let me to join into their holy assembly.  Show me the greatest martyrs who went like lambs before the slaughter and earned their crowns of victory, and let me join into their Church.   I have found that Church, and in my (often times overbearing) zeal, I wish to share this news for the benefit and life of my family and neighbors.  I do not think I am alone in seeking for the New Testament Church, the Church of the Saints and the Church Fathers.  My witness is not to me, but to this Church.

  It is not by accident nor by luck that the Orthodox Church can rightful claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as described in every Christan's Creed.  This is not a boast of men, this is a boast towards God and His great mercy!  It is not through the mere works of men.  It is by the faithful service and prayers of the Saints _and the Holy Spirit of God working in them._   Only through the Holy Spirit could any assembly of faithful remain united in doctrine, worship and being (through the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist) since the Day of Pentecost.

  And this is because by abiding in the Holy Spirit and to the true faith, the Holy Spirit of God (Who is the Spirit of Truth) has graced them through all adversaries to endure as witnesses to these truths and stand as guardians of the deposit of faith.  And more, as a spiritual hospital for sinners and place for nourishment, rejuvenation and spiritual healing for men's body and soul.  It is a place for fellowship and communion gathered around the life-giving Body and Blood of Christ (i.e. the Holy Eucharist).   This is the witness of the Church and not my mere assertions.  Do not think I presume myself to be a proof, for I am merely a small and insignificant member in this body, and my presence in it is not at all guaranteed in my acknowledgement of my many and daily sins.

Knowing this I wish to offer above all my apologies to God and beg for His forgiveness for having sinned against Him.  I wish to offer my apologies to the Virgin Mary for being the chief reason as to why this thread has taken a more offensive turn.
I wish to offer my apologies and ask forgiveness from Lily, Kevin, and all the others whom I have offended in this thread.  In my zeal to express the beauty and the great gifts the Lord has given through the Orthodox Church, I have made some of the posts here personal, which is careless and wrong.  Lily, do you love Christ above all?  Then who am I to suggest you are not a Christian?  Do you love your neighbor as yourself?  Then who am I to judge who will enter into the Wedding Feast?  I do not want to suggest that the people debating here are not Christians nor that they do not have the Holy Spirit within them.  I would certainly not judge their eternal salvation on account of the little I know of the them.

 God desires all to come to the truth and be saved, and through Christ He works in the lives and the hearts of _all_ who come to Him with love and devotion.  It is the prayer of every true Christian that in the end, all those who love Christ will worship and glorify Him together in the Kingdom of Heaven in a spirit of peace and truth, and in a unity of one love and one spirit.

----------


## lilymc

> I will always believe and confess that the Orthodox Church is the Church started in the New Testament, the Church we read about being founded and developed in Acts, and which formed around the bishops, priest, and deacons who were anointed by the Holy Spirit, just as the priesthood of the Old Covenant.  This Church has historically remained in sacramental communion around the Holy Eucharist through time and through history, enduring the greatest trials and most persecutions.  With regards to me, show me through time which men and women have been considered the greatest Christian Saints, through all the eras starting from the beginning, and let me to join into their holy assembly.  Show me the greatest martyrs who went like lambs before the slaughter and earned their crowns of victory, and let me join into their Church.   I have found that Church, and in my (often times overbearing) zeal, I wish to share this news for the benefit and life of my family and neighbors.  I do not think I am alone in seeking for the New Testament Church, the Church of the Saints and the Church Fathers.  My witness is not to me, but to this Church.
> 
>   It is not by accident nor by luck that the Orthodox Church can rightful claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as described in every Christan's Creed.  This is not a boast of men, this is a boast towards God and His great mercy!  It is not through the mere works of men.  It is by the faithful service and prayers of the Saints _and the Holy Spirit of God working in them._   Only through the Holy Spirit could any assembly of faithful remain united in doctrine, worship and being (through the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist) since the Day of Pentecost.
> 
>   And this is because by abiding in the Holy Spirit and to the true faith, the Holy Spirit of God (Who is the Spirit of Truth) has graced them through all adversaries to endure as witnesses to these truths and stand as guardians of the deposit of faith.  And more, as a spiritual hospital for sinners and place for nourishment, rejuvenation and spiritual healing for men's body and soul.  It is a place for fellowship and communion gathered around the life-giving Body and Blood of Christ (i.e. the Holy Eucharist).   This is the witness of the Church and not my mere assertions.  Do not think I presume myself to be a proof, for I am merely a small and insignificant member in this body, and my presence in it is not at all guaranteed in my acknowledgement of my many and daily sins.
> 
> Knowing this I wish to offer above all my apologies to God and beg for His forgiveness for having sinned against Him.  I wish to offer my apologies to the Virgin Mary for being the chief reason as to why this thread has taken a more offensive turn.
> I wish to offer my apologies and ask forgiveness from Lily, Kevin, and all the others whom I have offended in this thread.  In my zeal to express the beauty and the great gifts the Lord has given through the Orthodox Church, I have made some of the posts here personal, which is careless and wrong.  Lily, do you love Christ above all?  Then who am I to suggest you are not a Christian?  Do you love your neighbor as yourself?  Then who am I to judge who will enter into the Wedding Feast?  I do not want to suggest that the people debating here are not Christians nor that they do not have the Holy Spirit within them.  I would certainly not judge their eternal salvation on account of the little I know of the them.
> 
>  God desires all to come to the truth and be saved, and through Christ He works in the lives and the hearts of _all_ who come to Him with love and devotion.  It is the prayer of every true Christian that in the end, all those who love Christ will worship and glorify Him together in the Kingdom of Heaven in a spirit of peace and truth, and in a unity of one love and one spirit.


Thank you, TER.    I accept your apology, and I too am sorry if I said anything that was offensive to you.  

And I share that prayer!   

(((hugs)))

----------


## TER

> Thank you, TER.    I accept your apology, and I too am sorry if I said anything that was offensive to you.  
> 
> And I share that prayer!   
> 
> (((hugs)))



Thank you lily.

----------


## Kevin007

> Thank you lily.


Amen, Ter I'm not offended. Your zeal is not offensive. None of us are saying you are not a Christian either.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Amen, Ter I'm not offended. Your zeal is not offensive. None of us are saying you are not a Christian either.


*9* Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.*10* If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting,*11* for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

----------


## TER

Kevin, I think we are being told that you and me can't play together anymore.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Kevin, I think we are being told that you and me can't play together anymore.




You neg repped me for quoting scripture.  What does that say about you?

----------


## TER

> You neg repped me for quoting scripture.  What does that say about you?


The neg rep was for using Scripture to disturb people trying to find peace.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The neg rep was for using Scripture to disturb people trying to find peace.


The bottom line is that John uses doctrine, not sincerity, to judge whether a man is a legitimate Christian, and he says that those who refuse to do so are acting wickedly.

----------


## Kevin007

FF-If Ter believes Jesus died for him, rose again and is coming back and his sins were put on Jesus, I think it is pretty safe to say he is a Christian. Now do I agree with all or most of his Church's teachings? no... but that isn't the bottom line. I do not agree with many of the teachings, but If I put myself in his place, I COULD see some of why he believes in what he does.

----------


## Kevin007

FF- you know as well as anybody I disagree with much of the EO church and RCC teachings, but we cannot judge their salvation. Judge their works, fruits etc.. yes. Point of what we believe is false teaching or incorrect doctrine- of course! But we are not God and ONLY He can judge someones soul.

----------


## erowe1

> From a heterodox writer:
> (part 1) http://www.preparingforeternity.com/oncesave.htm


Yes, that article is defintiely heterodox.

Again, Paul labors to insist with absolute clarity that everyone who has ever been justified is guaranteed to be glorified in Romans 5 and 8. This is not some inference drawn from something he says when he's trying to make some other point. It is the very point he is making. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever even entertain the possibility of a justified person not being glorified.

All these other out-of-context proof-texts that people appeal to in trying to say that are either not clearly talking about justified people or not clearly talking about a failure to be glorified. If you care to look at each and every verse listed in that article, it's very easy to prove that not a single one teaches that a justified person can possibly not be glorified.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF-If Ter believes Jesus died for him, rose again and is coming back and his sins were put on Jesus, I think it is pretty safe to say he is a Christian. Now do I agree with all or most of his Church's teachings? no... but that isn't the bottom line. I do not agree with many of the teachings, but If I put myself in his place, I COULD see some of why he believes in what he does.


TER's Jesus cannot completely save him.  Galatians 1:8 says he is anathema.

Unfortunately, there's no way I can say this that will "look" loving over the internet, but you aren't doing him any favors by speaking peace where there isn't any.




> Yes, that article is defintiely heterodox.
> 
> Again, Paul labors to insist with absolute clarity that everyone who has ever been justified is guaranteed to be glorified in Romans 5 and 8. This is not some inference drawn from something he says when he's trying to make some other point. It is the very point he is making. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever even entertain the possibility of a justified person not being glorified.
> 
> All these other out-of-context proof-texts that people appeal to in trying to say that are either not clearly talking about justified people or not clearly talking about a failure to be glorified.


This.

----------


## erowe1

> *9* Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.*10* If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting,*11* for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.


+rep

----------


## erowe1

> I will always believe and confess that the Orthodox Church is the Church started in the New Testament


As will I.

Therefore, when we want to identify what the true orthodox Church is, the proper way to do it is by letting the New Testament tell us.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> As will I.
> 
> Therefore, when we want to identify what the true orthodox Church is, the proper way to do it is by letting the New Testament tell us.


You believe in the orthodox church, not the Orthodox Church.

The latter is a specific church made by men, that happens to masquerade as orthodox despite lacking the gospel.  Paul says if an angel of heaven brings you a false gospel he is condemned.  Yet EOs (and Catholics) think that their churches are somehow above this same scrutiny.

----------


## Terry1

> [/B]
> 
> Yes there is. We are accountable at the Bema Seat Judgment, but not a judgment of *our salvation, as our salvation was secured the MOMENT WE ACCEPTED JESUS as OUR PERSONAL SAVIOR.* We are accountable for our works our lack of. Our salvation is never in question. Our sanctification is measured and we will be rewarded or lose rewards. The reason every Believer will have different rewards and levels of authority will be because we all live our own lives and each one of us is "graded", but we ALL get a PASS, because of Jesus' free gift of salvation- that no man could earn or add to. You cannot mix grace with works.



Matthew 7:21-23

I Never Knew You

*21 Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.*  22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?  23 And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!

----------


## Terry1

> Hi Terry.  I just want to say a couple things right now. And later, if you want, we can discuss this in more depth.  You've made your thoughts on salvation (the position of the EO church) clear, in a number of posts.    So I'm well aware of your viewpoint.
> 
> I'm not sure why you felt it was necessary to post all of that to me.   Can I ask you a favor?  I really want to cut to the chase, so can you please sum up what you really were trying to say to me, in 1 or 2 sentences?      
> 
> The reason I ask is because I don't want to assume.  I could do that, but it's better that I let you speak for yourself, in a very concise, in a nutshell sort of way.
> 
> Thanks!


Absolutely Lily.  Basically because you stated that you disagreed with my opinion on *what saves* (without an explanation as to why you disagreed), and also your opinion of those who practice traditions in their church not consistent with what you believe.  After that, my explanation sort of took on a life of it's own with one thing being closely associated with the other that I thought should also be included with my explanation to you.  Hope this helps.

----------


## Terry1

> [/B]
> there is so much wrong with your post, I'll just reply to this. Jesus isn't talking to Believer's here. He is speaking to FALSE teachers (who preached in His name, cast out demons)- even the devil can do that. Jesus says I NEVER knew you. Meaning He never knew the person. If you are saved, He sure does know you!


So you're basically saying then that *belief alone* in the name of Jesus is not enough.  You just agreed with me here, but unintentionally I'm sure.  So Kevin--if belief alone won't get us there and even doing these good works in the name of Jesus won't do it either--then why do you suppose that the Apostles like Paul and James both tell you that "faith without works is dead" and that it's possible to fall from grace?

I'll explain:  Because our faith in Jesus is why we do what we do because living in faith means that you're walking in the spirit of the Lord.  When we walk in the spirit of the Lord we are answering our calling and what we do as in "works" then is done by the leading of the Holy Spirit and not something we do outside of faith in Jesus to obtain righteousness by our "dead works".  

Many of you are very confused about the difference between "dead works" and "works of faith" and this is why you can not reconcile your beliefs with James or the Apostle Paul who most certainly tells us that "faith without works *of faith* are dead works. "Dead works" are representative of what the Jews did in the OT and under the Old Covenant to obtain righteousness absent faith.  "Works of faith" are what we do now living in the NT and under the New Covenant of grace through faith.

  You could not possibly believe in being once saved always saved if you truly understood the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  This is paramount to your eternal salvation and you need to seek this out for your own spiritual well being.

----------


## TER

> As will I.
> 
> Therefore, when we want to identify what the true orthodox Church is, the proper way to do it is by letting the New Testament tell us.


You are correct that the NT should be our guide, including the parts about bishops, priests, and deacons. But the NT is not a complete guide. We also have to look at the members of the body through the first generations and centuries, how they lived within this Church and passed the apostolic beliefs down for prosperity.  The NT gives us the beginnings of the Church but it is the Church itself which gives wise to the workings of the Holy Spirit through it in the time since then.  Taking the writings of the NT as the only source only gives part of the picture. If one studies the lives of the earliest Christian writers and saints (the Church Fathers), then they can begin to identify where this Church was and is today through the line of apostolic succession and Eucharistic unity. Many who do such a study come to realize that the Orthodox Church is indeed the Church which spiritually and physically is that Church of the New Testament.

----------


## Terry1

> it sure is. OSAS was taught by Jesus Himself. 
> 
> I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
>  (John 10:28).


Jesus is speaking about those who have already died the first death and obtained eternal life.  He is not speaking about those who are still alive on earth.  Because your version does not reconcile with the rest of NT scripture that NOWHERE tells you that you are eternally secure in this life outside of continually abiding in Christ.  Stop abiding in Christ and faith--then faith dies and they fall from grace.  If what you claim was true, then that would make the Apostle Paul's testimony false.




> Jn.10:28 “I give them eternal life, and _they shall never perish_, no one shall snatch them out of my hand.”  
>  Rom.6:23  “For the wages of sin is death; _but the gift of God is eternal life_ through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Again--this is in reference to those who already died the first death and obtained eternal life and been resurrected in their perfected bodies.





> Jn.3:18 “_He that believeth on him is not condemned_: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Jesus has already told us that belief alone won't get us there because many believe in Jesus--even the demons and the devil believe in Jesus and Jesus told them He never knew them.  You are just cherry picking verses that seem to fit your belief here not reconciling these scriptures with the rest of the NT.




> Jn.5:24 “He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” One is made spiritually alive by having true living faith.


Yes..."He that hears my word" as in those who understand how faith works and that are saved by grace and *through faith*.  Faith is an action and a response to what the Holy Spirit is telling us to do--how to live--how to treat others and this all requires a *work* and *labor of love* on our parts in response to the HOly Spirit.  Without these "works of faith"--and response in faith to what we're being called to do in Christ--you have no faith--it's dead until we repent again and again as we stumble.  At some point if we remain in a fallen state for too long--we are indeed cut off.  John 15:

John 15:1-8

15 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

*6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

*



Hebrews 6:  *For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

*






> Romans 5 is all about eternal security.


Absolutely not--not in this life unless we "continually abide in Christ".    


John 14:16

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;



John 15:4

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.



John 15:5

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 


John 15:6

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.



John 15:7

If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.



John 15:10

If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

NOTE:  In every single scripture the word "IF" is used--"IF" you abide in me and that it "MIGHT BE" or that it "MAY BE"--all conditional upon whether the believer will remain in faith or not.  So you can not claim that anyone is "once saved always saved"--this is nothing short of a lie and unbiblical that the devil uses to rob the souls of those who believe they can live any way they choose ignoring the Holy Spirit and still obtain the kingdom of heaven.

Abiding in Christ means that we are commanded to live Holy Spiritual lives--Jesus didn't ask us to love one another and our neighbors--HE COMMANDED IT!  These are His terms not ours or mine.  Step out of faith and stop living a Holy acceptable life in Christ and you fall from faith and faith is then dead.  God is patient for a time--stay in that fallen state for too long and only God knows the hearts of those who will not return to faith do the will of the Father--they are then cut off from the True Vine/Jesus.  And yes--this is why we are told to fear only the Lord and to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling".  

We are not supposed to sit back in some lazy complacent state of mind thinking that we are saved no matter how we live.  Who could believe such a thing and that God would accept such evilness in the kingdom of heaven?

----------


## Terry1

> As will I.
> 
> Therefore, when we want to identify what the true orthodox Church is, the proper way to do it is by letting the New Testament tell us.


*Revelation 2:1

Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;*

John of Revelation who wrote on the island of Patmos, Greece tells us who the *keepers* are of the seven angels and the seven churches here.  They are the "holders" or *keepers*.  The Apostle Paul also confirms this church as being the "overseers of the world church of God" here:

Acts 20:
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over them *which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
*
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

So then you have to ask yourself--*who are the wolves*?  

Revelation 2 speaks of the "Seven letters to the seven churches"--- "first seven Ecumenical Councils"  are as follows:

1.First Council of Nicaea (325)
2.First Council of Constantinople (381)
3.Council of Ephesus (431)
4.Council of Chalcedon (451)
5.Second Council of Constantinople (553)
6.Third Council of Constantinople (680)
7.Second Council of Nicaea (787)

Coincidence?  I think not!

----------


## erowe1

> You are correct that the NT should be our guide, including the parts about bishops, priests, and deacons.


Exactly. It's from the New Testament that we learn that "episkopos" and "presbuteros" are two words for the exact same office, not two different offices. It's from the New Testament that we learn that there is no need for an episkopos/presbuteros to be present for there to be a legitimate observation of the Lord's Supper. It's from the New Testament that we learn that churches can be founded without any bishops who can claim apostolic succession. It's from the New Testament that we learn a person's belonging to Christ's one true Church has nothing whatsoever to do with what any bishop has to say about it.

When individual human beings from later points in history contradict the above points, we can say with absolute certainty that they are claiming things that contradict the apostolic faith, and thus were not passed down by any oral tradition stretching back to the apostles.

----------


## TER

Erowe, you cannot separate the life of the Church like that. The Church started in the NT, and has been united through the Eucharist even as the Church.grew. You seem to misunderstand the early and apostolic place of the Bishop because of the way you perceive things as started in the NT.  The Church is not a static entity, even as it's essential doctrines are firmly held. The Church is a dynamic entity contending in the world for the protection of the faithful through the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit.  The experience of the Church living through time and it's relating to it has changed for the benefit of the faithful, but the unity in the Holy Eucharist and through the grace of Apostolic succession has never left the world, nor did it disappear to reappear centuries later as you might contend.  The authority of the Church remains and is the pillar and foundation of the truth and the guardian of the faith. 

You keep ignoring the central place of the Holy Eucharist in the process of this continuing life of the Church. The Church Fathers of the first three centuries make it abundantly clear how the Church has developed around the Holy Eucharist in one faith and as one body, and this involves the God anointed roles of the bishops as overseers (who too are priests), priest and deacons. The Orthodox Church can show its direct link down the ages via apostolic succession in unity around the Holy Eucharist.  You may deny it, but then we would have to agree to disagree.  There was one body of communing believers which the Church Fathers sought to be members of and receive the Holy Eucharist from. And this is the historical NT Church which is proven to be the Orthodox Church.   One would have to blind themselves from the history of the early Church and only rely on the limited information listed in the book of Acts and Epistles to justify the position you are taking. But this is not right, as the Church did not disappear at any time in the world, and neither has the unity of mind, faith and spirit around the one Cup of salvation, namely the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

----------


## Terry1

> Under the OC, believers were saved by faith in God but by keeping the  Law. Jesus' sacrifice was CREDITED to them, as it was still yet future.


Kevin, the word "covenant" means LAW.  Under the Old Covenant--the old law of Moses, the Jews were cursed under that law of dead works for their failure to keep those laws perfectly and to the letter of them.

Under the New Covenant and LAW--we live by faith--meaning that the works we do now are done in response to what Jesus is telling us to do and how to live through His Holy Spirit.  We still must *work and labor, but now under the NEW LAW of faith--what we do is not by ceremonial rituals.  What we do now is done in a spontaneous reaction to the Holy Spirit of God.

You are confused about *which law* Paul and James are referring to when Paul tells you not to do works under the old law, but to do good works in faith under the New Law as referenced here:

Justified by Faith

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.


Acts 13:
39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.


1 Thessalonians 1:3

Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;



2 Thessalonians 1:11

Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:


Examples of "works of faith":



Matthew 5:16

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


John 10:32

Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


Acts 9:36

Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


Romans 13:3

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


Ephesians 2:10

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


1 Timothy 2:10

But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


1 Timothy 5:10

Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


1 Timothy 5:25

Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


1 Timothy 6:18

That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


2 Timothy 3:17

That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


Titus 2:7

In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


Titus 2:14

Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


Titus 3:8

This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


Titus 3:14

And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


Hebrews 10:24

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 


1 Peter 2:12

Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 

King James Version (KJV)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You are correct that the NT should be our guide, including the parts about bishops, priests, and deacons. But the NT is not a complete guide. We also have to look at the members of the body through the first generations and centuries, how they lived within this Church and passed the apostolic beliefs down for prosperity.  The NT gives us the beginnings of the Church but it is the Church itself which gives wise to the workings of the Holy Spirit through it in the time since then.  Taking the writings of the NT as the only source only gives part of the picture. If one studies the lives of the earliest Christian writers and saints (the Church Fathers), then they can begin to identify where this Church was and is today through the line of apostolic succession and Eucharistic unity. Many who do such a study come to realize that the Orthodox Church is indeed the Church which spiritually and physically is that Church of the New Testament.


The bishop* is not a Biblical office.  Pastors and deacons are the only two Biblical offices.  So, right there, your church organization is not ideal.  Now, of course, I wouldn't say your church is a false church solely because of its organization (I make that claim on the basis of your church's sacramental theology and its denial of justification by faith alone) but it certainly proves that your church isn't "The" church.

*I understand that some translations use "bishop" but the point is the same.  Bishop/pastor/elder is one office.

----------


## TER

As the Church has contended in the world and the threats against it, it formed by the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit, just as we see the beginnings of this playing out in the limited time frame described towards the end of the Bible. But while the NT is a reference and a guide, it is not the complete story and never was intended to be. It is the Church and the power of God bestowed upon it which strengthen and guides the Church through every epoch and era and gives the rest of the story, all around the anointed leaders of the Church and above all of the very body of Christ which gives it this physical and mystical unity.

----------


## TER

> The bishop* is not a Biblical office.  Pastors and deacons are the only two Biblical offices.  So, right there, your church organization is not ideal.  Now, of course, I wouldn't say your church is a false church solely because of its organization (I make that claim on the basis of your church's sacramental theology and its denial of justification by faith alone) but it certainly proves that your church isn't "The" church.
> 
> *I understand that some translations use "bishop" but the point is the same.  Bishop/pastor/elder is one office.


All bishops have been priests but only a select few have been bishops and overseers of the priests in a specific geographical region. St. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch and then later Rome. St. Mark the first Bishop of Alexandria. St. Lazarus the first Bishop of Cyprus. Etc, etc. Thus while the limited historical records in the NT may not express these truths, they are nevertheless the workings of the Holy Spirit within the life and experience of the Church.

----------


## erowe1

> All bishops have been priests but only a select few have been bishops and overseers of the priests in a specific geographical region.


That is a later innovation and departure from what the apostles established. Originally the episkopos and the presbuteros were one and the same. There was no such thing as a presbuteros who was not an episkopos.

What you're presenting is not something the New Testament does not express, but something the New Testament positively contradicts. To believe what you're saying is to reject the tradition that has been passed down to Christ's one true orthodox holy catholic Church by the apostles and to replace it with something else.

We can go somewhat later than the NT as well. The Epistle from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth, commonly called First Clement, also treats the terms episkopos and presbuteros as complete synonyms. And when Ignatius of Antioch wrote his epistles, monarchical bishops over cities were a new development in Asia that had not yet made its way to Rome. So as of the early 2nd century at least, there still was no single bishop for all of Rome.

----------


## erowe1

> The Church Fathers of the first three centuries make it abundantly clear how the Church has developed around the Holy Eucharist in one faith and as one body, and this involves the God anointed roles of the bishops as overseers (who too are priests), priest and deacons. The Orthodox Church can show its direct link down the ages via apostolic succession in unity around the Holy Eucharist.


I am familiar with writers in those centuries doing that. This began with Ignatius of Antioch. But this was a departure from the faith of the apostles. The apostles' own writings prove it.

----------


## Terry1

> Part 2:


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to heavenlyboy34 again.

----------


## lilymc

> Absolutely Lily.  Basically because you stated that you disagreed with my opinion on *what saves* (without an explanation as to why you disagreed), and also your opinion of those who practice traditions in their church not consistent with what you believe.  After that, my explanation sort of took on a life of it's own with one thing being closely associated with the other that I thought should also be included with my explanation to you.  Hope this helps.


Terry, the reason I asked you what your real point was is because it almost seemed like your message was,  "If you're not in the EO, and you disagree with what we believe, you better be careful because you might not be saved."

That's why I asked you to state what your actual point is, because I didn't want to assume, or read between the lines.

Also, you said, "...not consistent with what you believe."     No, it's not about what I believe.  I disagree with the EO based on their inconsistency with the *scriptures*.    

I said this before, but I'll say it again.  I care about what the Word of God says.  I care about what JESUS says.    I also use my God-given intuition, discernment, wisdom and common sense.     

About a week and a half ago, I was unfamiliar with the EO church.  In all my life, I've never met anyone (as far as I know) who was an EO member.

And now, after learning more about them and about what they teach, I have to be honest.... I'm truly amazed, and saddened at what I'm seeing.   It's not just one or two doctrines, I'm seeing numerous doctrines that are simply unbiblical.   

Not only that, but the overall emphasis on the earthy institution ("church"), _religion_, works, man-made traditions, and fallible human beings.

If you want to discuss salvation and eternal security, I would like to do that.  A few of us did talk about that yesterday on this thread, but I think it's very important, so either we can talk about it here, or on a new thread.

Right now I have to get going, because the day is almost half over, and I haven't done the things I need to do.  So I'll be back later!

----------


## TER

> That is a later innovation and departure from what the apostles established. Originally the episkopos and the presbuteros were one and the same. There was no such thing as a presbuteros who was not an episkopos.
> 
> What you're presenting is not something the New Testament does not express, but something the New Testament positively contradicts. To believe what you're saying is to reject the tradition that has been passed down to Christ's one true orthodox holy catholic Church by the apostles and to replace it with something else.
> 
> We can go somewhat later than the NT as well. The Epistle from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth, commonly called First Clement, also treats the terms episkopos and presbuteros as complete synonyms. And when Ignatius of Antioch wrote his epistles, monarchical bishops over cities were a new development in Asia that had not yet made its way to Rome. So as of the early 2nd century at least, there still was no single bishop for all of Rome.


Erowe, can you tell me when the 'later innovations' of the bishops as heads of areas begins?

----------


## TER

*Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father.* *Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction.* *The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110])*.

This was written within a few generations of the Day of Pentecost, _just a few years after the death of the last of the 12 great Apostles._  When he wrote this and expressed the orthodox and catholic faith which had been spread everywhere by these same Apostles, *people were still living who had been alive when Jesus Christ died on the cross.* (let that sink in for a moment).  You say what this man wrote above was a 'later' innovation?  My, you are quite the judge of the Holy Spirit and these saints!  They do not live up to your standards!  And what are your standards?  What have you made the pillar and foundation of the truth? The New Testament, which didn't even exist as we have it today? Which only included the first few years of the infancy of the Church, indeed the formative years?   But better yet, your own mind has become the decider of what is true and what the fullness of truth is!  So to make _you_ right and appease _your_ mind, the Saints who were instructed by the very Apostles were in error and you 2000 years later are right?  Wow!  I didn't know the Church dissolved and fell into such great heresy so quickly!  And I didn't know you were such a great and holy saint and new prophet!  Had they only had you to explain to them what it meant to be a Christian and what the Apostles taught, the Church would have never fallen and the Holy Spirit fail so miserably!

This worship and misuse of the Scriptures which is the great heresy of these days insults the Holy Spirit and the saints whom the Holy Spirit worked through and guided 'into all truths'.  It belittles the trials and tribulations these martyrs contended with in order to pass down the very books which people now misuse.  As if we were made to become librarians instead of members of His Church which has ALWAYS been the part of the Christian goal (indeed, a basis of our very soteriology) from the first days until now.

The above quote was written by St. Ignatius who was a student of St. John the Apostle.  He became the third Bishop of Antioch.  First was St. Peter, who succeeded the episcopy to St. Evodius (who was one of the 72 Apostles sent by Christ, until 69 AD when he died).  Then St. Ignatius was chosen by St. Peter and anointed by the Holy Spirit to take Evodius' place.   

When he said the above to them, where was there a large outcry?  Did the thousands and tens of thousands of people spread hundreds and thousands of miles away revolt to such words which you consider wrong and heretical?  In fact the people in far away Alexanderia and the people in Rome and the people in Jerusalem (_people who lived in those apostloic times_) gladly and wholeheartedly confessed the same thing, which is the reason why they called him a Saint and to this day have passed down his letters!  He did not start some new teaching, or some new church!  He was in fact in the same catholic Church spread far and wide which shared in the same faith and cup around the Holy Eucharist!  St. Ignatius was only saying what the reality was, how the Holy Spirit formed the Church in the world, which is described _in only it's very beginnings_ in the pages of Acts.  You sorely misunderstand the Church simply because it is more convenient for you to stop at the last page of Acts and not have to submit yourself to anything or anyone apart from your own image of God and Christianity.  But I refuse to make my fallible mind to be the decider of what is true and less am I inclined to deny the Holy Spirit working in the Church and in these great men and women who established it and defended it, all to the glory of God.

I am sorry if this was a pointed post.  I am trying to shake you out of this delusion you have which is that you know more about what it means to be a Christian and to be a member of His Church then all the apostolic fathers and martyrs and saints.

----------


## Kevin007

> The body of Christ (believers) is not the Church.



http://carm.org/church

----------


## Kevin007

> Matthew 7:21-23
> 
> I Never Knew You
> 
> *21 Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.*  22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?  23 And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!


this isn't talking about Believer's losing salvation. The context is false teachers.

----------


## Terry1

> http://carm.org/church



That site is pure undiluted Calvinism.

----------


## Kevin007

> So you're basically saying then that *belief alone* in the name of Jesus is not enough.  You just agreed with me here, but unintentionally I'm sure.  So Kevin--if belief alone won't get us there and even doing these good works in the name of Jesus won't do it either--then why do you suppose that the Apostles like Paul and James both tell you that "faith without works is dead" and that it's possible to fall from grace?
> 
> I'll explain:  Because our faith in Jesus is why we do what we do because living in faith means that you're walking in the spirit of the Lord.  When we walk in the spirit of the Lord we are answering our calling and what we do as in "works" then is done by the leading of the Holy Spirit and not something we do outside of faith in Jesus to obtain righteousness by our "dead works".  
> 
> Many of you are very confused about the difference between "dead works" and "works of faith" and this is why you can not reconcile your beliefs with James or the Apostle Paul who most certainly tells us that "faith without works *of faith* are dead works. "Dead works" are representative of what the Jews did in the OT and under the Old Covenant to obtain righteousness absent faith.  "Works of faith" are what we do now living in the NT and under the New Covenant of grace through faith.
> 
>   You could not possibly believe in being once saved always saved if you truly understood the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  This is paramount to your eternal salvation and you need to seek this out for your own spiritual well being.


I'm not confused at all. Salvation is by grace alone, not of works. I can list a hundred verses proving OSAS, eternal security of the Believer. BECAUSE you are saved you will want to do good works but good works don't save you or "keep" you saved.

We cannot add anything to Jesus' finished work. His free gift of salvation is FREE. If you realize that you are a sinner and deserve hell and Jesus died for your sins, rose again and is coming again- you are saved. ALL Believers still SIN every DAY after we are saved. You are confusing SANCTIFICATION with SALVATION. Sanctification is a daily PROCESS whereby we become more and more like Jesus. Salvation is a one time event where we are forever justified in God the Father's sight because we accepted His Son's free gift.


God cannot save and unsave you. How many sins must one commit after they are saved to lose their salvation? The most important question of life- our eternal security- God won't leave us "hanging". It is SETTLED ONCE FOR ALL. THE PENALTY was paid. God keeps us till the day of redemption; not one sheep is lost.


You are focusing too much on fleshly works and yourself and not fully on God. In reality is the utmost disrespect to our Lord and Savior because by trying to be obedient you are taking your focus on what Jesus did for you and putting on yourself. Nothing you can do can get you to Heaven. Nothing you can do can keep you out of Heaven if you are truly saved.

----------


## Kevin007

that site is correct. Please show me where you disagree, just one thing. It is all biblical. Take off the hater glasses.

----------


## Kevin007

Like Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy offers a sacerdotal  interpretation of the Christian faith. That is, it emphasizes the  Church, and especially the hierarchy of priests who allegedly mediate  Christ and His salvation to His people. As we have seen, sacerdotalism  entails that priests and bishops alone have the right to determine the  true meaning of the New Testament for the faithful. Similarly, it  entails that the priests alone hold the keys of the kingdom of God--the  sacraments--in their hands. 


 Here, in a nutshell, was the bone of contention that gave rise to the  Reformation. After centuries of toil under this kind of authoritarian  system, the Reformers finally repudiated the sacerdotal interpretation  of the Christian faith. Returning to the New Testament itself, they  found to their amazement that Christ alone is the one Mediator between  God and man, and that all true Christians are part of His eternal  priesthood (1 Timothy 2, 1 Peter 2). 

This radically biblical view once  again placed all believers under the direct authority of Christ and the  apostolic writings. And this, in turn, made it possible for them to  re-examine centuries of Christian tradition, much of which they found,  to their amazement. was completely unbiblical.

Thus, the Reformers not  only challenged Catholic views on authority and salvation, but also on  the mass, the number and nature of the sacraments, the veneration of  Mary, prayers to the saints, the use of icons and relics in divine  worship, and more. 

Succeeding generations of biblical Christians would  question infant baptism, traditional ideas about Church-State relations,  the gifts of the Spirit, and the true nature of Church government.


http://www.clr4u.org/writings/essays...-critique.html

----------


## Kevin007

> Kevin, the word "covenant" means LAW.  Under the Old Covenant--the old law of Moses, the Jews were cursed under that law of dead works for their failure to keep those laws perfectly and to the letter of them.
> 
> Under the New Covenant and LAW--we live by faith--meaning that the works we do now are done in response to what Jesus is telling us to do and how to live through His Holy Spirit.  We still must *work and labor, but now under the NEW LAW of faith--what we do is not by ceremonial rituals.  What we do now is done in a spontaneous reaction to the Holy Spirit of God.
> 
> You are confused about *which law* Paul and James are referring to when Paul tells you not to do works under the old law, but to do good works in faith under the New Law as referenced here:
> 
> Justified by Faith
> 
> 21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
> ...


none of these works save you or keep you save. How many works must I do to be saved?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Like Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy offers a sacerdotal  interpretation of the Christian faith. That is, it emphasizes the  Church, and especially the hierarchy of priests who allegedly mediate  Christ and His salvation to His people. As we have seen, sacerdotalism  entails that priests and bishops alone have the right to determine the  true meaning of the New Testament for the faithful. Similarly, it  entails that the priests alone hold the keys of the kingdom of God--the  sacraments--in their hands. 
> 
> 
>  Here, in a nutshell, was the bone of contention that gave rise to the  Reformation. After centuries of toil under this kind of authoritarian  system, the Reformers finally repudiated the sacerdotal interpretation  of the Christian faith. Returning to the New Testament itself, they  found to their amazement that Christ alone is the one Mediator between  God and man, and that all true Christians are part of His eternal  priesthood (1 Timothy 2, 1 Peter 2). 
> 
> This radically biblical view once  again placed all believers under the direct authority of Christ and the  apostolic writings. And this, in turn, made it possible for them to  re-examine centuries of Christian tradition, much of which they found,  to their amazement. was completely unbiblical.
> 
> Thus, the Reformers not  only challenged Catholic views on authority and salvation, but also on  the mass, the number and nature of the sacraments, the veneration of  Mary, prayers to the saints, the use of icons and relics in divine  worship, and more. 
> 
> ...


The author commits the fallacy fallacy claiming that the EOC and/or RCC are incorrect because they appeal to tradition.  In this context, it's an epic fail.  The Christian religion-like most other religions-relies on tradition almost entirely to justify its claims.  The Reformers were right in many ways about the Papacy, but that's all they got right.  The rest of their claims, doctrine, and dogma is partially or entirely incorrect.  This has been demonstrated by many writers, but the most concise and readable I know of is "Orthodoxy And Heterodoxy".  http://amazon.com/Orthodoxy-Heterodo...and+heterodoxy 

You are of course free to beleive as you wish, but you do not have true facts on your side, Kevin.  God bless and good night. ~hugs~

----------


## extortion17

> Like Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy offers a sacerdotal  interpretation of the Christian faith. 
> 
> . . . the Reformers ...challenged Catholic views on ... the veneration of  Mary, prayers to the saints, and more. 
> 
> Succeeding generations of biblical Christians would  question infant baptism, . . .


Catholics emphasize scripture _as much if not more_ than any of the evangelical/protestant christian faiths . . . 
Revelations and the Queen of 12 stars  is part of one of the Holy Rosary "Glorious" mysteries but ignored by those non-Catholic (/non-EO) Christian/evangelical/protestant cults.

So Catholics are to be considered MORE scriptural -_ but just not sola scriptura_ as are the protestant evangelical christian cults started by a man named Luther  (the anti-semitic writings of Martin Luther are appaulling)

Why do many protestants not recite the Lord's Prayer as written in scripture ?

. . . challenged Catholic views on ... the veneration of  Mary, prayers to the saints, and more. 

Don't gloss over the more part please . . .
 the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, Portugal jus' about 100 years ago now is ignored by the protestants as what . . . alien invasion ?
the Eucharistic miracles that have occurred around the globe are what to them . . . ? ignored . . . ok - protestant cults have that right to freedom of religion as well.
 So suceeding generations of the protestant evangelicals question everything that occurs - since the age of Jesus Christ - that jus' seems blind.

We will even bring up the discovered 'God particle' (the Higgs boson) - 
scripture writers like Luke would have had a tough time writing much about this . . . hah, English - the predominant language of physics - wasn't invented as a language yet - yet we in the 21st century can, and do.

Read_ Rome Sweet Home_ or other discussions of protestants that have come to recognize that the Catholics are very scriptural indeed - 
but not just _sola scriptura_.

Peace and God bless.

----------


## Terry1

> none of these works save you or keep you save. How many works must I do to be saved?


What did Jesus tell you "glorifies The Father in Heaven--belief alone?  Belief requires faith and faith requires a work of faith to give evidence of what it is that we believe.  That's called being saved *by Grace and *through *Faith!

Jesus said this in Matthew----*Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.*

Where's your light if no one can see who you are and what you believe by the things that you say and do?  That *is your light.  Just like Paul tells you---James tells you--Jesus tells you--Hebrews--Matthew--Mark--Luke--John and the book of Revelation all tell you that you can not simply make a one time confession of belief and inherit the kingdom of heaven absent faith--.  Grace and through faith--meaning only "through"--something else can grace be of any effect in our lives.  Our faith is what we do in response to our belief.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?  Even in this life--we all must be and do what it is that we believe or else we have no proof that we are who we say we are.  No one believes you without evidence of your work, life and history to verify and validate that yes--Kevin is indeed who he says he is because look at how he lives and the things he stands for.

Jesus finished the work on that cross by fulfilling the Old Law for mankind which now enables us to either accept or reject the gift of salvation.  We have a choice in this matter.  Yes--faith and our works that follow are the evidence of who we are and yes--they indeed do save because they are the evidence of our faith in Jesus Christ.

Without believing Christians doing the earthly works of Christ in faith--there would be no churches--no witnesses for Christ--no one feeding the hungry, poor or caring for the sick and needy.  We are commanded to love one another how then--------by doing those works of faith and labor of love for one another.  What kind of Christian ignores the voice of the Holy Spirit calling them to do something who then sit around living ungodly lives thinking that their one-time confession has eternally secured them?

Jesus Himself told you that your good works are your light!  Without these works that we do in faith--we have no light because no one can see our light and we fall into darkness once again.  Yes Kevin--people can and do fall from grace and salvation and the only thing that keeps us in faith in this life is continually walking in the Spirit of the Lord by doing the works that the Holy Spirit is calling us to do.  Hebrews 6:4.  Without us producing the fruit of the Spirit which are our good works and our lights--that part of the vine is cut off because it has become dead being non-productive for lack of saving faith.  John 15: 1-8.

----------


## extortion17

_Sola scriptura_ (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains 
all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness,

_Sola scriptura_ is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations
 It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

----------


## Terry1

All I know is this--that the Catholics--for whatever else has been added to or taken away ARE the KEEPERS of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.  That is the key to salvation for mankind.  Whatever other traditions or practices they have can not take away from them who believe and practice that primary core belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Protestants can not understand that when Paul condemned traditions--he was speaking to the Jews who practiced Old Testament traditions still in place of faith.  Paul then turns around asserting that Christians are to hold fast to their own Christian traditions in the church.  These traditions are indeed evidence and a recorded history of faithful believing saints of God who came before us--teaching us--guiding us in the Spirit of the Lord.  They were our shepherds and elders--and lights unto this dark world who left us their testimonies and legacies to strengthen the earthly church that draws those in who are being called to salvation.  They should never be forgotten or ignored for their sacrifices toward the kingdom of Heaven and most certainly deserve to be venerated and remembered for who they were and what they stood for. 

Without the sacrifices and work of the departed saints and apostles of God--and the traditions that follow their work in this world--there would be no church--no evidence and no tradition that draws the lost souls to Christ.

----------


## Kevin007

TRADITIONS that are_ FOUND_ *in THE BIBLE!*


  The word tradition occurs only 14 times in the whole New Testament in the Old Testament not once. We find 8 references are from Jesus himself, all of which are derogatory of traditions. Not once does he insinuate they are useful or scriptural. Paul has 5 references, 2 of which are derogatory (Col.2:8; Gal.1:14). Peter also has one reference also derogatory 1 Pt.1:18. (the aimless conduct received by the tradition of the fathers). For Peter to be called the first Pope and does not uphold this practice does not help their position.

 The first time is is mentioned is by Jesus in Mt. 15:2-3  “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”  He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” *Nowhere does Jesus teach there is a tradition of men and of God.*
He goes on to give an example of their tradition that went against Scripture. It was the written Scripture that was the authority for any other teaching.    

 Another time he was asked about eating bread before washing their hands. Mark 7:7-9 “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men-- the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” And He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” They had a choice but instead defaulted to their own rules that they thought was biblical.     


*There are other instances of tradition in the Bible but they are all scriptural or do not contend with the scripture teaching itself.* An example of this is in Jn.10:22 with the feast of dedication (Chanukah). Jesus did not refute this because it was a actual historical event. Yet if the leaders had made it mandatory it would have received a different reaction from Jesus. We do have the freedom to hold for our personal enjoyment  practices of individual choice. However this is not what the Roman Catholic Church is claiming. They are teaching that these were handed down from the Apostles (some of which are found from Scripture) and are commands and even necessary for ones spiritual life.     


 Paul explains in Gal 1:14 “And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” Paul understood the differences of what tradition was and what was Scripture is.     

*Upon only 3 verses that have the word “tradition” in the Scriptures, Catholicism’s entire practice for traditions being of equal status with scripture are founded on these*. Despite the fact that the same Scripture that mentions the word tradition makes it clear from both Jesus and the apostles writings that they are to be our source of life.  So lets look at this Scriptures carefully and see what they say and what they do not say.     


1) 1 Cor.11:23 “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; Here Paul states he is presenting in writing what he had previously taught them in person, that which I also delivered unto you.”     

 This pertains to the communion and how it is to be taken. So what he had taught orally was inscripturated, so there no validation for oral tradition here. Paul most likely learned of the communion by the other apostles as they fellowshipped and broke bread each week.  However Paul learned more of this from the Lord and is the only apostle to write in detail about it.     

2) 2 Thess. 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”     

 Both which were taught were the same that was written down. What traditions is Paul talking about?  In v.5 Paul previously stated “ Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” This Paul says he already taught them in person but now is writing it down. Consistent with the rest of the teachings, everything said was written down that would be used to have one practice their Christian relationship.     

 He was giving them and us in writing what he had previously taught. Which was about the man of sin, to provide further understanding clarifying any misconceptions they had, Since the epistle starts off with the church shaken up by a false letter or word they received that the resurrection already taking place and they thought they missed out. So presently he is elaborating on the details of the tribulation and the falling away.     

3) 2 Thes. 3:6 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition (some translations have teaching, at any rate teaching can be passed on orally before it is committed to writing) which he received from us.”  Again if we go further we find what is being said which proves all should be read in its context.  V.10 “for even when we were with you we commanded you this, If anyone does not work neither shall they eat.” 

It was the same thing by personal word or by letter. They showed this teaching by example as they were with the Corinthians and he put in writing what he had taught them earlier. This way they would not forget or corrupt it after his death. None of these scriptures have any relationship to the traditions presently taught and practiced in the Roman Catholic Church.  Further no one has ever documented any specific teaching to be accredited to Paul in their traditions. Obviously not everything the apostles “said” is written down but the doctrines are.  So there is nothing spoken that was not written that we would need to know about salvation and living.  For example Paul says in 1 Cor.15:1  “Moreover brethren I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you...” Here it is written out.     

 The only revelation we have today is the same committed to the apostles that was written down, this was what the church accepted and practiced after the apostles, that which was written, not what is spoken. _The same Paul who is claimed to write of traditions specifically tell us in 1 Cor.4:6 “do not to go beyond what is written.”_ How could he do this if he approved of the apostles oral teaching alongside the writings? He couldn't. That is why what was taught was penned on paper, pointing to the Scripture as our final authority.     

 Every time the Pharisees the religious men brought up traditions as equal to the Scripture Jesus brought them to the word. This is why he called them the traditions of men because they did not come from God but by religious men who no longer intended to obey the word.     

 In Acts 20:29 Paul warns the Ephesian elders about savage wolves that would come after his departure. It would unlikely to think that Paul did not put in writing what the Holy Spirit inspired as teaching to all the churches. It would be much easier to distort what is orally handed down and left up to individual re-translating. As time would go on generations would pass on memories that would be inaccurate to recall the original teachings by word of mouth. This is why God had Moses write everything down in the book of the law, so there would be no question what was said, any mistakes would be minimized.  If God did so in the Old Testament would he change this policy in the new.  Jesus pointed to the Old Testament word. The early church pointed to the word written as well.     

 When we look at the examples of tradition in the Scripture we find its purpose does the very opposite of the word written.  If the traditions the Catholics hold are suppose to be a body of teaching that was passed down by the apostles oral tradition, why are they written down? Why are they not included in the bible if they are written down. After all they are suppose to be apostolic teaching.      

  Catholics “Sacred Tradition” becomes invalid if in any point it contradicts the Bible.  Catholic teachings of purgatory, penance, indulgences, Mass, praying the rosary, praying to saints and Mary,  wearing scapulars, are not found in the Scripture  and they contradict scriptures teachings.  Any verses found to validate these by Catholics are always subject to being redefined or pulled from its actual context.  The Catholic Church has used their Traditions to make them equal to word when. The fact is that God says nothing has this kind of authority except the word itself. 

 In the New Testament Period Jesus whole ministry was a contention with the Pharisees traditions. They wanted him to validate and approve what they called the tradition of the elders (fathers) Mk.7:1-9 Mt.15:1-4 contention grew between Jesus and the religious leaders as they wanted his approval of their traditions to be considered equal with Scripture. Jesus was clear he was not going to approve of their traditions saying you lay aside the commandment of God and hold higher the tradition of men.”     

 They challenged Jesus on the cleansing rituals. Jesus responded its not cleansing from the outside, but mans heart from the inside is what needs the cleansing. The Pharisee’s set up a barrier between God and man making the commandments of no effect because they stopped people from seeing the word of God. Jesus always brought their traditions to the ultimate authority the word of God. 

Mk.7: “These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me and in vain they worship me teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.” By adding traditions alongside the word they watered down the truth This is why Jesus quoted Mt.11:28 “Come to ME all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you REST.”     

 The Pharisees laws were burdens that God never intended, it brought the people into bondage because it went beyond Scripture and was never intended to do what God inspired to be written. Nowhere is it written to continue to have traditions by word of mouth after the apostles.     

*Not once did Jesus speak well about traditions*, Neither did Paul as he said in Colossians 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, AND NOT AFTER CHRIST.” 

He said to” let the word of God dwell in you richly.” It is the word of God that is living and active (Heb.4:12) to change one from the inside, *traditions can never be a alternative or of equal value to what God has spoken and written down for all generations to live by.*


http://www.letusreason.org/rc13.htm

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That site is pure undiluted Calvinism.


So is the Bible.

----------


## lilymc

> TRADITIONS that are_ FOUND_ *in THE BIBLE!*
> 
> 
>   The word tradition occurs only 14 times in the whole New Testament in the Old Testament not once. We find 8 references are from Jesus himself, all of which are derogatory of traditions. Not once does he insinuate they are useful or scriptural. Paul has 5 references, 2 of which are derogatory (Col.2:8; Gal.1:14). Peter also has one reference also derogatory 1 Pt.1:18. (the aimless conduct received by the tradition of the fathers). For Peter to be called the first Pope and does not uphold this practice does not help their position.
> 
>  The first time is is mentioned is by Jesus in Mt. 15:2-3  Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.  He answered and said to them, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? *Nowhere does Jesus teach there is a tradition of men and of God.*
> He goes on to give an example of their tradition that went against Scripture. It was the written Scripture that was the authority for any other teaching.    
> 
>  Another time he was asked about eating bread before washing their hands. Mark 7:7-9 And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men-- the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do. And He said to them, All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. They had a choice but instead defaulted to their own rules that they thought was biblical.     
> ...



Excellent post, thank you for posting that!  

It seems very clear to me that in the New Testament,  over and over and over we see Jesus teaching TRUTH and correcting the mistake of putting MAN-MADE TRADITIONS above God.  This following statement:

Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?

...seems to be a recurring theme in the New Testament.  He was constantly trying to get through to the Pharisees and the "religious" leaders of that time, that they were following man-made traditions instead of GOD, and that they cared more about their hollow "religion" instead of what really matters.... TRUTH/God's will!

That is why it genuinely amazes me to see so many people GO BACK to the same mistakes that the religious people of that day made, by putting more importance on works, man-made traditions, churchiness, etc.






> So is the Bible.



I disagree, but PLEASE let's not turn this thread into another thread on Calvinism.  

We're already off topic, and to respect TER's wish to talk about Mary in the original post, someone should probably start a new thread, since we've veered off into other topics.

----------


## TER

Kevin, is the ministry of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons a tradition of men or of God?

----------


## erowe1

> Catholics emphasize scripture _as much if not more_ than any of the evangelical/protestant christian faiths . . . 
> Revelations and the Queen of 12 stars  is part of one of the Holy Rosary "Glorious" mysteries but ignored by those non-Catholic (/non-EO) Christian/evangelical/protestant cults.


What's Revelations?

----------


## TER

> What's Revelations?


I think he means the Book of Revelation.  Adding an s to the end is a common mistake.

----------


## erowe1

> _Sola scriptura_ (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains 
> all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness,


That's pretty good.

I avoid referring to any belief about the Bible that I have as _sola scriptura_, because I think the label will be taken to connote things I don't believe.

But put the way you just put it, who could possibly disagree with that? Does someone maintain that the Bible is so lacking that it doesn't even adequately convey the Gospel message itself?

----------


## erowe1

> I think he means the Book of Revelation.  Adding an s to the end is a common mistake.


It is a common mistake. But those who make it should not claim to put more emphasis on the Bible than those who do not.

----------


## TER

I am happy to see you edited your above post.

Can you address the post I made for you last night?  I dug it up for you.





> *Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father.* *Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishops sanction.* *The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110])*.
> 
> This was written within a few generations of the Day of Pentecost, _just a few years after the death of the last of the 12 great Apostles._  When he wrote this and expressed the orthodox and catholic faith which had been spread everywhere by these same Apostles, *people were still living who had been alive when Jesus Christ died on the cross.* (let that sink in for a moment).  You say what this man wrote above was a 'later' innovation?  My, you are quite the judge of the Holy Spirit and these saints!  They do not live up to your standards!  And what are your standards?  What have you made the pillar and foundation of the truth? The New Testament, which didn't even exist as we have it today? Which only included the first few years of the infancy of the Church, indeed the formative years?   But better yet, your own mind has become the decider of what is true and what the fullness of truth is!  So to make _you_ right and appease _your_ mind, the Saints who were instructed by the very Apostles were in error and you 2000 years later are right?  Wow!  I didn't know the Church dissolved and fell into such great heresy so quickly!  And I didn't know you were such a great and holy saint and new prophet!  Had they only had you to explain to them what it meant to be a Christian and what the Apostles taught, the Church would have never fallen and the Holy Spirit fail so miserably!
> 
> This worship and misuse of the Scriptures which is the great heresy of these days insults the Holy Spirit and the saints whom the Holy Spirit worked through and guided 'into all truths'.  It belittles the trials and tribulations these martyrs contended with in order to pass down the very books which people now misuse.  As if we were made to become librarians instead of members of His Church which has ALWAYS been the part of the Christian goal (indeed, a basis of our very soteriology) from the first days until now.
> 
> The above quote was written by St. Ignatius who was a student of St. John the Apostle.  He became the third Bishop of Antioch.  First was St. Peter, who succeeded the episcopy to St. Evodius (who was one of the 72 Apostles sent by Christ, until 69 AD when he died).  Then St. Ignatius was chosen by St. Peter and anointed by the Holy Spirit to take Evodius' place.   
> 
> When he said the above to them, where was there a large outcry?  Did the thousands and tens of thousands of people spread hundreds and thousands of miles away revolt to such words which you consider wrong and heretical?  In fact the people in far away Alexanderia and the people in Rome and the people in Jerusalem (_people who lived in those apostloic times_) gladly and wholeheartedly confessed the same thing, which is the reason why they called him a Saint and to this day have passed down his letters!  He did not start some new teaching, or some new church!  He was in fact in the same catholic Church spread far and wide which shared in the same faith and cup around the Holy Eucharist!  St. Ignatius was only saying what the reality was, how the Holy Spirit formed the Church in the world, which is described _in only it's very beginnings_ in the pages of Acts.  You sorely misunderstand the Church simply because it is more convenient for you to stop at the last page of Acts and not have to submit yourself to anything or anyone apart from your own image of God and Christianity.  But I refuse to make my fallible mind to be the decider of what is true and less am I inclined to deny the Holy Spirit working in the Church and in these great men and women who established it and defended it, all to the glory of God.
> ...

----------


## erowe1

> I am happy to see you edited your above post.
> 
> Can you address the post I made for you last night?  I dug it up for you.


Doesn't that fit exactly what I had already told you about Ignatius of Antioch before you posted that?

Yes, he was early, as Church Fathers go, but his views on bishops were clear departures from what the apostles taught, and we can easily prove this simply by checking the apostles' writings themselves. That quote that you put in bold is a perfect example. See what Paul writes about the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11. What Ignatius was trying to do was to shore up the authority of the bishops whom he considered himself to be unified with, so as to make a clear distinction between their churches and anyone professing Christ outside their churches. I think he had some good motivations for doing this. But he was also clearly wrong to do it. He had no authority to say such things.

ETA: I just noticed that in post 396 you ask me when the innovative departures from the apostles' teachings on bishops began, and you quoted the exact post where I gave you that exact answer. It was right there in what you yourself quoted in the very post where you asked the question.

----------


## TER

> Doesn't that fit exactly what I had already told you about Ignatius of Antioch before you posted that?


Actually, it doesn't.  But let's cut to the chase.

The question I have for you is, why are you right and St. Ignatius who was a disciple of St. John wrong?

----------


## TER

You keep adding to your previous post. Can you answer my question why _you_ are right and St. Ignatius is wrong?

----------


## Terry1

> TRADITIONS that are_ FOUND_ *in THE BIBLE!*
> 
> 
>   The word tradition occurs only 14 times in the whole New Testament in the Old Testament not once. We find 8 references are from Jesus himself, all of which are derogatory of traditions. Not once does he insinuate they are useful or scriptural. Paul has 5 references, 2 of which are derogatory (Col.2:8; Gal.1:14). Peter also has one reference also derogatory 1 Pt.1:18. (the aimless conduct received by the tradition of the fathers). For Peter to be called the first Pope and does not uphold this practice does not help their position.
> 
>  The first time is is mentioned is by Jesus in Mt. 15:2-3  “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”  He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” *Nowhere does Jesus teach there is a tradition of men and of God.*
> He goes on to give an example of their tradition that went against Scripture. It was the written Scripture that was the authority for any other teaching.    
> 
>  Another time he was asked about eating bread before washing their hands. Mark 7:7-9 “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men-- the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” And He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” They had a choice but instead defaulted to their own rules that they thought was biblical.     
> ...


Who are they talking about in these scriptures containing the word "traditions" Kevin?  Jesus the disciples and Paul are all talking about and to the Pharisee Jews of that time who continued in their OT traditions such as washing rituals and ceremonies that had to be done under the curse of the Old Mosaic Law.  They are not speaking to the Christians--only the Jews still practicing their old testament traditions in place of believing that Jesus fulfilled that old law to obtain righteous before God.  Jesus, His disciples and Paul are all telling you that the practice of "works, traditions, rituals and ceremonies of the Old Mosaic Law by those Jews to obtain righteousness are a curse because Jesus fulfilled that law.  This is what you are not understanding clearly.  That there are *TWO LAWS*--*TWO COVENANTS* AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO.  One being the Old Mosaic Law of dead works and traditions and the other the New Law and Covenant of Faith and the Christian traditions that we are supposed to keep and "hold fast" to and do as the apostle Paul and Jesus tell us.

You are not understanding the difference between these two very polar opposite Laws/Covenants.  This is why you're having problems reconciling NT scripture.  Because Paul is not contradicting himself when he tells us to not do one tradition and to "hold fast" and do another tradition.   

This is why then that the apostle Paul tells us this:  2 Thessalonians 3:6

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that [U][SIZE=4]walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.  

 

Paul is telling the difference between Christian tradition and the OT Jewish traditions there.  Do you see that?

Then here again Paul tells us which traditions we are to stand fast and hold on to--being our Christian traditions and not the OT Jewish ones:


2 Thessalonians 2:15

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.






Mark 7  

Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. ...

Bible search results




Matthew 15:2

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.



Matthew 15:3

But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?



Matthew 15:6

And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.



Mark 7:3

For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.



Mark 7:5

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?



Mark 7:8

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

 

Mark 7:9

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

 

Mark 7:13

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.



Galatians 1:14

And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.



Colossians 2:8

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.



2 Thessalonians 2:15

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 

2 Thessalonians 3:6

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

 

1 Peter 1:18

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

----------


## erowe1

"people were still living who had been alive when Jesus Christ died on the cross. (let that sink in for a moment)."

I've let it sink in, and it's not nearly as important as you seem to think it is. Do you believe that the fact that some people were still living who were alive when Christ died on the cross somehow ensured that a Christian leader like Ignatius of Antioch would be unable to teach something that contradicted the views the apostles taught? We can go much earlier than AD 110 to see that happening.

----------


## erowe1

> You keep adding to your previous post. Can you answer my question why _you_ are right and St. Ignatius is wrong?


Why am I right about what and him wrong about what?

If you're referring to his insistence that a Eucharist is only valid if overseen by a bishop or someone appointed by one, then that's because it contradicts the writings of the apostles themselves. I believe I already said that.

----------


## erowe1

> You keep adding to your previous post.


You keep making comments about my editing of my posts.

----------


## TER

> "people were still living who had been alive when Jesus Christ died on the cross. (let that sink in for a moment)."
> 
> I've let it sink in, and it's not nearly as important as you seem to think it is. Do you believe that the fact that some people were still living who were alive when Christ died on the cross somehow ensured that a Christian leader like Ignatius of Antioch would be unable to teach something that contradicted the views the apostles taught? We can go much earlier than AD 110 to see that happening.


Do you believe you know better what the doctrines and traditions of the apostles were then St. Ignatius who knew them and was instructed by them and who received the Holy Spirit by the laying of the hands?

----------


## erowe1

> Do you believe you know better what the doctrines and traditions of the apostles were then St. Ignatius who knew them and was instructed by them and who received the Holy Spirit by the laying of the hands?


I don't know if I am or not. And it really doesn't matter. It isn't a question of trusting me or him, but of comparing what he said with what the apostles said. I do think that it's likely that I have access to more books of the New Testament than he did. But that too isn't important to me.

I also don't see the relevance of your question. Did Ignatius claim that the things he said about bishops were traditions passed down to him from the apostles? He definitely didn't in the quote you provided. As far as I know, he didn't in any of the other places where he taught things contradictory to what they said about bishops either.

----------


## TER

> I don't know if I am or not. And it really doesn't matter. It isn't a question of trusting me or him, but of comparing what he said with what the apostles said.
> 
> I also don't see the relevance of your question. Did Ignatius claim that the things he said about bishops were traditions passed down to him from the apostles? He definitely didn't in the quote you provided. As far as I know, he didn't in any of the other places where he taught things contradictory to what they said about bishops either.


You don't know if St. Ignatius who was directly taught and chosen by the Apostles to lead one of the biggest Christian communities of the first century knew more than you about the teachings and traditions of the Apostles? Wow.

But moving on, tell me, did the traditions of the Apostles change during the relatively short time frame recorded in the book of Acts?

----------


## erowe1

> You don't know if St. Ignatius who was directly taught and chosen by the Apostles to lead one of the biggest Christian communities of the first century knew more than you about the teachings and traditions of the Apostles? Wow.


I have no reason to believe that he was directly chosen by the apostles. Nor do I have any reason to think that somebody directly chosen by the apostles would know more about their beliefs than what we can read in their own writings (many of which the person in question probably didn't have). Nor do I have any reason to believe that a person chosen by them would be somehow prevented from departing from them in any of his views. To assume that everything Ignatius taught had to reflect their views would be like assuming that everything Plato taught had to reflect the views of Socrates. And even that would be if we granted the gratuitous assumption that Ignatius had been appointed bishop of Antioch by the apostles, which we know he wasn't, since the apostles didn't ever appoint any single bishops over the entire church of a city, but rather multiple elders (presbuteroi), all of whom were also called overseers (episkopoi), over the many churches in the city.




> But moving on, tell me, did the traditions of the Apostles change during the relatively short time frame recorded in the book of Acts?


If by "tradition" you mean something handed down to posterity to be kept in tact and handed down by them to others (which is what the word "tradition" connotes), then no, their "traditions" didn't change in that period. However, many of their teachings and practices did develop over those decades. And they would create new traditions in the process. The apostles' teachings weren't all given in one big package by Jesus in his earthly ministry.

However, the Lord's Supper definitely was a tradition in the sense defined above, and it was established by Jesus in his earthly ministry. And the apostles did not change what they taught about it over the course of Acts. What Paul presents in 1 Corinthians is a faithful passing on of that tradition without altering it as it had existed since the night Jesus was betrayed.

What Ignatius did when he insisted that a bishop was required to make a Eucharist valid was his own attempt to address what he saw as the needs of the churches of his own day. He himself never says they are traditions passed down to him from the apostles.

----------


## TER

Well, we know that the Church grew in those formative years, and when things needed to be addressed and changed, the Apostles got together and changed them, in effect changing tradition.  An example of this is with regards to the First Council in Jerusalem.  Traditions changed according to the consensus of the Church, that which seemed 'good to them and to the Holy Spirit.'    

We know the book of Acts records a short interval of the early formation of the Church.

  Do you think it is impossible that the development of Bishops as defined by St. Ignatius occurred sometime between what was described in the book of Acts and the end of the first century?

----------


## erowe1

> Do you think it is impossible that the development of Bishops as defined by St. Ignatius occurred sometime between what was described in the book of Acts and the end of the first century?


No, that is not impossible. Some time close to the very end of the first century is within reason. But that would not make his views apostolic traditions, which we can prove they were not by comparison with the apostles' writings. Nor does Ignatius claim that his views were apostolic traditions.

I agree with what you said about development in the early church, and the Council in Acts 15 as an example of that (and my post 429 says this). But why do you call that the changing of traditions? Do you mean that the belief that Gentiles did have to be circumcised to be saved, which that council rejected, had been an apostolic tradition prior to that time?

----------


## lilymc

> Who are they talking about in these scriptures containing the word "traditions" Kevin?  Jesus the disciples and Paul are all talking about and to the Pharisee Jews of that time who continued in their OT traditions such as washing rituals and ceremonies that had to be done under the curse of the Old Mosaic Law.  They are not speaking to the Christians--only the Jews still practicing their old testament traditions in place of believing that Jesus fulfilled that old law to obtain righteous before God.  Jesus, His disciples and Paul are all telling you that the practice of "works, traditions, rituals and ceremonies of the Old Mosaic Law by those Jews to obtain righteousness are a curse because Jesus fulfilled that law.  This is what you are not understanding clearly.  That there are *TWO LAWS*--*TWO COVENANTS* AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO.  One being the Old Mosaic Law of dead works and traditions and the other the New Law and Covenant of Faith and the Christian traditions that we are supposed to keep and "hold fast" to and do as the apostle Paul and Jesus tell us.
> 
> You are not understanding the difference between these two very polar opposite Laws/Covenants.  This is why you're having problems reconciling NT scripture.  Because Paul is not contradicting himself when he tells us to not do one tradition and to "hold fast" and do another tradition.   
> 
> This is why then that the apostle Paul tells us this:  2 Thessalonians 3:6
> 
> Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that [U][SIZE=4]walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.  
> 
>  
> ...


Terry, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that the ONLY thing the Pharisees did was stick to the Old Covenant rules and rituals (which you say is what Jesus was correcting.)   But they did more than that. 

They ADDED ON to God's law and they misinterpreted it.   Jesus was not simply saying, "You guys are still faithfully following the Old Covenant, but now we have a new one."    He told them that they were *adding on* man-made rules (like their ridiculous rules about not doing anything on the Sabbath) and misinterpreting things.

If people were adding on and misinterpreting the OLD covenant, then don't you think that people (to this day) will ADD ON and misinterpret the New Covenant?  Because that is the basic point here - that many churches add on extra doctrines, rituals, ceremonies, bells, whistles, all sorts of things that TAKE THE FOCUS OFF of what is important!   Having a relationship with God, being fully surrendered to God and doing God's will!

So Kevin's point still stands.  The point is that God doesn't want us to be making up more rules and traditions, like the Pharisees did with the old covenant.

I hope you would agree with that!

----------


## TER

> No, that is not impossible. Some time close to the very end of the first century is within reason. But that would not make his views apostolic traditions, which we can prove they were not by comparison with the apostles' writings. Nor does Ignatius claim that his views were apostolic traditions.
> 
> I agree with what you said about development in the early church, and the Council in Acts 15 as an example of that. But why do you call that the changing of traditions? Do you mean that the belief that Gentiles did have to be circumcised to be saved, which that council rejected, had been an apostolic tradition prior to that time?


Circumcision was a local tradition which the Church stopped as being a requirement by the consensus of the Church leaders (the Apostles who were the protobishops). Then a new tradition was made, namely that one does not need to be circumsized to enter the communion of the Church.  This is one example out of the _myriad_ which have occurred in the history of the Church.  This is what it means to be a living Church, a dynamic organism.  It also is what it means to be _guided_ by the Holy Spirit, the verb denoting its action into the life of the Church.  Just because traditions happened after the time frame of Acts does not mean they were not apostolic.  Nor that they were not authoritative and by the Holy Spirit.

But going back to the bishops, we know that in the time frame between the end of Acts and the time when St. Ignatius wrote it (at a time when people still were alive when Christ walked the earth) _this was the very understanding of the role of the Bishop as developed within the life of the Church_.  _He expressed the teachings which were already spread far and wide, all over Christendom._ 

But you need more proof!  You want more historical evidence in writing!  I get that.  But unfortunately, the written records are sparse and the oral teachings and sermons were not recorded on audiotape.  However, we must remember that just because the Book of Acts unfortunately ends (and abruptly at that), _doesn't mean that the life of the Church in the world ended_ or that the teachings and guidance of the Holy Spirit to the Church ended.

We cannot say definitely through reading the New Testament that the bishops became as described by St. Ignatius, but the New Testament was never meant to be the complete source about the life of the Church.  It did not even exist then as a collection and copies of the those eventually canonized books were RARE.

Our testimony that what St. Ignatius taught are traditions which are holy and according to God's will and apostolic in authority stems not from a book (a book that did not even exist!), _but around the very Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist._  This is the proof that these teachings are authoritative.  He remained in that unity and communion with the other churches spread far and wide (the catholic and universal apostolic Church which in a couple of generations spread to distant lands) _namely because he remained in that Church_!  Neither was his teachings disparaged (until 1500 years later) or deemed heretical.  The fact that he was not excommunicated from the vast other churches spread across the world is the proof which you do not seem to grasp.  Our proof that he spoke with authority as an anointed apostle of God is in his communion, memory and honor as a God-bearing Father of the Church. 

If what he spoke was an innovation which was wrong, he's lucky his own congregation did not denounce him for saying such things let alone the entire rest of the Christian world.  And this at a time where people were dying willingly and freely in order to witness to the truths of the faith. The 'Amen' given by laity across Christendom in that first century bears testimony to his orthodoxy and illuminated teachings.  

It is good and worthy to take the book of Acts as a reference.  It is not good to think that the history of the Church centered around the Holy Eucharist ended on the last page of Acts.  So many truths are ignored, so many wonders and inspirational lives of the saints are denounced and rejected because people end their sources of information on the last page of Acts.  And why? Mostly out of convenience and pride. Namely, so that they actually don't have to repent, and then get up and seek the true Church.

The Holy Spirit did not fail so miserably.  Especially in those days of wonders and miracles.  In addition, the Apostolic Fathers were obedient and great men, most of who died horrendous deaths for the faith.  St. Peter was not a fool to commune with St. Ignatius, and St. John was not horrible a teacher.  Some, in order to keep the image of their own church or idea of Christianity safe in their minds must make holy men evil and God-bearing saints into fools.  Unfortunately, this willful fighting against, denouncement and rejection of the communion of saints endangers one eternal salvation.  If not for the mercy of God and of those same saints, there can be little chance of becoming a member of the body.

 The book of Acts has continued down to this age, and the Church continues to contend with the world, making adjustments, not to the fundamental truths and traditions of the faith, but rather, in the way the faith will be expressed, defended and protected in its battle with the world which hates it.  And the proofs of this apostolic authority lies not in the pages of a book which would not exist until a few hundred years later, but around the life-giving and grace-filled Eucharist.  The truth is in Christ and sealed by His very being.

----------


## TER

> If people were adding on and misinterpreting the OLD covenant, then don't you think that people (to this day) will ADD ON and misinterpret the New Covenant?  Because that is the basic point here - that many churches add on extra doctrines, rituals, ceremonies, bells, whistles, all sorts of things that TAKE THE FOCUS OFF of what is important!   Having a relationship with God, being fully surrendered to God and doing God's will!


Lily, what do you know about being in the Divine Liturgy that you make such definite statements about unhelpful worship?

These traditions and ceremonies were developed to change the sinner and learn to PUT THEIR FOCUS ON GOD.  There is no greater worship focused on Jesus Christ then the Divine Liturgy, and that is why it has barely changed for over 1700 years.

Some here would say that music worship concerts do the same thing.  Are these not modern traditions? 

The Orthodox Church goes through the entire Bible within the year in the cycle of readings.  It sings the Psalms in its entirety over the course of the liturgical services of the week.  The hymns are rich with biblical teachings and the very week is centered around the Lord's Day and the very Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  But this is not enough focus on God for you? 

The Jesus Prayer is the most Christ-centered prayer in the history of Christianity, which comes from the NT and is the prayer on the lips and the hearts of the Christian monastics since the days of the Desert Fathers, and they are not focusing enough on Christ?  I'm sorry Lily, but your poor experience in the Catholic Church has indeed made you throw out the baby with the bath water.  You have forsaken your spiritual roots within the Church of history to create your own traditions and doctrines.  You are free to do this, and this doesn't necessarily mean you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven or that the Holy Spirit does not abide in you, but you are missing out on the fullness of the faith and the beauty and wonders in the world which God has revealed in the world since the last page of Acts was written.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that the ONLY thing the Pharisees did was stick to the Old Covenant rules and rituals (which you say is what Jesus was correcting.)   But they did more than that. 
> 
> They ADDED ON to God's law and they misinterpreted it.   Jesus was not simply saying, "You guys are still faithfully following the Old Covenant, but now we have a new one."    He told them that they were *adding on* man-made rules (like their ridiculous rules about not doing anything on the Sabbath) and misinterpreting things.
> 
> If people were adding on and misinterpreting the OLD covenant, then don't you think that people (to this day) will ADD ON and misinterpret the New Covenant?  Because that is the basic point here - that many churches add on extra doctrines, rituals, ceremonies, bells, whistles, all sorts of things that TAKE THE FOCUS OFF of what is important!   Having a relationship with God, being fully surrendered to God and doing God's will!
> 
> So Kevin's point still stands.  The point is that God doesn't want us to be making up more rules and traditions, like the Pharisees did with the old covenant.
> 
> I hope you would agree with that!


Hi Lily.  I would agree with you in part, but not completely as a whole because as you and I both would agree I'm sure is that the word of God is our guide and the Holy Spirit that intercedes on our behalf in understanding where we fail, because as Paul said--we would all see through the glass darkly.  But still--those who seek in faith and more often are given understanding as they seek the truth in the word of God.

This isn't about who is right or wrong in this discussion we're having, but rather see this as an opportunity to better understand what we are being told in the word of God and to grow in our faith as we become more enlightened.  

Our Christian traditions that the apostle Paul tells us to "hold fast" to and do include teaching, doctrine, worship, theology, discipline, liturgy, and devotions to God through earthly physical elements that have been collected in our churches today--even as they were at the time of Jesus at the Lords supper.  Cups and bread, worship and remembrance, respect and venerations for the work of our Lord on the cross.  The baptism symbolizing in the flesh being born again.  These are the traditions that believers use and practice in worship and in prayer to our Lord.  We are flesh and we live in a physical world where those weak in the flesh and the lost have something they can see as real evidence of God in the world.  

We are called to assemble ourselves together because this helps us bind our spirits and prayer together which is very powerful to have an entire church of saints praying for us than simply ourselves.  Jesus and all of the apostles told us to keep these traditions for a reason.  They told us why we should do them and practice them and why.  Jesus and the apostles also distinguished between the two Laws and covenants when speaking to the unbelieving Jews who held onto their OT traditions because they did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah.  

Today that message is still true because they are still doing the very same thing that they did then.  Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.  

We should never condemn another brethren for their Christian traditions they practice--for this is how they worship the Lord Jesus and God said that He is able to make them stand knowing their hearts, minds and intentions.  Our Christian traditions are what draw us nearer to God in this world, while the Holy Spirit makes intercession allowing us to walk in the spirit--hearing spiritually and seeing spiritually the good works that we are being called to do and be in Christ.

Your traditions may not be the same as mine in Christ, but this doesn't mean that either one of us is wrong in them--if you are walking in the spirit and hearing the Lord--then you are doing what you have been called to do, but this does not change the truth in the Gospel of Jesus either.  There is a correct way to believe and a correct path to follow as we are instructed.  But if a Christian is weak in their understanding about which Law and Covenant is referring to which tradition and to whom they were talking about--then this is when one begins to add to or take away from the truth in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We are called to knowledge and to know and understand through prayer and seeking because the word tells us that the people perish for lack of the knowledge in the word of God.  We should never run from rebuke and correction, but rather towards it in thanks that God is enlightening us through His own willing vessels sharing what they have been spiritually given.  This is the only way we can witness to one another, learn and grow in faith.  As we grow we go from faith to a greater level of faith--we go from strength to a greater level of strength. 

Psalm 84--

84 How amiable are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts!

2 My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the Lord: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God.

3 Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O Lord of hosts, my King, and my God.

4 Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah.

5 Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them.

6 Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.

7 They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.

8 O Lord God of hosts, hear my prayer: give ear, O God of Jacob. Selah.

9 Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed.

10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

11 For the Lord God is a sun and shield: the Lord will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.

12 O Lord of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee.

----------


## lilymc

> Lily, what do you know about being in the Divine Liturgy that you make such definite statements about unhelpful worship?
> 
> These traditions and ceremonies were developed to change the sinner and learn to PUT THEIR FOCUS ON GOD.  There is no greater worship focused on Jesus Christ then the Divine Liturgy, and that is why it has barely changed for over 1700 years.
> 
> Some here would say that music worship concerts do the same thing.  Are these not modern tradition? 
> 
> The Orthodox Church goes through the entire Bible within the year in the cycle of readings.  It sings the Psalms in its entirety over the course of the liturgical services of the week.  The hymns are rich with biblical teachings and the very week is centered around the very Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  But this is not enough focus on God for you? 
> 
> The very Jesus Prayer is the most Christ centered prayer, which comes from the NT and is the prayer on the lips and the hearts of the Christian monastics since the days of the Desert Fathers, and they are not focusing enough on Christ?  I'm sorry Lily, but your poor experience in the Catholic Church has indeed made you throw out the baby with the bath water.  You have forsaken your spiritual roots within the Church of history to create your own traditions and doctrines.  You are free to do this, and this doesn't necessarily mean you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but you are missing out on the fullness of the faith and the beauty and wonder in the world which God has revealed since the last page of Acts was written.


I can't really comment on the Divine Liturgy, because I haven't been to one or read about it.    

Just to clarify something, it's not that I had a bad experience with the Catholic church.   It's just that at the time I was going to a Catholic church (when I was a child and teenager) I wasn't a believer. And perhaps one of the reasons I wasn't a believer was because when I went to church, I just saw people going through the motions, and then the rest of the week acting like everyone else.  

So I assumed that religion was just a cultural thing, because I didn't see any truth attached to it.  Also, nobody ever encouraged me to read the bible, or told me of my need for salvation.

It was basically just: let's go to church....go through the motions... recite some prayers in an almost robotic way...stand up, sit down, stand up again....etc, go home.  

Let me ask you a question.  When you said that I threw out the baby with the bathwater, what are you saying is the "baby"?   

Because here's the important thing.  AT THAT TIME, unfortunately, I threw out the baby with the bathwater. But NOW, I have only thrown out the bathwater, because years later, I came to Christ. (My spiritual birthday is July 9, 2000)   I am an adopted child of God, I have a relationship with Jesus, and I've devoted my life to serving God.  I've been involved with missions since 2004, serving with an international Christian missions organization.

So I'm not sure what the "baby" is - in your mind?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Catholics “Sacred Tradition” becomes invalid if in any point it contradicts the Bible.  Catholic teachings of purgatory, penance, indulgences, Mass, praying the rosary, praying to saints and Mary,  wearing scapulars, are not found in the Scripture  and they contradict scriptures teachings.  Any verses found to validate these by Catholics are always subject to being redefined or pulled from its actual context.  The Catholic Church has used their Traditions to make them equal to word when. The fact is that God says nothing has this kind of authority except the word itself. 
> 
>  In the New Testament Period Jesus whole ministry was a contention with the Pharisees traditions. They wanted him to validate and approve what they called the tradition of the elders (fathers) Mk.7:1-9 Mt.15:1-4 contention grew between Jesus and the religious leaders as they wanted his approval of their traditions to be considered equal with Scripture. Jesus was clear he was not going to approve of their traditions saying you lay aside the commandment of God and hold higher the tradition of men.”     
> 
>  They challenged Jesus on the cleansing rituals. Jesus responded its not cleansing from the outside, but mans heart from the inside is what needs the cleansing. The Pharisee’s set up a barrier between God and man making the commandments of no effect because they stopped people from seeing the word of God. Jesus always brought their traditions to the ultimate authority the word of God. 
> 
> Mk.7: “These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me and in vain they worship me teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.” By adding traditions alongside the word they watered down the truth This is why Jesus quoted Mt.11:28 “Come to ME all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you REST.”     
> 
>  The Pharisees laws were burdens that God never intended, it brought the people into bondage because it went beyond Scripture and was never intended to do what God inspired to be written. Nowhere is it written to continue to have traditions by word of mouth after the apostles.     
> ...


Kevin, you need to find a credible source instead of citing this one over and over.  This is just slander with a few out of context scripture quotes.  Aside from indulgences, all the traditions of the RCC and EOC are designed to focus our minds/hearts on God.  The Rosary is similar to the EO Jesus Prayer, for example.  Every type of church I'm aware of has traditions.  Otherwise it's more of a "worship community" than a church or Church.  i.e. hymnals that never change, cups of juice and pieces of bread instead of the Eucharist, carols, Pagan symbols on certain holidays (trees, Easter eggs, etc) etc, etc.  My Baptist  mother stops going to church when they change traditions until they revert back.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Lily, what do you know about being in the Divine Liturgy that you make such definite statements about unhelpful worship?
> 
> These traditions and ceremonies were developed to change the sinner and learn to PUT THEIR FOCUS ON GOD.  There is no greater worship focused on Jesus Christ then the Divine Liturgy, and that is why it has barely changed for over 1700 years.
> 
> Some here would say that music worship concerts do the same thing.  Are these not modern traditions? 
> 
> The Orthodox Church goes through the entire Bible within the year in the cycle of readings.  It sings the Psalms in its entirety over the course of the liturgical services of the week.  The hymns are rich with biblical teachings and the very week is centered around the Lord's Day and the very Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  But this is not enough focus on God for you? 
> 
> The Jesus Prayer is the most Christ-centered prayer in the history of Christianity, which comes from the NT and is the prayer on the lips and the hearts of the Christian monastics since the days of the Desert Fathers, and they are not focusing enough on Christ?  I'm sorry Lily, but your poor experience in the Catholic Church has indeed made you throw out the baby with the bath water.  You have forsaken your spiritual roots within the Church of history to create your own traditions and doctrines.  You are free to do this, and this doesn't necessarily mean you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven or that the Holy Spirit does not abide in you, but you are missing out on the fullness of the faith and the beauty and wonders in the world which God has revealed in the world since the last page of Acts was written.


This^^  A number of songs in the canon quote scripture directly.  There is an epistle and gospel reading in every liturgy.

----------


## TER

Lily, so it was your poor experience within the Catholic Church and your lack of faith as you say, which is sadly true for many lapsed Catholics.  Hopefully Pope Francis will bring some healing and more faith within his flock, and as long as he persists in going back to the orthodox teachings, he can succeed.  May the Lord bless him.

To continue with the direction which this thread is going, a major part of what I mean by 'baby' would be the Holy Eucharist, which according to Christ, the Apostles, and 2000 consecutive years of Church testimony is the _grace-filled_ manna from Heaven and _true_ Body and Blood of Christ.  And with it, the spiritual and physical communion with those 2000 years of saints as a unity of one body with Christ as the Head.  And while I respect and am overjoyed about your experience which you posted above regarding the day you were saved, I can tell you by my own experience that I am saved every time I partake of these Holy Gifts of God.  That joy of salvation which you experienced on June 9, 2000 is offered every week to those who in humility and love approach the altar and partake in Holy Communion with God.  You have tasted salvation!  Glory be to God!  Now don't stop there, but eat of it and be full.

----------


## lilymc

> Lily, so it was your poor experience within the Catholic Church and your lack of faith as you say, which is sadly true for many lapsed Catholics.  Hopefully Pope Francis will bring some healing and faith within his flock, and as long as he persists in going back to the orthodox teachings, he can succeed.  May the Lord bless him.
> 
> To continue with the direction which this thread is going, a major part of what I mean by 'baby' would be the Holy Eucharist, which according to Christ, the Apostles, and 2000 consecutive years of Church testimony is the _grace-filled_ manna from Heaven and _true_ Body and Blood of Christ.  And with it, the spiritual and physical communion of those 2000 years of saints as a unity of one body with Christ as the Head.  And while I respect your experience you posted above about the day you were saved  I can tell you by my own experience, I am saved every time I partake of these Holy Gifts of God.  That joy of salvation which you experienced on June 9, 2000 is offered every week to those who in humility and love approach the altar and partake in Holy Communion with God.


I don't consider myself a "lapsed Catholic."  That implies someone who merely stopped going to mass, but will go back.   I guess you could call me an ex-Catholic, but even that isn't accurate, because I wasn't even a Catholic, other than in a nominal sense.

As for the Holy Eucharist...  I should explain something, just in case you didn't realize this.  In the churches I've gone to, we still take communion.  It just isn't a regularly scheduled Sunday thing.    It happens once or twice a month, it is a very special thing, but the way they do it is different than the Catholic church.  

As for salvation... maybe someone should start a new thread on that, because it's an important topic, and I know that the original topic here was something completely different, so...

----------


## TER

> I don't consider myself a "lapsed Catholic."  That implies someone who merely stopped going to mass, but will go back.   I guess you could call me an ex-Catholic, but even that isn't accurate, because I wasn't even a Catholic, other than in a nominal sense.
> 
> As for the Holy Eucharist...  I should explain something, just in case you didn't realize this.  In the churches I've gone to, we still take communion.  It just isn't a regularly scheduled Sunday thing.    It happens once or twice a month, it is a very special thing, but the way they do it is different than the Catholic church.  
> 
> As for salvation... maybe someone should start a new thread on that, because it's an important topic, and I know that the original topic here was something completely different, so...


The original topic was left a long time ago my friend!  We have moved on to other things!  Perhaps the Virgin Mary played a role in all this as well!   

I am happy that you have a communion service.  I hope it brings you peace and joy.  

I am going to hit the sack because I am pooped and have a very long day tomorrow.  It was nice talking to you.  God bless you and good night.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> http://carm.org/church


I distinguished the Earthly Church as established by the apostles from that.  Sorry I was unclear.

----------


## Terry1

> The original topic was left a long time ago my friend!  We have moved on to other things!  Perhaps the Virgin Mary played a role in all this as well!   
> 
> I am happy that you have a communion service.  I hope it brings you peace and joy.  
> 
> I am going to hit the sack because I am pooped and have a very long day tomorrow.  It was nice talking to you.  God bless you and good night.


Sweet dreams TER.

----------


## JohnWeeks613

Jesus Christ was created by the Council of Nicea. The conclave of men could not even come to a conclusion of what they were to call their "savior". They ultamitly balloted down to a short list of five names. Flavious Constintinous (Constintine) Chose a name that was not on the short list balloted down to by the conclave. He chose the name of the a diety of the British druid faction who's name is Hesus, then he chose Krishina, the eastern savior, from the short list derived by the conclave. Constitine "legally" joined the the two dieties as one individuel composit to be worshiped, by the disentergrating empire, by the Roman Apothesis decree and the Official gathering and was all done so after democratic consent after a majority vote.  I herard Adolf Hitler said to his inner circle (tell them a lie keep saying it and eventually they will believe it). It seems he did not invent PSYOP, he learned it some whare else.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Jesus Christ was created by the Council of Nicea. The conclave of men could not even come to a conclusion of what they were to call their "savior". They ultamitly balloted down to a short list of five names. Flavious Constintinous (Constintine) Chose a name that was not on the short list balloted down to by the conclave. He chose the name of the a diety of the British druid faction who's name is Hesus, then he chose Krishina, the eastern savior, from the short list derived by the conclave. Constitine "legally" joined the the two dieties as one individuel composit to be worshiped, by the disentergrating empire, by the Roman Apothesis decree and the Official gathering and was all done so after democratic consent after a majority vote.  I herard Adolf Hitler said to his inner circle (tell them a lie keep saying it and eventually they will believe it). It seems he did not invent PSYOP, he learned it some whare else.


Not even remotely true.  But nice attempt at trolling.

----------


## Kevin007

> Kevin, is the ministry of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons a tradition of men or of God?



_“This is a true saying, If a man desire the                                      office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.                                      A bishop then must be blameless, the husband                                      of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good                                      behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to                                      teach;”_ *1 Timothy                                      3:1-2*.


Priests? We do not need a formal Priesthood as deemed by the RCC traditions of men. What does the Bible say? It says all Believer's are Priests; *the NT repeatedly teaches that all  Christians are priests*. When one obeys the gospel of Christ, he is added to the  body of Jesus and is thereby part of God's holy priesthood. As priests, Believer's can offer spiritual sacrifices and draw close to God through  Jesus, the ONLY MEDIATOR. JESUS put an end  both to the Levitical priesthood and the OT law.

----------


## Kevin007

> "people were still living who had been alive when Jesus Christ died on the cross. (let that sink in for a moment)."
> 
> I've let it sink in, and it's not nearly as important as you seem to think it is. Do you believe that the fact that some people were still living who were alive when Christ died on the cross somehow ensured that a Christian leader like Ignatius of Antioch would be unable to teach something that contradicted the views the apostles taught? We can go much earlier than AD 110 to see that happening.


AND the Catholics keep repeating the same mistakes and man made traditions the Pharisees did, and added legalism to it.

----------


## Kevin007

> Who are they talking about in these scriptures containing the word "traditions" Kevin?  Jesus the disciples and Paul are all talking about and to the Pharisee Jews of that time who continued in their OT traditions such as washing rituals and ceremonies that had to be done under the curse of the Old Mosaic Law.  They are not speaking to the Christians--only the Jews still practicing their old testament traditions in place of believing that Jesus fulfilled that old law to obtain righteous before God.  Jesus, His disciples and Paul are all telling you that the practice of "works, traditions, rituals and ceremonies of the Old Mosaic Law by those Jews to obtain righteousness are a curse because Jesus fulfilled that law.  This is what you are not understanding clearly.  That there are *TWO LAWS*--*TWO COVENANTS* AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO.  One being the Old Mosaic Law of dead works and traditions and the other the New Law and Covenant of Faith and the Christian traditions that we are supposed to keep and "hold fast" to and do as the apostle Paul and Jesus tell us.
> *
> You are not understanding the difference between these two very polar opposite Laws/Covenants.*  This is why you're having problems reconciling NT scripture.  Because Paul is not contradicting himself when he tells us to not do one tradition and to "hold fast" and do another tradition.   
> 
> This is why then that the apostle Paul tells us this:  2 Thessalonians 3:6
> 
> Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that [U][SIZE=4]walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.  
> 
>  
> ...


I sure do. One is law, the other is GRACE, which you do not seem to know what that means. Catholics and others seem to want to keep the law and mix it with grace.

----------


## lilymc

> _“This is a true saying, If a man desire the                                      office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.                                      A bishop then must be blameless, the husband                                      of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good                                      behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to                                      teach;”_ *1 Timothy                                      3:1-2*.
> 
> 
> Priests? We do not need a formal Priesthood as deemed by the RCC traditions of men. What does the Bible say? It says all Believer's are Priests; *the NT repeatedly teaches that all  Christians are priests*. When one obeys the gospel of Christ, he is added to the  body of Jesus and is thereby part of God's holy priesthood. As priests, Believer's can offer spiritual sacrifices and draw close to God through  Jesus, the ONLY MEDIATOR. JESUS put an end  both to the Levitical priesthood and the OT law.


Amen, and I'm glad you brought that up.

I don't want to offend anyone from the EO or RCC, but there's something I keep noticing that needs to be addressed. They seem to be insecure about our (ALL believers) ability to understand the scriptures, and to think that we need to rely on the priests, bishops, deacons, popes, or "saints" of the past, to interpret them for us.

That goes directly against a number of things stated clearly in the bible.


“But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true – it is not a lie...”

1 John 2:27

 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.  He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.  All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

John 16:12-15

There are numerous more scriptures like that.

However,  we MUST be born again so we have the Spirit, because a natural man cannot understand spiritual matters, the bible is clear on that:


For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.  For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,  which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit,  combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

 But  a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually  appraised.  But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.  For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:10-16


Getting back to what I was saying.... What I've been noticing is that some churches seem to downplay believers in general (those who aren't church elders or in leadership positions)  as if we are somehow less worthy than a priest, or pope or 7th century monk, or "church father."

No, we ALL have the Holy Spirit in us (all who are saved), we have the mind of Christ, and there is no need to be so insecure about our own ability to understand things.  There is no need to always look to priests or deacons.

Of course it is good to listen to what others have to say, especially those who are strong Christians, spiritually mature and wise.  But simply having the  title of priest or whatever, doesn't automatically make someone always right, or truly wise.    

So the whole idea of relying so much on the "church" hierarchy (earthly institution) I think goes against what the scriptures say.  

We are all saints.  We are a chosen people, a royal priesthood... children of God.  We are not spiritually blind, as we once were.

We also have spiritual gifts.  And we should (if we are walking with God, and spending time with Him, and growing spiritually) be able to recognize His voice.

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

John 10:27

----------


## Kevin007

yes maam And rarely do I see or hear the importance of the Holy Spirit from them, either. The Holy Spirit is the Believer's teacher, not a priest.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> yes maam  And rarely do I see or hear the importance of the Holy Spirit from  them, either. The Holy Spirit is the Believer's teacher, not a priest.


 That's because you were too busy with slander, distortion, and lies (and playing copypasta) to hear it!  The Orthodox Church proclaims Christ as head-that the Church is His bridegroom.  It has always been this way and always will be this way.  Perhaps you ought to ASSume less and ask more, eh?  ~hugs~

----------


## heavenlyboy34

WRT #449, for this to be true we have to ignore Acts, great swathes of the Pauline Epistles, and parts of the OT.  This may be acceptable to you, but it is not to me.

----------


## Kevin007

Protestant's rely on the whole Bible.....try again.

----------


## Terry1

> I sure do. One is law, the other is GRACE, which you do not seem to know what that means. Catholics and others seem to want to keep the law and mix it with grace.


There are two laws Kevin and two covenants--Old Testament covenant/Law under Moses-- and the New Testament covenant/Law under Faith/Jesus.


The New Covenant IS the Law of Faith Kevin, and it's most certainly meant to "mix with grace".   You still can't understand what Jesus and the NT apostles are telling you when they distinguish between the OT Mosaic Law and the NT Law of faith. 

There are *two laws--one that was practiced under the Mosaic Law and now we live under the Law of Faith and just as Paul tells you here the same. In Romans 3:27 below, Paul refers to both the Mosaic Law and the Law of Faith, explaining the difference.

Romans 3:27

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

And here, Paul is referring to the Old Mosaic Law in 3:28 and that we're justified by the Law of faith and not the Mosaic Law of dead works:

Romans 3:28

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

----------


## Terry1

> Protestant's rely on the whole Bible.....try again.


Then you should understand it as it's written.  The problem here is that if the Holy Spirit were your guide instead of false teachers that you quote so often from Calvinist sites, you'd see the truth and simple basic truths-- like the fact that there are two major Laws and Covenants--not just one and that they both refer to two different types of "works" under both of those laws.  One work that is justified through faith and the other work that isn't under the Mosaic Law.

You seem to believe that every time the words "Law" or "works" is mentioned in the Bible it's referring to OT law--which is wrong.  I have already given you proof and evidence of this over and over--yet you continue in this false teaching without acknowledging anything I have shown you.

----------


## Terry1

> yes maam And rarely do I see or hear the importance of the Holy Spirit from them, either. The Holy Spirit is the Believer's teacher, not a priest.


Then why do you quote Calvin's doctrine continually in here from Carm? The Holy Spirit isn't a protestant bishop, deacon or pastor either.  See how that works?

----------


## erowe1

> Circumcision was a local tradition which the Church stopped as being a requirement by the consensus of the Church leaders (the Apostles who were the protobishops).


So you believe that prior to Acts 15  the apostles themselves taught that a man was required to be circumcised in order to be saved?

----------


## TER

> So you believe that prior to Acts 15  the apostles themselves taught that a man was required to be circumcised in order to be saved?


Out of all I wrote regarding the unity of the faith through the Holy Eucharist and how the Church has revolved around these Holy Gifts in its testifying to the truths, that is what you are hung up on?

The point I was making about Acts 15 is that here we see the Church confronting a challenge and then through prayer, deliberation, and consensus a new teaching and tradition was made and proclaimed in order to restore unity in faith. And AFTER that was done, as not only a visible sign of this unity but to mystically seal it through the Holy Spirit, they communed of the Holy Eucharist.

----------


## erowe1

> Out of all I wrote regarding the unity of the faith through the Holy Eucharist and how the Church has revolved around these Holy Gifts in its testifying to the truths, that is what you are hung up on?


That is the question I had asked prior to that, which you were supposedly answering.

Even now, after this additional response, I still don't know your answer.

Do you really believe that prior to Acts 15 the apostles themselves taught that a man was required to be circumcised in order to be saved, as your words imply?

If not, then what change of tradition are you talking about?

By the way, the fact that I ask a question doesn't mean I'm hung up on it. And the fact that I ask it a second, and then a third time, after you had avoided giving a clear and direct answer after my first and second times asking, has more to do with your avoidance of the question than it does my being hung up on it.

----------


## erowe1

> WRT #449, for this to be true we have to ignore Acts, great swathes of the Pauline Epistles, and parts of the OT.  This may be acceptable to you, but it is not to me.


449 was a long post. Which part of it was contradicted by all those books of the Bible that you mention? And what are specific things they say that contradict it?

----------


## erowe1

> He [Ignatius] expressed the teachings which were already spread far and wide, all over Christendom.


This is clearly not true. His views on the bishops did not yet exist in Rome at the time that he wrote his epistles, as you can see just by comparing his epistle to the Romans with his others. 

His views were clearly not shared by the authors and editors of the Didache, which I think was probably written around the same time as his letters.

Even after he wrote those letters, it took a long time for his views to gain popularity throughout major parts of Christendom. And it would continue to be the case for centuries that genuine churches would exist throughout the world that didn't share his views.

The ministry of Patrick of Ireland, who is considered a saint in the Roman Catholic Church (I don't know if he is in the EOC or not), in the 5th century AD, was entirely outside of the hierarchy of bishops who were visibly unified with the bishop of Rome. The same is true of many other Christians who spread the faith around the world, far outside the boundaries of the five patriarchates (which even in Patrick of Ireland's day, still had not yet come into existence).

----------


## erowe1

> Neither was his teachings disparaged (until 1500 years later)


What's your source for this? For that matter, how could you possibly know it?

His not being excommunicated is not a proof of anything. What would he be excommunicated for? And who would excommunicate him for it? Many of the other bishops he was in fellowship with apparently came to adopt his views (and understandably so, since his views increased their own power).

Ignatius had a great deal of influence on Christians who came after him. That is undeniable. But it also has nothing to do with whether or not the source of all of his ideas was the apostles. He himself never claimed to have gotten all of his ideas from them.

----------


## TER

> That is the question I had asked prior to that, which you were supposedly answering.
> 
> Even now, after this additional response, I still don't know your answer.
> 
> Do you really believe that prior to Acts 15 the apostles themselves taught that a man was required to be circumcised in order to be saved, as your words imply?
> 
> If not, then what change of tradition are you talking about?
> 
> By the way, the fact that I ask a question doesn't mean I'm hung up on it. And the fact that I ask it a second, and then a third time, after you had avoided giving a clear and direct answer after my first and second times asking, has more to do with your avoidance of the question than it does my being hung up on it.


It wasn't clear what the apostolic teaching was as it had not been an issue until it became one in the life of the Church. For this reason St.  Paul and St. Barnabas went to Jerusalem to address this question.  When they got there, they found that some of the believers insisted that the Gentiles must be circumcised. That is the tradition they wished to establish, or better yet, continue. 

Then  'the apostles and the elders met to consider the question. After much discussion' Peter and James made the case and the decision which seemed good to them and the Holy Spirit. The answer however did not fall from the sky or was found in a book. It required much discussion amongst the leaders. This is the way the Church has functioned since then, even after the days of the book of Acts.

----------


## TER

I am at work erowe and don't have time to debate this right now. Please post your objections and I will address them later.

----------


## erowe1

> It wasn't clear what the apostolic teaching was as it had not been an issue until it became one in the life of the Church.


Then there was no change of tradition.

I agree with your characterization of what happened there. But I see no evidence that the findings of that Council positively contradicted anything the apostles explicitly taught, and insisted that Christians must believe, prior to that time.

----------


## lilymc

> There are two laws Kevin and two covenants--Old Testament covenant/Law under Moses-- and the New Testament covenant/Law under Faith/Jesus.
> 
> The New Covenant IS the Law of Faith Kevin, and it's most certainly meant to "mix with grace".   You still can't understand what Jesus and the NT apostles are telling you when they distinguish between the OT Mosaic Law and the NT Law of faith. 
> 
> There are *two laws--one that was practiced under the Mosaic Law and now we live under the Law of Faith and just as Paul tells you here the same. In Romans 3:27 below, Paul refers to both the Mosaic Law and the Law of Faith, explaining the difference.
> 
> Romans 3:27
> 
> Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
> ...


Terry, I know your post was to Kevin, but I just want to make a couple points here.    

You seem to focused on mere wording.  

There are different ways of describing the Old and New Covenants.    Some people sum it up to: "Law vs Grace."    Yes, there is more to it than that, but Kevin was just simplifying it, getting it down to the heart of the matter, for the purpose of this discussion.   That is not incorrect, it's just one way of describing what you are referring to as the "Law of Faith."

I just did a quick search, and as far as I can see, the phrase "Law of Faith" is used only once in the bible, in Romans 3:27.  

The word "Grace", in reference to salvation is used countless times, either directly or indirectly.

"For by *grace* are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:  Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

And if by *grace*, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." Romans 11:6

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and *grace*, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began"   2 Timothy 1:9

For the law was given by Moses, [but] *grace* and truth came by Jesus Christ. John 1:17

"For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under *grace*." Romans 6:14

"For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his *grace* as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"  Romans 3:20-24 


"For the *grace* of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people"  Titus 2:11


"For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the *grace* of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." Galatians 2:19-21 


"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us,  made us alive with the Messiah even though we were dead in trespasses. You are saved by *grace*!" Ephesians 2:4-5

So instead of focusing on wording (for example, your point that we are still under "law" but it's called the "law of faith")  we need to get to the true meaning, and look at what the New Covenant is, at its core.  The New Covenant is about JESUS.   It's not about doing works, it's about putting our FAITH in Him, in what HE did for us.  We are saved by God's grace, through faith, not works!  

Again, works are the inevitable fruit of a living, genuine faith.   But works do not save us.   All works-based religions (non-Christian or Christian) are teaching a lie, we cannot ever earn our way to heaven or attain salvation by going through a series of rituals or ceremonies.

----------


## JohnWeeks613

heavenlyboy34, Aparently you only want to except as true a tradition derived at by people that identify themselves as Christian, but when a Christian is doing those practices of biforcation and amalgamation it is a holy enterprise and truth reaveald by "God". My comment was compiled information I came across and read a number of times, and from what I remember of most, if not all, the post sources were Christian attributed citations what most of all Christianity accepts, and are the rullings that came out of the Counsel of Nicea. One of the points that may have been elusive to my post is that from what I understand and what is custom is that when a group of Christions come together and decide on any matter the outcome is considered the will of "god". No "attempted troling" was intended and nothing derogotory was said. I simply presented facts about the ruling of Constitine at Nicea in response to the posting of the centuries old battles of which group is the origional or true Christian discused in several posts thus far. The Adolf Hitler quote was to emphasize what porpaganda, PSYOP, does-it creats a version of truth and to each group it is truth not necessarily reality. There is about six thousand denominations of Christianity and each may believe they are the "true" or "origional" Christian Church and invariably they do not all agree on what truth is. Not off topic in my opinion at all. You chose to attack the facts I presented and made an opinion the matter as you have with other posts in relation thereto, as I have not made an opinion on the matter that I recall. I am a man that is trying to seek truth, and from time to time I'll investigate and compare statements people make when they say, more or less, "the bible says so", and have been doing that for about a little over seven years. Yours truly, comrad in phenomonology ,John M. Weeks Jr.

----------


## TER

> This is clearly not true. His views on the bishops did not yet exist in Rome at the time that he wrote his epistles, as you can see just by comparing his epistle to the Romans with his others. 
> 
> His views were clearly not shared by the authors and editors of the Didache, which I think was probably written around the same time as his letters.


Most scholars believe the Didache was written sometime between the middle and later first century, from dates as early as 40 AD.  So it is very possible that the Didache was written over a half a century before what St. Ignatius wrote his epistle.  That leaves plenty of time for developments with regards to organization within the life of the Church in those important formative and elastic years.




> Even after he wrote those letters, it took a long time for his views to gain popularity throughout major parts of Christendom. And it would continue to be the case for centuries that genuine churches would exist throughout the world that didn't share his views.


Source?




> The ministry of Patrick of Ireland, who is considered a saint in the Roman Catholic Church (I don't know if he is in the EOC or not), in the 5th century AD, was entirely outside of the hierarchy of bishops who were visibly unified with the bishop of Rome. The same is true of many other Christians who spread the faith around the world, far outside the boundaries of the five patriarchates (which even in Patrick of Ireland's day, still had not yet come into existence).


There was one catholic Church at that the time of St. Patrick, and he is indeed a common saint to both the RCC and the EOC.  I do not understand what you mean that he was 'entirely outside of the hierarchy of bishops who were visibly unified with the bishop of Rome'.  

St. Patrick's grandfather was a priest in Rome.  His parents who were wealthy were Romans who moved to Britain.  St. Patrick's father was a deacon of the Church.  After St. Patrick was captured by raiders and taken to Ireland and then returned to Britian, he became a priest.  He was ordained a priest by St. Germanus who was Bishop of Auxerre (Gaul).  St. Germanus was sent by Pope Celestine to go to Britain to fight the Pelagian controversy which started spreading there and infecting the Church.

  Eventually, St. Patrick became Bishop of Armagh after living and studying under St. Germanus and St. Martin, then moved to Ireland and the rest is history (he is called by the Orthodox Church St. Patrick the Apostle of Ireland).

The Bishop of Auxerre St. Germanus, the Bishop of Rome St. Celestine and the Bishop of Armagh St. Patrick were all in one communion, unified in faith, mind, and spirit around the Holy Eucharist and in faith with all the rest of the catholic Bishops of the Christian world spread over Europe, Africa, and Asia.  So I am not sure where you are getting it that he was 'entirely outside of the heirarchy of bishops who were visibly unified with the bishop of Rome'.




> What's your source for this? For that matter, how could you possibly know it?
> 
> His not being excommunicated is not a proof of anything. What would he be excommunicated for? And who would excommunicate him for it? Many of the other bishops he was in fellowship with apparently came to adopt his views (and understandably so, since his views increased their own power).
> 
> Ignatius had a great deal of influence on Christians who came after him. That is undeniable. But it also has nothing to do with whether or not the source of all of his ideas was the apostles. He himself never claimed to have gotten all of his ideas from them.


It has everything to do with the fact that he was appointed and ordained in their line of succession by the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit.  We do not have the written records you need to placate your mind, but the history of the Church confirms his orthodoxy and apostolic authority through the affirmation of the Church through the ages, beginning from the days this saint walked the earth.  You are trying t to discredit him because you do not have the material evidence to link him in your mind with the original Apostles.  Apparently the fact that he was their student and appointed by them was not enough!  But the proof of the authority and truthfulness of his teachings is in the 'Amen' of the laity spread far and wide in addition to his grace of ordination and apostolic succession.  He was a student of St. John the Apostle, yet you believe you have a better grasp of what Christ wanted and what was needed to protect the flock he was entrusted with then he did.  I am sorry you do not see the arrogance of this position and the pride in it.  It blinds you from appreciating this Saint who was fed to the lions in martyrdom for Christ.





> Then there was no change of tradition.
> 
> I agree with your characterization of what happened there. But I see no evidence that the findings of that Council positively contradicted anything the apostles explicitly taught, and insisted that Christians must believe, prior to that time.


There was at least two traditions which were being contended, the one being that one must be circumcised and the other that it was not necessary.  Apparently, it was such a big threat to the unity of the Church (for indeed the controversy started to spread to distant churches), that St. Paul and St. Barnabas traveled from Antioch to Jerusalem to discuss the matter with the apostles and elders.  It was not a quick decision, indeed it involved 'much discussion'.  

When the decision was made that there is no requirement for circumcision, then that itself was the new tradition.  There was no more discussion.  The case had been closed.  This is one example of how the Church through the ages has confronted and dealt with issues within the Church.  These things did not end in the days of Acts.  And not everything was decided in the days of Acts.  

Erowe, I wish there were more material evidence to show you to believe that the words of St. Ignatius are worthy and apostolic, but there simply is not.  Unfortunately the book of Acts ended too soon.  What it required is faith.  Faith in the Apostolic Fathers who were taught and given authority to lead the Church by those before them, and faith in the Holy Spirit working in the Church through the grace of ordination and the Holy Eucharist.  You have chosen to put your knowledge over these early saints, using the short time frame of the book of Acts as your reference and then stopping at the end of it.  But the Church did not stop at the end of Acts.    You do the same with many of their doctrinal interpretations, taking bits here and there to fit your theology and ignoring everything else from the Church Fathers which goes against it.   If you feel comfortable doing that, then whatever.  My mind and my heart does not allow me to do this.

----------


## TER

> Again, works are the inevitable fruit of a living, genuine faith.   But works do not save us.   All works-based religions (non-Christian or Christian) are teaching a lie, we cannot ever earn our way to heaven or attain salvation by going through a series of rituals or ceremonies.


Our salvation from death has been accomplished through Christ's work, and nothing anyone could do could have accomplished this.  For this reason God became man and put on our nature and united it with His perfect and sinless divine nature, thereby conquering death for us. For this reason, _everyone_ (sinner and saint) will be resurrected again.  In this, Christ has saved all people. 

_But salvation from death is different from entering the Kingdom of Heaven_. While it will still be by the grace of God alone that we will enter into the Kingdom after being raised from the dead, only those who Christ has judged worthy will enter therein.  To those who are judged unworthy, their resurrection will be to everlasting judgment and condemnation. 

How will we be worthy? By following Christ's commandments. By our faith and our works, He in His great wisdom will judge whether we will enter into the Kingdom. 

So there is salvation from death, and there is salvation into the Kingdom.  The first by grace as a free gift to all people, and the second by grace to those whom Christ has judged worthy according to their faith and their works.

----------


## erowe1

> Most scholars believe the Didache was written sometime between the middle and later first century, from dates as early as 40 AD.


That's not true. If you read that somewhere, it was most likely not from a scholar. Parts of it may be from the first century. But in its complete form it can't be from any earlier than very late in the first century, and is probably from the early second. Most scholars either date it to the early second century, or give it a range from late first (meaning post AD 70, not 40) to early second. And when most allow for a first century date, they mean something like the 90s, not earlier.




> Source?


My very next sentence.




> There was one catholic Church at that the time of St. Patrick,


There still is. There always has been. But what we know as the RCC and the EOC had not come into existence yet.




> I do not understand what you mean that he was 'entirely outside of the hierarchy of bishops who were visibly unified with the bishop of Rome'.  
> 
> St. Patrick's grandfather was a priest in Rome.


He was a priest, but not in Rome. In those days, there existed many churches and priests who, like Patrick, were not under the umbrella of the bishops whose authority you would define as the Catholic Church.

Subsequent to the time of Patrick, the bishop of Rome sent Palladius to found the Church in Ireland as its first bishop. He did not recognize the existence of any church in Ireland then existing, even though Patrick had brought Christianity there a century earlier. It wasn't until much later that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox came to adopt Patrick as one of their own.




> He was ordained a priest by St. Germanus who was Bishop of Auxerre (Gaul).


No he wasn't. This is a later embellishment meant to make it look like Patrick was acting under the auspices of what you are calling the Catholic Church. He himself apionted presbyters in Ireland, and he did so without any authorization from any bishops connected with the bishop of Rome, as proven by the later comissioning of Palladius to bring the church to Ireland.  




> Eventually, St. Patrick became Bishop of Armagh


That also is a later embellishment of the same type.




> It has everything to do with the fact that he was appointed and ordained in their line of succession


I know of absolutely no evidence for this claim. Ignatius himself never says it. Nor is it likely that he even had a concept of the apostolic succession of bishops, since that would have been such an important thing for him to mention given the agenda he had to buttress their authority. Scholars of Ignatius agree with me on this point. See, for example the comments on Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians 3:2 in William Schoedel's commentary.

----------


## TER

> That's not true. If you read that somewhere, it was most likely not from a scholar. Parts of it may be from the first century. But in its complete form it can't be from any earlier than very late in the first century, and is probably from the early second. Most scholars either date it to the early second century, or give it a range from late first (meaning post AD 70, not 40) to early second. And when most allow for a first century date, they mean something like the 90s, not earlier.


I guess we can pick and choose which scholars we want to listen to. 




> My very next sentence.


You have not proved anything with your claim here.




> There still is. There always has been. But what we know as the RCC and the EOC had not come into existence yet.


You ignore the Holy Eucharist once again as the center of this communion. The catholic Church of St. Patrick's time was the same one which convened in the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea and all the way back to the first Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts. This was united around the same Cup, unbroken in succession and communion.  The faithful of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in St. Patrick's time were in Eucharistic communion with St. Ignatius and the Apostles, in an unbroken and direct line through the bishops and the Holy Eucharist. This communion has endured through time and is now called the EOC.  You can refuse to believe that, and to do so, you must make holy men liars and fools, and ignore the historical and spiritual communion they had as one Body around the Holy Eucharist. 




> He was a priest, but not in Rome. In those days, there existed many churches and priests who, like Patrick, were not under the umbrella of the bishops whose authority you would define as the Catholic Church.


That is because there were lands where bishops had not yet been appointed.  Had St. Patrick's grandfather journeyed to America, there would have been no bishop there either!  This doesn't mean that the structure as found from the first century did not exist, but that it had not yet grown to all places yet.  For the great part of Christendom during the days of St. Patrick however, especially in the ancient cities, the hierarchal structure as described by St. Ignatius was the norm.  The First Ecumenical Council years before St. Patrick demonstrates this, as do the writings of earlier saints of the early Church. 




> Subsequent to the time of Patrick, the bishop of Rome sent Palladius to found the Church in Ireland as its first bishop. He did not recognize the existence of any church in Ireland then existing, even though Patrick had brought Christianity there a century earlier. It wasn't until much later that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox came to adopt Patrick as one of their own.


Baloney.  St. Patrick (who was Bishop of a region of France) _introduced_ Christianity to Ireland but he was not Ireland's first Bishop, just as it may have not been St. Peter who introduced Christianity to Antioch even though he became its first bishop.  You misunderstand the roles Sts. Patrick and Palladius  played in converting the island and establishing the Church, both important and both by God's will.




> No he wasn't. This is a later embellishment meant to make it look like Patrick was acting under the auspices of what you are calling the Catholic Church. He himself apionted presbyters in Ireland, and he did so without any authorization from any bishops connected with the bishop of Rome, as proven by the later comissioning of Palladius to bring the church to Ireland.


He could appoint priests in Ireland prior to St. Palladius assuming the episcopy of the island simply because ... there was no Bishop there! That was his divine right by virtue of him being an ordained Bishop within the Church and this land not falling under the jurisdiction of any bishop. Those priests which St. Patrick ordained were under his authority and spiritual direction, for he had assumed this region under his guidance until a formal Bishop was appointed there (St. Palladius) when the conditions warranted it (namely, the faithful grew in numbers and it was necessary for pastoral reasons).  When St. Palladius was sent as the Bishop, then those priests who were once under St. Patrick then fell under the authority of St. Palladius.  This is the way the Church has spread from the first century.

So what you think is an embellishment (with no proof!) stems from your ignorance on how these matters of ecclesiology existed and the canons of the Church. 

For example, St. Paul travelled to Cyprus, and converted many there, but it was St. Lazarus who would later become Bishop.

Missionaries who travel to lands where there is no formal Church presence introduce the faith and seek to convert the people to Christ.  These missionaries are under the spiritual guidance of the Bishop from whence they came.  (In effect, the Bishop has authority to the Christians of those foreign lands by virtue of the missionary work being done under his care through his representative, namely the missionary). When the faithful begin to grow in numbers and more closer and personal supervision of the faithful and the clergy begins to become necessary, then a priest (usually from the original see) is elevated to Bishop through the laying of the hands in holy ordination, communes with the faithful of the Holy  Eucharist, and then becomes spiritual leader to the flock in the new land. This is exactly what happened with St. Patrick the Bishop from France, St. Palladius the first Bishop of Ireland, and the Church of Ireland.  And this has been the norm since the first century even until today (indeed it is canonical), even though you want to call it all embellishments.  You should study more about this, because you seem to lack a lot of knowledge in these topics which you poopoo away as embellishments. 




> I know of absolutely no evidence for this claim. Ignatius himself never says it. Nor is it likely that he even had a concept of the apostolic succession of bishops, since that would have been such an important thing for him to mention given the agenda he had to buttress their authority. Scholars of Ignatius agree with me on this point. See, for example the comments on Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians 3:2 in William Schoedel's commentary.


Your scholars may agree with you (the one you consider scholars), but the Church and 2000 years of witnesses disagree.

----------


## erowe1

> I guess we can pick and choose which scholars we want to listen to.


Or better yet, reserve the label "scholar" for actual scholars. It was you who made a claim about "scholars." Do you know of real scholars who believe it is within the realm of possibility that the whole Didache was written by AD 40, as you claimed to? If so, please give their names.




> The catholic Church of St. Patrick's time was the same one which convened in the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea and all the way back to the first Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts.


I also belong to that very same catholic Church. Apostolic succession of bishops is not what makes one a part of it. Patrick was outside the hierarchy of bishops who claimed apostolic succession, as were millions of other Christians all throughout church history from the days of the apostles up to his day, and this did not in any way make him or them less a part of the true church. Nor does it for me.




> That is because there were lands where bishops had not yet been appointed.  Had St. Patrick's grandfather journeyed to America, there would have been no bishop there either!


Correct. And this would not have made the Christian converts any less a part of the Church, nor would their Eucharists, absent any bishop or anyone appointed by a bishop be any less legitimate. Apart from the specification of America, this is no mere hypothetical, but the actual situation of most Christians throughout every century of Church history from the apostles until today.




> Your scholars may agree with you (the one you consider scholars)


Are there others who don't? Please name them.




> but the Church and 2000 years of witnesses disagree.


"The Church" doesn't speak. And there do not exist human beings who speak for her. Every teaching you've ever heard was a teaching from an individual human being. Some of these individual human beings might claim that the things they say are the teachings of "The Church." And they may claim that these teachings originated with the apostles. But just because somebody claims this doesn't make it so. If we want to know if their claims really do come from the apostles, we need to subject those claims to historical inquiry, studying the ancient texts available to us from the apostles themselves and other Christians who came later, to see when such teachings came about, and how they developed.

----------


## TER

> I also belong to that very same catholic Church.


Arius would have made the same claim as would all of the heretics.  At least these heretics confessed the Holy Spirit in ordination and divine will in the formation of the episcopy and the real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  If you do not confess to these apostolic truths, then your words are merely your wish.  That is not to say you will are not definitely within the Church, for only God knows and in the end we will know, but you certainly are not guaranteed with the positions and claims you consistently have made.  I often wonder on the day of judgment how you will look at the faces of the earliest Saints who you make to be fools so that you can be right.




> Apostolic succession of bishops is not what makes one a part of it.


It does according to the Church which predates you and your scholars by 2000 years.




> Patrick was outside the hierarchy of bishops who claimed apostolic succession...


This error of yours has already been explained to you in my previous post, but you refuse to learn.




> ...as were millions of other Christians all throughout church history from the days of the apostles up to his day, and this did not in any way make him or them less a part of the true church. Nor does it for me.


Yes, I know that makes you feel better.  But simply saying it doesn't make it true.




> Correct. And this would not have made the Christian converts any less a part of the Church, nor would their Eucharists, absent any bishop or anyone appointed by a bishop be any less legitimate. Apart from the specification of America, this is no mere hypothetical, but the actual situation of most Christians throughout every century of Church history from the apostles until today.


Maybe according to _your_ church, but not according to the Church which wrote and canonized the book you have sorrowfully misused and misinterpreted. 




> Are there others who don't? Please name them.


You stick to your modern scholars and I will stick to the Church Fathers.




> "The Church" doesn't speak. And there do not exist human beings who speak for her. Every teaching you've ever heard was a teaching from an individual human being. Some of these individual human beings might claim that the things they say are the teachings of "The Church." And they may claim that these teachings originated with the apostles. But just because somebody claims this doesn't make it so. If we want to know if their claims really do come from the apostles, we need to subject those claims to historical inquiry, studying the ancient texts available to us from the apostles themselves and other Christians who came later, to see when such teachings came about, and how they developed.


You rely on your three pound brain a little too much to be the decider of what is true or not.  Your brain simply is not impressive enough for me to put it over the saints.  I have listed historical and ancient texts such as St. Ignatius' writing, and you deny them as authoritative,  so what is the point?  You take the snippet of time in the book of Acts and discredit the rest of the history of the Holy Spirit in the world and through the saints.  You think you are greater then St. Ignatius and the Church Fathers because of your complete arrogance and pride!  At least I acknowledge how much less of a man I am compared to these holy saints of God.  You have even made a comment once about your belief that miracles ended after the time frame recorded in the NT.  What a blind and ignorant fool you must be!  And to deny the Holy Spirit on top of it!  And then posit the claim to be a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!  A Church you seem to know nothing about!

 We do not even believe in the same things with regards to the writings of the New Testament, why would I expect you to believe in the writings of the Godbearing saints who lived after the NT was written?  When I say the Church speaks, I say it in the same vein as St. James said about the issue over circumcision or the way the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council spoke about the Creed.  I do not have one person to speak for the Church, but the Holy Spirit in the communion and consensus around the Holy Eucharist, for that is what the Church is.  You instead, a self chosen orphan, do not seem to understand this, and so you pick and choose an individual verse here or there and stop at the end of the middle of the first century because you lack the humility to repent and acknowledge that what you have convinced yourself in your mind was wrong all along.  You choosing your brain and it's interpretations against men much greater and holier then either of us is not analytical or logical, it is sinful and on account of a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit and from unadulterated pride.

 So for you to be right,

the Church fell into large grand scale apostasy in the first century through Bishops taught and ordained by the Apostles,the Holy Spirit failed miserably in guarding the apostolic teachings of the fundamentals of the faith,the first 1600 years of apostolic teachings regarding the Holy Eucharist was a lie and Christ is dividedThe Church Fathers in those early centuries were ignorant fools teaching heresy and had been duped all their lives

That either makes you an arrogant fool or the next great prophet come to restore the apostolic truths like Joseph Smith.

It is a shame that someone like yourself with such high intelligence cannot even see this.  But pride blinds a man and while thinking they can count all the stars in the sky makes him fall into a ditch.  

You think you are part of the Church, then believe what you will.  May it be the case before you leave this world because after death, there is no repentance.

----------


## erowe1

> Arius would have made the same claim as would all of the heretics.


And God will judge if they were right about that.

----------


## erowe1

> So for you to be right,
> 
> the Church fell into large grand scale apostasy in the first century through Bishops taught and ordained by the Apostles,the Holy Spirit failed miserably in guarding the apostolic teachings of the fundamentals of the faith,the first 1600 years of apostolic teachings regarding the Holy Eucharist was a lie and Christ is dividedThe Church Fathers in those early centuries were ignorant fools teaching heresy and had been duped all their lives


You have this habit of telling me that I have to believe things that you couldn't possibly get from anything I've ever said, and that even explicitly contradict what I have said, just so you can knock down your own straw man.

----------


## erowe1

> You stick to your modern scholars and I will stick to the Church Fathers.


It was you who first played the "scholar" card. All I did was call your bluff.

I'm still waiting on those names.

And, by the way, you won't find any Church Fathers saying the Didache was from the first century either.

----------


## TER

> You have this habit of telling me that I have to believe things that you couldn't possibly get from anything I've ever said, just so you can knock down your own straw man.


And this is your straw man, to say that I have put words in your mouth.  I have read enough of your posts to know how far they are from the Patristic teachings, and the teachings of St. Ignatius is but one small example.

----------


## erowe1

> you lack the humility to repent and acknowledge that what you have convinced yourself in your mind was wrong all along.


Please back that up with a quote from me.

----------


## erowe1

> And this is your straw man, to say that I have put words in your mouth.  I have read enough of your posts to know how far they are from the Patristic teachings, and the teachings of St. Ignatius is but one small example.


Please back this up with a quote from me.

----------


## TER

> Please back that up with a quote from me.


Are you right and St. Ignatius wrong?

----------


## erowe1

> you pick and choose an individual verse here or there and stop at the end of the middle of the first century


No I don't. I refer to later Christian writings all the time.

----------


## erowe1

> Are you right and St. Ignatius wrong?


About what?

I said that his claims about bishops weren't based on apostolic teachings. He himself never said they were.

----------


## erowe1

> the earliest Saints who you make to be fools so that you can be right.


Please provide the quote. Who did I make to be a fool so I could be right?

----------


## erowe1

> I do not have one person to speak for the Church, but the Holy Spirit in the communion and consensus around the Holy Eucharist.


Regarding what you said about bishops and the Eucharist, you have no such consensus.

In fact, there weren't many things that all of the people you call Church Fathers unanimously agreed on. And I'd wager that if we were to limit ourselves to the points about which they truly had a consensus, I wouldn't fall outside that consensus on a single point.

----------


## TER

> About what?
> 
> I said that his claims about bishops weren't based on apostolic teachings. He himself never said they were.


Apparently, you know better then him what the apostolic teachings were?

----------


## erowe1

> You have even made a comment once about your belief that miracles ended after the time frame recorded in the NT.


No, I did not. I do not believe that, have never believed that, and have never said that I did.

----------


## erowe1

> Apparently, you know better then him what the apostolic teachings were?


I don't claim that. He never pretended that his beliefs about bishops came from apostolic teachings. You keep trying to impose that on him.

----------


## erowe1

> And to deny the Holy Spirit on top of it!


This is just ridiculous. When did I ever say anything that could remotely be construed as denying the Holy Spirit?

See what I mean about straw men?

You can't answer what I actually say. So you tell me what you think I must believe, and you represent my beliefs with ridiculous caricatures that you couldn't possibly base on anything I've ever said, and that flatly contradict what I have said.

----------


## TER

> Who did I make to be a fool so I could be right?


Let's see... All the saints who were bishops or clergy or under the authority of bishops... All the saints who confessed in the real presence of the Holy Eucharist...  All the saints who considered St. Ignatius to be apostolic in authority.... All the saints who confessed the grace of ordination, confession, and the real mystical change of holy baptism... All the saints who never spoke about sola Scriptura... All the saints who never spoke about justification by faith alone... The list goes on.  Pretty much every Church Father is a fool so that you can be right.

----------


## TER

> I don't claim that. He never pretended that his beliefs about bishops came from apostolic teachings. You keep trying to impose that on him.


I see.  Perhaps if he wrote in the letter explicitly that these are the apostolic teachings, the you would believe.

----------


## erowe1

> Let's see... All the saints who were bishops or clergy or under the authority of bishops... All the saints who confessed in the real presence of the Holy Eucharist...  All the saints who considered St. Ignatius to be apostolic in authority.... All the saints who confessed the grace of ordination, confession, and the real mystical change of holy baptism... All the saints who never spoke about sola Scriptura... All the saints who never spoke about justification by faith alone... The list goes on.  Pretty much every Church Father is a fool so that you can be right.


Please provide the quote where I made any of them fools so I could be right.

----------


## TER

> Regarding what you said about bishops and the Eucharist, you have no such consensus.
> 
> In fact, there weren't many things that all of the people you call Church Fathers unanimously agreed on. And I'd wager that if we were to limit ourselves to the points about which they truly had a consensus, I wouldn't fall outside that consensus on a single point.


Yes you would  you just don't see it.

----------


## erowe1

> I see.  Perhaps if he wrote in the letter explicitly that these are the apostolic teachings, the you would believe.


I would at least believe that he thought that. As it is, you have no basis for saying that he based any of the things he taught about bishops that differed from the NT picture on anything coming from the apostles. If he did think he had apostolic authority for his claims, it would have made sense for him to mention that.

----------


## TER

> Please provide the quote where I made any of them fools so I could be right.


When then tell me, so that I may know.

Was St. Ignatius wrong when he described the three offices of ministry, namely the bishop, the clergy, and the deacons, and that the faithful should be obedient to them?

----------


## erowe1

> Yes you would  you just don't see it.


Show me. Have I ever said anything that disagreed with something that you can prove that all of the people you call Church Fathers agreed on? If so, show me the quote.

----------


## TER

> I would at least believe that he thought that. As it is, you have no basis for saying that he based any of the things he taught about bishops that differed from the NT picture on anything coming from the apostles. If he did think he had apostolic authority for his claims, it would have made sense for him to mention that.


And you have no basis to say definitely that this was not the apostolic teachings by end of the century.  Do you?

----------


## erowe1

> When then tell me, so that I may know.
> 
> Was St. Ignatius wrong when he described the three offices of ministry, namely the bishop, the clergy, and the deacons, and that the faithful should be obedient to them?


No. He wasn't wrong in describing those things as they existed in his own experience. But he says many things about those offices that were innovations that arose after the apostolic period. He does not deny this. This doesn't make him a fool.

----------


## TER

> No. He wasn't wrong about the fact that those things existed in his own experience. But he says many things about those offices that were innovations that arose after the apostolic period. He does not deny this.


Do you believe this development (what you call innovations) could not be God's good will and according to the Holy Spirit guiding the Church?

----------


## erowe1

> And you have no basis to say definitely that this was not the apostolic teachings by end of the century.  Do you?


Yes I do. I have the writings of the apostles themselves. I also have the evidence of the letters of Ignatius. I also have the evidence of the Epistle from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth, from the very end of the first century AD. I also have the evidence of the Didache, from around the same time as Ignatius.

My basis is the evaluation of this evidence taken all together.

----------


## TER

> Yes I do. I have the writings of the apostles themselves. I also have the evidence of the letters of Ignatius. I also have the evidence of the Epistle from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth, from the very end of the first century AD. I also have the evidence of the Didache, from around the same time as Ignatius.
> 
> My basis is the evaluation of this evidence taken all together.


But your evaluation is made from an argument of silence.  Because it did not explicitly describe it in those other sources (not including the NT which was earlier), you have made this into definite proof, even though it is described as such by a leader of the early Church?

----------


## erowe1

> Do you believe this development (what you call innovations) could not be God's good will and according to the Holy Spirit guiding the Church?


OK. Now this is interesting. You used to propound the belief that the traditions you defended went back to the apostles themselves, if not by written tradition, then at least by oral tradition.

If you now mean to leave that view, and switch to a different one, that God himself is behind later innovations that depart from the traditions of the apostles, then I will begin to address that. But please don't just throw out a bunch of mutually exclusive arguments like a handful of darts hoping you get lucky enough to hit the target with one and insist that I take my time to answer them all.

Are you really switching your position now? Because if not, and you still maintain that all of what Ignatius says about bishops must go back to the apostles, then let's just stick with that, rather than sending me off on some rabbit trail arguing against something else.

----------


## erowe1

> But your evaluation is made from an argument of silence.


Please quote where I make my evaluation from an argument of silence.

I just referred you to a whole bunch of actual writings that we actually have. That's not silence.

----------


## erowe1

..

----------


## TER

> OK. Now this is interesting. You used to propound the belief that the traditions you defended went back to the apostles themselves, if no by written tradition, then at least by oral tradition.
> 
> If you now mean to leave that view, and switch to a different one, that God himself is behind later innovations that depart from the traditions of the apostles, then I will begin to address that. But please don't just throw out a bunch of mutually exclusive arguments like a handful of darts hoping you get lucky enough to hit the target with one and insist that I take my time to answer them all.
> 
> Are you really switching your position now? Because if not, and you still maintain that all of what Ignatius says about bishops must go back to the apostles, then let's just stick with that, rather than sending me off on some rabbit trail arguing against something else.


The Apostles handed down the deposit of the faith, that is, the fundamentals of the teachings taught by Jesus Christ.  These are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow just as Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  These teachings are static in a dynamic world.

  They also formed the Church and were it's founders.  However, not everything was figured out from the get go.  The living Church is dynamic, having people as it's members. Thus you see in the book of Acts the very first years of the Church forming and developing, growing and contending, addressing the various challenges it met in order to fulfill its mission of preaching the gospel and adding to the Church.

The story of the life of the Church did not end in Acts which I have said ad nauseum already.  To continue the mission of spreading to all nations and baptizing them in the Holy Trinity, there have been stages and steps which has involved people and the Holy Spirit working in them.  Thus we see in the beginning the ministry of elders, presbyters, and deacons established to assist in this mission.  How did the Apostles figure this out?  Likely from the teachings of Christ, even though it was not described in the NT.  We do know He taught them for forty days after His Resurrection, presumably including these very things.  However, perhaps not. Perhaps it was given to them by the Holy Spirit to construct such ministries.  For we know Christ said that He would send them  the Holy Spirit Who would lead them to all truths.

These Apostles in turn continued the mission, and appointed successors (by the transference of the Holy Spirit in holy ordination) who too carried the title of apostles in that they were given through the Holy Spirit the same authority as shepherds over the flock.  They became living images of the Apostles in the life of the Church.  Through time, these shepherds have continued the same ministry of spreading the gospel while confronting whatever specific challenges they and their flock faced.

So to the Orthodox, to say the word apostolic can denote coming from the twelve in original teaching or in authority, as both are inseparable because it is the same Holy Spirit working in them. 

With regards to St. Ignatius, whether St. John whispered to St. Ignatius' ear what he wrote later or it was the Holy Spirit which worked through him according to the circumstances which were required, it is the same apostolic authority because it is the same Holy Spirit.  Does this mean it was the exact teaching which the original twelve taught?  No, it doesn't, even though I contend given the proximity of time, the relation of St. Ignatius with the Apostles, and the agreement by the Church spread far and wide, it was the very apostolic teachings not only in authority but in direct teachings.  You desire more proof to believe this, unfortunately you will not find it.  For me, a Bishop of Antioch, student of St. John, leader of the early Church and great martyr for Christ who was bishop from 69AD is apostolic in both authority and teachings, having continued the mission started by the Apostles and entrusted to him by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Kevin007

> Terry, I know your post was to Kevin, but I just want to make a couple points here.    
> 
> You seem to focused on mere wording.  
> 
> There are different ways of describing the Old and New Covenants.    Some people sum it up to: "Law vs Grace."    Yes, there is more to it than that, but Kevin was just simplifying it, getting it down to the heart of the matter, for the purpose of this discussion.   That is not incorrect, it's just one way of describing what you are referring to as the "Law of Faith."
> 
> I just did a quick search, and as far as I can see, the phrase "Law of Faith" is used only once in the bible, in Romans 3:27.  
> 
> The word "Grace", in reference to salvation is used countless times, either directly or indirectly."For by *grace* are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:  Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
> ...


thanks Lily, excellent reply. I agree completely. Not only that but even IF God "allowed" us to TRY to live out our faith,in order to please Him, we all fail miserably...thus Jesus, the PERFECT and only sacrifice for sin.

----------


## Kevin007

> Out of all I wrote regarding the unity of the faith through the Holy Eucharist and how the Church has revolved around these Holy Gifts in its testifying to the truths, that is what you are hung up on?
> 
> The point I was making about Acts 15 is that here we see the Church confronting a challenge and then through prayer, deliberation, and consensus a new teaching and tradition was made and proclaimed in order to restore unity in faith. And AFTER that was done, as not only a visible sign of this unity but to mystically seal it through the Holy Spirit, they communed of the Holy Eucharist.


if you study Acts 15 carefully, esp. verses 36-41 the Council in Jerusalem was NOT an official governing body with regulatory power. It was a group of Apostles and elders who met and acted in a strictly advisory capacity.(non-binding)

----------


## Kevin007

> Our salvation from death has been accomplished through Christ's work, and nothing anyone could do could have accomplished this.  For this reason God became man and put on our nature and united it with His perfect and sinless divine nature, thereby conquering death for us. For this reason, _everyone_ (sinner and saint) will be resurrected again.  In this, Christ has saved all people. 
> 
> *But salvation from death is different from entering the Kingdom of Heaven.* While it will still be by the grace of God alone that we will enter into the Kingdom after being raised from the dead, only those who Christ has judged worthy will enter therein.  To those who are judged unworthy, their resurrection will be to everlasting judgment and condemnation. 
> *
> How will we be worthy? By following Christ's commandments. By our faith and our works, He in His great wisdom will judge whether we will enter into the Kingdom.* 
> 
> So there is salvation from death, and there is salvation into the Kingdom.  The first by grace as a free gift to all people, and the second by grace to those whom Christ has judged worthy according to their faith and their works.


well, I guess ALL of us are screwed because we cannot possibly follow Jesus' commandments. Remember- if you break just one- you break them all. You are mixing law and grace. They are completely incompatible. How God the Father judges whether we enter into Heaven is based SOLELY UPON IF WE ACCEPTED JESUS' FINISHED WORK AT CALVARY...NOT OURS.

eta- our FAITH in Christ is what saves us- alone and completely. Our WORKS are judged as to how many rewards we will receive, and imo how much authority Jesus gives us. Our WORKS are only judged at the Bema Seat Judgment or Judgment Seat of Christ- which is only made up of saved Believer's. The Great White Throne Judgment occurs at the end of the 1,000 years and is made up only of UNBeliever's. They are PUNISHED according to their deeds and works. None are saved.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> well, I guess ALL of us are screwed because we cannot possibly follow Jesus' commandments. Remember- if you break just one- you break them all. You are mixing law and grace. They are completely incompatible. How God the Father judges whether we enter into Heaven is based SOLELY UPON IF WE ACCEPTED JESUS' FINISHED WORK AT CALVARY...NOT OURS.


You are incorrect.  You are thinking of Scholasticism.  TER is correct.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> thanks Lily, excellent reply. I agree completely. Not only that but even IF God "allowed" us to TRY to live out our faith,in order to please Him, we all fail miserably...thus Jesus, the PERFECT and only sacrifice for sin.


Hmmm...correct me if I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall you not considering Paul an authority on this matter.  All the scriptures you quoted there are from Pauline epistles, not synoptic gospel.

ETA:  The "Pauline Triangle"-a theoretical device used by many protestants and non-denominationalists places equal emphasis on faith, grace, and works-and bases this on scripture.  I don't have my notes on this anymore, but I learned it from a non-denominational minister whose education is thus (as you can see, no Orthodox or Catholic influences to be found.  I won't give his name on forums, but will link you if you PM me):
        University of Georgia
        Ph.D. (ABD) - Historical Linguistics 
        Emory University 
        Th.M. - Hebrew Bible and Intercultural Studies
        Emmanuel School of Religion 
        M.Div. - Old Testament/Hebrew Bible
Purdue University
        B.S. - Aeronautical and Aerospace Engineering

----------


## Kevin007

what are you talking about? So how do you get to Heaven HB. Can you know now if you will be there? Answers please. I know- how? because of what Jesus did for me. He died for all my sins, every one. He knew every sin I would commit before I was born.

----------


## Kevin007

> Hmmm...correct me if I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall you not considering Paul an authority on this matter.  All the scriptures you quoted there are from Pauline epistles, not synoptic gospel.
> 
> ETA:  The "Pauline Triangle"-a theoretical device used by *many protestants and non-denominationalists places equal emphasis on faith, grace, and works-and bases this on scripture.  I* don't have my notes on this anymore, but I learned it from a non-denominational minister whose education is thus (as you can see, no Orthodox or Catholic influences to be found.  I won't give his name on forums, but will link you if you PM me):
>         University of Georgia
>         Ph.D. (ABD) - Historical Linguistics 
>         Emory University 
>         Th.M. - Hebrew Bible and Intercultural Studies
>         Emmanuel School of Religion 
>         M.Div. - Old Testament/Hebrew Bible
> ...



they are not equal, no. Without faith in Jesus, you cannot be saved. Without Jesus you can do good works, and God's grace falls on both the just and unjust. Faith in Jesus as your Savior is the most important by far.

----------


## Terry1

> well, I guess ALL of us are screwed because we cannot possibly follow Jesus' commandments. Remember- if you break just one- you break them all. You are mixing law and grace. They are completely incompatible..


No Kevin, again-- you are the one confusing Old Testament Mosaic Law with the New Testament Law of Faith.  Faith is your good works that you do-- because under the New Testament Law, what you do now--you do by Faith in Jesus which is the very nature of Christ in you and not by the dead works of the Old Law which were done by ceremony and rituals only.  Why do you think that Jesus Himself told you to let your light shine by doing good works that glorify the Father in heaven?  Works of faith are the only possible way you can bear any fruit of the spirit.  Your good works are your light and evidence to the world of who you are which glorify God in heaven.  These are not dead works that you believe were done absent faith and under the Old Mosaic Law by ritual and ceremony only.  What we do now is done because of the nature of Christ in us--we do it naturally--being led of the Spirit and not by ceremonial Law as it was done under the Old Law/Moses Law.




> How God the Father judges whether we enter into Heaven is based SOLELY UPON IF WE ACCEPTED JESUS' FINISHED WORK AT CALVARY...NOT OURS.


Ask yourself how we "accept Jesus".  How do we witness Jesus to others and what did Jesus ask us to do to give evidence to the lost souls of who we are and what we believe?  Do you think we could witness to the lost without helping them and living Godly lives as examples of Christ?  Do you think anyone would know who we are if we never give an example of Christ in our own lives?  

Here is the word of God to give proof of what I'm telling you:



Philippians 3:17

Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.



1 Thessalonians 1:7

So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.



2 Thessalonians 3:9

Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.



2 Peter 2:6

And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;




> eta- our FAITH in Christ is what saves us- alone and completely. Our WORKS are judged as to how many rewards we will receive, and imo how much authority Jesus gives us. Our WORKS are only judged at the Bema Seat Judgment or Judgment Seat of Christ- which is only made up of saved Believer's. The Great White Throne Judgment occurs at the end of the 1,000 years and is made up only of UNBeliever's. They are PUNISHED according to their deeds and works. None are saved.


In this above statement you've just made, you have attempted to separate faith from our good works.  This is where you are mistaken.  Faith is our good works.  You seem to believe that Faith and belief are one and the same thing and they most certainly are not!  Faith is the evidence of your belief which are your good works.  It's the only way we can do good works is by grace which is the (power of God) and through faith which is (the action, fruit, light and evidence of our belief).  Belief and Faith go hand in hand, but they have two completely different functions with regard to our salvation.  No one would believe you are a Christian if you live a life opposite the will of God.  Hence--we can not be once saved always saved because living a Godly life begins after our confessions of belief by what we do and say to others.  Living a Godly life is enduring in doing good until the very end our lives because this is how God tests our faith.  That test of our faith does not end the point of belief and confession--this is where our test begins in this life and to the very end of it.

Revelation 3:18

I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

Revelation 3:5

5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

We can not remain in the Book of Life unless we confess Jesus is Lord and continually throughout our lives abide in Christ.  So you then must ask yourself why God would then "blot" them out from it.  Being blotted from the Book of Life happens as a result of what we did in this life.  So God is telling you right here that no one is once saved always saved.  They can be "blotted out" from the Book of Life.



Ask yourself this--what have we to "overcome" if we are once saved always saved?  That is a deadly doctrine and the effects of this doctrine are people living ungodly lives thinking they're still saved no matter what they do or say to others in this life.  People who believe this doctrine think that their one-time confession will erase and annihilate every rotten evil thing they say or do without consequences or repentance from them.  Also believing that there is nothing they can do to lose their salvation and fall from faith and grace, when Paul tells you the exact opposite.  That it's most certainly possible to fall from grace and faith and from the state of Elect in this life.  John 15: 5 and Hebrews 6:4  This is not how our Lord God designed salvation for mankind and definitely not biblical.

----------


## Terry1

> they are not equal, no. Without faith in Jesus, you cannot be saved. Without Jesus you can do good works, and God's grace falls on both the just and unjust. Faith in Jesus as your Savior is the most important by far.


And Faith is our "good works"--our "works of faith" our "light which glorifies God" and our "fruit of the Spirit".  Without the branch bearing fruit, it is cut away from the True Vine/Jesus and burned--John 15: 1-5 and Hebrews 6:4.  

  What you are actually arguing is that you can still go out here rape, murder, rob and live a rotten life evil life and still be saved.  That is not how faith works my friend.

what are the two greatest *COMMANDMENTS*?  We are commanded by Jesus to live Godly lives by loving each other just the same as we do God.  How do we love one another? By doing good works to each other and revealing our lights in this dark world.  We weren't asked by God to do this--He commanded it.  This is what faith is of which without--all through the NT we are told we have no faith at all--it's dead and grace of no effect.  They have fallen from salvation at this point.

The essence of Love is Sacrifice.  If we never do anything based upon what it is that we believe--there is no love.  Words and confessions mean nothing without an action--a work to back them up.  And that my friend is what Faith is and how it works.

The day will come when we will all have to give account to God for the way we lived here in this life.  When the Books of Life and death are opened and every single thing we said and did are recorded in our lifes history in those books.  All mankind will be judged for their works here in this life.

Revelation 20:12

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

----------


## erowe1

> if you study Acts 15 carefully, esp. verses 36-41 the Council in Jerusalem was NOT an official governing body with regulatory power. It was a group of Apostles and elders who met and acted in a strictly advisory capacity.(non-binding)


Why do you believe this?

----------


## erowe1

> Most scholars believe the Didache was written sometime between the middle and later first century, from dates as early as 40 AD.


I'm still waiting on the names of these scholars, and (if they really exist at all) your reason for believing they represent the majority.

----------


## TER

> I'm still waiting on the names of these scholars, and (if they really exist at all) your reason for believing they represent the majority.


I think we are in agreement that most date it before the end of the first century, towards the last two decades.   Some have suggested an earlier date and others a later date. The Church maintains it to be apostolic in authority and a product of the early Church.  The exact date is not as important as much as how it was regarded by the Church. If you would like to share what you have learned about it in your studies, please share it. I have not studied the modern scholarship as closely as you have and am willing to learn more about it.

----------


## erowe1

> I think we are in agreement that most date it before the end of the first century, towards the last two decades.


Do you have a source for this?

Some do. But most?

Most scholars date the Gospel of Matthew to the 80's AD (I don't happen to agree with them). And the Didache is later than Matthew.

And your earlier claim about "most scholars" said middle to later first century, with some as early as AD 40. Do any scholars date it as early as AD 40? You must have had someone in mind unless you were bluffing and unwisely thought you could get away with it.

----------


## erowe1

> The exact date is not as important as much as how it was regarded by the Church.


How was it regarded by the Church?

I know of zero references to it by any Church Fathers. The Church, including the EOC, knew nothing about it for centuries until it was rediscovered about a century ago.

----------


## TER

John Robinson dates it somewhere between 40-60 AD.
Aaron Milavec and Thomas O'Loughlin date it early. 

Why do say that it must have been produced after the Gospels?

----------


## TER

> How was it regarded by the Church?
> 
> I know of zero references to it by any Church Fathers. The Church, including the EOC, knew nothing about it for centuries until it was rediscovered about a century ago.


Eusebius, Athanasios and Rufinus, all Church Fathers in the fourth century refer to it
Some considered it canonical and others apocryphal.

----------


## erowe1

> If you would like to share what you have learned about it in your studies, please share it. I have not studied the modern scholarship as closely as you have and am willing to learn more about it.


The Didache is made up of multiple sources, which are sometimes easy to see. The most obvious one is this two-ways source that comprises its opening chapters. By comparison with the use of the same source in the closing chapters of the Epistle of Barnabas, as well as a later Latin translation of the Two Ways by itself called Doctrina Apostolorum, we can see that all of the overtly Christian parts of the Didache's presentation of the two ways (as opposed to more generically Jewish/Christian ethics), are additions that were made to this earlier source that was used. This two ways source is probably the oldest part of the Didache. Treated as a separate document, it would be very reasonable to date the two ways source to the first century, and it could have originated before the middle of the century but that can't be proven.

But the date of the Didache means the date of the whole Didache. Some would dispute that the Didache is actually dependent on the Gospel of Matthew. But there are passages, including one where it explicitly says it's quoting "The Gospel," that I think make any other explanation of their parallels highly unlikely. Those who don't want to admit that the Didache quotes Matthew are trying to push an agenda where the canonical Gospels didn't finally take the forms we know them to have until the second century. So when they deal with quotes of them in other early sources they're on the defensive.

The reason some of the things the Didache says look "primitive" to some people is because they want to impose this linear model of the development of the Church on the early centuries, where all the churches around the world were unified, and they all adopted the same developments at the same time. So, they look at things the Didache says about the Eucharist and bishops and conclude that, since the Didache doesn't reflect any knowledge of Ignatius's rules, then the Didache must be much earlier. This doesn't follow. Instead, we have to recognize that what Ignatius says describes the situation of a small set of Christians out of all the millions of Christians spread around the world already by that time, and that what the Didache says describes the situation of some other set of Christians. In time Ignatius's views would become more predominant, but as of the time Ignatius wrote his epistles, that hadn't happened yet, as his own tendentiousness on the matter shows.

----------


## TER

> Originally Posted by TER  
> You have even made a comment once about your belief that miracles ended after the time frame recorded in the NT.





> No, I did not. I do not believe that, have never believed that, and have never said that I did.


I wish to apologize for this statement. I looked up where I thought I read this in the a thread a ways back about cessationism where you asked the question:

"Do those who voted that they have not ceased believe that there are still apostles?"

I should not have inferred from this statement that you do not believe in miracles occuring now and I am sorry for saying it.

----------


## erowe1

> Eusebius, Athanasios and Rufinus, all Church Fathers in the fourth century refer to it
> Some considered it canonical and others apocryphal.


Can you cite the passages where they refer to it?

And who considered it canonical?

----------


## erowe1

> I wish to apologize for this statement. I looked up where I thought I read this in the a thread a ways back about cessationism where you asked the question:
> 
> "Do those who voted that they have not ceased believe that there are still apostles?"
> 
> I should not have inferred from this statement that you do not believe in miracles occuring now and I am sorry for saying it.


The question asked in that thread did not say "miracles." It said "spiritual gifts" and then in the OP that was specified to mean "sign gifts." If certain spiritual gifts (like the gift of apostleship) were only given to those who founded the Church in its first generation, that doesn't mean that miracles performed by God himself have ceased.

----------


## TER

> The Didache is made up of multiple sources, which are sometimes easy to see. The most obvious one is this two-ways source that comprises its opening chapters. By comparison with the use of the same source in the closing chapters of the Epistle of Barnabas, as well as a later Latin translation of the Two Ways by itself called Doctrina Apostolorum, we can see that all of the overtly Christian parts of the Didache's presentation of the two ways (as opposed to more generically Jewish/Christian ethics), are additions that were made to this earlier source that was used. This two ways source is probably the oldest part of the Didache. Treated as a separate document, it would be very reasonable to date the two ways source to the first century, and it could have originated before the middle of the century but that can't be proven.
> 
> But the date of the Didache means the date of the whole Didache. Some would dispute that the Didache is actually dependent on the Gospel of Matthew. But there are passages, including one where it explicitly says it's quoting "The Gospel," that I think make any other explanation of their parallels highly unlikely. Those who don't want to admit that the Didache quotes Matthew are trying to push an agenda where the canonical Gospels didn't finally take the forms we know them to have until the second century. So when they deal with quotes of them in other early sources they're on the defensive.
> 
> The reason some of the things the Didache says look "primitive" to some people is because they want to impose this linear model of the development of the Church on the early centuries, where all the churches around the world were unified, and they all adopted the same developments at the same time. So, they look at things the Didache says about the Eucharist and bishops and conclude that, since the Didache doesn't reflect any knowledge of Ignatius's rules, then the Didache must be much earlier. This doesn't follow. Instead, we have to recognize that what Ignatius says describes the situation of a small set of Christians out of all the millions of Christians spread around the world already by that time, and that what the Didache says describes the situation of some other set of Christians. In time Ignatius's views would become more predominant, but as of the time Ignatius wrote his epistles, that hadn't happened yet, as his own tendentiousness on the matter shows.


I thank you for the reply.  I would object that what St. Ignatius said was the situation of a small sect of Christians out of all the millions of Christiants spread around the world.  How are you sure there were millions?  And how are you sure that he was not reflecting what was the belief spread far and wide?  As Bishop of Antioch, he was after all the leader of one of the biggest communities of Christians around.  

As for the Didache, couldn't the relationship of the gospel of Matthew reflect that this came from within the same community of believers, during a very close period of time?

----------


## TER

> The question asked in that thread did not say "miracles." It said "spiritual gifts" and then in the OP that was specified to mean "sign gifts." If certain spiritual gifts (like the gift of apostleship) were only given to those who founded the Church in its first generation, that doesn't mean that miracles performed by God himself have ceased.


Why is it that you believe that the gift of apostleship ended with the first twelve?

----------


## TER

> Can you cite the passages where they refer to it?
> 
> And who considered it canonical?


Eusebius called it the Teachings of the Twelve, and listed it as being a source some have rejected and some have accepted as canonical (Historian Ecclesiastica).

----------


## erowe1

> John Robinson dates it somewhere between 40-60 AD.
> Aaron Milavec and Thomas O'Loughlin date it early. 
> 
> Why do say that it must have been produced after the Gospels?


I should have thought of Robinson. That comes from his book, Redating the New Testament, which is an excellent book, but considered very idiosyncratic and revisionist in scholarly circles (also a somewhat dated work that seems not to have achieved a following among present day scholars). Also, when people cite him, they will make it look like he was more matter-of-fact than he really was. If you read the section on the Didache in it you'll see that everything he says is prefaced with all kinds of caveats about how unsure he is about any of it. What he's really doing in that book is trying to present how one might argue were one to insist on an earlier than usually accepted date for every book of the NT. He is one who says that the Didache does not actually use Matthew.

My views on this are probably more influenced by the Roman Catholic scholar, John Meier. They can be found in his 4 (soon to be 5) volume work on the historical Jesus, A Marginal Jew. He dates the Didache to around AD 140, and believes it to directly depend on not only Matthew, but also Luke (the latter of which I find possible but very questionable). Niederwimmer, whose commentary is probably more considered the standard than any other, dates it to around the same time. Kraft, whose commentary is also important, only says some time around the middle of the second century. All of these accept that the Didache is dependent on Matthew. I recall that Davies and Allison in their commentary on Matthew, argue for that as well. Vad de Sandt and Flusser vaguely date the Didache to right around the turn of the century, which I would take to mean in the range of 90-110. I believe Van de Sandt and Flusser probably reflect the majority view in accepting the possibility that it is either late first century or early second, but only within a range of dates that allows for the later as much as it does the earlier.

There is a vocal contingent of scholars who focus on the Didache (and I think the fact that it is their academic focus incentivizes them to overemphasize its importance), of whom Milavec is one, who date it more confidently to the late first century and no later. One of them even argues that Matthew is dependent on the Didache, rather than the other way around (Garrow). But these scholars, unlike Robinson, would all date Matthew later. And none of them would argue that the Didache in its final form could be as early as AD 40. Among those who would call themselves Didache specialists (and as you might expect, there aren't too many of those), this contingent might be the majority. But outside of their circle, they have not won over most other scholars of early Christian literature.

----------


## erowe1

> Eusebius called it the Teachings of the Twelve, and listed it as being a source some have rejected and some have accepted as canonical (Historian Ecclesiastica).


All we know is that he refers to some book by that title. We have no way of knowing exactly what book he meant. It may have been the same Didache that we discovered over 1500 years later, in a manuscript that was written 600 years later. It may be the two ways source itself. It may be some related work, of which there are several, such as the Didascalia.

I don't think it's unlikely that he was talking about the Didache. But I have no way of knowing, and there's nothing I could conclude about the date or the degree of reverence that was given to the Didache from what he says.

----------


## erowe1

> Why is it that you believe that the gift of apostleship ended with the first twelve?


The term "apostle" can be used various ways. In one sense, every missionary (and for that matter, every mailman) is an apostle. And the NT also uses it various ways. But one of those ways is as a technical title for a particular office of leadership over the entire Church, and a particular role of founding that Church. This office was reserved for those who were eye witnesses of the resurrected Jesus, with Paul, whose eye witness encounter was unique, being an exceptional example, rather than the rule. Since their day, no one has held that office, nor could anyone. The foundation they laid has already been laid. While some could be apostles in a different sense, that precise gift of apostleship in that technical sense ceased to be given. The charge for the Church from then on has been to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, not to change it or to provide a new foundation for it.

----------


## TER

> I should have thought of Robinson. That comes from his book, Redating the New Testament, which is an excellent book, but considered very idiosyncratic and revisionist in scholarly circles (also a somewhat dated work that seems not to have achieved a following among present day scholars). Also, when people cite him, they will make it look like he was more matter-of-fact than he really was. If you read the section on the Didache in it you'll see that everything he says is prefaced with all kinds of caveats about how unsure he is about any of it. What he's really doing in that book is trying to present how one might argue were one to insist on an earlier than usually accepted date for every book of the NT. He is one who says that the Didache does not actually use Matthew.
> 
> My views on this are probably more influenced by the Roman Catholic scholar, John Meier. They can be found in his 4 (soon to be 5) volume work on the historical Jesus, A Marginal Jew. He dates the Didache to around AD 140, and believes it to directly depend on not only Matthew, but also Luke (the latter of which I find possible but very questionable). Niederwimmer, whose commentary is probably more considered the standard than any other, dates it to around the same time. Kraft, whose commentary is also important, only says some time around the middle of the second century. All of these accept that the Didache is dependent on Matthew. I recall that Davies and Allison in their commentary on Matthew, argue for that as well. Vad de Sandt and Flusser vaguely date the Didache to right around the turn of the century, which I would take to mean in the range of 90-110. I believe Van de Sandt and Flusser probably reflect the majority view in accepting the possibility that it is either late first century or early second, but only within a range of dates that allows for the later as much as it does the earlier.
> 
> There is a vocal contingent of scholars who focus on the Didache (and I think the fact that it is their academic focus incentivizes them to overemphasize its importance), of whom Milavec is one, who date it more confidently to the late first century. One of them even argues that Matthew is dependent on the Didache, rather than the other way around (Garrow). But these scholars, unlike Robinson, would all date Matthew later. And none of them would argue that the Didache in its final form could be as early as AD 40.


Thank you for this information. I have learned a lot.

----------


## TER

> The term "apostle" can be used various ways. In one sense, every missionary (and for that matter, every mailman) is an apostle. And the NT also uses if various ways. But one of those ways is as a technical title for a particular office of leadership over the entire Church, and a particular role of founding that Church. This office was reserved for those who were eye witnesses of the resurrected Jesus, with Paul, whose eye witness encounter was unique, being an exceptional example, rather than the rule. Since their day, no one has held that office, nor could anyone. The foundation they laid has already been laid. While some could be apostles in a different sense, that precise gift of apostleship ceased to be given. The charge for the Church from then on has been to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, not to change it.


I agree that there is certainly a special place for the Twelve, but I would contend that St. Paul is not the exception but one example of how the authority of the apostolic ministry did not end with the Twelve. Even with regards to the 12, only 11 received direct ordination from Christ, Matthias received it by the Apostles after they deliberated on it in council and through the Holy Spirit. (Of course, it is God Who gives the grace for the ordination, the Apostles are the vehicles of this transference of grace). Likewise, those whom they ordained carried this authority by the consent and will of the Apostles in the laying of the hands where we learn the Holy Spirit was given to them. The Holy Spirit is what gives them the authority to be apostles and leaders in the image of the Apostles.

----------


## erowe1

> I agree that there is certainly a special place for the Twelve, but I would contend that St. Paul is not the exception but one example of how the authority of the apostolic ministry did not end with the Twelve. Even with regards to the 12, only 11 received direct ordination from Christ, Matthias received it by the Apostles after they deliberated on it in council and through the Holy Spirit. (Of course, it is God Who gives the grace for the ordination, the Apostles are the vehicles of this transference of grace). Likewise, those whom they ordained carried this authority by the consent and will of the Apostles in the laying of the hands where we learn the Holy Spirit was given to them. The Holy Spirit is what gives them the authority to be apostles and leaders in the image of the Apostles.


But when they chose Matthias, they acknowledged the rule that an apostle could only come from the pool of eye witnesses of the risen Lord. They also acknowledged that the college of the apostles was limited in number to 12. They nominated two candidates, but only one could actually be an apostle. Having both was not an option. This also highlights why Paul's apostleship, as a 13th, was so exceptional.

Paul acknowledges himself as an exceptional case and not a new norm. The norm is what all the other apostles were.

Also, for me there's an important theological concept related to this, which is that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and not the New Testament, which came after Him, is God's final revelation. What God accomplished through the apostles was not to add something more to that, but to propagate that final revelation of God in the life, death, and resurrection of His Son, and to found the Church as the outworking of that revelation. Even their ministry was essentially a conservative, traditional one, passing on what they had received from Jesus. Innovating was not their commission. The developments and changes that occurred under their leadership, such as we read in Acts 15 and elsewhere, were born out of what God had already revealed through Jesus, sometimes as their recognition of natural consequences of that revelation which they had not previously understood, but that once they understood it, it was clear that it comported with the way of the Lord. The Church's understanding of theology will continue to develop in a way like this even today, as we reflect on what God revealed to us in His Son, and apply the truths revealed to new circumstances and questions previously not asked or adequately considered. But for us today to be able to do this, we are not in the position the apostles were in, having experienced firsthand the incarnation, life, teachings, miracles, deeds of compassion, death, and resurrection, of Jesus. For us, when we want to appeal to that standard of God's final revelation through His Son, we must go to the writings left by that first generation, and what they tell us that revelation was. We cannot trust a person who comes to us today and claims to be an untimely born apostle like Paul, with some new knowledge about what God revealed 2000 years ago in His Son, which was only now revealed to him.

----------


## erowe1

..

----------


## JohnWeeks613

> Not even remotely true.  But nice attempt at trolling.


heavenlyboy34, Aparently you only want to except as true a tradition derived at by people that identify themselves as Christian, but when a Christian is doing those practices of biforcation and amalgamation it is a holy enterprise and truth reaveald by "God". My comment was compiled information I came across and read a number of times, and from what I remember of most, if not all, the post sources were Christian attributed citations what most of all Christianity accepts, and are the rullings that came out of the Counsel of Nicea. One of the points that may have been elusive to my post is that from what I understand and what is custom is that when a group of Christions come together and decide on any matter the outcome is considered the will of "god". No "attempted troling" was intended and nothing derogotory was said. I simply presented facts about the ruling of Constitine at Nicea in response to the posting of the centuries old battles of which group is the origional or true Christian discused in several posts thus far. The Adolf Hitler quote was to emphasize what porpaganda, PSYOP, does-it creats a version of truth and to each group it is truth not necessarily reality. There is about six thousand denominations of Christianity and each may believe they are the "true" or "origional" Christian Church and invariably they do not all agree on what truth is. Not off topic in my opinion at all. You chose to attack the facts I presented and made an opinion the matter as you have with other posts in relation thereto, as I have not made an opinion on the matter that I recall. I am a man that is trying to seek truth, and from time to time I'll investigate and compare statements people make when they say, more or less, "the bible says so", and have been doing that for about a little over seven years. Yours truly, comrad in phenomonology ,John M. Weeks Jr.

----------


## TER

> But when they chose Matthias, they acknowledged the rule that an apostle could only come from the pool of eye witnesses of the risen Lord. They also acknowledged that the college of the apostles was limited in number to 12. They nominated two candidates, but only one could actually be an apostle. Having both was not an option. This also highlights why Paul's apostleship, as a 13th, was so exceptional.


I agree with all your points except the last one.  St. Paul was not part of the Twelve but he is loved and remembered as the Apostle to the Gentiles and an apostle of the Church.  He was not one of the Twelve, but is an apostle nonetheless, one of many though in many ways, greatest of them all. He is not an exemption, he is an exemplary human being, a Saint, and _living proof_ that the the apostolic authority did not end with the Twelve and that Christ is still active in this world and revealing Himself.  That He can still pick and choose His beloved and obedient Apostles, which are those who run to the saints for answers to the questions and trust in the grace of the Holy Spirit within the life of the Church.

With regards to the choosing of Matthias, when the early Church confronted the issue about filling the vacancy left by Judas' betrayal, notice how the Church sorted it out, how they allowed the Holy Spirit to bring them to the truths.  In a synod with discussion and prayer.  And complete faith in the mystery and power of God.

By consensus they formed a solution and then allowed God to answer it, by casting lots!

This is the work of the Church in the world, to do the best in resolving things, to finding balance and peace, and to handle all issues and difficulties in a spirit of righteousness and with complete faith in God.

The dogmas come from Christ and Christ has handed these dogmas to the Twelve.  They then by prayer, faith, and partaking of the Holy Eucharist, organized themselves and then dealing with whatever issues they where confronted with in order to ensure that the dogmas and teachings of Christ here handed down faithfully.  

For this reason they literally hand-selected elders (the protobishops), presbyters, and deacons, and prayed that the Holy Spirit would come down upon them and guide them to all truths.  For the ultimate goals for the leaders of that time and just as it has been since is to keep undefiled the worship of the Lord's Supper, to faithfully and in service pass down the dogmas of the faith, and to ensure orthodox and faithful leaders were there as replacements and who have been anointed by the Holy Spirit to guard the apostolic truths.

This is how these dogma of the Christian faith were protected and passed down through time.  It requires a dynamic Church full of many members, some hands, some feet, some eyes and some ears, all different in service and authority, but members and sharers of the same Christ nonetheless. 

While the dogmas are static, the administration of the duties of the anointed leaders and the ecclesiology of the Church are part of this dynamic work of the Church, part of its contending in the world as one body unified around Jesus Christ.  Does it always work out?  Of course, not.  Look at Judas!  But the a Church struggles nevertheless and by the grace of God holy men and women rise up like pillars to the faith and do the will of God.

As we see it being developed in the short time frame of the book of Acts, so did it grow to become called the One, Holy, Apostolic Church. The same worshipers in communion.  Still the small minority of the world at the time of the Council of Nicea when the phrase was coined to describe this reality, but through the centuries and unspeakable persecutions, the greatest assembly of men and women the world has ever known.  

The Church contended, and circumstances changed and developments occurred under the primal cause to hand down faithfully the dogmas of the faith.  But while the Church and its members change, and the days and the seasons with it, the ministry has always been the same which is the transference of the truths of the faith through the Holy Spirit in obedience and faith and in unity of mind, faith, and spirit.  Sealed by the gifts of the Holy Spirit in common liturgical worship of God and partaking of His heavenly Gifts.  The very image and concelebration of the worship in Heaven, as hinted at in the Book of Revelation.. 




> Paul acknowledges himself as an exceptional case and not a new norm. The norm is what all the other apostles were.


The norm for the Twelve is the Twelve.  St. Paul is the norm for those apostles _who were not of the Twelve_. _ He is biblical proof that one does not have to be one of the Twelve in order to be an apostle and teach with authority through the power of the Holy Spirit._

----------


## TER

> Also, for me there's an important theological concept related to this, which is that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and not the New Testament, which came after Him, is God's final revelation. What God accomplished through the apostles was not to add something more to that, but to propagate that final revelation of God in the life, death, and resurrection of His Son, and to found the Church as the outworking of that revelation. Even their ministry was essentially a conservative, traditional one, passing on what they had received from Jesus. Innovating was not their commission. The developments and changes that occurred under their leadership, such as we read in Acts 15 and elsewhere, were born out of what God had already revealed through Jesus, sometimes as their recognition of natural consequences of that revelation which they had not previously understood, but that once they understood it, it was clear that it comported with the way of the Lord. The Church's understanding of theology will continue to develop in a way like this even today, as we reflect on what God revealed to us in His Son, and apply the truths revealed to new circumstances and questions previously not asked or adequately considered. But for us today to be able to do this, we are not in the position the apostles were in, having experienced firsthand the incarnation, life, teachings, miracles, deeds of compassion, death, and resurrection, of Jesus. For us, when we want to appeal to that standard of God's final revelation through His Son, we must go to the writings left by that first generation, and what they tell us that revelation was. We cannot trust a person who comes to us today and claims to be an untimely born apostle like Paul, with some new knowledge about what God revealed 2000 years ago in His Son, which was only now revealed to him.


There is much I would like to discuss with you with the rest of your post above. But I am dead tired and must go to bed!  Talk to you soon.

----------


## erowe1

> The norm for the Twelve is the Twelve.  St. Paul is the norm for those apostles _who were not of the Twelve_. _ He is biblical proof that one does not have to be one of the Twelve in order to be an apostle and teach with authority through the power of the Holy Spirit._


Yes, and I said the same.

But he is not biblical proof that someone today can still be an apostle of the sort that both he and the 12 were.

1 Corinthians 15:8



> 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.


Ephesians 2:19-22



> 19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.


Notice also that, especially in the pastoral epistles, the apostles have a lot to say about the passing of the baton from their generation to the next, and they do not include future apostles in that.

What future generations of believers must do is:



> be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior


2 Peter 3:2

and,



> contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints


Jude 3

The apostles do, however, warn of ministers of Satan falsely adopting the title of apostle (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

Finally, one of the ministries (not the only one) that some of the apostles (not all of them) had was to write divinely inspired Scripture. Has anybody done that since their day? If not, then at least one miraculous ministry has ceased.

----------


## TER

> *Also, for me there's an important theological concept related to this, which is that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and not the New Testament, which came after Him, is God's final revelation.*  Also, for me there's an important theological concept related to this, which is that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and not the New Testament, which came after Him, is God's final revelation. What God accomplished through the apostles was not to add something more to that, but to propagate that final revelation of God in the life, death, and resurrection of His Son, and to found the Church as the outworking of that revelation. Even their ministry was essentially a conservative, traditional one, passing on what they had received from Jesus. Innovating was not their commission. The developments and changes that occurred under their leadership, such as we read in Acts 15 and elsewhere, were born out of what God had already revealed through Jesus, sometimes as their recognition of natural consequences of that revelation which they had not previously understood, but that once they understood it, it was clear that it comported with the way of the Lord. The Church's understanding of theology will continue to develop in a way like this even today, as we reflect on what God revealed to us in His Son, and apply the truths revealed to new circumstances and questions previously not asked or adequately considered. But for us today to be able to do this, we are not in the position the apostles were in, having experienced firsthand the incarnation, life, teachings, miracles, deeds of compassion, death, and resurrection, of Jesus. For us, when we want to appeal to that standard of God's final revelation through His Son, we must go to the writings left by that first generation, and what they tell us that revelation was. We cannot trust a person who comes to us today and claims to be an untimely born apostle like Paul, with some new knowledge about what God revealed 2000 years ago in His Son, which was only now revealed to him.


I highlighted your first sentence because in it you make an error my friend.  And this error is what renders the rest of what you have said in the post into error, and you not grasping that which you have yet failed to understand about the faith in Christ.

  There is still much we have not seen and not learned yet about God. _ God continues to reveal Himself_, not only to the world but to every human soul.  Christ is the Lord and Savior in truth, and the_ greatest_ revelation of God in the history of mankind.  _The story, however, has not yet ended._  Christ has been preparing His Kingdom and assigning His saints.  Indeed, the story of the Church_ just begins_ even though the Book of Acts abruptly ends.  (It's abruptness, by the way, should be a big hint).  

The truth is that even as the Holy Canon of Scripture are sufficient in defining the _dogmas_ of the faith, they were never considered to be the only or last works of God in creation or only source of authority in teachings and instructions. For it was advantageous that Christ would go as He said so that we might receive the Holy Spirit.  For it is in the Holy Spirit as members of His Church which we will know and enter the Kingdom of God.  The Church relies not on the mere works of men, but Him Who give the gifts of His grace and deifies a man by the Holy Spirit.  God being _in_ the man, _abiding in him_, to the fullness and stature of Jesus Christ Who has made this possible in ways which men could barely begin to count.

And similar to Jesus Christ, the works of the Holy Spirit is not limited or definable in any book written by men, for God is not a collection of books_ but the Uncreated God beyond the mind of men_ and the eternal and uncreated Source of all being.

However some seem to do this.  To idolize the Scriptures and hold it above God _by putting limits upon Him and His great wisdom_.  The Apostles sure as heck could not be accused of such a thing.  For none of the writers or people in the New Testaments say "you must only read these four Gospels, and these selected letters."  Nor does it say 'at the end of the Scriptures, the ministry of apostolicity has ceased and there is nothing more to reveal'.  Nowhere does the Holy Bible prophecize or even imply some kind of book written by the hands of men which would contain the sum total of God's revelations and workings in the world through His Holy Spirit.  There is only _one_ Book of Life, and no one knows it but God and to those to whom He wishes to reveal it to. 

As an aside, I would like to say that as a historical investigator, one can have much knowledge of things.  But to limit oneself to one collection of witnesses of God's revelations and place limits on the Holy Spirit and ignore the vast remaining wondrous and grace filled workings of the Holy Spirit within the life of the Church (which is the guardian and foundation for the truths because of the same Holy Spirit quickening it and guiding it), is to miss out on much of the beauty, wonder, and joy of what it means to live a life in Christ, in real holy communion with Him and His saints within the Church.

The wonders within the canonical Bible are the (incomplete) records of the wonders of the Holy Spirit in the history and life of the Church, a collection of writings until only the middle to end of the first century.  It begins the story of which the Church bears witness to and gives meaning to, and continues to through blood and flesh and in the Holy Spirit.

By the grace of God in the Holy Spirit, this Church survives.

I would implore you erowe to read St. Basil's "On the Holy Spirit" in order to understand God's active and continuing works and revelations of Himself within the world and the people in the word.  Christ has not gone to sleep, and the Holy Spirit did not have a timer.  

St. Ignatius spoke the Apostolic faith not merely because he was the apostle in which they sent out, but because he had Christ abiding in Him, and he became a temple of the Holy Spirit.  His authority did not just fulfill the ministry of man, in the actual touching and laying of hands, but fulfilled as apostolic_ by the very life-giving Spirit of God and in the mysteries of grace._ 

And the Spirit was graced upon him according to the love he had for God and for those he was anointed to care for.  He was given much by God because he loved much, and that is the greatest legacy of St. Ignatius and not his ecclesiological exhortations.   His letters demonstrate so much love, that one can see the image of Christ imprinted within them.  This holy man was indeed holy and full of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and his faithful flock loved him and collected his martyred bones and buried them, and remember him to this day in the eternal Kingdom of God. 

Jesus said:


If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and_ we will come unto him, and make our abode with him._

St. Ignatius' apostolic authority is not only through apostolic succession in a human, material, created, and historical way, but in the _mystical_ way, the spiritual way, in holy communion through Christ, partaking of His divine nature, and abiding in Him in the Holy Spirit. 

When we doubt St. Ignatius, let us be careful we do not doubt the Holy Spirit working in him.  

 Christ is the greatest revelation, _but not the final one._  For there is much we have yet seen, and the story of mankind has not ended by a long shot.  When we limit ourselves to a collection of books as the final and end of God's truths and revelations, we have done what no Apostle or Evangelist of Church Father ever said nor implied.  Yes, the Scriptures are sufficient in establishing dogma about who Christ is, but not as the complete revelation of all God's truths and to be held above the authority of the living Church, the Bride of Christ, the one to whom Christ has prepared the Kingdom of Heaven for.  This is the simple truth which keeps getting ignored or cannot seem to be understood.  We cannot create a dogmatic assertion that the Scriptures shall be the ultimate and final authority and source of all truth, when it is not even dogmatically stated in it's very pages.  To do so would be absurd and illogical.  It should and would have been on every other page if that was the true apostolic understanding.  But it wasn't then, just as it has never been, _for in that same book_ it clearly explains where the pillar and foundation for truths are, and that is not in a 4th century collection of early Church writings, as holy as they are.  Instead, it is the living, breathing, and contending _Church_, made of its members who are His faithful and obedient workers.  The holy inspired letters and sermons and other patristic writings provides the voice of the Holy Spirit in the world, as revealed through the very lives, words, and actions and these saints.  Until you can understand that the Church, _which are the saints_, is the pillar and foundation of the faith and not the Holy Bible which is one part of the Holy Tradition of the Church, then you will greater understand the power and authority of those who are called saints, and their place and purpose within it in God's continuing revelation to mankind.

----------


## erowe1

> St. Ignatius' apostolic authority is not only through apostolic succession in a human, material, created, and historical way, but in the _mystical_ way, the spiritual way, in holy communion through Christ, partaking of His divine nature, and abiding in Him in the Holy Spirit. 
> 
> When we doubt St. Ignatius, let us be careful we do not doubt the Holy Spirit working in him.


But St. Ignatius was not an apostle.

----------


## erowe1

> The holy inspired letters and sermons and other patristic writings provides the voice of the Holy Spirit in the world, as revealed through the very lives, words, and actions and these saints


What patristic writings are inspired? Does the EOC agree with your claim that such things exist? Do they have a list of these extrabiblical inspired writings anywhere?

----------


## erowe1

Of course I believe that the Holy Spirit is not limited to the Bible. And of course I believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the faith, and that the Bible is one part of the tradition of the Church. Have I ever said anything to suggest otherwise?

But when some human being (not the Holy Spirit, a human being) claims that they have something that is a tradition of the Church passed down to them from the apostles, they are making a historical claim, and believer in Jesus have the ability, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who is in them, and not just in some special people called saints, to evaluate that historical claim. And as God is a rational God, we are to do this rationally, using the evidence God has given us, both among the patristic writings and the Bible, but most importantly by far the writings of the apostles themselves and their cohorts, to see if that claim is true. Does such and such a tradition really go back to the apostles? Some human being in the 21st century claiming that it does doesn't make it so.

Again, we cannot trust a person who comes to us today and claims to be an untimely born apostle like Paul, with some new knowledge about what God revealed 2000 years ago in His Son, which was only now revealed to him.

----------


## TER

> But St. Ignatius was not an apostle.


His apostolic ministry was as Bishop of Antioch in the first century, in the line of St. Peter, and by the power of the Holy Spirit of God. He was not one of the Twelve, just as St. Paul wasn't, but he continued the apostolic ministry of spreading the gospel as an appointed episkopos (overseer) through God's grace. 




> What patristic writings are inspired? Does the EOC agree with your claim that such things exist? Do they have a list of these extrabiblical inspired writings anywhere?


The Biblical Canon is certainly not the only writings considered inspired by the Church.  St. Ignatius' letter would be one of them.  I think you confuse inspired with canonical.  A book must be considered inspired by the Holy Spirit to be canonical, but because it is not part of the small canon of 27 books does not mean they are not considered illuminated and inspired by God.




> Of course I believe that the Holy Spirit is not limited to the Bible. And of course I believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the faith, and that the Bible is one part of the tradition of the Church. Have I ever said anything to suggest otherwise?
> 
> But when some human being (not the Holy Spirit, a human being) claims that they have something that is a tradition of the Church passed down to them from the apostles, they are making a historical claim, and believer in Jesus have the ability, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who is in them, and not just in some special people called saints, to evaluate that historical claim. And as God is a rational God, we are to do this rationally, using the evidence God has given us, both among the patristic writings and the Bible, but most importantly by far the writings of the apostles themselves and their cohorts, to see if that claim is true. Does such and such a tradition really go back to the apostles? Some human being in the 21st century claiming that it does doesn't make it so.
> 
> Again, we cannot trust a person who comes to us today and claims to be an untimely born apostle like Paul, with some new knowledge about what God revealed 2000 years ago in His Son, which was only now revealed to him.


I am not claiming to take what a person who comes to us today and claims to be an untimely born apostle like Paul with some new knowledge about what God has revealed 2000 years ago in His Son. I am referring to St Ignatius, the first century Bishop of Antioch, _who knew the Apostles, lived with them and learned from, shared in the Holy Eucharist with them, and was appointed by them to continue their ministry of defending the truths of Christ._  

What I find irrational and illogical is how someone who is 2000 years from Christ can think they know more about the tradition of the Church and the apostolic teachings than St. Ignatius because they have a few selected writings from decades earlier which reveal a mere snippet of the life and ministry of the Apostles and the Church.  St. Ignatius was not changing any dogmas regarding Who Christ is.  He was fulfilling his ministry appointed to him to protect the flock.  How can you possibly be so sure to judge St. Ignatius with such limited information that you have?  Have you so little trust in the Holy Spirit?  You say that you believe the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but by your own words and admissions reveal this is not the case.  What you have made the foundation and pillar of truth (indeed, the only source of truth) is the canonized books of the Bible, your mind, and your mind's 'rationalization' while ignoring the Holy Spirit working within the life of the Church.  

You say that as rational beings made in the image of God we should look at the evidence.  The problem is you are ignoring the works of the Holy Spirit within the saints and the life of the early church, which are indeed evidence.  By confining yourself to the canonized books as the only source of apostolic truths, you ignore the other evidence which more fully completes the picture of God's Church.  The establishment of the Church, it's guidance under the Holy Spirit, and it's growth as defenders of the truth and guardians of the faith _begins_ in the New Testament but has never let up, and while the dogmas of the gospel remain the same, the structure and approach by the Church in order to preach this gospel has developed in order to face and contend in an ever changing and hostile world.  Part of this development is written about in the NT.  In time, as the Church grew and faced new challenges and difficulties, it's leaders who were appointed by their predecessors _and who were graced by the illuminating and inspiring Holy Spirit of God (the Giver of Truth) in the Holy Mystery of Ordination_ continued the apostolic ministry of protecting the faith and feeding the flock.

----------


## Kevin007

> But St. Ignatius was not an apostle.


yep, there were 12 Apostles... no more.

----------


## Kevin007

*Marian Cult*

  Having gone through this study what do you think of this Marian Litany[13],Holy Mary, pray for us.  Holy Mother of God, pray for us.  Holy Virgin of virgins, pray for us.  Mother of Christ, pray for us.  Mother of divine grace, pray for us.  Mother most pure, pray for us.  Mother most chaste, pray for us.  Mother inviolate, pray for us.  Mother undefiled, pray for us.  Mother most amiable, pray for us.  Mother most admirable, pray for us.  Mother of good counsel, pray for us.  Mother of our Creator, pray for us.  Mother of our Saviour, pray for us.  Virgin most prudent, pray for us.  Virgin most venerable, pray for us.  Virgin most renowned, pray for us.  Virgin most powerful, pray for us.  Virgin most merciful, pray for us.  Virgin most faithful, pray for us.  Mirror of justice, pray for us.  Seat of wisdom, pray for us.  Cause of our joy, pray for us.  Spiritual vessel, pray for us.  Vessel of honor, pray for us.  Singular vessel of devotion, pray for us.  Mystical rose, pray for us.  Tower of David, pray for us.  Tower of ivory, pray for us.  House of gold, pray for us.  Ark of the covenant, pray for us.  Gate of heaven, pray for us  Morning star, pray for us.  Health of the sick, pray for us.  Refuge of sinners, pray for us.  Comforter of the afflicted, pray for us.  Help of Christians, pray for us.  Queen of angels, pray for us.  Queen of patriarchs, pray for us.  Queen of prophets, pray for us.  Queen of apostles, pray for us.  Queen of martyrs, pray for us.  Queen of confessors, pray for us.  Queen of virgins, pray for us.  Queen of all saints, pray for us.  Queen conceived without original sin, pray for us.  Queen assumed into heaven, pray for us.  Queen of the most holy rosary, pray for us.  Queen of peace, pray for us.

*When Jesus taught the disciples how to pray* he said,

“When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom  come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.” (Luke 11:2)As you can see, Jesus did not teach the disciples to pray to a Mother of divine grace, or to a  Mother of our Creator, or to a Virgin most powerful, or to a Virgin most merciful. When the  Apostle Paul taught the Timothy that,

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1  Tim 2:5)
He did not advice Timothy or us to ask any Mother of divine grace, or any Mother of the  Creator, or any Virgin most powerful or any Virgin most merciful to pray or mediate for us.  We have a hotline in Jesus Christ. Look, if Mary is the Queen of Peace, why is Jesus only  Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6)?   

The other titles ascribed by Romanists are as follows: Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and  Mediatrix;

Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession  continues to bring us the gifts of (3) eternal salvation. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked  in the Church under the titles of (1) Advocate, (2) Helper, (3) Benefactress, and (4) Mediatrix.  (Cathechism of The Roman Catholic Church: The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic  Church,  Page 252: (969)) [14]
*But according to the Scriptures who is the Helper?* Who is the Advocate of the Church? John  14:26,“*But the Comforter* (Gk. _parakletos_, i.e., Advocate[15], Helper[16])  *which is the Holy  Ghost*, whom the Father will send in my name, *he shall teach you all things*, and bring all  things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
_The Helper, the Advocate or the Paraclete is not Mary, BUT the Holy Spirit! _ 

Now let’s answer the question, is it proper and is it theologically valid to call Mary, as the  Mother of God? The answer is no, because:

Jesus is unique… they don’t match because there is no one like Jesus, having 2 distinct  natures, being both God and man. We can’t talk about my body and my soul? I am one, one  nature…they are 2 integral part of me, but in Jesus the two natures are distinct. He is God  and man and Mary is mother of Jesus only as man to call her “Mother of God” is to go  against this.—Anthony Pezzotta, ex-RCC priest.


*Conclusions:*


The Roman Catholic dogmas regarding Mary--_The Immaculate Conception_    and _The Assumption_ are unbiblical on two counts: (a) the concepts are    not in the Scriptures (b) the concepts are against what is taught by the    Scriptures and must be rejected by those who regard themselves as genuine    Christians.The two dogmas are late additions to the Christian Traditions set forth    and admonished to be defended by the Apostles of Christ during the first    century.The Roman Catholic titles conferred on Mary are far to excessive for one    who believe that Christ Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. One of    such titles is "_Mary Mother of God_" derivative of the Greek term _   theotokos._ It is not only logically invalid, but it is also theologically    invalid and as such, must be rejected by those who regard themselves as Bible    believing and Christ-centered believers.Repetitive praying of whatever form to Mary is also unacceptable and must    be rejected. 



http://www.thebereans.net/rcc-mariology.shtml

----------


## erowe1

> His apostolic ministry was as Bishop of Antioch in the first century, in the line of St. Peter, and by the power of the Holy Spirit of God. He was not one of the Twelve, just as St. Paul wasn't, but he continued the apostolic ministry of spreading the gospel as an appointed episkopos (overseer) through God's grace.


I know of no evidence for any of that. But even if all of it were true, it would not make him an apostle. He was a bishop. But bishops and apostles are two totally different things. The apostles considered them two totally different things, and so did Ignatius.




> The Biblical Canon is certainly not the only writings considered inspired by the Church.  St. Ignatius' letter would be one of them.


Do you have a source that represents the EOC in any kind of authoritative way saying that this really is the EOC's position?

And, if so, does the EOC have a list of all inspired writings anywhere?




> I am not claiming to take what a person who comes to us today and claims to be an untimely born apostle like Paul with some new knowledge about what God has revealed 2000 years ago in His Son.


Then you're not claiming that the gift of apostleship that was given to Paul and the Twelve can be had by anyone today.




> I am referring to St Ignatius, the first century Bishop of Antioch, _who knew the Apostles, lived with them and learned from, shared in the Holy Eucharist with them, and was appointed by them to continue their ministry of defending the truths of Christ._


Ignatius never claimed to have done any of those things. Why do you believe he did?




> What I find irrational and illogical is how someone who is 2000 years from Christ can think they know more about the tradition of the Church and the apostolic teachings than St. Ignatius


What person 2000 years from Jesus made that claim?

On any point where I've said that Ignatius's position differed from the apostles, did Ignatius himself even claim that his position was that of the apostles?




> You say that as rational beings made in the image of God we should look at the evidence.  The problem is you are ignoring the works of the Holy Spirit within the saints and the life of the early church, which are indeed evidence.


I am? You base this on what? I'm not ignoring Ignatius, as you can see. What evidence am I ignoring, please show me and I'll stop ignoring it.

But part of considering this evidence will mean that when a human being, such as yourself, claims that something is a work of the Holy Spirit, I will subject that claim to tests, using the evidence. I will not just believe it because some human being says it's so.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Marian Cult*
> 
>   Having gone through this study what do you think of this Marian Litany[13],Holy Mary, pray for us.  Holy Mother of God, pray for us.  Holy Virgin of virgins, pray for us.  Mother of Christ, pray for us.  Mother of divine grace, pray for us.  Mother most pure, pray for us.  Mother most chaste, pray for us.  Mother inviolate, pray for us.  Mother undefiled, pray for us.  Mother most amiable, pray for us.  Mother most admirable, pray for us.  Mother of good counsel, pray for us.  Mother of our Creator, pray for us.  Mother of our Saviour, pray for us.  Virgin most prudent, pray for us.  Virgin most venerable, pray for us.  Virgin most renowned, pray for us.  Virgin most powerful, pray for us.  Virgin most merciful, pray for us.  Virgin most faithful, pray for us.  Mirror of justice, pray for us.  Seat of wisdom, pray for us.  Cause of our joy, pray for us.  Spiritual vessel, pray for us.  Vessel of honor, pray for us.  Singular vessel of devotion, pray for us.  Mystical rose, pray for us.  Tower of David, pray for us.  Tower of ivory, pray for us.  House of gold, pray for us.  Ark of the covenant, pray for us.  Gate of heaven, pray for us  Morning star, pray for us.  Health of the sick, pray for us.  Refuge of sinners, pray for us.  Comforter of the afflicted, pray for us.  Help of Christians, pray for us.  Queen of angels, pray for us.  Queen of patriarchs, pray for us.  Queen of prophets, pray for us.  Queen of apostles, pray for us.  Queen of martyrs, pray for us.  Queen of confessors, pray for us.  Queen of virgins, pray for us.  Queen of all saints, pray for us.  Queen conceived without original sin, pray for us.  Queen assumed into heaven, pray for us.  Queen of the most holy rosary, pray for us.  Queen of peace, pray for us.
> 
> *When Jesus taught the disciples how to pray* he said,When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom  come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. (Luke 11:2)As you can see, Jesus did not teach the disciples to pray to a Mother of divine grace, or to a  Mother of our Creator, or to a Virgin most powerful, or to a Virgin most merciful. When the  Apostle Paul taught the Timothy that,For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (1  Tim 2:5)
> He did not advice Timothy or us to ask any Mother of divine grace, or any Mother of the  Creator, or any Virgin most powerful or any Virgin most merciful to pray or mediate for us.  We have a hotline in Jesus Christ. Look, if Mary is the Queen of Peace, why is Jesus only  Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6)?   
> 
> The other titles ascribed by Romanists are as follows: Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and  Mediatrix;Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession  continues to bring us the gifts of (3) eternal salvation. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked  in the Church under the titles of (1) Advocate, (2) Helper, (3) Benefactress, and (4) Mediatrix.  (Cathechism of The Roman Catholic Church: The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic  Church,  Page 252: (969)) [14]
> *But according to the Scriptures who is the Helper?* Who is the Advocate of the Church? John  14:26,*But the Comforter* (Gk. _parakletos_, i.e., Advocate[15], Helper[16])  *which is the Holy  Ghost*, whom the Father will send in my name, *he shall teach you all things*, and bring all  things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
> ...


I am not RC nor am I a RC apologist.  But I can tell you that the author doesn't know what he's talking about or is a terrible liar.  The RC's venerate Mary, they do not worship her.  I don't know of _any_ Church or ecclesiastical body that has "Mary-worship" as part of its official doctrine, dogma, etc.  They probably exist as fringe denominations or cults, but they're exceptions, not rules.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> yep, there were 12 Apostles... no more.


13, technically.  The last one hanged himself.

----------


## erowe1

> I am not RC not am I a RC apologist.  But I can tell you that the author doesn't know what he's talking about or is a terrible liar.  The RC's venerate Mary, they do not worship her.  I don't know of _any_ Church or ecclesiastical body that has "Mary-worship" as part of its official doctrine, dogma, etc.  They probably exist as fringe denominations or cults, but they're exceptions, not rules.


The word "worship" does not appear anywhere in the text that you just quoted.

----------


## Kevin007

> I am not RC not am I a RC apologist.  But I can tell you that the author doesn't know what he's talking about or is a terrible liar.  *The RC's venerate Mary, they do not worship her*.  I don't know of _any_ Church or ecclesiastical body that has "Mary-worship" as part of its official doctrine, dogma, etc.  They probably exist as fringe denominations or cults, but they're exceptions, not rules.


 MILLIONS of RC's beg to differ.

----------


## Kevin007

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...cism/proof.htm

----------


## Kevin007

http://www.gtycanada.org/Blog/B13022...h-mary-worship

----------


## heavenlyboy34

The sites you posted don't prove your claim-nor do they quote official RCC dogma, documents, etc (such as the Catechism).  You made some very serious claims, kev.  _Prove_ them or have the decency to withdraw them.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> MILLIONS of RC's beg to differ.


You forgot to bold the rest of that quote. 


> They probably exist as fringe denominations or cults, but they're exceptions, not rules.


  I already beat you to it.  I can cite examples of MILLIONS of other Christians of varying types practicing heresies if I were so inclined.  I just don't see the point in such purposely provocative stuff as you do.

----------


## Kevin007

http://www.gtycanada.org/resources/s...of-Catholicism

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> http://www.gtycanada.org/resources/s...of-Catholicism


  You again link to opinion pieces instead of what the RCC actually says.  Low class of you, kev.  If what you say is true, you SHOULD be able to quote easily official documents of the RCC.  To be very blunt(no offense intended), put up or shut up.

----------


## Kevin007

http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/....asp#mediatrix

----------


## Kevin007

http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/...asp#assumption

----------


## Kevin007

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p123a9p6.htm

----------


## TER

> I know of no evidence for any of that. But even if all of it were true, it would not make him an apostle. He was a bishop. But bishops and apostles are two totally different things. The apostles considered them two totally different things, and so did Ignatius.


Bishops sit on the thrones of the Apostles having been ordained through their ministry to power and authority given to them as overseers and leaders of the flock. Bishops are the image of the Apostles in this world and continue their ministry to guard the truths, protect the faithful and feed the flock.  How?  By the Holy Spirit.





> Do you have a source that represents the EOC in any kind of authoritative way saying that this really is the EOC's position?
> 
> And, if so, does the EOC have a list of all inspired writings anywhere?


No they don't have such a list because there are many considered so and many not even known. 




> Then you're not claiming that the gift of apostleship that was given to Paul and the Twelve can be had by anyone today.


I am not the only one claiming that.  That is the teaching of the Church.  The Bishops have continued the apostolic ministry initiated by the original twelve.




> Ignatius never claimed to have done any of those things. Why do you believe he did?


Later Church Fathers revealed it, the Church has proclaimed it, and I humbly accept theirs word as true knowing that the Church guided by the Holy Spirit is the pillar and foundation for the truths and not my three pound brain.




> What person 2000 years from Jesus made that claim?
> 
> On any point where I've said that Ignatius's position differed from the apostles, did Ignatius himself even claim that his position was that of the apostles?


St. Ignatius did not have to say it for it to be true.  It was already a given being that he was appointed by the Apostles (namely St. Peter) to take over the episcopal duties after St. Evdovius passed in 69AD.  He was ordained by man and God to be the episcopal authority and top spiritual leader for the Christians in Antioch.




> I am? You base this on what? I'm not ignoring Ignatius, as you can see. What evidence am I ignoring, please show me and I'll stop ignoring it.
> 
> But part of considering this evidence will mean that when a human being, such as yourself, claims that something is a work of the Holy Spirit, I will subject that claim to tests, using the evidence. I will not just believe it because some human being says it's so.


It is not just a human being saying so, it it the communion of baptized Christians inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit which make up the Church which tell you so.  You however would rather make yourself using the limited resources you have to be of greater authority than them.  I find it amusing that you chose the witness of the Holy Scriptures to be the only source for reliable information when it was the Church you keep doubting which collected them and canonized them in the fourth century.  Why is it that you accept their canonized books to be authoritative and not the other teachings they had at the same time they chose those books?

----------


## pcosmar

> I am not RC nor am I a RC apologist.  But I can tell you that the author doesn't know what he's talking about or is a terrible liar.  The RC's venerate Mary, they do not worship her.


And I was raised in the RCC and perhaps the "official" line is that they don't.. but in practice they absolutely do.

*And this is an error*. but try to point out the error and they will fight and defend their error.

They pray TO Mary.. they kneel down and worship before her image.
They place offerings before the images. They burn incense to the Queen of Heaven.




> But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded from our mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and our princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune. "But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have met our end by the sword and by famine." "And," said the women, "when we were burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and were pouring out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands that we made for her sacrificial cakes in her image and poured out drink offerings to her?"


They are as hard headed and hard hearted as the people of Judah when they were told not to.

----------


## RJB

> And I was raised in the RCC and perhaps the "official" line is that they don't.. but in practice they absolutely do.
> 
> *And this is an error*. but try to point out the error and they will fight and defend their error.


No, they won't defend an error.  They will tell you that you are wrong because they don't worship Mary.  *If you improperly worshipped Mary when you were a Roman Catholic, that's YOUR issue,* not a Roman Catholic's issue who properly loves the Mother of our Lord.

BTW, why do people keep mentioning Roman Catholic's supposed worship of Mary when no Roman Catholic is participating in the thread?  So far only Orthodox Christians have been mentioning the reason behind our love of her.  No worship has been mentioned-- aside from those wishing to derail.

----------


## pcosmar

> No, they won't defend an error.  They will tell you that you are wrong because they don't worship Mary.  *If you improperly worshipped Mary when you were a Roman Catholic, that's YOUR issue,* not a Roman Catholic's issue who properly loves the Mother of our Lord.
> 
> BTW, why do people keep mentioning Roman Catholic's supposed worship of Mary when no Roman Catholic is participating in the thread?  So far only Orthodox Christians have been mentioning the reason behind our love of her.  No worship has been mentioned-- aside from those wishing to derail.


Worship of the Queen of Heaven has been around longer than Christianity.

God said Don't Do It. (post #179)

This whole thread is justification for doing it.. And obfuscation,, saying that prayers,,and incense burning and offerings before images aren't really worship.

And yet world wide it is still practiced.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...cism/proof.htm


I'm as anti-Catholic as anyone, but a Jesus-is-savior link?  Come on....

----------


## TER

> Worship of the Queen of Heaven has been around longer than Christianity.
> 
> God said Don't Do It. (post #179)
> 
> This whole thread is justification for doing it.. And obfuscation,, saying that prayers,,and incense burning and offerings before images aren't really worship.
> 
> And yet world wide it is still practiced.


No this thread is not about worshiping the Mother of God.  It is about respecting her and venerating her as our very own mother in Christ.  I am sorry you can't tell the difference.

----------


## RJB

> This whole thread is justification for doing it.


Baloney.  In your desire to distance yourself from Christ's Church you get further from the reality of the New Covenant.  

When the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us, he didn't just appear.  He was born of a virgin woman.  He became our flesh.  He became our brother.  God became our Father.  And yes, Mary became our adopted mother.  The New Covenant brought us into the family of God, we are his children.

The Ark of the New Covenant became flesh as well.  She is not worshipped but is as revered as the Old Ark of the covenant--  Probably more revered because she is *our* mother--  not *your* pagan goddess.




> Rev 12:17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus


   This chapter tells the story of Israel, the Church and yes, the Holy Family.

----------


## lilymc

> Baloney.  In your desire to distance yourself from Christ's Church you get further from the reality of the New Covenant.  
> 
> When the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us, he didn't just appear.  He was born of a virgin woman.  He became our flesh.  He became our brother.  God became our Father.  And yes, Mary became our adopted mother.  The New Covenant brought us into the family of God, we are his children.
> 
> The Ark of the New Covenant became flesh as well.  She is not worshipped but is as revered as the Old Ark of the covenant--  Probably more revered because she is our mother--  not *your* pagan goddess.
> 
>    This chapter tells the story of Israel, the Church and yes the Holy Family.


I don't want to offend anyone, but I can't be silent on something so important.  This is just a bizarre view of Christianity.

Mary is not our mother, Mary was Jesus' earthly mother.   HE even made a point (repeatedly) that the important thing was not who our earthly parents or siblings are, but who does the will of God... He said:


And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.   And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.    And he answered them, Who are my mother and my brothers?   And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, Here are my mother and my brothers!   For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.

Mark 3:31-35

It is good to honor and respect Mary, but that is not what the RCC (or EO, apparently) does.  Calling someone the "Queen of Heaven", praying to Mary, bowing down before her statue, all of those things are treating her like a deity.   

Stating "We're not worshipping her, we're venerating her"  is akin to saying   "I'm not laughing, I'm giggling."     It's just semantics.

pcosmar is absolutely right.  This entire thread is a justification for exalting Mary, and defending unbiblical ideas.

----------


## RJB

> I don't want to offend anyone, but I can't be silent on something so important.  This is just a bizarre view of Christianity.


You find it bizarre that we consider ourselves in the family of God through Jesus and his mother?  Jesus didn't just drop from the heavens.  He was born of a woman who was his mother.  *Jesus is our brother, so his mother is our mother.*





> Calling someone the "Queen of Heaven", praying to Mary, bowing down before her statue, all of those things are treating her like a *deity*.


No one has called her a deity.  Earlier you said you accused no one in this thread of worshipping Mary.  I hope you are sticking to that.

I do think some get carried away with their devotion to the woman, but the photos you post don't prove they are worshipping her.  They are probably in prayer WITH her *to her son, our brother.*



> Calling someone the "Queen of Heaven",


 Back to this...  A woman is crowned in heaven.  You and Pete say this is Israel.* Does this mean that YOU worship Israel?*  By the logic you apply to us, it does.




> Stating "We're not worshipping her, we're venerating her"  is akin to saying   "I'm not laughing, I'm giggling."     It's just semantics.


 No it's not.  She is *NOT* God.  We don't worship her.  *We revere her as the Hebrews revered the Ark of the Old Covenant.
*



> pcosmar is absolutely right.  This entire thread is a justification for exalting Mary, and defending unbiblical ideas.


  So you misspoke when you said your weren't accusing anyone on this thread of Mary worship?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *Hail Mary*
> 
> Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, Amen.





> *Hail Holy Queen*
> 
> Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve: to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!
> Leader: Pray for us O Holy Mother of God,
> All: That we may be worthy of the promises of Christ.
> (Optional)
> Leader: Let us pray.
> All: O God whose only begotten Son by his life, death, and Resurrection has purchased for us the rewards of eternal life; grant we beseech thee, that meditating on these mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we may imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.





> Leader: O Mother of the Redeemer...
> All: ...Living Tabernacle of the Eucharist, and Luminous Rose of Heaven, with humble confidence we ask you to bestow upon the Holy Father all the graces and blessings reserved for him by the Holy Trinity from all eternity. Amen.


http://www.catholicity.com/prayer/rosary.html

Does the name Semiramis ring any bells, perchance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9IkQtulHOg

----------


## TER

Lily, we will have to agree to disagree.  The Theotokos is the mother of all who are saved in Christ, since it is her flesh which Christ took.  As it is through His flesh by which ours is restored and made divine, she therefore is our mother.  

Your quote above does not diminish that at all.  Jesus was saying the truth, that all who do His holy will are His brothers, sisters, and mothers.  But this does not take away from the honor and special place His mother has in the story of our salvation.  In fact, no human so greatly did the will of God than the Virgin, which is why she was made worthy by God to be born from her.   

I am sorry that you cannot see the difference between veneration/adoration and worship.  I can easily say that you are jealous of the Theotokos and accuse you of that.  Would you like that?  If not, then please don't accuse me of worshiping the Virgin Mary because it is untrue and because it makes you look like someone who is either jealous or arrogantly thinks they know the heart of a person better then that person.

----------


## lilymc

> You find it bizarre that we consider ourselves in the family of God through Jesus and his mother?  Jesus didn't just drop from the heavens.  He was born of a woman who was his mother.  *Jesus is our brother, so his mother is our mother.* 
> 
> No one has called her a deity.  Earlier you said you accused no one in this thread of worshipping Mary.  I hope you are sticking to that.
> 
> I do think some get carried away with their devotion to the woman, but the photos you post don't prove they are worshipping her.  They are probably in prayer WITH her *to her son, our brother.*
>  Back to this...  A woman is crowned in heaven.  You and Pete say this is Israel.* Does this mean that YOU worship Israel?*  By the logic you apply to us, it does.
> 
>  No it's not.  She is *NOT* God.  We don't worship her.  *We revere her as the Hebrews revered the Ark of the Old Covenant.
> *
>   So you misspoke when you said your weren't accusing anyone on this thread of Mary worship?


No, most people don't call her a deity.  But actions speak louder than words, and the reality is that many Catholics worldwide (some more than other, of course)  ACT as if Mary is a deity.

As for you guys, I didn't think you were Mary worshippers, that is why I stated that earlier on the thread.  But I do think that you guys are defending actions that, when put all together, basically amount to worship.    You don't see it that way, and you seem to be sincere, but that doesn't change the reality.   You guys are defending ideas about Mary that are unbiblical, and downplaying actions that are idolatrous.

Did you watch that documentary I posted earlier?  I'll post it again.   Please take the time to watch it.    This is a serious thing, because millions of people around the world are being deceived.

If you watch this, you will see what I'm talking about...

----------


## RJB

> You guys are defending ideas about Mary that are unbiblical, and downplaying actions that are idolatrous.


  It's unbiblical that the Mother of Jesus, who is our brother, is our mother as well and that she carried in her womb the New Covenant so we see her as the Ark of the New Covenant when the Word became flesh?




> Did you watch that documentary I posted earlier?  I'll post it again.   Please take the time to watch it.    This is a serious thing, because millions of people around the world are being deceived.


  I said I think that a minority do get carried away, but that doesn't apply to this thread.  To answer your obsession, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more militant people in the mariology movement broke off and formed their own church.  They strike me as off the wall as a lot of the protestant sects predicting certain dates that the world will end.

----------


## TER

Lily, here is an illustration of Moses and Joshua bowing down in front of the Ark.  Are they committing idolatry?

----------


## RJB

> Israel, not Mary is the "woman" referred to in Revelation Ch. 12.





> Pretty much *every commentary* I've read says that it is Israel.  The 12 stars in the crown refer to the twelve tribes of Israel.


I would be very cautious believing that the state of Israel was crowned in that verse.  You guys probably worship the state of Israel without realizing it...

And the use of commentary when reading the Book of Revelation?  What happened to Sola Scriptura?  Commentary is nothing but the errors of men, right?

----------


## RJB

> Israel, not Mary is the "woman" referred to in Revelation Ch. 12.


One more warning for Kevin about worshipping the State of Israel from a website that he likes.  

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...l_idolatry.htm 


> The Sin Of Worshipping The Land Of Israel Instead Of The God Of Israel
> 
> By David J. Stewart
> Exodus 20:3, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
> 
> 
>        The following image is a snapshot from a Jewish website, promoting the cause of the  Christians United For Israel (CUFI) activist group. This is an unbiblical website. They advertise, “Make A Difference For Israel Every Day.” It makes me want to go vomit and I know God feels the same way. I am compelled to start an organization called, “Christians United Against Israel,” because Israel today is a shameful nation that has abandoned the God of the Bible. Christian tourists are being  spit upon by Jews in Israel today. I dare you to find the Gospel anywhere on the CUFI website.

----------


## lilymc

> It's unbiblical that the Mother of Jesus, who is our brother, is our mother as well and that she carried in her womb the New Covenant so we see her as the Ark of the New Covenant when the Word became flesh?


Mary was Jesus' *earthly* mother.   The RCC/EO took that a step further and said she is the "Mother of God."  That is a deceptive phrase, because it can easily mislead some people into thinking that Mary is somehow above God.     God is eternal, there is no one above God, and no one before God.

Although Jesus began to exist as a man, *He always existed* as the second person of the trinity.  So Mary is only Jesus' mother in the earthly sense.  And as I already pointed out in my previous post (with Jesus' own words)   what is important to God is NOT earthly relationships, but who does God's will, who is saved.  True "born from above" believers are adopted into God's family, as sons and daughters of God.    

Mary is not our "mother" because Mary is not a God, she is not on the same level as God.

Mary is Jesus' earthly mother, period.  She is not OUR mother.   You can play around with semantics all you want, but it doesn't change the reality.





> I said I think that a minority do get carried away, but that doesn't apply to this thread.  To answer your obsession, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more militant people in the mariology movement broke off and formed their own church.  They strike me as off the wall as a lot of the protestant sects predicting certain dates that the world will end.


I don't think it's a small minority.  I live in Mexico, and I can see firsthand statues and shrines all over the place of Mary/"Our Lady of Guadalupe."   They have parades every year, that are a huge deal.  In Mexico city, people crawl for long distances on their knees just to bow down before a painting of Mary.  

Like I said, I know you guys don't do that sort of thing, but I think it is the false doctrines and ideas of the Catholic church that inevitably produce that kind of idolatry that I just described.

----------


## RJB

Why do you worship the state of Israel?  




> Mary was Jesus' *earthly* mother.   The RCC/EO took that a step further and said she is the "Mother of God."  That is a deceptive phrase, because it can easily mislead some people into thinking that Mary is somehow above God.     God is eternal, there is no one above God, and no one before God.
> 
> Although Jesus began to exist as a man, *He always existed* as the second person of the trinity.  So Mary is only Jesus' mother in the earthly sense.  And as I already pointed out in my previous post (with Jesus' own words)   what is important to God is NOT earthly relationships, but who does God's will, who is saved.  True "born from above" believers are adopted into God's family, as sons and daughters of God.    
> 
> Mary is not our "mother" because Mary is not a God, she is not on the same level as God.
> 
> Mary is Jesus' earthly mother, period.  She is not OUR mother.   You can play around with semantics all you want, but it doesn't change the reality.
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## lilymc

> Why do you worship the state of Israel?


I don't worship anyone but God.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't want to offend anyone, but I can't be silent on something so important.  This is just a bizarre view of Christianity.
> 
> Mary is not our mother, Mary was Jesus' earthly mother.   HE even made a point (repeatedly) that the important thing was not who our earthly parents or siblings are, but who does the will of God... He said:
> 
> And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.   And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.”    And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?”   And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!   For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
> 
> Mark 3:31-35
> 
> It is good to honor and respect Mary, but that is not what the RCC (or EO, apparently) does.  Calling someone the "Queen of Heaven", praying to Mary, bowing down before her statue, all of those things are treating her like a deity.   
> ...


100% wrong.  (Are you one of those people who has so much time on their hands that they can sit around dreaming up ways to troll forums?  There is no way a reasoning person can come up with the kind of things you do on these sort of topics.  )Dictionaries are your friends:

*venerate*                                                                       [ven-uh-reyt]                                                                                              


                          Examples                                              Word Origin                    

                                                                                                       verb (used with object), venerated, venerating.                                                                         1.      to regard or treat with reverence; revere. 




*worship*                                                                       [wur-ship]                                                                                              


                          Synonyms                                              Examples                                              Word Origin                    

                                                                                                       noun                                                                         1.      reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred. 

                                                   2.      formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.


                                                   3.      adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.


                                                   4.      the object of adoring reverence or regard. 

                                                   5.      (initial capital letter) British. a title of honor used in addressing or mentioning certain magistrates and others of high rank or station (usually preceded by Your,  His, or Her). 

                                                                                                                verb (used with object), worshiped, worshiping or (especially British) worshipped, worshipping.                                                                         6.      to render religious reverence and homage to. 

                                                   7.      to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing). 

                                                                                                                verb (used without object), worshiped, worshiping or (especially British) worshipped, worshipping.                                                                         8.      to render religious reverence and homage, as to a deity. 

                                                   9.      to attend services of divine worship. 

                                                   10.      to feel an adoring reverence or regard.

----------


## RJB

> I don't worship anyone but God.


Oh but millions of protestants do.  Did you see that link I posted above?  You believe that the State of Israel was the woman who was crowned based on unbiblical commentary (you admitted it.)  I believe its my duty to interrupt a thread with 578+ posts to mention the unrelated protestant obsession with Israel worship.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Mary was Jesus' *earthly* mother.   The RCC/EO took that a step further and said she is the "Mother of God."  That is a deceptive phrase, because it can easily mislead some people into thinking that Mary is somehow above God.     God is eternal, there is no one above God, and no one before God.
> 
> Although Jesus began to exist as a man, *He always existed* as the second person of the trinity.  So Mary is only Jesus' mother in the earthly sense.  And as I already pointed out in my previous post (with Jesus' own words)   what is important to God is NOT earthly relationships, but who does God's will, who is saved.  True "born from above" believers are adopted into God's family, as sons and daughters of God.    
> 
> Mary is not our "mother" because Mary is not a God, she is not on the same level as God.
> 
> Mary is Jesus' earthly mother, period.  She is not OUR mother.   You can play around with semantics all you want, but it doesn't change the reality.
> 
> 
> ...


It seems your misunderstanding comes from not grasping the meaning of _Theotokos_ which is somewhat lost in translation.




> *What is the meaning of Mary's title: Theotokos?*  
>   _Theotokos_ derives from the Greek terms: _Theos_ / 'God'; and _tiktein_ / 'to give birth'.  Mary is the _Theotokos_, the one who gave birth to God.  This single word sums up the meaning of Luke's phrase: 'Mother of the Lord' (Lk 1:43) and represents a counterpoint to John's teaching that the 'Word was made flesh' (Jn 1:14).  Usually the term  is translated into English as 'Mother of God'.  However, Greek-speaking Christians also used the equivalent _Meter Theiou_.  The latter form offers a more comprehensive vision of Mary's motherhood in line with a personalist point of view.  
>  
>   The title, Mother of God, seems to have first been used in liturgical and devotional practice by Christians in Egypt.  It appears in an ancient prayer, _Sub Tuum Praesidium_ which dates back to the third century.  There was some controversy about the use of this title since the pagan goddess, Isis, was referred to as Mother of God.  However, there are radical differences between the myths about divine births to pagan goddesses (e.g. Isis, mother of Horus) and the gospel accounts of Jesus' incarnation in Mary.  For example, the Gospels portray Jesus as conceived by Mary in Spirit while pagan myths portray the conception of gods in passion and removed from the mysterious destiny of the Incarnation. 
>  
>   Nevertheless, the title, Mother of God, was used in an Alexandrian creedal formula.  When challenged in 322, Patriarch Peter of Alexandria defended its legitimacy. Use of the title, _Theotokos_ was formally sanctioned by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431. The Church declared that both Divine and human natures were united in the person of Jesus, the son of Mary.  Hence, Mary may be called _Theotokos_, since the son she bore according to the flesh, Jesus, is truly one of the Divine persons of the Trinity.  This Marian title is really a Christological statement, which affirms that the second person of the Trinity, who was born into history as fully human, is really 'God with us'.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Lily, here is an illustration of Moses and Joshua bowing down in front of the Ark.  Are they committing idolatry?


Quoting so Lily won't forget to answer or ignore this.  ~hugs~

----------


## lilymc

> 100% wrong.  (Are you one of those people who has so much time on their hands that they can sit around dreaming up ways to troll forums?  There is no way a reasoning person can come up with the kind of things you do on these sort of topics.  )Dictionaries are your friends:
> 
> *venerate*                                                                       [ven-uh-reyt]                                                                                              
> 
> 
>                           Examples                                              Word Origin                    
> 
>                                                                                                        verb (used with object), venerated, venerating.                                                                         1.      to regard or treat with reverence; revere. 
> 
> ...



None of that changes the reality that millions of people worldwide DO in fact worship Mary.  

Where did those people get the idea that Mary is someone they should bow down to, crawl on their knees for, pray to, etc, etc?    Was it the Catholic church?  Or are they  misinterpreting the teachings of the Catholic church?

Either way, wouldn't you agree that those people need to be reached?  Because if they are misled about that, then don't you think they could be misled about other things, that are a matter of life and death, like salvation?

I know that you guys have stated a number of times that you don't agree with that, and that it's unfortunate that people get carried away.  But getting to the root of the problem is important, because millions of people are practicing idolatry, worldwide.  

Those people matter to God, so they should matter to us.

----------


## TER

> Lily, here is an illustration of Moses and Joshua bowing down in front of the Ark.  Are they committing idolatry?


Lily, I think if you answer this question, it may help clear up our misunderstandings of one another.

----------


## lilymc

> Oh but millions of protestants do.  Did you see that link I posted above?  You believe that the State of Israel was the woman who was crowned based on unbiblical commentary (you admitted it.)  I believe its my duty to interrupt a thread with 578+ posts to mention the unrelated protestant obsession with Israel worship.


You are being deceptive.   When we say that people worship Mary, it is not simply because of the "Queen of Heaven" interpretation.  It is because of ALL of their actions.

Bowing down before statues, praying to her, crawling on their knees just to see a painting of her, and on and on.   

So unless you see "protestants" (which I don't even consider myself to be)  doing things like that to someone other than God, you are being deceptive and playing with words again.

----------


## RJB

> None of that changes the reality that millions of people worldwide DO in fact worship Mary.


Neither does that change the fact that millions of people worldwide DO in fact worship the state of Israel.  You admit that you believe Israel was crowned, and you admit that you received this info from commentary, not the bible.  The following from Kevin's favorite website is proof:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...l_idolatry.htm

----------


## RJB

> You are being deceptive.


  No, I'm using the same "logic" you and a few other have used for 500+ posts in this thread alone





> Bowing down before statues, praying to her, crawling on their knees just to see a painting of her, and on and on.


  What does that have to do with this thread?

----------


## lilymc

> Lily, I think if you answer this question, it may help clear up our misunderstandings of one another.


We already went over that earlier on this thread. The ark was God's earthly throne, and the place where HE said His presence would be when He meets with His people.

So, they were not worshipping the ark, but God.

Is Jesus still inside Mary's womb?

----------


## RJB

> Is Jesus still inside Mary's womb?


 *Does ANYONE on this thread worship Mary's womb?*  I don't care about some crackpot video.

----------


## TER

> We already went over that earlier on this thread. The ark was God's earthly throne, and the place where HE said His presence would be when He meets with His people.
> 
> So, they were not worshipping the ark, but God.
> 
> Is Jesus still inside Mary's womb?


So they worshiped God _within the Ark_.  Let us make sure we have this understanding as we continue.

Does this mean they worship the wood of the Ark?  Or the golden statues of Cherubim on top of it?  Or how about the stone tablets within it?

No, while they considered this material ark sacred and holy, they worshiped none of it but rather _God Who was present in the Ark._ They venerated the Ark, but worshiped God.

 Likewise, when we bow before the Theotokos (the ark of living flesh, of which the Old Ark prefigured), we do so in love and adoration, but are not worshiping her _as a person_ to be God or put her _as a person_ at the same level as God.  Rather, like Moses and Joshua before the Old Ark, the only thing we worship is that which she the living ark contains which makes her holy,_ which is the Holy Spirit, God of God_ who abides in her and fills her with grace.  Or do you doubt the Holy Spirit of God is in the Mother of God?  Perhaps you believe you are more filled with the Spirit than she is?

We love and adore and venerate the Mother of Jesus, and thank her for the works she has done according to the holy will of God.  Our worship however is strictly towards the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

It is the Holy Spirit which makes a holy person holy, and it is the Spirit Who works within the man or women which is worshiped.  Likewise, when a faithful Orthodox Christian kisses the Chalice holding the Holy Gifts, it is not the metal cup which is worshiped, but the Holy Gifts within it.  The Chalice is venerated, but the Body and Blood of Christ is worshiped.

So to answer your questions, Jesus is still in the Virgin Mary because the Holy Spirit abides in her, and where One Person of the Holy Trinity is, so are the Three.  And it is the Holy Trinity we worship, whether in an ark with statues on top of it, on a painting, or living inside the chosen saint of God.  Not the flesh or the wood or the metal or the person or the icon or the statue, but God Who is present within them.  There is only God Who is worshiped, the Holy Trinity.  The other vessels which God uses to abide in, work through, and manifest Himself within, we venerate as things made holy by the holy God.  But God alone is the One Who is worshiped for He alone is the the Source of all that is made holy.

----------


## lilymc

> So they worshiped God _within the Ark_.  Let us make sure we have this understanding as we continue.
> 
> Does this mean they worship the wood of the Ark?  Or the golden statues of Cherubim on top of it?  Or how about the stone tablets within it?
> 
> No, while they considered this material ark sacred and holy, they worshiped none of it but rather _God Who was present in the Ark._ They venerated the Ark, but worshiped God.
> 
>  Likewise, when we bow before the Theotokos (the ark of living flesh, of which the Old Ark prefigured), we do so in love and adoration, but are not worshiping her _as a person_ to be God or put her _as a person_ at the same level as God.  Rather, like Moses and Joshua before the Old Ark, the only thing we worship is that which she the living ark contains which makes her holy,_ which is the Holy Spirit, God of God_ who abides in her and fills her with grace.  Or do you doubt the Holy Spirit of God is in the Mother of God?  Perhaps you believe you are more filled with the Spirit than she is?
> 
> We love and adore and venerate the Mother of Jesus, and thank her for the works she has done according to the holy will of God.  Our worship however is strictly towards the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
> ...


I'm really sorry, but none of what you said many any sense to me.

God was not inside a box.  The ark was His throne, His presence was there, *but they worshiping God, not the ark.*





> So to answer your questions, Jesus is still in the Virgin Mary because the Holy Spirit abides in her, and where One Person of the Holy Trinity, so are the Three.  And it is the Holy Trinity we worship, whether in an ark with statues on top of it, on a painting, or living inside the chosen saint of God.  Not the flesh or the wood or the metal or the person or the icon or the statue, but God Who is present within them.  There is only God Who is worshiped, the Holy Trinity.  The other vessels which God uses to abide in, work through, and manifest Himself in, we venerate as things made holy by the holy God.  But God alone is the One Who is worshiped.


All true believers have the Holy Spirit in them.  Jesus is in all of us!   (who are saved, who are adopted as sons and daughters of God.)   

So what you just said really does not make any sense to me.   

God wants us to worship Him alone.  That is made abundantly clear in the scriptures.      This inordinate amount of focus on Mary is not in line with the bible.

----------


## TER

Do you worship the Holy Spirit?

----------


## RJB

> , *but they worshiping God, not the ark.*.


*EXACTLY!!!*

It's great to see that we have all come to an agreement

----------


## lilymc

> Do you worship the Holy Spirit?


Yes, of course, but I worship God who is triune,  the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

What does your question have to do with this discussion about Mary?

You're not saying that because Mary has the Holy Spirit in her, we must worship Mary, are you?

----------


## TER

> Yes, of course, but I worship God who is triune,  the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
> 
> What does your question have to do with this discussion about Mary?
> 
> You're not saying that because Mary has the Holy Spirit in her, we must worship Mary, are you?


No, not worship the Virgin Mary, but God abiding in her.   Just as God was worshiped and not the Ark.

----------


## lilymc

> *EXACTLY!!!*
> 
> It's great to see that we have all come to an agreement


Are you claiming that those millions of people around the world who are practically obsessed with Mary aren't actually worshipping her, but they're worshipping God?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> 13, technically. The last one hanged himself.


 13! How many are in a coven?

----------


## RJB

> Are you claiming that those *millions* of people around the world who are practically *obsessed* with Mary aren't actually worshipping her, but they're worshipping God?


Where do you get "millions?"

Speaking of obsessions...

----------


## RJB

> 13! How many are in a coven?


Here we go on another unrelated tangent

----------


## TER

> Are you claiming that those millions of people around the world who are practically obsessed with Mary aren't actually worshipping her, but they're worshipping God?


Lily, there are many people around the world, especially in the West, who basically worship and idolize the Bible, confusing the written word of God to be the very Word of God (Who is Christ alone). There will be those who go to extremes. The numbers you are using I think are inaccurate and over exaggerated. The vast majority of pious Catholics and Orthodox understand the proper place and veneration of the Mother of God. Your Christian friends here are explaining to you what the correct way to regard the Virgin Mary is, and that does NOT include worshiping her.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> None of that changes the reality that millions of people worldwide DO in fact worship Mary.


I didn't claim otherwise.  As I've said, those people are in error.




> Where did those people get the idea that Mary is someone they should bow down to, crawl on their knees for, pray to, etc, etc?    Was it the Catholic church?  Or are they  misinterpreting the teachings of the Catholic church?


You'd have to ask them.  People come to believe these sort of things for a lot of different reasons.




> Either way, wouldn't you agree that those people need to be reached?  Because if they are misled about that, then don't you think they could be misled about other things, that are a matter of life and death, like salvation?


Certainly.  I've said many times that those people are in error and need correction.





> I know that you guys have stated a number of times that you don't agree with that, and that it's unfortunate that people get carried away.  But getting to the root of the problem is important, because millions of people are practicing idolatry, worldwide.


Very unfortunate, indeed.   Missionaries do their best WRT this, but they have the same limits of time and resources as anyone else.




> Those people matter to God, so they should matter to us.


Indeed.  ~hugs~

----------


## lilymc

> No, not worship the Virgin Mary, but God abiding in her.   Just as God was worshiped and not the Ark.


TER, I really don't like debating this stuff with you, because I like you, and I don't want to be on bad terms with you or anyone.

But what you're saying just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  God is in ALL true believers.   So by your logic, ALL believers should be highly revered.  

Like I said a few times before, it is good to honor and respect Mary.  But all the other stuff is just adding on to the bible, or twisting it in order to fit the RCC/EO teachings on Mary.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 13! How many are in a coven?


Beg your pardon, you were right.  I must've been sleepy or silly when I wrote 13...  :/

----------


## TER

> TER, I really don't like debating this stuff with you, because I like you, and I don't want to be on bad terms with you or anyone.
> 
> But what you're saying just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  God is in ALL true believers.   So by your logic, ALL believers should be highly revered.  
> 
> Like I said a few times before, it is good to honor and respect Mary.  But all the other stuff is just adding on to the bible, or twisting it in order to fit the RCC/EO teachings on Mary.


I would remind you that it is the Church which wrote and canonized the Bible, and never has the Church taught that all the wonders and truths of the faith are contained within the limited Bible. The depths of the Christian faith are not limited to 27 books nor is the Holy Spirit, but the depths can be more fully known with knowledge of the rest of its Holy Tradition (of which the Scriptures are one part of). 

As for venerating all people who have the Holy Spirit, you are indeed correct. We should very much venerate those who have the Holy Spirit abiding in them. The thing is, there are degrees of blessings and measures of the Holy Spirit abiding in people. Some who think they have Him actually do not.  As for the Virgin Mary, we know undoubtably that God abides in her, and for that reason we so easily venerate her in contrast to another. But your point is true, that those who have God abiding in them should be venerated and adored. It is part of the love we have in Christ for one another.

There are some ascetic saints in fact who lived in solitary in the desert who in the rare times they encountered a Christian would fall prostrate before them because of the Holy Spirit in them.  Worshiping not the new visitor, but God present within them.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Beg your pardon, you were right. I must've been sleepy or silly when I wrote 13...  :/


I didn't figure that you would really have any interest in pursuing or even opening that potential occult can of worms.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> TER, I really don't like debating this stuff with you, because I like you, and I don't want to be on bad terms with you or anyone.
> 
> But what you're saying just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  God is in ALL true believers.   So by your logic, ALL believers should be highly revered.  
> 
> Like I said a few times before, it is good to honor and respect Mary.  But all the other stuff is just adding on to the bible, or twisting it in order to fit the RCC/EO teachings on Mary.


Yes, God is in all true believers.  The Theotokos has a very unique place among the saints because of her status as Mother Of God, hence the special veneration reserved for her.  

Tradition doesn't add to or remove from or twist the bible-it clarifies the scriptures and enriches our lives.  This is what is called the "fullness of the faith".    Does your church use instruments during services?  That is a type of adding to the bible.  We can only extrapolate the use of voice in liturgical music from the bible.  Does your minister draw his own conclusions about scripture and preach that?  That's a way of adding on to the bible.  etc, etc.

----------


## RJB

Just to add, that the Oriental Church that broke away in 451 AD also holds to these beliefs about Mary not just the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.  As far as Ethiopia to England and India to Spain the ancient churches held these beliefs when the first fracture occurred and they still retain these beliefs that were well established at the schism. 






> I would remind you that it is the Church which wrote and canonized the Bible, and never has the Church taught that all the wonders and truths and which are beneficial to the believer is contained within the limited Bible. The depths of the Christian faith are not limited to 27 books nor is the Holy Spirit, but the depths can be more fully known with knowledge of the rest of its Holy Tradition (of which the Scriptures are one part of). 
> 
> As for venerating all people who have the Holy Spirit, you are indeed correct. We should very much venerate those who have the Holy Spirit abiding in them. The thing is, there are degrees of blessings and measures of the Holy Spirit abiding in people. Some who think they have Him actually do not.  As for the Virgin Mary, we know undoubtably that God abides in her, and for that reason we so easily venerate her in contrast to another. But your point is true, that those who have God abiding in them should be venerated and adored. It is part of the love we have in Christ for one another.
> 
> There are some ascetic saints in fact who lived in solitary in the desert who in the rare times they encountered a Christian would fall prostrate before them because of the Holy Spirit in them.  Worshiping not the new visitor, but God present within them.

----------


## Kevin007

> And I was raised in the RCC and perhaps the "official" line is that they don't.. but in practice they absolutely do.
> 
> *And this is an error*. but try to point out the error and they will fight and defend their error.
> 
> They pray TO Mary.. they kneel down and worship before her image.
> They place offerings before the images. They burn incense to the Queen of Heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> They are as hard headed and hard hearted as the people of Judah when they were told not to.


good post, honest too.

----------


## RJB

> because I like you, and I don't want to be on bad terms with you or anyone.


 I know this was addressed to TER, but I want to say, I apologize if I came off as a smart ass to you--  I have to work hard to hold it in check.  But here we are with 600+ posts, with links to all kinds of people doing all kinds of oddities not included in what the OP intended with the hint (not quite an accusation) that that is what we do.  I think I beat my point to death and I apologize if it was a bit irritating to you, but that is what 600+ posts hinting that I worship Mary feels from my point of view.

I'll take my leave for the evening.  God bless and peace to you all.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> good post, *honest too*.


Perhas WRT his particular parish.  But it's not a problem within official RCC doctrine, dogma, catechism, etc.

----------


## TER

> Just to add, that the Oriental Church that broke away in 451 AD also holds to these beliefs about Mary not just the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.  As far as Ethiopia to England and India to Spain the ancient churches held these beliefs when the first fracture occurred and they still retain these beliefs that were well established at the schism.


Exactly. In the year which the Church canonized the Bible, they were also singing hymns to the Theotokos and venerating her.  Why is it that some now would accept the Church's written canon (in truth, many do not even realize they are using a mistranslated and incomplete version) but do not also accept the rest of the faith which they handed down?  Were the early saints only inspired when it came to choosing the books and not in writing the hymns?

----------


## lilymc

> Yes, God is in all true believers.  The Theotokos has a very unique place among the saints because of her status as Mother Of God, hence the special veneration reserved for her.  
> 
> Tradition doesn't add to or remove from or twist the bible-it clarifies the scriptures and enriches our lives.  This is what is called the "fullness of the faith".    Does your church use instruments during services?  That is a type of adding to the bible.  We can only extrapolate the use of voice in liturgical music from the bible.  Does your minister draw his own conclusions about scripture and preach that?  That's a way of adding on to the bible.  etc, etc.


When I said that, I wasn't talking about all tradition, I was specifically talking about certain doctrines or ideas that I believe are unbiblical. 

But anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree.... I gotta get going now.  I'm really tired (I finished a video recently and didn't get much sleep for a couple nights in a row.)

so ciao for now!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I know this was addressed to TER, but I want to say, I apologize if I came off as a smart ass to you--  I have to work hard to hold it in check.  But here we are with 600+ posts, with links to all kinds of people doing all kinds of oddities not included in what the OP intended with the hint (not quite an accusation) that that is what we do.  I think I beat my point to death and I apologize if it was a bit irritating to you, but that is what 600+ posts hinting that I worship Mary feels from my point of view.
> 
> I'll take my leave for the evening.  God bless and peace to you all.


'Night. ~hugs~

----------


## Kevin007

> You find it bizarre that we consider ourselves in the family of God through Jesus and his mother?  Jesus didn't just drop from the heavens.  He was born of a woman who was his mother.  *Jesus is our brother, so his mother is our mother.*
> 
> 
> 
> No one has called her a deity.  Earlier you said you accused no one in this thread of worshipping Mary.  I hope you are sticking to that.
> 
> I do think some get carried away with their devotion to the woman, but the photos you post don't prove they are worshipping her.  They are probably in prayer WITH her *to her son, our brother.*
>  Back to this...  A woman is crowned in heaven.  You and Pete say this is Israel.* Does this mean that YOU worship Israel?*  By the logic you apply to us, it does.
> 
> ...


How is Jesus our brother?

----------


## TER

> When I said that, I wasn't talking about all tradition, I was specifically talking about certain doctrines or ideas that I believe are unbiblical. 
> 
> But anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree.... I gotta get going now.  I'm really tired (I finished a video recently and didn't get much sleep for a couple nights in a row.)
> 
> so ciao for now!


Goodnight my Christian sister.  I know some of the things written by me and others here seem strange and hard to understand because they seem to go against your sensibilities and notions of worship.  Please believe us when we say that our love and adoration of the Virgin Mary and our worship of God (Who took her flesh and was born from her and still abides in her by the Holy Spirit) only _more fully compliments our devotion and worship of God alone_.  We should love all people who are made in the image of God, _even more so those who have been baptized in Christ and have God Himself abiding in them_.  Our love for them does not take away from God, but rather more so adds to our devotion, love and worship of God, for He is present within them and abides in them and alone is the Source of love and the Giver of all good things.

----------


## lilymc

> I know this was addressed to TER, but I want to say, I apologize if I came off as a smart ass to you--  I have to work hard to hold it in check.  But here we are with 600+ posts, with links to all kinds of people doing all kinds of oddities not included in what the OP intended with the hint (not quite an accusation) that that is what we do.  I think I beat my point to death and I apologize if it was a bit irritating to you, but that is what 600+ posts hinting that I worship Mary feels from my point of view.
> 
> I'll take my leave for the evening.  God bless and peace to you all.


No worries.  And I'm sorry if I was a bit impatient or smartass. 

I also want to repeat that when I said people worship Mary, I was speaking in general about people out there (like I said, I live in a country where there is a lot of that), not about you guys.  





> Goodnight my Christian sister.  I know some of the things written by me and others here seem strange and hard to understand because they seem to go against your sensibilities and notions of worship.  Please believe us when we say that our love and adoration of the Virgin Mary and our worship of God who took her flesh and was born from her and still abides in her by the Holy Spirit, only more fully compliments our devotion and worship of God alone.  We should love all people who are made in the image of God, even more so those who have been baptized in Christ and have God Himself abiding in them.  Our love for them only more greatly adds to our devotion and love of God Who alone is the Source and Giver of all good things.


Thanks TER and it's only dinnertime here, but good night!

----------


## RJB

> How is Jesus our brother?


Welcome to the family of God, my brother.




> Matthew 12:48-50
> But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” 
> 
> Rom 8:29  For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
> 
> Romans 8:15-17
> For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

----------


## pcosmar

> Perhas WRT his particular parish. 
> .


I have no particular Parish.
I have the written Word.. Both Old and New Testaments,, and the Spirit of God to guide me in them..

it is unfortunate that so much was removed,, but I believe that was another error that happened  long before there was a Roman or Eastern church.
I suspect that great error was present before the Counsel of Laodicea ..

The very fact that it was run by Murderous Psychopaths is evidence of that. (Christ never commanded that "heritics" be murdered,, nor did the Apostles)
That was the birth of Political church.
I have no interest in the "Church" that was created by those folks. It was born in error.

----------


## TER

The Council of Laodicea was not run by murderous psychopaths nor condemned heretics to be murdered. You were wrong the first time you said that and wrong now.

----------


## erowe1

> Bishops sit on the thrones of the Apostles having been ordained through their ministry to power and authority given to them as overseers and leaders of the flock. Bishops are the image of the Apostles in this world and continue their ministry to guard the truths, protect the faithful and feed the flock.  How?  By the Holy Spirit.


Even if all that were true, none of it makes bishops in general, nor Ignatius in particular, apostles. Ignatius was not an apostle. He himself said so.




> No they don't have such a list because there are many considered so and many not even known.


Do you have any way of knowing if any given writing was divinely inspired (i.e. God breathed)?

And, once again, can you show me a source that speaks in any kind of authoritative way for the EOC, saying that the EOC teaches that some writings outside the Bible were divinely inspired?




> I am not the only one claiming that. That is the teaching of the Church. The Bishops have continued the apostolic ministry initiated by the original twelve.


Even if that's true, continuing the apostolic ministry doesn't make them apostles.




> Later Church Fathers revealed it, the Church has proclaimed it


Some later human beings claimed it, and others believed them. But "the Church" never said anything about the matter.




> It was already a given being that he was appointed by the Apostles (namely St. Peter) to take over the episcopal duties after St. Evdovius passed in 69AD.


It's not a given, because everything after the words "being that" is just some legend that you heard from some human being. Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Peter died in AD 64. Why do you think he would appoint someone to replace Evdovius, if Evdovius was 5 years away from dying? How could Evdovius have been the bishop of Antioch prior to AD 69 when monarchical bishops didn't even exist yet in AD 69? And how old was Ignatius in AD 64 when Peter appointed him to take over a bishopric 5 years off into the future?




> It is not just a human being saying so, it it the communion of baptized Christians inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit which make up the Church which tell you so.


That's provably false. Every member of the community of baptized Christians is made is a human being. The Holy Spirit baptizes, indwells, seals, convicts, and enlightens, each and every one of them. And some of these human beings say what you believe, while others don't. This has been the case throughout the entire history of the Church, from the first moment when your beliefs came into existence--some of the human beings said what you believe, and others didn't. You seem to arbitrarily pick whichever human beings you happen to agree with and say that they're the ones guided by the Holy Spirit, so they must be right. How do we know? Because they agree with TER. No appeal to the opinions of the apostles as expressed in their own writings is necessary or helpful.

----------


## pcosmar

> The Council of Laodicea was not run by murderous psychopaths nor condemned heretics to be murdered. You were wrong the first time you said that and wrong now.


Burning at the stake,, and other atrocities happened a bit later. they had there origins here.
I believe much error began before this counsel,, but it was codified here.
It was shortly after that other decrees took place.



> It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans....The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, *and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative"*


The Books of Prophets being banned was a huge error.
It was where the Political Church was codified, though that started  with Constantine.

----------


## erowe1

> But shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?


-Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians 3




> I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant.


-Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans 4

----------


## Ronin Truth

Holy *Mother* Church - Google Bomb, 7 million results
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...70._YYrdML5x-U

Late breaking, correction update: 


> About 13,200,000 results


  Google must have turned a few more to count.

----------


## erowe1

> Holy *Mother* Church - Google Bomb, 7 million results
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...70._YYrdML5x-U


What are you getting at? What does the fact that it has 7 million results indicate?

----------


## erowe1

Ronin Truth doesn't know how to use google - Google bomb, 12 million results

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...20use%20google

Just saying.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What are you getting at? What does the fact that it has 7 million results indicate?


https://www.google.com/search?q=Semi...gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=

----------


## erowe1

> https://www.google.com/search?q=Semi...gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=


Looks good. I'll put that on my list of restaurants to try in Chicago.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ronin Truth doesn't know how to use google - Google bomb, 12 million results
> 
> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Ronin%20truth%20doesn't%20know%20how%20to%20us  e%20google
> 
> Just saying.


  Now it's 


> About 13,000,000 results


  I must have triggered some additional interest.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Looks good. I'll put that on my list of restaurants to try in Chicago.





> These events laid the groundwork for all of the pagan religious systems of antiquity, as well as many alive today. Semiramis, in particular was the model and original of every goddess and female cult figure in the ancient and modern worlds (either directly or by derivation); and thus it essential to know her story in order to discern what is factual legend and what is merely myth.


http://www.ldolphin.org/semir.html

----------


## erowe1

> http://www.ldolphin.org/semir.html


So, according to that person, prior to the Semiramis cult, which we can't trace back further than the first millennium BC, nobody had ever thought of worshipping a female deity?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> So, according to that person, prior to the Semiramis cult, which we can't trace back further than the first millennium BC, nobody had ever thought of worshipping a female deity?


Back to the flood and before. Reading for comprehension often works wonders.  Enjoy your Chicago restaurant visit.

----------


## erowe1

> Back to the flood and before. Reading for comprehension often works wonders.  Enjoy your Chicago restaurant visit.


It would help you too. We have no evidence of any Semiramis cult until the first millennium BC.

Also, speaking of reading comprehension, in the link you just gave me, it places Semiramis after the flood, not before.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It would help you too. We have no evidence of any Semiramis cult until the first millennium BC.


Well, if you didn't get sidetracked by restaurant web sites you just might learn a thing or two.  If Semiramis was the wife of Nimrod, then when would that be?

----------


## erowe1

> Well, if you didn't get sidetracked by restaurant web sites you just might learn a thing or two.  If Semiramis was the wife of Nimrod, then when would that be?


Oh, is that what you consider those millions of hits that come up on those google searches you link us to, sidetracks?

Yeah, me too.

If Semiramis was the wife of Nimrod, that would be after the flood, not before. The article you linked to even says that.

And then, on that point, even if the story that guy tells were true (but notice he provides absolutely no evidence for it), it would just lead right back to my earlier question. Are we supposed to believe that prior to the time of Nimrod nobody had ever thought of worshipping a female deity?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Oh, is that what you consider those millions of hits that come up on those google searches you link us to, sidetracks?
> 
> Yeah, me too.
> 
> If Semiramis was the wife of Nimrod, that would be after the flood, not before. The article you linked to even says that.
> 
> And then, on that point, even if the story that guy tells were true (but notice he provides absolutely no evidence for it), it would just lead right back to my earlier question. Are we supposed to believe that prior to the time of Nimrod nobody had ever thought of worshipping a female deity?


The Sumerians did, probably others did too.  Crete? India? Atlantis? Mu? Lemuria?

I just think that covering a lot of turf, with only one post line is just pretty neat.  Would I much prefer a rifle to a shotgun approach? Sure.

----------


## erowe1

> The Sumerians did, probably others did too.  Crete? India? Atlantis? Mu? Lemuria?


All of whom are after the flood.

But if you're saying that those predated the Semiramis cult, then how could Semiramis be the original one from which all others derived?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> All of whom are after the flood.
> 
> But if you're saying that those predated the Semiramis cult, then how could Semiramis be the original one from which all others derived?


Not Sumer. The flood caused a human history reset to zero (pretty much).  How about coughing up that Nimrod date, oh Grand Inquisitor?

----------


## erowe1

> Not Sumer. The flood caused a human history reset to zero (pretty much).  How about coughing up that Nimrod date, oh Grand Inquisitor?


Yes. Sumer too.

The article you linked talks about Nimrod, and dates him, and places him and Sumer after the flood. Are you denying that your own article does that?

----------


## pcosmar

> Are we supposed to believe that prior to the time of Nimrod nobody had ever thought of worshipping a female deity?


Well I have no Idea of the extent of Evil before the Flood,, only that it was bad enough to cause God to wipe out all life save Noah and his family.
The first recorded history is from after the flood,, and the Sumerians.

And that female "deity" as well as other false gods were worshiped.
Do you know of any written records prior? or any record aside from Enoch?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yes. Sumer too.
> 
> The article you linked talks about Nimrod, and dates him, and places him and Sumer after the flood. Are you denying that your own article does that?


  Well since you just seem to want too pooh pooh the article, I'm just asking you ...... again for the date of Nimrod, O great ancient history Bible researcher and scholar.

----------


## erowe1

> Well I have no Idea of the extent of Evil before the Flood,, only that it was bad enough to cause God to wipe out all life save Noah and his family.
> The first recorded history is from after the flood,, and the Sumerians.
> 
> And that female "deity" as well as other false gods were worshiped.
> Do you know of any written records prior? or any record aside from Enoch?


What you call "Enoch" is a collection of several books written over the 4th-1st centuries BC. They are nowhere near as old as the Flood, or even most books of the Old Testament.

The only way it may be the case that we have records from before the Flood is if they were used as sources for the Book of Genesis, which I consider possible. And if so, then our only access to those records is via the Book of Genesis.

----------


## erowe1

> Well since you just seem to want too pooh pooh the article, I'm just asking you ...... again for the date of Nimrod, O great ancient history Bible researcher and scholar.


Using the chronology of the Bible, and assuming that there are no gaps in the genealogies, we would come up with a date around 3000-2500 BC. That's the best I can do. We have nothing else to go on, either to attain the date of Nimrod, or to say he ever existed at all.

----------


## pcosmar

> What you call "Enoch" is a collection of several books written over the 4th-1st centuries BC.


I do not know that,, I have read that,, but suspect that they were older.. Passed either by Oral tradition  or carried by Noah and passed on through his line.
Perhaps even as the Story of Job,,  Which was likely written by Moses,, 

I tend to believe that they were the record of Enoch. And were recognized as such by the early Church.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Using the chronology of the Bible, and assuming that there are no gaps in the genealogies, we would come up with a date around 3000-2500 BC. That's the best I can do. We have nothing else to go on, either to attain the date of Nimrod, or to say he ever existed at all.


Does Bishop Ussher help, or is that what you're using?

----------


## erowe1

> I do not know that,, I have read that,, but suspect that they were older.. Passed either by Oral tradition  or carried by Noah and passed on through his line.


And yet none of the authors of any of the books of the Old Testament quoted from or mentioned this ancient work from a prophet they revered who wrote prophecies about their times?

----------


## erowe1

> Does Bishop Ussher help, or is that what you're using?


No, I'm talking about the Bible itself, which is also what Usher used. So no, he can't provide us any more data than we already have in the Bible. You can just work your way back from the date of Solomon's Temple around 980 BC, and add up all the numbers of years the Bible gives. If that's not an accurate way to get a date for Nimrod, then we have nothing else to go on.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> No, I'm talking about the Bible itself, which is also what Usher used. So no, he can't provide us any more data than we already have in the Bible. You can just work your way back from the date of Solomon's Temple around 980 BC, and add up all the numbers of years the Bible gives. If that's not an accurate way to get a date for Nimrod, then we have nothing else to go on.



Google says it's spelled "Ussher". I wonder if the Babylonians had any date able clay tablet records of a Nimrod rule time line.


https://www.google.com/search?q=king...gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=

----------


## Ronin Truth

Hmmmm? This looks pretty interesting. http://amazingbibletimeline.com/

----------


## pcosmar

> And yet none of the authors of any of the books of the Old Testament quoted from or mentioned this ancient work from a prophet they revered who wrote prophecies about their times?


He did not write about their times.. And he is mentioned, in Genesis. And mirrored in Job. and aspects of what he wrote are throughout the Old Testament.

He expanded on things written only briefly elsewhere. And  it was written not for the present generation but for a future generation. (as he introduced it)

The Book of Genesis was not written by Adam before the Flood.. The first Books of the Bible were written sometime  later. 

or do you reject them in entirety because of their "questionable" sources?

What is it about Enoch that you have such a problem with? I find that it fills in some gray areas,, without contradicting the rest of scripture.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> He did not write about their times.. And he is mentioned, in Genesis. And mirrored in Job. and aspects of what he wrote are throughout the Old Testament.
> 
> He expanded on things written only briefly elsewhere. And it was written not for the present generation but for a future generation. (as he introduced it)
> 
> The Book of Genesis was not written by Adam before the Flood.. The first Books of the Bible were written sometime later. 
> 
> or do you reject them in entirety because of their "questionable" sources?
> 
> What is it about Enoch that you have such a problem with? I find that it fills in some gray areas,, without contradicting the rest of scripture.


I've read somewhere, somewhen that much of the Old Testament was first written down by the Levite priests/rabbis during the Babylonian Captivity.

I imagine that erowe1 will challenge or straighten that one out too.

----------


## pcosmar

> I will stand on my guard post And station myself on the rampart; And I will keep watch to see what He will speak to me, And how I may reply when I am reproved. Then the LORD answered me and said, "*Record the vision And inscribe it on tablets,* That the one who reads it may run. "For the vision is yet for the appointed time; It hastens toward the goal and it will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it; For it will certainly come, it will not delay.…





> "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you.





> *For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.*





> "Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.


I believe that these are recorded for us..

----------


## erowe1

> He did not write about their times..


The book of First Enoch does write about the history of Israel over the entire biblical period.




> And he is mentioned, in Genesis.


But the book of 1 Enoch isn't mentioned there. Nor is it used as a source. If it really existed already and were understood by the author of Genesis to have come from the actual Enoch, then it would have been.




> and aspects of what he wrote are throughout the Old Testament.
> 
> He expanded on things written only briefly elsewhere.


Yes. First Enoch expands on things written elsewhere, namely things written in the Bible. The books of the Old Testament had already been written by the time 1 Enoch was, and the authors (plural) who wrote the books that would go on to be collected and grouped together in what we today call 1 Enoch expanded on them.




> What is it about Enoch that you have such a problem with? I find that it fills in some gray areas,, without contradicting the rest of scripture.


All I've said about 1 Enoch is factual information. 

It wasn't written by Enoch. You don't have to have a problem with the book to know that.

I don't have a problem with it. Just like I don't have a problem with the Iliad.

----------


## erowe1

> I wonder if the Babylonians had any date able clay tablet records of a Nimrod rule time line.


No, they don't. We have one single historical source for the existence of Nimrod. That's the Book of Genesis. Take it or leave it.

----------


## erowe1

> I've read somewhere, somewhen that much of the Old Testament was first written down by the Levite priests/rabbis during the Babylonian Captivity.
> 
> I imagine that erowe1 will challenge or straighten that one out too.


Why should I bother trying to straighten some theory out if the only thing it has going for it is that Ronin Truth claims to have heard it somewhere somewhen?

----------


## TER

> Even if all that were true, none of it makes bishops in general, nor Ignatius in particular, apostles. Ignatius was not an apostle. He himself said so.


He was ordained in their ministry as a leader of the Church.




> Do you have any way of knowing if any given writing was divinely inspired (i.e. God breathed)?
> 
> And, once again, can you show me a source that speaks in any kind of authoritative way for the EOC, saying that the EOC teaches that some writings outside the Bible were divinely inspired?


St. Paul said "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (II Tim 3:16)  Can you tell me which books he was referring to?



> Even if that's true, continuing the apostolic ministry doesn't make them apostles.


They are not of the Twelve, but just as St. Paul wasn't, they too are in the ministry as an apostle.  St. Titus, St. Jude, these where not of the Twelve, but were apostles.  St. Ignatius is called an Apostolic father not only because of the time he ministered, but on account of his ministry as one sent out to spread the gospel.





> It's not a given, because everything after the words "being that" is just some legend that you heard from some human being. Do you have any evidence for that claim?
> 
> Peter died in AD 64. Why do you think he would appoint someone to replace Evdovius, if Evdovius was 5 years away from dying? How could Evdovius have been the bishop of Antioch prior to AD 69 when monarchical bishops didn't even exist yet in AD 69? And how old was Ignatius in AD 64 when Peter appointed him to take over a bishopric 5 years off into the future?


St. Eudoius was one of the Seventy Apostles of Jesus.  He was in his late 60's when he died.  It was not a surprise that St. Ignatius would succeed him when he did, in fact, it was probably known for years prior to St. Euodius' death that he would assume the episcopy next.  So the dating you make does not prove anything, though I see why you would bring it up.  It is common today as well that the next Bishop who is being groomed to take over the leadership position is already known even as the current one is alive and active.  This ensures a smooth and reliable transition in the transference of this important service to the Church.




> That's provably false. Every member of the community of baptized Christians is made is a human being. The Holy Spirit baptizes, indwells, seals, convicts, and enlightens, each and every one of them. And some of these human beings say what you believe, while others don't. This has been the case throughout the entire history of the Church, from the first moment when your beliefs came into existence--some of the human beings said what you believe, and others didn't. You seem to arbitrarily pick whichever human beings you happen to agree with and say that they're the ones guided by the Holy Spirit, so they must be right. How do we know? Because they agree with TER. No appeal to the opinions of the apostles as expressed in their own writings is necessary or helpful.


I don't choose anyone because they agree with what I think erowe.  That is what you are doing, picking a verse here or there which you agree with and disregarding the other things they have said because they do not fit into your theology and interpretations.  I am choosing what others (_namely the voice of the consensus of the Church_) have already proclaimed to be the orthodox faith.  You pick a verse that St. Ignatius said which you think states he isn't an apostle as being truthful but then reject the other statements he made because it doesn't fit in with your knowledge or the limited resources you have made to be the only source of information.  I, on the other hand, accept what he says according to what the Church has proclaimed to be orthodox and true, even if my sensibilities or logical mind can't seem to easily get around it.  Does a Church Father say something which sounds right to me?  Well then I go and check if that is what the consensus of the Church has agreed with and proclaimed to be true.  Does a Church Father say something which sounds wrong to me?  Then I again go and check if that is what the consensus of the Church has agreed with and proclaimed to be true.  Then I accept what the Church says, and not what I think.  Why?  Because I humble myself to the authority and teachings of saints greater then me.  This is not what you do my friend.  You place yourself to be the final authority on what is true (according to the knowledge you have from the resources you have).  I understand that.  You want your logical mind to be assured.  But that is not what faith is about.  An example is with regards to St. Peter appointing St. Ignatius.  Your logical mind looks at dates and concludes it is impossible, but you do not have the understanding that the successor is often known for years prior to them being ordained.  So what you believed was impossible is actually very possible and in fact many times the norm.  Had you humbled yourself and realized that your experiences are not the final authority on truths, you could begin to gain knowledge which does not come from one's mind, but from God through humility and obedience.

----------


## TER

> But shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?


    -Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians 3


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thank you for the quote above erowe.  Now, instead of taking just the few verses, let us take some more verses around them to better understand the context...

The quote comes from this Epistle to the Trallians when he was a condemned prisoner on his way to martyrdom in Rome.

...
Chapter 2. Be subject to the bishop, etc

For, *since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ*, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, *so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God.* They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against them], as they would do fire.

Chapter 3. Honour the deacons, etc

In like manner, let all *reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ*, *and the bishop as Jesus Christ*, who is the Son of the Father, *and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles*.* Apart from these, there is no Church.* Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestation of your love, and still have it with me, _in your bishop,_ whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are also pleased that I do not spare myself. But shall I, *when permitted to write on this point*, _reach such a height of self-esteem_, that though being a condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?

Chapter 4. I have need of humility

*I have great knowledge in God, but I restrain myself, lest, I should perish through boasting.* For now it is needful for me to be the more fearful; and not give heed to those that puff me up....

... 

And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and *continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles.* He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is,* he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience.*

... 

Continue in harmony among yourselves, and in prayer with one another; for it becomes every one of you, and especially the presbyters, to refresh the bishop, to the honour of the Father, of Jesus Christ, and of the apostles. I entreat you in love to hear me, that I may not, by having written, be a testimony against you. And also pray for me, who have need of your love, along with the mercy of God, that I may be worthy of the lot for which I am destined, and that I may not be found reprobate.( well, there goes the whole OSAS doctrine! - TER)

...

Chapter 13. Conclusion

The love of the Smyrnæans and Ephesians salutes you. Remember in your prayers the Church which is in Syria, from which also I am not worthy to receive my appellation, being the last of them. Fare well in Jesus Christ, *while you continue subject to the bishop, as to the command [of God], and in like manner to the presbytery.* And, every man, love one another with an undivided heart. Let my spirit be sanctified by yours, not only now, but also when I shall attain to God. For I am as yet exposed to danger. But the Father is faithful in Jesus Christ to fulfil both mine and your petitions: in whom may you be found unblameable.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  +++++++++

as a note, the quote you selected from the above Epistle it is clear (at least to me) that what St. Ignatius is saying is that AT THAT TIME OF WRITING, as a prisoner who has been condemned and given limited time to write, would he from self-esteem issue commands as an Apostle?  Yes, he does issues commands as an Apostle, for the entire Epistle is full of commands!  Indeed, he admits he has great knowledge in God (for he was a very student of the Apostles, graced by the Holy Spirit, and perhaps even been visited by the Risen Christ Himself).  There are things which he does not reveal because of his humility and because of the limited time he has left to better explain them lest the people stumble by being given meat and not knowing how to chew (this is described elsewhere in the epistle).    So he does issue commands as an Apostle, but at the time of his writing, out of his humility, he checks himself and resigns to more inward repentance and meekness.  This is the gist of the Epistle when read in complete form.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> No, they don't. We have one single historical source for the existence of Nimrod. That's the Book of Genesis. Take it or leave it.


Leave it works out great. Bible is inadequate.....again.  

Nimrod wasn't his name. That's just an epithet nickname meaning "rebel". 

His name was Ninus. King of Babylon. Husband of Semiramis.  Mentioned in the Bible?

https://www.google.com/search?q=nimr...gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Why should I bother trying to straighten some theory out if the only thing it has going for it is that Ronin Truth claims to have heard it somewhere somewhen?


 Yeah, you're right. You really shouldn't bother.

----------


## erowe1

> -Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians 3
> 
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Thank you for the quote above erowe.  Now, instead of taking just the few verses, let us take some more verses around them to better understand the context...
> 
> The quote comes from this Epistle to the Trallians when he was a condemned prisoner on his way to martyrdom in Rome.
> 
> ...
> ...


All those verses only add more proof to my claim. Ignatius did not consider himself an apostle. Even when he uses analogies, he compares bishops (like himself) to God, and the presbytery to the apostles.

Yes, he was a leader in the church and expected those under his authority to respect it. Yes, he believed that he was carrying on the ministry of the apostles, just like he believed presbyters and other Christians were. But he was not an apostle and did not consider himself one.

I never claimed that Ignatius didn't believe he was carrying on the ministry of the apostles. I claimed that he didn't believe he was an apostle. And clearly he didn't. He unambiguously said that he was not one.

In the days of the apostles, bishops were not considered apostles (at least not apostles in the technical sense that Paul and the 12 were. And in the churches with which Ignatius was familiar 60 years later, bishops were still not considered apostles (in that technical sense).

----------


## TER

Now, let us turn our attention to what this great Apostolic Father wrote in his letter to the Ephesians.  In it he mentions St. Onesimus who also was mentioned in the NT by St. Paul, for St. Onesimus became Bishop of Ephesus.  So not only was St. Ignatius lived with St. John and was taught by him and was appointed to become the Bishop of Antioch, but he knew others we read about in the New Testament, being the Bishop of the great city of Antioch where the term Christian was coined was known all over the Christian world and was beloved by them all.  Whosoever puts their mind above the mind of this great saint of the first century who shared the Holy Eucharist by the Apostles themselves does so because of pride.  It would be better to humble oneself, acknowledge that we cannot be our own teachers, and look to the Church which Christ established and which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.  Great and holy God-bearing men such as St. Ignatius are our fathers in the faith, and while they lived in different times and contended against different threats and circumstances, they have continued the ministry of the Apostles which is to defend the faith and protect and feed the faithful by the grace of God in them.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chapter 1

I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. For, on hearing that I came bound from Syria for the common name and hope, trusting through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome, that so by martyrdom I may indeed become the disciple of Him "who gave Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God," [you hastened to see me ]. *I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God,* *through Onesimus*, a *man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop.*

Chapter 2

As to my fellow-servant Burrhus, your deacon in regard to God and blessed in all things, I beg that he may continue longer, *both for your honour and that of your bishop.* And Crocus also, worthy both of God and you, whom I have received as the manifestation of your love, has in all things refreshed me, as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ shall also refresh him; *together with Onesimus, and Burrhus, and Euplus, and Fronto, by means of whom, I have, as to love, beheld all of you.* May I always have joy of you, if indeed I be worthy of it. It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who has glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience "you may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same thing concerning the same thing,"* and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, you may in all respects be sanctified.*

Chapter 3

I do not issue orders to you, as if I were some great person (again, speaking from humility - TER). For though I am bound for the name [of Christ], I am not yet perfect in Jesus Christ. For now I begin to be a disciple, and I speak to you as fellow-disciples with me. For it was needful for me to have been stirred up by you in faith, exhortation, patience, and long-suffering. But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that you would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; a*s also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ.*

Chapter 4

*Wherefore it is fitting that you should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also you do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Therefore in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung.* And man by man, become a choir, that being harmonious in love, and taking up the song of God in unison, you may with one voice sing to the Father through Jesus Christ, so that He may both hear you, and perceive by your works that you are indeed the members of His Son. It is profitable, therefore, that you should live in an unblameable unity, that thus you may always enjoy communion with God.

Chapter 5

For if I in this brief space of time, *have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop*  I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God.* For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, "God resists the proud." Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.*

Chapter 6

Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. *For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him.* *It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that you all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do you hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.*

Chapter 7 (against the Docetists and other heretics)

For some are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom you must flee as you would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom you must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible even Jesus Christ our Lord.

...

Chapter 10

And pray without ceasing in behalf of other men. For there is in them hope of repentance that they may attain to God. See, then, that they be instructed by your works, if in no other way. Be meek in response to their wrath, humble in opposition to their boasting: to their blasphemies return your prayers; in contrast to their error, be steadfast in the faith; and for their cruelty, manifest your gentleness. While we take care not to imitate their conduct, let us be found their brethren in all true kindness; and let us seek to be followers of the Lord (who ever more unjustly treated, more destitute, more condemned?), that so no plant of the devil may be found in you, but you may remain in all holiness and sobriety in Jesus Christ, both with respect to the flesh and spirit.

...

Chapter 14

None of these things is hid from you, if you perfectly possess that faith and love towards Christ Jesus which are the beginning and the end of life.* For the beginning is faith, and the end is love.*  Now these two, being inseparably connected together, are of God, while all other things which are requisite for a holy life follow after them. No man [truly] making a profession of faith sins; nor does he that possesses love hate any one. The tree is made manifest by its fruit; so those that profess themselves to be Christians shall be recognised by their conduct. For there is not now a demand for mere profession, but that a man be found continuing in the power of faith to the end.

...

Chapter 20

If Jesus Christ shall graciously permit me through your prayers, and if it be His will, I shall, in a second little work which I will write to you, make further manifest to you [the nature of] the dispensation of which I have begun [to treat], with respect to the new man, Jesus Christ, in His faith and in His love, in His suffering and in His resurrection. *Especially [will I do this ] if the Lord make known to me that you come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.* (the Holy Eucharist he describes as the 'medicine of immortality'- TER)

Chapter 21

My soul be for yours and theirs whom, for the honour of God, you have sent to Smyrna; whence also I write to you, giving thanks unto the Lord, and loving* Polycarp* even as I do you. Remember me, as Jesus Christ also remembered you. Pray for the Church which is in Syria, whence I am led bound to Rome, being the last of the faithful who are there, even as I have been thought worthy to be chosen to show forth the honour of God. Farewell in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, our common hope.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
The entire letter can be found here  and any faithful and true seeker of Christ should read it in its entirity to learn from this great Saint of the first century, loved by the Apostles, chosen to continue their ministry of defending the truths against the heretics and protecting and feeding the flock in Antioch.

----------


## TER

> All those verses only add more proof to my claim. Ignatius did not consider himself an apostle. Even when he uses analogies, he compares bishops (like himself) to God, and the presbytery to the apostles.
> 
> Yes, he was a leader in the church and expected those under his authority to respect it. Yes, he believed that he was carrying on the ministry of the apostles, just like he believed presbyters and other Christians were. But he was not an apostle and did not consider himself one.
> 
> I never claimed that Ignatius didn't believe he was carrying on the ministry of the apostles. I claimed that he didn't believe he was an apostle. And clearly he didn't. He unambiguously said that he was not one.


Erowe, he was not one of the Twelve.  I agree with you, and have said that many times.  The Twelve have a great honor and special place within the Kingdom of God, and St. Ignatius does not compare say to St. Peter in glory and honor.  However, neither was St. Paul one of the Twelve (though in many ways surpassed many of the Twelve).  But like St. Paul, St. Ignatius continued their ministry as leaders of the Church, defenders of the faith, and protectors and shephards to the flock.  He was an Apostle in his ministry as St. Paul was.  St. Ignatius didn't have to say "I have received apostolic succession therefore I am your leader", he was too humble for that.  Instead, in meekness and in love, his words and actions revealed what he was, which was a loyal shepherd in the Church and faithful servant of God.  For in the end, the Bishop is leader, but he is first of all a servant to God and those whom he has been appointed to shepherd.

----------


## pcosmar

> And yet none of the authors of any of the books of the Old Testament quoted from or mentioned this ancient work from a prophet they revered who wrote prophecies about their times?


Did any of the Prophets quote other Prophets? (Not aware of any off hand)
But New Testament writers did quote the Prophets. Jude being one of them.

And of course Jesus quoted some as well.

Oh,, and Enoch was not about "their times".. but written for those in the Last days.




> The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect ⌈⌈and⌉⌉ righteous, who will be living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked ⌈⌈and godless⌉⌉ are to be removed.  And he took up his parable and said--Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, ⌈which⌉ the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, *but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come.*

----------


## erowe1

> I am choosing what others (_namely the voice of the consensus of the Church_)


No you aren't. The there is no voice of consensus in the Church that says that Ignatius was an apostle, or that he was appointed as bishop of Antioch by Peter, or that he succeeded some other bishop of Antioch named Euodius or anything else in the 60's AD. There are a few individual human beings here and there, the earliest of whom come from centuries after the time of Ignatius, who say those things, and many other Christians equally claiming a part in the Church who do not (and this is not only in the days since the 16 century, but in all centuries of Church history).

However, we can prove that those who say that Euodius was bishop of Antioch while Peter was still alive are wrong, since we know that monarchical bishops didn't exist yet. Whatever the basis these people have for either believing that mistake or making up that lie, it's not divine inspiration, and they do not speak for the Church. We have writings from the apostles themselves from the 60's AD that say this.

----------


## erowe1

> Did any of the Prophets quote other Prophets?


Yes they did. Word-for-word quotes are rare. But clear allusions to earlier prophets writings are very common.

----------


## erowe1

> Erowe, he was not one of the Twelve.  I agree with you, and have said that many times.  The Twelve have a great honor and special place within the Kingdom of God, and St. Ignatius does not compare say to St. Peter in glory and honor.  However, neither was St. Paul one of the Twelve (though in many ways surpassed many of the Twelve).  But like St. Paul, St. Ignatius continued their ministry as leaders of the Church, defenders of the faith, and protectors and shephards to the flock.  He was an Apostle in his ministry as St. Paul was.  St. Ignatius didn't have to say "I have received apostolic succession therefore I am your leader", he was too humble for that.  Instead, in meekness and in love, his words and actions revealed what he was, which was a loyal shepherd in the Church and faithful servant of God.  For in the end, the Bishop is leader, but he is first of all a servant to God and those whom he has been appointed to shepherd.


You are being slippery.

Yes or no, was Ignatius an apostle in the technical sense that Paul and the twelve were (i.e. the kind of apostle that I claimed no longer existed after the early Church)?

If the answer is no, then I don't see what you were disagreeing with me about. And if Ignatius wasn't an apostle, then in the centuries since the first generation of Christianity, have there been any other apostles? If so, whom? I don't see why we wasted all this time talking about Ignatius if you don't even consider him an example of an apostle.

----------


## TER

> In the days of the apostles, bishops were not considered apostles (at least not apostles in the technical sense that Paul and the 12 were. And in the churches with which Ignatius was familiar 60 years later, bishops were still not considered apostles (in that technical sense).


St. Patrick is called by the Church as the Apostle to Ireland. 
St. Mary Magdalene is called in the Church as 'The Apostle to the Apostles' for she went and told them that Christ had resurrected.
There are _many_ Saints in the Church who are called Apostles.  This does not mean that they were part of the original Twelve, but that they served in an apostolic ministry to spread the good news.  In fact, we are all called to be apostles to Christ!  Since the days of the early centuries, when the original twelve had died and passed on the leadership of the Church to the Bishops, these Bishops have become the image of them by their ministry to continue the good work of spreading the good news and defending the faith.  Only few ever become Bishops, but we are all called to be apostles.

----------


## TER

> No you aren't. The there is no voice of consensus in the Church that says that Ignatius was an apostle, or that he was appointed as bishop of Antioch by Peter, or that he succeeded some other bishop of Antioch named Euodius or anything else in the 60's AD. There are a few individual human beings here and there, the earliest of whom come from centuries after the time of Ignatius, who say those things, and many other Christians equally claiming a part in the Church who do not (and this is not only in the days since the 16 century, but in all centuries of Church history).
> 
> However, we can prove that those who say that Euodius was bishop of Antioch while Peter was still alive are wrong, since we know that monarchical bishops didn't exist yet. Whatever the basis these people have for either believing that mistake or making up that lie, it's not divine inspiration, and they do not speak for the Church. We have writings from the apostles themselves from the 60's AD that say this.


According to the Eastern Orthodox Church which traces itself sacramentally and historically back to the Twelve, there is indeed a consensus that St. Ignatius was a great Saint, had been all those things I mentioned, and had assumed the ministry of the Apostles as the Bishop of Antioch.  That is the consensus I want to share in unity in mind and faith in.

----------


## erowe1

> St. Patrick is called by the Church as the Apostle of Ireland. 
> St. Mary Magdalene is called in the Church as 'The Apostle to the Apostles' for she went and told them about that Christ had resurrected.
> There are many Saints in the Church who are called Apostles.  This does not mean that they were part of the original Twelve, but that they served in an apostolic ministry to spread the good news.  In fact, we are all called to be apostles to Christ!  Since the days of the early centuries, when the original twelve had died and passed on the leadership of the Church to the Bishops, these Bishops have become the image of them by their ministry to continue the good work of spreading the good news and defending the faith.  Only few ever become Bishop, but we are all called to be apostles.


Are those usages of the word "apostle" intended in the technical sense, which the New Testament applies to Paul and the 12? Or is it meant in a less technical sense, meaning a sent one?

Calling bishops the image of the apostles ministry (which is conspicuously different than what Ignatius says, who instead makes that comparison only with presbyters, not bishops), is not the same thing as them being apostles in that technical sense.

----------


## erowe1

> According to the Eastern Orthodox Church which traces itself sacramentally and historically back to the Twelve, there is indeed a consensus that St. Ignatius was a great Saint, had been all those things I mentioned, and had assumed the ministry of the Apostles as the Bishop of Antioch.  That is the consensus I want to share in unity in mind and faith in.


All believers in Jesus everywhere trace themselves sacramentally and historically back to the 12.

At what point in the history of the EOC did those believes become the consensus of the EOC? The 8th century? Later? They certainly weren't the consensus view of the Church Fathers that you believe to have belonged to the EOC.

----------


## TER

> All believers in Jesus everywhere trace themselves sacramentally and historically back to the 12.


And before you get to the 12, you must go through the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is true historically and sacramentally.




> At what point in the history of the EOC did those believes become the consensus of the EOC? The 8th century? Later? They certainly weren't the consensus view of the Church Fathers that you believe to have belonged to the EOC.


The very act of sacramental communion denotes a striving and struggle for unity of faith.  A person who rejects the very Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist may think they are in sacramental communion with the early Church, but they are not.  Likewise with the dogmas of the faith.  One rejecting the essential dogmas which have been professed by the Church (and in number, there are actually few and delineated in the Ecumenical Councils) expel themselves from the unity of faith and mind, having put their own mind above the mind of the Church which is born from the consensus of the Fathers in and through time.

----------


## TER

> Are those usages of the word "apostle" intended in the technical sense, which the New Testament applies to Paul and the 12? Or is it meant in a less technical sense, meaning a sent one?


My point is that the term can have different uses, as you have stated.  




> Calling bishops the image of the apostles ministry (which is conspicuously different than what Ignatius says, who instead makes that comparison only with presbyters, not bishops), is not the same thing as them being apostles in that technical sense.


St. Ignatius calls the bishops the image of God, Christ Himself, and the presbyters the image of the Apostles.  In this he is explaining _the hierarchy of the Church in its ecclesiastical formation_, for just as Christ is the head of the Apostles, likewise the Bishop is the head of the presbyters.

  But the ministry he provided and all bishops provide are in the image of the Apostles who have been graced by the Holy Spirit via apostolic succession to lead the Church and feed the flock.  That is why in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the presbyters who perform the duties of serving the Divine Liturgy and the Holy Eucharist do it under the auspices and authority of the Bishops who are their heads (indeed, in their place), just as it has been done since the early Church.  Whereas it was the Apostles who performed these duties when they were present, when they weren't, it was done under those with whom they had appointed as 'elders/bishops' and presbyters.

----------


## robert68

Its fitting that a religion produced and allied with the tyrannical and often warring eastern Roman Empire regards Mary, a mother, as a Queen.

----------


## erowe1

> And before you get to the 12, you must go through the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is true historically and sacramentally.


Unless you just define the EOC as everyone who believes in Jesus, regardless of where they go to church or whether any particular bishops are over them, then we can conclusively and indisputably prove that that's not true. And I would wager that any good Eastern Orthodox scholars of Church history will back me up on that.

----------


## erowe1

> But the ministry he provided and all bishops provide are in the image of the Apostles who have been graced by the Holy Spirit via apostolic succession to lead the Church and feed the flock.


But Ignatius does not say that, or anything remotely close to it.

And, more to the point, when it comes to the simple question, "Was Ignatius an apostle?" he says unambiguously that he was not one.

----------


## erowe1

> My point is that the term can have different uses, as you have stated.


If that is your point, then we can return to the issue that brought that point up, which was my claim that there is at least one spiritual gift that was only given in the early church and has not been given to any believers since that time, namely apostleship, when "apostle" is defined in that limited technical sense that applied to Paul and the 12, as eyewitnesses of the risen Christ who provided the foundation for the Church.

If the only kind of apostles that you think have existed since that time are people who can be called "apostle" in some other sense of the word, but not in that limited technical sense of the word, then you agree with me about the cessation of at least that one spiritual gift.

On the other hand, if you disagree with me about the cessation of that one spiritual gift, then bringing up these alleged counterexamples that only end up being people who could be called "apostle" in some other sense but not in the sense I was talking about, then all you're doing is obfuscating the issue, rather than supporting your position.

----------


## TER

I will answer your questions tomorrow as I have to get to bed. In the meantime, you should read the seven epistles of St. Ignatius tonight (they are not long and can be finished in less than a half an hour) so that we can have a better understanding and discussion tomorrow of the new topic of this thread which is the unity of the faith under obedience to the Bishop in sacramental communion around the Holy Eucharist, which has been the apostolic teachings of the Apostolic fathers of the Chuch and has continued to this day by the grace of God.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Its fitting that a religion produced and allied with the tyrannical and often warring eastern Roman Empire regards Mary, a mother, as a Queen.


How so?  None of the Patriarchates were "produced" by Rome.  Only the Roman Church was "allied" (I don't consider this to be a totally accurate term) with Rome, and even then not until Constantine.

----------


## TER

> Unless you just define the EOC as everyone who believes in Jesus, regardless of where they go to church or whether any particular bishops are over them, then we can conclusively and indisputably prove that that's not true. And I would wager that any good Eastern Orthodox scholars of Church history will back me up on that.


I don't think you will find one.  




> But Ignatius does not say that, or anything remotely close to it.
> 
> And, more to the point, when it comes to the simple question, "Was Ignatius an apostle?" he says unambiguously that he was not one.


St. Ignatius humbly acknowledges he is not one of the Twelve.  As for continuing their apostolic ministry to lead the Church in love and service, he affirmed it by his title and ministry as the first century Bishop of Antioch and by being a beloved Saint of God in Christ. 




> If that is your point, then we can return to the issue that brought that point up, which was my claim that there is at least one spiritual gift that was only given in the early church and has not been given to any believers since that time, namely apostleship, when "apostle" is defined in that limited technical sense that applied to Paul and the 12, as eyewitnesses of the risen Christ who provided the foundation for the Church.
> 
> If the only kind of apostles that you think have existed since that time are people who can be called "apostle" in some other sense of the word, but not in that limited technical sense of the word, then you agree with me about the cessation of at least that one spiritual gift.
> 
> On the other hand, if you disagree with me about the cessation of that one spiritual gift, then bringing up these alleged counterexamples that only end up being people who could be called "apostle" in some other sense but not in the sense I was talking about, then all you're doing is obfuscating the issue, rather than supporting your position.


There was no cessation of the Twelve, and neither their special place in the story of our salvation.  For even now they pray for the Church.  Neither are their gifts gone, for the same Holy Spirit which gifted them also gifts St. Ignatius and all the saints. Their special and unique role as Twelve Apostles puts them in a special place, I do not disagree.  There will never be another Twelve.  But the Holy Spirit did not abandon the Church when they died.  Indeed, their apostolic ministry was to literally hand down the Holy Spirit unto the trusted leaders and clergy of the Church so that these teachers and leaders would continue what they first started which was to spread the gospel and to feed the flock.  The special place and spiritual gifts of the Apostles never has ended, instead, the Church has developed in order to keep pure and undefiled the fundamental teachings of the saints and to share in the right worship of God around the Holy Eucharist.  How they did this, we see in a small part in Acts.  But the story did not end in Acts.  That was just the beginning of the life and development of the Church which was contending in the world.  Much happened while the Apostles were alive and not recorded in the NT.  The limited history recorded explain some of their acts while displaying the birth of the Church.  The maturation was only beginning and the work of the Holy Spirit in the world just starting.

The very reason why the truths of Christ have endured is because of the Holy Spirit and the humility and obedience of men.  The establishment and survival of the Church has been on account of lives borne in such obedience and humility, and St. Ignatius was one such man.   

In order to make the certain modern Western Christian perspectives true, we must ignore any developed Church in the end of the first century, ignore all the writings of the Church Fathers, call all the early Saints liars (including Apostolic Fathers), make Apostles fools for creating the conditions and choosing the men who would fall within a generation, and worst of all consider the Holy Spirit impotent in protecting and guiding the Church.  I cannot accept this and neither should any logical man of true faith.

 The alternative which is the way of Christ is to humble ourselves before God and man, to see ourselves fallible and in need of instruction and guidance, and to stop fighting against the Holy Spirit and the Church thinking we are some greater authority regarding the will of God in the life of the Church over a beloved Bishop and Saint of the first century.  Are we so sure of ourselves that we put ourselves above him, thinking us more knowledgable, experienced, spiritually illuminated and full of love and the Holy Spirit?  But humility is a hard virtue because pride is such a strong and powerful vice.  Our faith is not made true by our minds, but given to us through humility.

The question in the end is whom do we consider to be more authoritative, our mind's opinion and interpretations based on sparse and limited information, or the witness of the Church which has always been the pillar and foundation of the truth.  We should not conform the Church into an image of what we think, stopping at a certain time in history as if God disappeared, but rather conform our own beliefs and add to our own witness that which the Church is, the living Body of Christ, which seeks communion as one body, meaning 

one mind (similar conclusions and interpretations),one faith (similar fundamental beliefs and doctrines),one spirit (the spirit of love and self giving, that is the Holy Spirit),partaking of the One Bread (the Body and Blood of Christ, that is the Holy Eucharist)as one flesh (as the Bride of the Bridegroom and through the Body and Blood of Christ)in mystical communion and worship of God and His Body the Church


Such oneness of Church and unity exists now and has existed since the Day of Pentecost, and St. Ignatius is such a member of this unity, as well as the Apostles who loved him, taught him, and shared in sacramental communion. Instead of trying to look for some hidden branches which do not exist or which withered away into heresies long ago such as the Docetists whom St. Ignatius fought against in the first century, look and see that the Church of Christ did not end at the last page of Acts but has overcome by the grace of God and has continued to bring light to the world through our Savior Jesus Christ.

----------


## Terry1

Last time I checked--the title of Apostle was not limited to just the twelve and can apply to those sent by our Lord to teach and minister the word of God.  And since the Apostle Paul called all saints to the ministry--it's not out of line to understand that there are many other Apostles of the Lord who do His will.  How do we know?  Because the ancient church history confirms it and reconciles with their teaching.

2 Corinthians 6:4

But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,

Acts 1:

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

*25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.


*

Aren't there something like seventy other confirmed Apostles in the Gospel?




Strong's Concordance

apostolos: *a messenger, one sent on a mission*, an apostle
Original Word: ἀπόστολος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: apostolos
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os'-tol-os)
Short Definition: *an apostle, a messenger, an envoy, a delegate*
Definition:* a messenger, envoy, delegate, one commissioned by another to represent him in some way, especially a man sent out by Jesus Christ Himself to preach the Gospel; an apostle.
*HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 652 apóstolos (from 649 /apostéllō, "to commission, send forth") – properly, someone sent (commissioned), focusing back on the authority (commissioning) of the sender (note the prefix, apo); apostle.

----------


## robert68

> How so?  None of the Patriarchates were "produced" by Rome.  Only the Roman Church was "allied" (I don't consider this to be a totally accurate term) with Rome, and even then not until Constantine.


"Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople"

----------


## TER

The Church of Constantinople existed before their was a city named such and dates back to the Apostle Andrew.  It is the same Church since then and in time, due to the changing geopolitical landscape (namely the moving of the Capital from Rome to 'New Rome' (Aka Constantinople), _ the Church_ decided to elevate it in rank with equal footing with Old Rome.  That was by a decision of the bishops in synod (including the Bishop of Rome) in the year 382 (a Ecumencial Council).   It was not the Emperor who decided this, it was the Church adapting to a changing world, a change made by the decision of the people _within the Church._ It is the same reason any group would want to be located in the most important city in the world, for the advantageous capablilites in communications, organization, and to use the power inherent in the city to do more far reaching and efficacious work.  In the case of the Church of Constantinople which had existed for three hundred years prior, it was to facilitate the Church's work in spreading the gospel and baptizing all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.   It is natural for the city at the center of human politics and trade to also concentrate within it the leaders of religious communities.  Go to NY and DC and you will find the heads of many faiths and communities there.  For the Church, it facilitated the spreading of the gospel within this specific nexus and location in order to enlighten and influence the policy makers for the benefit of the faithful and the Church.   And the presence and work of this Church in New Rome has done much to spread the faith in the history of Christianity, even against centuries being beset by barbarian invasions and Islamic expansionism.  And not only from _foreign_ powers but from the very Emperors of Rome and Byzantium and the political elite (well after Constantine died), many of which persecuted the Church and all Christians and tried to revive the pagan practices and worship of the State.

This Church has survived since the days of the Apostles even against all odds.  For while it had a working relationship with the State, the Church did not become the State such as which tragically happened in Old Rome in the Middle Ages.

So much has the Ecumencial Patriarchate served the Christian world that it still retains this honor given to it by the Church in Ecumenical Council, even until today, centuries after the end of the Roman and Byzantine Empires.  The Church adapts to the world around her, in order to pass down the doctrines of Christ and the traditions of the Apostles even though attacked from without and within by sinful men. But the world does not own her even though sinful men make efforts to destroy or co-opt her, and kings have been born and died, empires have come and gone, but the Church has endured and will forever endure by the power of God.   And that is because the Church is not a mere human organism but in the image of Christ, His Body, of divine origin as well.  The Holy Spirit kept the line of Israel from David until the birth of the Lord, and likewise keeps it alive until His glorious return.  For there is One King and One Kingdom which is not of this world, even as we the Church militant do battle within it so that we might inheret the Kingdom of God.

----------


## Kevin007

> Last time I checked--the title of Apostle was not limited to just the twelve and can apply to those sent by our Lord to teach and minister the word of God.  And since the Apostle Paul called all saints to the ministry--it's not out of line to understand that there are many other Apostles of the Lord who do His will.  How do we know?  Because the ancient church history confirms it and reconciles with their teaching.
> 
> 2 Corinthians 6:4
> 
> But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,
> 
> Acts 1:
> 
> 23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
> ...



no. And ONLY an Apostle can write Scripture that is inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is just one of the reason Protestant's do not include Macabees and Tobit for example. Tobit also because of magic and witchcraft which is strictly forbidden.

There are 66 books.

----------


## erowe1

> St. Ignatius humbly acknowledges he is not one of the Twelve.


He humbly acknowledges that he is not an apostle at all, and specifically disclaims being one of the same category of, not only the 12, but also Paul, whom he names explicitly, saying he's not an apostle like Paul.

----------


## erowe1

> Last time I checked--the title of Apostle was not limited to just the twelve and can apply to those sent by our Lord to teach and minister the word of God.


Not only that. But the word apostolos can apply to any sent one, not just teaching the Word of God, but anyone who's sent by anyone to carry any message.

If you read our discussion you'll see that that point has already been covered.

In addition to that general definition, there is also a technical use of the term apostolos that was used to signify a special and very limited group of leaders in the first generation of the Church whose role it was to found the Church. This included the 12 and Paul. It's possible that it included even others beyond that. I don't exclude that possibility.

While it's true that someone can be a sent one in that general sense, it's not possible for anyone today to belong to that group that was signified by that technical use of the term apostolos in the first generation of the Church.

----------


## erowe1

> There was no cessation of the Twelve, and neither their special place in the story of our salvation.  For even now they pray for the Church.  Neither are their gifts gone, for the same Holy Spirit which gifted them also gifts St. Ignatius and all the saints.


Please stop being so slippery. These points are not at all related to what I said. Nothing I said contradicts any of this.

There are many spiritual gifts, and the Holy Spirit gives different gifts to different people, appointing them to different roles within the Body of Christ. The Holy Spirit appoints each believer in Jesus to a special and particular role. One of these roles was a role occupied by Paul and the 12 to found the Church. The New Testament refers to this particular gift as "apostolos." Ignatius did not perform this same function. He himself said so. Neither has anyone else ever since the first generation of Christianity.

----------


## robert68

> ....


You can spin and spin with propaganda (it's what you do); but in addition to facts like the Ecumenical Councils were all arranged by Emperors, churches in the Byzantine Empire were built with state treasure, and the clergy were exempt from paying taxes, I haven't come across a single Byzantine Emperor who was excommunicated. That speaks volumes. Furthermore, the following speaks for itself, wrt to the E.P’s church:




> Hagia Sophia:
> 
> *First Church*
> 
> The first church on the site was known as the Μεγάλη Ἐκκλησία (Megálē Ekklēsíā, "Great Church"), or in Latin "Magna Ecclesia",[11][12] because of its larger dimensions in comparison to the contemporary churches in the City.[3] Inaugurated on 15 February 360 (during the reign of Constantius II) by the Arian bishop Eudoxius of Antioch,[13] *it was built next to the area where the imperial palace was being developed.* The nearby Hagia Eirene ("Holy Peace") church was completed earlier and served as cathedral until the Great Church was completed. *Both churches acted together as the principal churches of the Byzantine Empire*
> 
> Writing in 440, Socrates of Constantinople claimed that *the church was built by Constantius II,* who was working on it in 346.[13] A tradition which is not older than the 7th – 8th century, reports that the edifice *was built by Constantine the Great.*[13] Zonaras reconciles the two opinions, writing that *Constantius had repaired the edifice consecrated by Eusebius of Nicomedia,* after it had collapsed.[13] Since Eusebius was bishop of Constantinople from 339 to 341, and Constantine died in 337, it seems possible that the first church was erected by the latter.[13]...
> 
> *Second Church*
> ...

----------


## TER

I am not being slippery erowe.  I am trying to open your eyes to the fact that there was one catholic Church at the end of the first century, spread across cities and nations, in divine communion with one another under the authority of bishops, priests and deacons, offices which were born from the first ministry of the Apostles in a grace filled succession of charismata, and fully developed by the work of the Holy Spirit within the life of the Church.  Acts was never intended to record the complete history of the development if the Church through the Holy Spirit. 

 St. Paul exhorted his listeners to listen to their teachers and to become of one mind, in one faith and in the one body of Jesus Christ.  And to those alone who lived in such unity of faith holding dear to the faith handed once down by the saints, they would partake of the Holy Eucharist.  Otherwise they would be unworthy to partake and they should not commune.  In fact, they should be casted out, something the Apostles were not shy about doing with those who spoke another gospel and threatened the unity of the Church.  For not only would they be in danger if they did partake unworthily of the Body and Blood of Christ (for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God), but their presence and scandals would disturb the unity and health of the Church.  Neither St. Paul nor the other Apostles were afraid of excommunicating those who distorted the faith and message of Christ.  

Thus, our greatest link to find the true Church and the original faith _lies in the Holy Eucharist_, for it is around this the very Body and Blood of Christ whereby we can find the succession of the truths according to the good will of God. 

By the end of the first century, the Church had developed into separate churches, under the leadership of elders/bishops, of which St. Ignatius was one.  Many churches though One Church, just as many members make up One Body.  Their unity and adherence to the apostolic faith was demonstrated and ontologically realized in the Holy Eucharist. 

The fact that St. Ignatius was in sacramental communion with the Bishops far and wide (naming them and worshiping with them on his road to martyrdom) underscores his witness as recorded in his letters as being both catholic (widespread and established) and orthodox (according to the teachings of the Apostles).  For he was not excommunicated, nor denounced, nor corrected, but rather glorified and proclaimed a saint for having kept fast to the traditions given to him both by word and epistle and continuing the ministry started by the Apostles to shepherd and feed the flock and keep undefiled the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> no. And ONLY an Apostle can write Scripture that is inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is just one of the reason Protestant's do not include Macabees and Tobit for example. Tobit also because of magic and witchcraft which is strictly forbidden.
> 
> There are 66 books.


Okay, I can tell you haven't even read Tobit from this.  You're just repeating what some anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox person told you.   Did you know Jon 3:16 is an allusion to Tobit? 

There are 76 books.  Period.

----------


## Kevin007

> Okay, I can tell you haven't even read Tobit from this.  You're just repeating what some anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox person told you.   Did you know Jon 3:16 is an allusion to Tobit? 
> 
> There are 76 books.  Period.


lol, no John 3:16 is not. Tobit 6:5-8- If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can  be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a  fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again  anymore.

 This is magic.

----------


## Kevin007

> Okay, I can tell you haven't even read Tobit from this.  You're just repeating what some anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox person told you.   Did you know Jon 3:16 is an allusion to Tobit? 
> 
> There are 76 books.  Period.


 there are 66. Those 10 books are not included because they are not Scripture. None of them are inspired by the Holy Spirit and all have inaccuracies. The best thing they are good for is history.

----------


## Kevin007

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible. 

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language  (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew).   All Apocryphal books are in  Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred  scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the  apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish  people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of  Jerusalem in 70 A.D.The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books  during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm  certainly not talking about the Catholic religion. The Roman Catholic "Church" is not Christian).The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only  contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in  the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three  different deaths in three different places.The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible,  such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following  verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated  1954:


http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible. 
> Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew). All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion. http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm&quot;]The Roman Catholic &quot;Church&quot; is not Christian[/URL]).The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the &quot;canonical&quot; scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
> http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm


Interesting. Especially #4. Thanks!
*"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*

----------


## Terry1

> Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible. 
> 
> Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language  (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew).   All Apocryphal books are in  Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred  scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the  apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish  people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of  Jerusalem in 70 A.D.The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books  during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm  certainly not talking about the Catholic religion. The Roman Catholic "Church" is not Christian).The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only  contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in  the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three  different deaths in three different places.The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible,  such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following  verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated  1954:
> 
> 
> http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm


Kevin--that link you provided written by someone named "Tracy" is just wrong on so many levels that it's almost impossible to know where to start explaining why.  I'm not saying this person doesn't love the Lord or that they're not a Christian, but intellectually speaking regarding the knowledge of scripture--"Tracy" is sorely lacking wisdom and good judgment.

You need to be very careful reading some of these sites simply because they may agree with what you believe, because IMO--you are also very confused scripturally.

----------


## erowe1

> Okay, I can tell you haven't even read Tobit from this.  You're just repeating what some anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox person told you.   Did you know Jon 3:16 is an allusion to Tobit?


I doubt that John 3:16 is an allusion to Tobit. But if it is, so what? Jesus and the apostles alluded to lots of books, not just books that they appealed to as inspired Scripture. We have no record of them ever appealing to Tobit, or any other books of the Apocrypha, as inspired Scripture.




> There are 76 books.  Period.


Why do you say this? And why do you say "Period." at the end, as though this has been objectively and finally decided somewhere?

----------


## Terry1

> no. And ONLY an Apostle can write Scripture that is inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is just one of the reason Protestant's do not include Macabees and Tobit for example. Tobit also because of magic and witchcraft which is strictly forbidden.
> 
> There are 66 books.


You simply can't say that being the fact that you believe in and follow John Calvin's doctrinal teachings that are so far off from being biblical they should be in the Hall of Shame.  And if you choose to believe a 15th century blood thirsty murderous reformer who's done more harm to the body of Christ than any other over the most ancient Church of Christ--then that's your choice, but don't expect everyone to believe this who knows much better.

----------


## erowe1

> I am not being slippery erowe.


You are. It is obvious. And it is obvious that it is deliberate.

The question is: Did Ignatius (or anyone else after the first generation of Christians) fill the role that is connoted by the precise technical application of the label "apostle" as it was applied to the 12 and Paul, who were eye-witnesses of the risen Christ that provided the foundation for the Church?

The question is not:
- Did Ignatius (or anyone else) have gifts of the Holy Spirit, of which the gift of apostleship given to the 12 and Paul was one?
- Did Ignatius (or anyone else) carry on the apostolic ministry?
- Did Ignatius (or anyone else) fill another kind of role in the Church that could rightly be called an "apostle" but in some more general and less technical sense?
- Did Ignatius have authority in his day that somehow resembled the authority the apostles had in theirs?

Sometimes you say something that looks like you answer the actual question at hand by agreeing with me, that there have been no apostles in that technical sense since the first generation. But you never say so in a simple yes or no way. And then you divert the discussion to all those other questions which only muddle the issue.

----------


## erowe1

> you believe in and follow John Calvin's doctrinal teachings


Can you please provide your quote from Kevin showing that this accusation is true?

If you can't, you owe him an apology.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You simply can't say that being the fact that you believe in and follow John Calvin's doctrinal teachings that are so far off from being biblical they should be in the Hall of Shame. And if you choose to believe a 15th century blood thirsty murderous reformer who's done more harm to the body of Christ than any other over the most ancient Church of Christ--then that's your choice, but don't expect everyone to believe this who knows much better.


Speaking of blood thirsty and murderous, do you happen to have, at the very least, an as strong indictment against the bloody history of the RCC?

Just curious and looking for some consistency.

----------


## Terry1

> The Church of Constantinople existed before their was a city named such and dates back to the Apostle Andrew.  It is the same Church since then and in time, due to the changing geopolitical landscape (namely the moving of the Capital from Rome to 'New Rome' (Aka Constantinople), _ the Church_ decided to elevate it in rank with equal footing with Old Rome.  That was by a decision of the bishops in synod (including the Bishop of Rome) in the year 382 (a Ecumencial Council).   It was not the Emperor who decided this, it was the Church adapting to a changing world, a change made by the decision of the people _within the Church._ It is the same reason any group would want to be located in the most important city in the world, for the advantageous capablilites in communications, organization, and to use the power inherent in the city to do more far reaching and efficacious work.  In the case of the Church of Constantinople which had existed for three hundred years prior, it was to facilitate the Church's work in spreading the gospel and baptizing all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.   It is natural for the city at the center of human politics and trade to also concentrate within it the leaders of religious communities.  Go to NY and DC and you will find the heads of many faiths and communities there.  For the Church, it facilitated the spreading of the gospel within this specific nexus and location in order to enlighten and influence the policy makers for the benefit of the faithful and the Church.   And the presence and work of this Church in New Rome has done much to spread the faith in the history of Christianity, even against centuries being beset by barbarian invasions and Islamic expansionism.  And not only from _foreign_ powers but from the very Emperors of Rome and Byzantium and the political elite (well after Constantine died), many of which persecuted the Church and all Christians and tried to revive the pagan practices and worship of the State.
> 
> This Church has survived since the days of the Apostles even against all odds.  For while it had a working relationship with the State, the Church did not become the State such as which tragically happened in Old Rome in the Middle Ages.
> 
> So much has the Ecumencial Patriarchate served the Christian world that it still retains this honor given to it by the Church in Ecumenical Council, even until today, centuries after the end of the Roman and Byzantine Empires.  The Church adapts to the world around her, in order to pass down the doctrines of Christ and the traditions of the Apostles even though attacked from without and within by sinful men. But the world does not own her even though sinful men make efforts to destroy or co-opt her, and kings have been born and died, empires have come and gone, but the Church has endured and will forever endure by the power of God.   And that is because the Church is not a mere human organism but in the image of Christ, His Body, of divine origin as well.  The Holy Spirit kept the line of Israel from David until the birth of the Lord, and likewise keeps it alive until His glorious return.  For there is One King and One Kingdom which is not of this world, even as we the Church militant do battle within it so that we might inheret the Kingdom of God.


Great post TER.  And since the Church is the very physical image of Christ in this world--we worship Christ *through* the Church that contains the very body of believers in this world.  I think this is where some of the Protestants are confusing the issue of "worship", thinking it's idolatry.  I don't believe that they *get--that the worldly ancient church is our physical and tangible link to Christ Himself.

I know myself coming out of the Protestant churches that there is a wall that's been built between the Catholics and the Protestants that's very difficult to penetrate scripturally speaking.  The reformers did so much damage in their quest to *reform* that they actually corrupted the true teachings of the Gospel of Christ to the point now it's been like a cancer that's spread through the centuries to what we have today.  This is indeed a stronghold that I see that's not of God, but at the same time--God knows the hearts and minds of those who He can make stand regardless.

The most detrimental and dangerous teaching to the soul I can see today, is the teaching that "belief and faith" are synonymous and that "good works" are not needed, when Jesus our Lord tells us the exact opposite as well as every single apostle, prophet and teacher in the word of God.

I think that before we can convince the Protestants that veneration is not the same as worship with regard to Church traditions and practices, we first have to break down that wall of corruption leading them to believe that because Jesus finished the work on the cross, that we have nothing left to do.  We know this isn't true because our faith, good works and ministry begin at the time of belief and confession--they don't end there.  Through prayer and witness--somehow we must find a way to reveal to them where they err.

----------


## Terry1

> Can you please provide your quote from Kevin showing that this accusation is true?
> 
> If you can't, you owe him an apology.


I certainly didn't mean to offend, but it's difficult to correct someone without telling them you believe they're wrong in the first place.  Kevin believes in the perseverance of the saints doctrine Once Saved Always Saved.  He doesn't believe that our "good works" are necessary, same you believe.  He also provided links to CARM, which is pure Calvinism.  

In the link he provided, asserts that the RCC are not Christians--this is wrong as well and should also be accompanied with an apology from Kevin, because I have never once accused Kevin of not being a Christian, but--by his own belief and practice--denotes such as well.

That link Kevin provided also makes the statement that the RCC is the "Harlot" mentioned in the Bible--this is not true either because I have provided scriptural proof that the "Harlot" mentioned in the Bible is Jerusalem--not the RCC.  Scripture after scripture in the word of God refers only to Jerusalem as being the "Harlot" in the Old Testament and the New.

Like I said--I've never accused Kevin of not being a Christian, as he's done to many good faithful Catholics in here and I never would, but the *way* he believes is not consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ who most definitely told us that nothing but our good works done in faith can possibly glorify the Father in heaven.

----------


## erowe1

> I certainly didn't mean to offend, but it's difficult to correct someone without telling them you believe they're wrong in the first place.  Kevin believes in the perseverance of the saints doctrine Once Saved Always Saved.  He doesn't believe that our "good works" are necessary, same you believe.  He also provided links to CARM, which is pure Calvinism.  
> 
> In the link he provided, asserts that the RCC are not Christians--this is wrong as well and should also be accompanied with an apology from Kevin, because I have never once accused Kevin of not being a Christian, but--by his own belief and practice--denotes such as well.
> 
> That link Keven provided also makes the statement that the RCC is the "Harlot" mentioned in the Bible--this is not true either because I have provided scriptural proof that the "Harlot" mentioned in the Bible is Jerusalem--not the RCC.  Scripture after scripture in the word of God refers only to Jerusalem as being the "Harlot" in the Old Testament and the New.
> 
> Like I said--I've never accused Kevin of not being a Christian, as he's done to many good faithful Catholics in here and I never would, but the *way* he believes is not consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ who most definitely told us that nothing but our good works done in faith can possibly glorify the Father in heaven.


Believing something Calvin believed doesn't mean the same thing as what you said. You also believe lots of things that Calvin believed. But the fact that he also believed those things is irrelevant to you, just as it is to me, and I would assume to Kevin as well.

What's your basis for the comment you made about CARM?

The Roman Catholic Church, in the Council of Trent, which it considers an ecumenical council, says that anyone who disagrees with it about the precise list of books belonging to the canon is not Christian, which would rule out Eastern Orthodox. Is that just as wrong?

My observation over the years has been that the bulk of the problems that arise in the religion forums here result from people taking offense that other people think they're not saved. We all just need to take for granted that, no matter who we are or what we believe, someone else thinks we're not saved, and stop getting getting upset when they say so.

As for your last comment, are you sure about that? Jesus never said that anything else, like his crucifixion for example, would glorify God?


ETA: This was pretty easy to find: http://carm.org/carm-calvinism . It makes me wonder whether you bothered checking before you made your claim.

----------


## Terry1

> Believing something Calvin believed doesn't mean the same thing as what you said. You also believe lots of things that Calvin believed.
> 
> What's your basis for the comment you made about CARM?
> 
> The Roman Catholic Church, in the Council of Trent, which it considers an ecumenical council, says that anyone who disagrees with it about the precise list of books belonging to the canon is not Christian, which would rule out Eastern Orthodox. Is that just as wrong?


If want to dissect every jot and tittle of doctrine not consistent with the word of God--then you should begin with those who are the most dangerous to the body of Christ which isn't the RCC or the EOC--it is the Protestant doctrines that are saturated with untruths that are far more dangerous to the soul and Spirit than worrying about whether a church believes it's the be all end all of salvation.

Believing that you have already obtained eternal life and are chosen in this life without the chance of losing salvation is the *very belief* that will cause you to lose it.  That is something you should be focused on and not whether a church practices idolatry or not or thinks it's the only path to salvation.  God is able to over-look many traditions and practices that people do knowing in their hearts that what they do--they do in love and honor to Him, but what God will not over-look are those who live in a state of complacency thinking that they can not fall or that they can live any way they choose and still be saved without good works that follow faith.

Opposite the Protestant and many of the reformers teaching--we are commanded by our Lord Himself to live Godly lives by doing good unto others through our faith and good works and to the very end of our lives, which all through the NT, we are taught by every writer in every book.

No one is once saved always saved in this life--no one is once chosen always chosen in this life--no one is once elected always elected in this life.  This life is a test of our faith and good works to the very end of it and then only *God chooses* whom He will after we have been tested and proved to have overcome this life through our choice to walk in the Spirit of the Lord or fall from it.  That is the Gospel truth and not what most of the Protestant doctrines are teaching--that is the Gospel according to the Eastern Orthodox faith which is most consistent with the truth in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Apostle Paul nowhere tells us that we are eternally secure in this life and any reference to eternal security such as "can not pluck them from my hands" is in reference to after the first death of this life--a future event.  "Predestined to be" is a future event *AFTER* this life.

Here Paul tells you that only now he's certain of his eternal life--being at the very end of this life and only hours from his worldly death.

2 Timothy 4:
6* For I am now ready to be offered*, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 *I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:* 8Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

----------


## erowe1

> Kevin believes in the perseverance of the saints doctrine Once Saved Always Saved.
> ....
> Like I said--I've never accused Kevin of not being a Christian


And then...



> Believing that you have already obtained eternal life and are chosen in this life without the chance of losing salvation is the *very belief* that will cause you to lose it.


I leave it to the reader to decide if you're talking out both sides of your mouth.

----------


## erowe1

> The Apostle Paul nowhere tells us that we are eternally secure in this life and any reference to eternal security such as "can not pluck them from my hands" is in reference to after the first death of this life--a future event.  "Predestined to be" is a future event *AFTER* this life.


That is false. And your own quotation of the word "predestined" in the past tense proves it.

In the way Paul uses the word, a person who is justified, was already predestined in the past to be glorified in the future. The glorification is future, but the predestination happened in the past.

Also, Paul is very explicit that people can be justified in the here and now, and that each and every justified person, with zero exceptions, is guaranteed to be glorified. He never once entertains the possibility of a justified person not being glorified, and he spends more than one chapter directly and explicitly addressing the issue to proclaim the unbreakable promise that every single justified person will surely be glorified.

I get that you disagree with him. But you can't say he never said that.

----------


## Terry1

> And then...
> 
> 
> I leave it to the reader to decide if you're talking out both sides of your mouth.


Speaking facts might seem that way to you considering your current state of belief also, but that's not the case.  I'm speaking in terms of what the Gospel of Jesus Christ tells us.  In essence then--you're claiming that the Gospel is speaking out of both sides of it's mouth, unless you can prove with scripture otherwise.

----------


## Terry1

> That is false. And your own quotation of the word "predestined" in the past tense proves it.
> 
> In the way Paul uses the word, a person who is justified, was already predestined in the past to be glorified in the future. The glorification is future, but the predestination happened in the past.
> 
> Also, Paul is very explicit that people can be justified in the here and now, and that each and every justified person, with zero exceptions, is guaranteed to be glorified. He never once entertains the possibility of a justified person not being glorified, and he spends more than one chapter directly and explicitly addressing the issue to proclaim the unbreakable promise that every single justified person will surely be glorified.
> 
> I get that you disagree with him. But you can't say he never said that.


Absolutely not--what you've just quoted is in direct opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ erowe.  "Glorified" in every sense of the word is a reference to a future event after this life--not in this life.  The only way we can be perfect and glorified in this life is by continually walking in the Spirit of the Lord and if we choose not to walk in the spirit of the Lord and for too long in this life--we can and people do most certainly fall from grace and out of salvation.  Our faith is for *us to choose to keep* and our *course is what we choose to follow* to the very end of our lives in this life.  Rev. 3:5.  Also as the Apostle Paul told you that he "chose to keep the faith and stay the course" until his death by doing the "good works"/"works of faith" that our Lord called him to do.  Knowing now that he stayed the course and "kept the faith"--knows that he's received his crown of glory, but not before then.


I don't want to derail TER's thread too much here and all I will tell you is that John in Revelation most certainly makes reference to the virgin birth of Christ and Mary as being royalty with the crown of twelve stars and arrayed with the sun.  John is making use of a metaphor giving reference to the body of Christ and the church.  Mary is most worthy of the title of "Queen of Heaven" and is not out of line to venerate her as such understanding the role she played with regard to giving birth of her own virgin flesh to the Son of God.  God would not condemn this and neither should any man being that Johns testimony in Revelation is the very inspiration and revelation from God Himself.

----------


## erowe1

> Speaking facts might seem that way to you considering your current state of belief also, but that's not the case.  I'm speaking in terms of what the Gospel of Jesus Christ tells us.  In essence then--you're claiming that the Gospel is speaking out of both sides of it's mouth, unless you can prove with scripture otherwise.


Gotcha.

So you're saying that Kevin says that what he believes is the Gospel, and those who don't believe it deny the Gospel. And Kevin is wrong to do this. And you would never do such a thing.

And you're also saying that what you believe is the Gospel, and that those who don't believe it don't believe the Gospel. And you're not wrong to do this.

Furthermore, anyone who accuses you of holding yourself to a different standard than you hold Kevin is also denying the Gospel.

Again, I leave it to the reader to sort through the implications of all that.

----------


## erowe1

> "Glorified" in every sense of the word is a reference to a future event after this life--not in this life.


That's exactly what I said. You must have misread my post.

----------


## Terry1

> Gotcha.
> 
> So you're saying that Kevin says that what he believes is the Gospel, and those who don't believe it deny the Gospel. And Kevin is wrong to do this. And you would never do such a thing.
> 
> And you're also saying that what you believe is the Gospel, and that those who don't believe it don't believe the Gospel. And you're not wrong to do this.
> 
> Furthermore, anyone who accuses you of holding yourself to a different standard than you hold Kevin is also denying the Gospel.
> 
> Again, I leave it to the reader to sort through the implications of all that.


I only state what I believe according to what the word of God says and it all reconciles with scripture.  If you believe I'm wrong, then you must use scripture to prove that.  We've already been through this and you always inevitably end up having to add to or take away from scripture to support your belief by claiming that "all doesn't mean all" and that "world doesn't mean world" and that "faith is dead without works" is not saying what it most certainly is saying.  I don't have to change a word of scripture to understand that it all reconciles with each other.  That's the difference between what you have chosen to believe and what I know is Gospel truth.  

Given the fact that we will all see through the glass darkly--still more is given to those who prayerfully, sincerely and honestly seek it with a whole heart and mind.  I know that there's a reason why many are not seeing more clearly and it because they have chosen not to by allowing themselves to become embedded in unsound doctrines.

----------


## Terry1

> ETA: This was pretty easy to find: http://carm.org/carm-calvinism . It makes me wonder whether you bothered checking before you made your claim.


I urge everyone to avoid this CARM site completely.  CARM is a conglomeration of different people teaching a wide array of reformed doctrine that doesn't even reconcile with some of their own contributors and writers.  Instead, what it appears to be is a concerted effort on the part of it's creator/'s to build something large and widespread with all sorts of unbiblical teaching.  My personal opinion is that it's a cesspool of misinformation, unbiblical teaching and people who'd very much like to call themselves *leaders of flocks*--when they're anything but that and far-far from it.

This is why there are so many Protestant churches teaching all kinds of differing doctrines, while the Catholic and the EOC are right on the mark and together in their interpretation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Never mind their tradition and practices--*their saving message* in the Gospel is consistent with the word of God as it always has been since the days of Jesus's Apostles.

Personally I chose the Greek Orthodox faith because their contention is that Jesus is the head of the worldly church and not the Pope.  Hopefully as time passes--these two sister churches will fall under the same banner of faith once again.

The assertion and belief that the RCC is the Harlot mentioned in the Bible is totally incorrect.   The Harlot was always Jerusalem because Jerusalem sells itself out to the devil who was once faithful to God--Hence God calls Jerusalem--"The Harlot" who will ride the beast of revelation.  All you have to do is wiki Jerusalem and see what's happening there and the fight over territory and power and who is and will be in control of it all.

----------


## Terry1

Adding--it's impossible for the RCC to be the Harlot for many reasons but the most glaring is that Isaiah tells you that the *Harlot Zion* shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness.  Jerusalem was built upon Zion for a reason.  Rome is not Zion.  Jerusalem was the "Great City" built upon seven hills--the seven hills of Jerusalem/Zion.  

Isaiah 1: 21 *How is the faithful city become an harlot!* it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

22 Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:

23 Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.

24 Therefore saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies:

25 And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin:

26 And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city.

27 *Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness.


*


Revelation 11:8King James Version (KJV)

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of *the great city*, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt,* where also our Lord was crucified.*

If one starts with the Mount of Olives just to the east of the main City of Jerusalem (but still reckoned to be located within the environs of Jerusalem), there are three summits to that Mount of Olives:

1.The northern summit (hill) is called Scopus [Hill One],

2.The middle summit (hill) was called Nob [Hill Two], 

3.The highest point of Olivet itself, and the southern summit (hill) was called in the Holy Scriptures the "Mount of Corruption" or "Mount of Offence" [Hill Three] (II Kings 23:13). 

4.On the middle ridge between the Kedron and the Tyropoeon Valleys there was (formerly) in the south "Mount Zion" [Hill Four] (the original "Mount Zion" and not the later southwest hill that was later called by that name), 

5.The "Ophel Mount" [Hill Five],

6.To the north of that the "Rock" around which "Fort Antonia" was built [Hill Six],

7.And finally, there was the southwest hill itself [Hill Seven] that finally became known in the time of Simon the Hasmonean as the new* "Mount Zion."* 

Revelation 17:9

9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. *The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth*.

Mystery and myth solved.  The RCC is NOT--the Harlot that rides the beast of Revelation--Jerusalem is.  This is where the reformers perverted the word of God to imply that because Rome is built on seven hills also--that they must be the Harlot--that's wrong and incorrect and unbiblical to say the least.  



There are many cities claiming to be built on seven hills--but the seven "heads", "the harlot", "the whore", "Sodom and Egypt" are all referring to Jerusalem as *Revelation 11:8 tells you this "where our Lord was crucified*"---Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem--Not ROME.

----------


## Terry1

> [SIZE=+2]Catholic religion. The Roman Catholic "Church" is not Christian).[*]
> 
> http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm


I have just proven to you that you're wrong with scripture to back it up.  The RCC is not the Harlot and CARM is a cesspool of unbiblical teaching.

----------


## Kevin007

> Adding--it's impossible for the RCC to be the Harlot for many reasons but the most glaring is that Isaiah tells you that the *Harlot Zion* shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness.  Jerusalem was built upon Zion for a reason.  Rome is not Zion.  Jerusalem was the "Great City" built upon seven hills--the seven hills of Jerusalem/Zion.  
> 
> Isaiah 1: 21 *How is the faithful city become an harlot!* it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.
> 
> 22 Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:
> 
> 23 Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.
> 
> 24 Therefore saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies:
> ...


7 mountains are the 7 world powers since Adam and Eve. #7 is the revived roman empire.

----------


## Terry1

> 7 mountains are the 7 world powers since Adam and Eve. #7 is the revived roman empire.


Revelation 11:8 tells you exactly as Isaiah does-- that the whore/Harlot is the city "where our Lord was crucified"--read what I wrote Kevin--don't skim through my posts please.  Now surely you're not going to dispute what Revelation and Isaiah are both saying.  Revelation 17: 9 tells you that the "seven heads" are "mountains"--not world powers.  I have no idea where you've gathered this info, but it's not from reading the word of God, but elsewhere as places like CARM and such.

Your tirade against the Catholic church is absolutely and totally unfounded, unbiblical and you have been sorely misled by Protestant teachings.

----------


## Kevin007

> Great post TER.  And since the Church is the very physical image of Christ in this world--we worship Christ *through* the Church that contains the very body of believers in this world.  I think this is where some of the Protestants are confusing the issue of "worship", thinking it's idolatry.  I don't believe that they *get--that the worldly ancient church is our physical and tangible link to Christ Himself.
> 
> I know myself coming out of the Protestant churches that there is a wall that's been built between the Catholics and the Protestants that's very difficult to penetrate scripturally speaking.  The reformers did so much damage in their quest to *reform* that they actually corrupted the true teachings of the Gospel of Christ to the point now it's been like a cancer that's spread through the centuries to what we have today.  This is indeed a stronghold that I see that's not of God, but at the same time--God knows the hearts and minds of those who He can make stand regardless.
> 
> The most detrimental and dangerous teaching to the soul I can see today, is the teaching that "belief and faith" are synonymous and that "good works" are not needed, when Jesus our Lord tells us the exact opposite as well as every single apostle, prophet and teacher in the word of God.
> 
> I think that before we can convince the Protestants that *veneration is not the same as worship* with regard to Church traditions and practices, we first have to break down that wall of corruption leading them to believe that because Jesus finished the work on the cross, that we have nothing left to do.  We know this isn't true because our faith, good works and ministry begin at the time of belief and confession--they don't end there.  Through prayer and witness--somehow we must find a way to reveal to them where they err.


prove it.

----------


## Terry1

> prove it.


How can I prove what's in the heart of the believer that they profess too?  Only God can do that.  If someone tells you they only worship God--then you must believe them.  If whatever a believer does--they do in honor and worship to our Lord God--then God is able to see that and make them stand.  I could very well accuse you of idolatry considering that you're choosing to believe a false doctrine above the word of God too.  In essence you're worshiping a doctrine that's inconsistent with Gods word too.  As in calling the book of the Bible "inerrant" because it contains the word of God.  That is worshipping a book above God, because scripture can be perverted as it's interpreted the wrong way--so written words on pages can not be "inerrant".

 Romans 14:4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

----------


## Kevin007

lets take the Eucharist for example. Jesus said do this in memory of me. It was to be a memorial, not an ongoing sacrifice. We remember Him because He is physically absent. He is in Heaven. Jesus is not in the Eucharist. The RCC is wrong on so many things.....

----------


## Terry1

> lets take the Eucharist for example. Jesus said do this in memory of me. It was to be a memorial, not an ongoing sacrifice. We remember Him because He is physically absent. He is in Heaven. Jesus is not in the Eucharist. The RCC is wrong on so many things.....


Jesus is most certainly present in the Eucharist--Jesus Himself told you He was.  This is why without doing it "worthily" you can bring damnation upon yourself.

I hate to put it so bluntly here, but Jesus Himself said "eat me"--LOL  We're supposed to do this as if we are literally taking Jesus into our own bodies and is very consistent with the word of God as John tells you right here. 

John 6:
56 He *that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him*. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father:* so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.**
*

This is why the word of God also instructs not to do this unless they understand that yes--you are literally taking and eating of Jesus into your own body.  So an unsaved and unbaptized individual should not do this because they are defiling Jesus by doing such.  If they do this without doing it "worthily"--then they are placing the body and blood of Jesus into an unclean vessel.

1 Corinthians 11: 27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and *so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.* 

So when someone takes the body and blood--they'd better examine themselves closely--otherwise they are bringing damnation upon themselves by doing this unworthily.  It's a serious consequence for not understanding what one is doing here.  This is why the Eucharist is the very central part of the church within the EOC.  Everything centers around Jesus our Lord and Savior.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> prove it.


This has been proven ~38 ways from Sunday.  Ditto for icons.  You simply choose to ignore it so as to troll people rather than engage the subject.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Jesus is most certainly present in the Eucharist--Jesus Himself told you He was.  This is why without doing it "worthily" you can bring damnation upon yourself.
> 
> I hate to put it so bluntly here, but Jesus Himself said "eat me"--LOL  We're supposed to do this as if we are literally taking Jesus into our own bodies and is very consistent with the word of God as John tells you right here. 
> 
> John 6:
> 56 He *that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him*. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father:* so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.*
> 
> This is why the word of God also instructs not to do this unless they understand that yes--you are literally taking and eating of Jesus into your own body.  So an unsaved and unbaptized individual should not do this because they are defiling Jesus by doing such.  If they do this without doing it "worthily"--then they are placing the body and blood of Jesus into an unclean vessel.
> 
> ...





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Terry1 again.


   The fact of the liternalness of the eucharist is a big part of why it is carefully guarded.  Our forefathers in Christ took this sacrament very, very seriously and very literally.  There was a time when catechumen were not even allowed to be present while the Eucharist was served.

----------


## Kevin007

> Jesus is most certainly present in the Eucharist--Jesus Himself told you He was.  This is why without doing it "worthily" you can bring damnation upon yourself.
> 
> I hate to put it so bluntly here, but Jesus Himself said "eat me"--LOL  We're supposed to do this as if we are literally taking Jesus into our own bodies and is very consistent with the word of God as John tells you right here. 
> 
> John 6:
> 56 He *that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him*. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father:* so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.*
> 
> This is why the word of God also instructs not to do this unless they understand that yes--you are literally taking and eating of Jesus into your own body.  So an unsaved and unbaptized individual should not do this because they are defiling Jesus by doing such.  If they do this without doing it "worthily"--then they are placing the body and blood of Jesus into an unclean vessel.
> 
> ...


that verse is a metaphor. A figurative illustration.

----------


## Kevin007

Jesus' sacrifice need not be repeated because  His  purpose  was  fulfilled.  He  gained  His  people‟s  redemption,  the cancellation  of our  sin..  It  was  a ONE TIME perfect sacrifice: He has no need to go through it again. Since Jesus can't  shed  His  blood  or die twice; what is the value of such an unbloody sacrifice  in  the  light  of the Words  “without   shedding   of   blood   there   is   no 
remission of sin”?

What does the Bible say? *But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever,** sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God.* (HEBREWS 10:12)

*The RCC is doing what the Jews did in the OT. Continually reoffering Christ as a sacrifice*.

----------


## TER

> that verse is a metaphor. A figurative illustration.


So _you_ say Kevin, but that is not what the early Church believed, what the Apostles taught, or what Christ said.  If you are comfortable relying on your interpretation over all these saints and the Lord Himself, then do as you will.  But you are in the minority in your opinion and definitely not in accordance with the apostolic teachings.

----------


## TER

> *The RCC is doing what the Jews did in the OT. Continually reoffering Christ as a sacrifice*.


Jesus' work on the Cross is eternal, meaning it is outside of time and perpetual.  Although it occurred within the appointed time in _our_ history, it's plan and consequences are eternal.  Christ offered Himself once on the cross to destroy the power of eternal death, but His sacrifice is eternal.  

When the faithful celebrate the Holy Eucharist, they do so in _true_ remembrance, meaning they declare the eternal works of Christ done on the Cross and share in the witness of His life-giving resurrection.  Not simply as a past time event and apart from our being and lives but in real re-_membrance_, that is, to become a _member_ of this witness and event. 

Christ died once in history for the love of the world, but we celebrate His resurrection every Lord's day, partaking of His very Body and Blood which He offers for the life of the world.  This is what Christ directed, what the Apostles taught, and what the Church has continuously done since the very beginning.  You calling it a mere symbol puts you outside this communion of faith.

----------


## Terry1

> Jesus' sacrifice need not be repeated because  His  purpose  was  fulfilled.  He  gained  His  people‟s  redemption,  the cancellation  of our  sin..  It  was  a ONE TIME perfect sacrifice: He has no need to go through it again. Since Jesus can't  shed  His  blood  or die twice; what is the value of such an unbloody sacrifice  in  the  light  of the Words  “without   shedding   of   blood   there   is   no 
> remission of sin”?
> 
> What does the Bible say? *But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever,** sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God.* (HEBREWS 10:12)
> 
> *The RCC is doing what the Jews did in the OT. Continually reoffering Christ as a sacrifice*.


Kevin--please understand this--whenever we take Holy Communion with the Lord and the Eucharist--we are not simply "reoffering Christ as  sacrifice" as you say--What Holy Communion is----is literally taking Jesus into ourselves as Jesus Himself said to do.  What we are then doing is remembering not only what Jesus did on that cross, but His entire ministry and resurrection from that cross.  So we are communing with Him--we are partaking of that blood and body along with His resurrection as well--in communion.

Communion means this--the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level.  We are partaking of the mind and body of Christ into ourselves as well.  This is not hanging Him on the cross again as you believe--this is communing in the Spirit with our Lord--

This is why we are told not to do this unworthily because we can bring damnation to ourselves not discerning the blood and body of Christ.  This isn't something we take lightly or should do if we do not understand what the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ means.  This is something very sacred as we are told in the word of God.

I know that even in some of the Protestant churches--they do not allow small children to take communion--because they are not old enough to discern the body and the blood.  So this isn't something that's just *Catholic* either--but the EOC takes far more care keeping this Holy tradition sacred than the Protestants do--which is the way it was done by the very Apostles of Christ.

Also, you made the statement that the OT Jews kept "reoffering Christ as a sacrifice"--this was not possible because Jesus had not even been born, crucified or resurrected yet in the OT.

Your lack of knowledge and scriptural understanding is a blatant testimony to why the ancient church is needed on this earth.  Many of us need the guidance of the church to understand what the saints before us understood and to know how we are supposed to live, believe, love, forgive and to be what we are called to be in Christ.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Sometimes you just can't pretty up cannibalism anymore.  Pass the Fritos, please.

----------


## TER

> Sometimes you just can't pretty up cannibalism anymore.  Pass the Fritos, please.


It's funny troll that you, who claims to be so much against the Roman Empire, are making the same accusations the Roman officials made as they were feeding the early Christians to the lions.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> that verse is a metaphor. A figurative illustration.





> Jesus' sacrifice need not be repeated because  His  purpose  was  fulfilled.  He  gained  His  people‟s  redemption,  the cancellation  of our  sin..  It  was  a ONE TIME perfect sacrifice: He has no need to go through it again. Since Jesus can't  shed  His  blood  or die twice; what is the value of such an unbloody sacrifice  in  the  light  of the Words  “without   shedding   of   blood   there   is   no 
> remission of sin”?
> 
> What does the Bible say? *But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever,** sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God.* (HEBREWS 10:12)
> 
> *The RCC is doing what the Jews did in the OT. Continually reoffering Christ as a sacrifice*.


No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it will not be true.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It's funny troll that you, who claims to be so much against the Roman Empire, are making the same accusations the Roman officials made as they were feeding the early Christians to the lions.


Eye beam acting up a bit again there for you?

I think you guys would all be outraged if the Moslems were doing that.

Actually, I'd think a card would work out just as well for a remembrance.

----------


## Terry1

> It's funny troll that you, who claims to be so much against the Roman Empire, are making the same accusations the Roman officials made as they were feeding the early Christians to the lions.


I've come to the realization that some are simply not meant to know and understand.  Not because God didn't call them--it's because they won't listen and only God knows their hearts.  So it's impossible to judge someone not knowing what plans God has for them, but it's certainly scary to watch people deny and be blinded to clear scriptural truths.

Last night at our Greek Orthodox church, when I was speaking to the Priest, he said to me as we were discussing something between us--"so you have kept and open mind"--I said yes, always.  I think that's so important for any Christian is to always prayerfully seek things out that we don't fully comprehend.  I tend to run towards truth and correction--not from it--thank you Lord!

----------


## erowe1

> Jesus is most certainly present in the Eucharist--Jesus Himself told you He was.  This is why without doing it "worthily" you can bring damnation upon yourself.
> 
> I hate to put it so bluntly here, but Jesus Himself said "eat me"--LOL  We're supposed to do this as if we are literally taking Jesus into our own bodies and is very consistent with the word of God as John tells you right here. 
> 
> John 6:
> 56 He *that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him*. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father:* so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.**
> *
> 
> This is why the word of God also instructs not to do this unless they understand that yes--you are literally taking and eating of Jesus into your own body.  So an unsaved and unbaptized individual should not do this because they are defiling Jesus by doing such.  If they do this without doing it "worthily"--then they are placing the body and blood of Jesus into an unclean vessel.
> ...


In John 6, how could Jesus be talking about the Eucharist? He hadn't instituted the Eucharist yet. But the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood was something that some in his audience when he spoke those words had already done by faith.

----------


## TER

> In John 6, how could Jesus be talking about the Eucharist? He hadn't instituted the Eucharist yet. But the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood was something that some in his audience when he spoke those words had already done by faith.


How come so many of His disciples left when he spoke those words?  And how did Christ react when they did?  Did He say 'I don't mean you actually have to eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, I was being figurative.'

And how come all the early Church Fathers, including St. Paul taught about the the real Presence?

Hw many have to be wrong so that you can be right?

----------


## erowe1

> There was a time when catechumen were not even allowed to be present while the Eucharist was served.


What time was that? And did the apostolic Church practice this? Or was it a later innovation and corruption of their faith?

----------


## erowe1

> How come so many of His disciples left when he spoke those words?


Because they didn't have faith, because God had not granted that to them.



> 60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
> 
> 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
> 
> 66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
> 
> 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
> 
> 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
> ...


It's not because they didn't want to participate in a Eucharist. At that point in time there was no Eucharist.

Notice also some of the verses earlier in the story:



> 35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.





> 43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life.


According to Jesus himself, in the very same discourse in which he refers to eating his flesh and drinking his blood, the way to do that is by believing in him. And this was already true when he walked the earth before the Last Supper had happened.

----------


## Terry1

> How come so many of His disciples left when he spoke those words?  And how did Christ react when they did?  Did He say 'I don't mean you actually have to eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, I was being figurative.'
> 
> And how come all the early Church Fathers, including St. Paul taught about the the real Presence?
> 
> Hw many have to be wrong so that you can be right?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TER again.

----------


## pcosmar

> that verse is a metaphor. A figurative illustration.


Yes,,but more than that.




> But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every *word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.





> He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.






> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.





> He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

----------


## erowe1

> God told me that my job was to yank chains and rattle cages.  I said "Really?"  He said "Yes." I said, "Why me?" He said, "Because you're good at it." I said "OK, thanks." He said, "You're welcome".  Amen.


The reason I know this can't be true is because you're not good at it.

----------


## TER

> Because they didn't have faith, because God had not granted that to them.
> 
> 
> It's not because they didn't want to participate in a Eucharist. At that point in time there was no Eucharist.
> 
> Notice also some of the verses earlier in the story:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Jesus himself, in the very same discourse in which he refers to eating his flesh and drinking his blood, the way to do that is by believing in him. And this was already true when he walked the earth before the Last Supper had happened.


So in other words, all the early saints and the Apostles were wrong so that you can be right.  I chose their witness and understanding better then yours.

----------


## erowe1

> And how come all the early Church Fathers, including St. Paul taught about the the real Presence?


I don't see how that's relevant to the interpretation of John 6, since John 6 isn't talking about the Eucharist at all.

As far as "the real presence," do you mean to imply that I do not believe in "the real presence"? If so, would you please quote where I said that?

If you can't find any such quote, then please answer the words I actually use, rather than putting words in my mouth as straw men you can knock down.

----------


## erowe1

> So in other words, all the early saints and the Apostles were wrong so that you can be right.  I chose their witness and understanding better then yours.


The early saints and Apostles were wrong about what?

Do you know of some writing where the early saints and apostles give their interpretation of John 6, and contradict anything I said? I don't. In the case of the Apostles we can say with 100% certainty that we have nothing from them (other than the Gospel of John itself) that comments on the meaning of Jesus's words in John 6.

I assume that you can find something in Origen, but no earlier than that. And I wouldn't take Origen's views as representative of a consensus of the early saints and Apostles.

And, at any rate, we actually have John 6. You can read it yourself. And you can see that it says what I quoted. You don't have to worry about choosing between taking my word for it and taking someone else's word for it. You can take John's own words for it, unless you don't trust John's 3-pound brain to do a good enough job of saying what he meant.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The reason I know this can't be true is because you're not good at it.


 You may want to take up that observation with the Father.  PSSST, I'd suggest you not call him a liar, he just really hates that.

----------


## TER

Erowe, do you know who the Docetists were?

----------


## Terry1

> I don't see how that's relevant to the interpretation of John 6, since John 6 isn't talking about the Eucharist at all.
> 
> As far as "the real presence," do you mean to imply that I do not believe in "the real presence"? If so, would you please quote where I said that?
> 
> If you can't find any such quote, then please answer the words I actually use, rather than putting words in my mouth as straw men you can knock down.


"He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall dwell IN ME"--what part of that is so confusing?  Jesus must be present in this Holy communion for this to even be possible!  Yes--we are literally taking Jesus into our own bodies as He instructed and as He said to do it.  I don't understand the problem here.  This is why if someone does this "unworthily" that they can bring damnation upon themselves.  Do you think that someone could bring damnation upon themselves by doing nothing more than not "remembering" something properly?

All you have to do is take a closer look at the word "damnation" for goodness sakes.  What does that mean to you?  The Holy Communion is not something one just casually does in only remembrance.  In order to be damned for not doing it correctly means that you're not doing this properly "discerning the blood and body of Christ"--as in understanding that this is the Holy sacred presence of the Lord you're taking into your own body here.  Otherwise--you couldn't be damned because you have a bad memory.

----------


## erowe1

> And before you get to the 12, you must go through the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is true historically and sacramentally.





> Unless you just define the EOC as everyone who believes in Jesus, regardless of where they go to church or whether any particular bishops are over them, then we can conclusively and indisputably prove that that's not true. And I would wager that any good Eastern Orthodox scholars of Church history will back me up on that.





> I don't think you will find one.


Fr. John Behr is Dean and Professor of Patristics at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary where he teaches  courses in patristics, dogmatics, and scriptural exegesis. He is also a distinguished lecturer at Fordham University.

From Behr's book, _Formation of Christian Theology, Volume 1: The Way to Nicea_:

"[T]he bishop is not, for Ignatius, the successor to the apostles, nor are the apostles reckoned as the first bishops." (p. 82).

"For Ignatius, the position of the apostles in the work of God in Christ (cf. _Magn._ 7.1) is foundational for the Church at all times and in all places, in contrast to the circumscribed role of the bishop." (p. 82).

"Nor does Ignatius derive this role of the bishop from any apostolic institution, but rather legitimizes it himself by speaking prophetically." (pp. 85-86).

----------


## TER

Seems like St. Paul believed in the real Presence: (1 Corinthians 10)

14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 *The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread*.

18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

----------


## TER

> Fr. John Behr is Dean and Professor of Patristics at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary where he teaches  courses in patristics, dogmatics, and scriptural exegesis. He is also a distinguished lecturer at Fordham University.
> 
> From Behr's book, _Formation of Christian Theology, Volume 1: The Way to Nicea_:
> 
> "[T]he bishop is not, for Ignatius, the successor to the apostles, nor are the apostles reckoned as the first bishops." (p. 82).
> 
> "For Ignatius, the position of the apostles in the work of God in Christ (cf. _Magn._ 7.1) is foundational for the Church at all times and in all places, in contrast to the circumscribed role of the bishop." (p. 82).
> 
> "Nor does Ignatius derive this role of the bishop from any apostolic institution, but rather legitimizes it himself by speaking prophetically." (pp. 85-86).


Very good.  I don't know of this author.  Can you find others?

BTW, I have stressed that he was not one of the 12 but continued their ministry of protecting the faith and feeding the flock.  Saying that at least a dozen times.

----------


## TER

> Erowe, do you know who the Docetists were?


The reason I ask this has bearing to the discussion at hand.  Do you know who the Docetists were and what their major heresy was?

----------


## Terry1

> Seems like St. Paul believed in the real Presence: (1 Corinthians 10)
> 
> 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 *The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread*.
> 
> 18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lords table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?


This is worth a thousand words and completely explains what we are trying to say here.  Great catch TER!

----------


## TER

And here is St. Ignatius, an Apostolic Father, speaking the apostolic faith against the Docetists of they day which were the first great heretics of the early Church:

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. *I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.* (Letter to Romans 7:3) 

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: *For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery...* (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1) 

They [the Docetists] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, *because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ*, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

Of course, some will ignore these because they consider themselves greater, more knowledgable, and more illumined than this first century Church Father and Saint, but this is offered to those who have ears to listen.

----------


## erowe1

> Erowe, do you know who the Docetists were?


Yes.

----------


## erowe1

> And here is St. Ignatius, an Apostolic Father, speaking the apostolic faith against the Docetists of they day which were the first great heretics of the early Church:
> 
> I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. *I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.* (Letter to Romans 7:3) 
> 
> Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: *For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery...* (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1) 
> 
> They [the Docetists] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, *because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ*, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)
> 
> Of course, some will ignore these because they consider themselves greater, more knowledgable, and more illumined than this first century Church Father and Saint, but this is offered to those who have ears to listen.


Nowhere in these verses does Ignatius make any reference to Jesus's words in John 6, which is what my claim was about.

----------


## erowe1

> Seems like St. Paul believed in the real Presence: (1 Corinthians 10)
> 
> 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 *The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread*.
> 
> 18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?


Are you implying that I don't believe in the real presence? If so, please quote where I said that.

If you can't find such a quote, then please respond to my actual words, rather than putting words in my mouth so you can knock down your straw men.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with John 6, though, and in no possible way could Paul's words here be construed as an interpretation of what Jesus said in that chapter.

----------


## erowe1

> Very good.  I don't know of this author.  Can you find others?
> 
> BTW, I have stressed that he was not one of the 12 but continued their ministry of protecting the faith and feeding the flock.  Saying that at least a dozen times.


I would have to go to a library to find others.

----------


## erowe1

> Do you know of some writing where the early saints and apostles give their interpretation of John 6, and contradict anything I said? I don't. In the case of the Apostles we can say with 100% certainty that we have nothing from them (other than the Gospel of John itself) that comments on the meaning of Jesus's words in John 6.
> 
> I assume that you can find something in Origen, but no earlier than that. And I wouldn't take Origen's views as representative of a consensus of the early saints and Apostles.


I decided to check myself on this.

As a matter of fact, at least one Father from before the time of Origen does provide his interpretation of John 6, Origen's mentor, Clement of Alexandria.

Interestingly, Clement interprets the reference to eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood in that chapter completely figuratively. I don't take Clement of Alexandria to be in any way authoritative when it comes to what the Bible means. But it is very interesting to me that, considering the claim made earlier in this thread that the earliest interpretation of John 6 by the Church Fathers and the Apostles equated those verses with the Eucharist. As a matter of fact, that claim is proven false. The earliest interpretation of those verses available to us in the extant literature of the Church Fathers interprets them figuratively.

This is in chapter 5 of Clement's work, _Paedagogus,_ which is much too long for me to quote here. In that chapter Clement repeatedly refers to John 6:54-56 and other verses in that chapter and repeatedly insists on interpreting them figuratively.

----------


## TER

> Are you implying that I don't believe in the real presence? If so, please quote where I said that.
> 
> If you can't find such a quote, then please respond to my actual words, rather than putting words in my mouth so you can knock down your straw men.
> 
> This has nothing whatsoever to do with John 6, though, and in no possible way could Paul's words here be construed as an interpretation of what Jesus said in that chapter.


I am happy you actually agree with the Church Fathers that the Holy Eucharist is the very Blood and the very Flesh of Christ.  Some don't, and that is why I wrote what I did.

----------


## TER

> I decided to check myself on this.
> 
> As a matter of fact, at least one Father from before the time of Origen does provide his interpretation of John 6, Origen's mentor, Clement of Alexandria.
> 
> Interestingly, Clement interprets the reference to eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood in that chapter completely figuratively. I don't take Clement of Alexandria to be in any way authoritative when it comes to what the Bible means. But it is very interesting to me that, considering the claim made earlier in this thread that the earliest interpretation of John 6 by the Church Fathers and the Apostles equated those verses with the Eucharist. As a matter of fact, that claim is proven false. The earliest interpretation of those verses available to us in the extant literature of the Church Fathers interprets them figuratively.
> 
> This is in chapter 5 of Clement's work, _Paedagogus._


Well, there is St. Ignatius which I listed above, and there is St. Justin (circa 150 AD) who too was contending against the heretics of the day:

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [being born again in Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, *so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.* (First Apology 66) 

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]...It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the Gentiles, that is, of the bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho 41)

----------


## erowe1

> I am happy you actually agree with the Church Fathers that the Holy Eucharist is the very Blood and the very Flesh of Christ.  Some don't, and that is why I wrote what I did.


Perhaps some don't. I'm not sure about that.

But where the issue seems to lie in the conflicts you have with the people you're probably talking about, is not so much in the abstract idea of the real presence. It's in a bunch of ancillary doctrines that are connected to the doctrine of transubstantiation (which includes affirming much more than just the real presence), such as the idea that upon blessing the elements some kind of miracle happens where they physically become physical flesh and blood, but of a sort that has none of the physical properties of flesh and blood, right down to the molecular level, and that certain criteria must be met, such as the oversight of somebody who is either counted by some group of human beings as a bishop, or someone delegated by such a person, in order for this miracle to happen, and that without this miracle happening, nobody is able to do what John 6 talks about in eating the Bread of Life, such that these special human beings who get to oversee the Eucharist are thought to have the power to exclude others from access to Christ himself.

Obviously none of these ancillary ideas could be gotten from any of the words of either Jesus or Paul. Ignatius comes much closer to claiming these things. But in doing so he also blatantly diverges from the faith of the apostles as evidenced by their own writings.

----------


## erowe1

> Well, there is St. Ignatius which I listed above, and there is St. Justin (circa 150 AD) who too was contending against the heretics of the day:
> 
> We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [being born again in Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, *so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.* (First Apology 66) 
> 
> Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]...It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the Gentiles, that is, of the bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho 41)


I see no clear allusion to John 6 in any of those passages.

If you read chapter 5 of Clement's _Paedagogus_, you'll see that he very explicitly refers to the verses we are talking about.

----------


## TER

Let us not forget the great St. Irenaeus who also came way before Origen:

St. Irenaeus, ca A.D. 140-202

He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying This is My body." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood. (Against Heresies 4:17:5) 

But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator... How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished by the body of the Lord and by His blood gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? ...*For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly...* (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5) 

If the body be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; *and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His blood nor is the bread which we break the partaking of His body... He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established us as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life -- flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord...receiving the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ...* (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

----------


## erowe1

> Let us not forget the great St. Irenaeus who also came way before Origen:
> 
> St. Irenaeus, ca A.D. 140-202
> 
> He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying This is My body." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood. (Against Heresies 4:17:5) 
> 
> But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator... How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished by the body of the Lord and by His blood gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? ...*For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly...* (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5) 
> 
> If the body be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; *and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His blood nor is the bread which we break the partaking of His body... He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established us as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life -- flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord...receiving the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ...* (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)


Once again, I see no reference to John 6 here.

The assertion you made was that, through my interpretation of John 6 (which was nothing more than pointing out exactly what it very plainly says), I was calling the apostles and earliest fathers wrong. But this can only be the case if the apostles and earliest fathers made statements about their interpretations of John 6 that contradicted what I said.

General statements about their beliefs concerning the Eucharist are something entirely different. If you can't see that, then go back to the post of mine that you quoted, and find anything I said in it at all that any of these quotes of the fathers or Paul that you've posted contradict in any way.

----------


## TER

> I see no clear allusion to John 6 in any of those passages.
> 
> If you read chapter 5 of Clement's _Paedagogus_, you'll see that he very explicitly refers to the verses we are talking about.


I'm sorry you don't see the clear connection.  That's okay.  Those who humble themselves to learn from teachers greater than themselves (the early saints) see the obvious connection

----------


## TER

> Once again, I see no reference to John 6 here.


Sad you don't.  But perhaps one day you will.

----------


## erowe1

> Sad you don't.  But perhaps one day you will.


If you would like me to see it, then just point it out to me.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm sorry you don't see the clear connection.  That's okay.  Those who humble themselves to learn from teachers greater than themselves (the early saints) see the obvious connection


So now you're saying that the early saints provided interpretations of the words of Justin Martyr, where they claim that the ones you quoted are Justin Martyr's interpretation of John 6.

Could you point me to those early fathers who say these things about Justin Martyr?

As for what you say about the humble, truly learning from those who are greater than us involves more than just parroting back something somebody told us. If that's all you do, then you haven't learned anything. Critical thought is also required. For that, you should look to the examples of the early Fathers. They never just parroted back what they learned from those before them, saying, "Saint so-and-so said it, and that settles it." They made arguments for their positions from Scripture which they interpreted. And in interpreting it, they never said, "Here is the Church's interpretation of this passage that has been passed down to us from others who came before us."

----------


## erowe1

TER, may I ask where you are copying your quotes of the fathers from?

----------


## TER

> TER, may I ask where you are copying your quotes of the fathers from?


Sure, here it is.  Perhaps you might learn something.  http://www.fisheaters.com/fathersoneucharist.html

----------


## erowe1

> Sure, here it is.  Perhaps you might learn something.  http://www.fisheaters.com/fathersoneucharist.html


Notice that the title of that page is "Fathers on the Eucharist," not "Fathers' interpretations of John 6:54-56." Most of those quotes make no reference to that passage of the Bible. And even in that list, the earliest father to refer to that passage is Clement of Alexandria, exactly as I said.

----------


## TER

> Notice that the title of that page is "Fathers on the Eucharist," not "Fathers' interpretations of John 6:54-56." Most of those quotes make no reference to that passage of the Bible. And even in that list, the earliest father to refer to that passage is Clement of Alexandria, exactly as I said.


Lol, okay erowe.  At least you believe the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Christ, and not like the Gnostics and the Docetists believed (that it was a mere symbol) which was the belief of the very heretics the Church fought against from the early days.

----------


## TER

In fact, it was those earliest disciples which could not accept those teachings (John 6) which caused them to abandon Christ because they would not humble themselves and accept the literal words of Christ when He said those words which pointed to the Last Supper and the Holy Eucharist (which has always been the very center of Christian worship).

----------


## TER

And here are some more of the Church Fathers expressing the apostolic faith:

Origen, ca. A.D. 185-254


We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. (Against Celsus 8:33) 


You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish... how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His body? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)


Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: "My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2).


St. Clement of Alexandria, ca. A.D. 150-216


Calling her children about her, she [the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word...The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. "Eat My flesh," He says, "and drink My blood." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. He delivers over His flesh amd pours out His blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery! (Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3)


St. Cyprian of Carthage, ca A.D. 200-258


He Himself warns us, saying, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you shall not have life in you." Therefore do we ask that our Bread, which is Christ, be given to us daily, so that we who abide and live in Christ may not withdraw from His sanctification and from His Body. (The Lord's Prayer 18)


St. Aprahat, ca A.D. 280-345


After having spoken thus ["This is My body, This is My blood"], the Lord rose up from the place where He had made the Passover and had given His Body as food and His Blood as drink, and He went with His disciples to the place where He was to be arrested. But He ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood, while He was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented His own Body to be eaten, and before He was crucified He gave His blood as drink... (Treatises 12:6)


St. Ephraim the Syrian, ca. A.D. 306-373


Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: "Take, all of you eat of this, which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven." But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body. 


After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ's body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out...Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: "This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old." (Homilies 4:4; 4:6)


St. Athanasius, ca. A.D. 295-373


You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ... Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine -- and thus is His Body confected. (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)


St. Cyril of Jerusalem, ca. A.D. 350


For just as the bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ... (Catechetical Lectures 19 [Mystagogic 1], 7) 


This one teaching of the blessed Paul is enough to give you complete certainty about the Divine Mysteries, by your having been deemed worthy of which, you have become united in body and blood with Christ. For Paul proclaimed clearly that: "On the night in which He was betrayed, our Lord Jesus Christ, taking bread and giving thanks, broke it and gave it to His disciples, saying: 'Take, eat, This is My Body.' And taking the cup and giving thanks, He said, 'Take, drink, This is My Blood.'" He Himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, "This is My Body," who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said, "This is My Blood," who can ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood? (22 [Mystagogic 4], 1) 


Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but -- be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ. (22 [Mystagogic 4], 6) 


Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual songs, we call upon the benevolent God to send out the Holy Spirit upon the gifts which have been laid out: that He may make the bread the Body of Christ, and the wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Spirit touches, that is sanctified and changed. (23 [Mystagogic 5], 7)


St. Hilary of Poitiers, ca. A.D. 315 - 368


When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously -- had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: "My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in Him." As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God. (The Trinity 8:14)


St. Gregory of Nyssa, ca. A.D. 335 - 394


This Body, by the indwelling of God the Word, has been made over to divine dignity. Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency, bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh. From the same cause, therefore, by which the bread that was made over into that Body is made to change into divine strength, a similar result now takes place. As in the former case, in which the grace of the Word made holy that body the substance of which is from bread, and in a certain manner is itself bread, so in this case too, the bread, as the Apostle says, "is consecrated by God's word and by prayer"; not through its being eaten does it advance to become the Body of the Word, but it is made over immediately into the Body by means of the word, just as was stated by the Word, "This is My Body!" ...In the plan of His grace He spreads Himself to every believer by means of that Flesh, the substance of which is from wine and bread, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, so that by this union with the Immortal, man, too, may become a participant in incorruption.


St. Augustine


Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, "This is my body" [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands. (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10). 


That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. (Sermons 227). 


What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction. (Sermons 272)..

----------


## TER

> As for what you say about the humble, truly learning from those who are greater than us involves more than just parroting back something somebody told us. If that's all you do, then you haven't learned anything. Critical thought is also required.


Being humble and obedient requires us to at times suspend what conclusions our fallible minds come up using the limited information we have.  _True_ humility and faith means to submit to those who by the grace of God have authority and the spiritual enlightenment and discernment to teach.  The sorriest and most foolish teachers are those who make themselves the final authority (using their interpretation and conclusions apart from those who by their lives and witness have demonstrated their superiority over us with regards to spiritual knowledge and wisdom).  You should use your fallible mind less as the authority of truth and submit your mind more to the mind of Christ and the pillar and foundation of truth which is found within the Body of Christ, the Church.

----------


## erowe1

> Being humble and obedient requires us to at times suspend what conclusions our fallible minds come up using the limited information we have.


This quote is something your fallible mind came up with. And it disagrees with the views of the Church Fathers, saints, martyrs, and councils. It actually sounds suspiciously like Martin Luther.

How's that for ironic?

----------


## TER

Erowe, as much as you despise me, I am trying to help you.  You are a bright person, but you putting yourself above the Church Fathers and the Saints is concerning.  Humble yourself, admit that they are much smarter and spiritually illuminated than you, conform your mind to the mind of the Church and through such humility and obedience even greater faith and joy will be given to you.  Relying on your critical mind as the ultimate authority is detrimental to your spiritual well being, and for this reason Christ established elders (bishops), priests, deacons, and great saints so that we might learn from them.  This begins with stopping relying so much on our three pound brains, as humility would have it no other way.

But don't take my word on it, I am a miserable sinner with no such authority.  Instead, go sit down with a local Orthodox priest, read the Church Fathers and above all pray.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This quote is something your fallible mind came up with.* And it disagrees with the views of the Church Fathers, saints, martyrs, and councils*. It actually sounds suspiciously like Martin Luther.
> 
> How's that for ironic?


How so?  Humility is the first of the seven capital virtues.  (serious question-no snark or rudeness intended)

----------


## erowe1

> How so?  Humility is the first of the seven capital virtues.  (serious question-no snark or rudeness intended)


But defining humility as the suspension of rationality is not. Neither is the refusal to let the apostles speak for themselves in their own words through their own writings.

Search the Church Fathers and you will never find one saying that a passage of the Bible doesn't mean what it says because that's just your fallible mind interpreting it, and that it really means some other thing that they got from some other Church Father. The approach TER takes is a repudiation of the Church Fathers, not an imitation of them.

I wasn't aware that there were seven capital virtues. But if there are, I'm guessing honesty is also one of them.

----------


## erowe1

> you putting yourself above the Church Fathers and the Saints is concerning


Quote me doing that.

----------


## TER

> Quote me doing that.


You agree with St. Ignatius then?  If you would like, I can post each one of his Epistles and we can go word for word over them and you can stop me when you disagree with him.  After we are done with St. Ignatius, we can go through all the writings of the early Church Fathers and also compare.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> But defining humility as the suspension of rationality is not. Neither is the refusal to let the apostles speak for themselves in their own words through their own writings.
> 
> Search the Church Fathers and you will never find one saying that a passage of the Bible doesn't mean what it says because that's just your fallible mind interpreting it, and that it really means some other thing that they got from some other Church Father. The approach TER takes is a repudiation of the Church Fathers, not an imitation of them.
> *
> I wasn't aware that there were seven capital virtues.* But if there are, I'm guessing honesty is also one of them.


I would agree that honesty is an important virtue. 



> The seven capital virtues are the opposite of the seven grievous sins.
> 1. HUMILITY
> 2. LIBERALITY
> 3. CHASTITY
> 4. MILDNESS
> 5. TEMPERANCE
> 6. HAPPINESS
> 7. DILLIGENCE

----------


## TER

Erowe, since this thread was first about the Virgin Mary, please tell me since I do not yet know, what do you believe about her being Ever-Virgin?  Do you believe she is Ever-Virgin?  Do you believe she had other children?

----------


## erowe1

> You agree with St. Ignatius then?


Not on everything. None of the other Church Fathers agreed with Ignatius on everything either. If you do agree with Ignatius on everything (and thus disagree with every other Church Father on something), just by shoving aside the menu and saying, "I'll have what he's having," then that's not being humble, it's being lazy.

----------


## TER

> Not on everything. None of the other Church Fathers agreed with Ignatius on everything either. If you do agree with Ignatius on everything (and thus disagree with every other Church Father on something), then that's not being humble, it's being lazy.


lol.  Which Church Fathers did not agree with St. Ignatius about the authority of Bishops, the office of the priests, and the honor of the deacons?

----------


## erowe1

> Erowe, since this thread was first about the Virgin Mary, please tell me since I do not yet know, what do you believe about her being Ever-Virgin?  Do you believe she is Ever-Virgin?  Do you believe she had other children?


No, I do not believe she was ever-virgin. Yes, I do believe she had other children.

----------


## erowe1

> lol.  Which Church Fathers did not agree with St. Ignatius about the authority of Bishops, the office of the priests, and the honor of the deacons?


Clement of Rome and the authors of the Didache. I'm sure there were others.

Patrick of Ireland probably isn't considered a Church Father. But he's called a saint. He would be another.

----------


## TER

> Clement of Rome and the authors of the Didache. I'm sure there were others.
> 
> Patrick of Ireland probably isn't considered a Church Father. But he's called a saint. He would be another.


I already explained to you how St. Patrick was indeed under a Bishop as a priest, he later became a Bishop of the Church in France, and when the time arrived for a See to be placed in Ireland, the priests of Ireland then fell under the authority of the new Bishop and no longer under St. Patrick's successor, which is the normal and ancient way.  But unfortunately, you refuse to learn.

As for St. Clement and the Didache, these do not contradict St. Ignatius, they were simply reflecting the development of the Church at that infant time.  But please, answer me, do you agree with St. Ignatius or not?

----------


## TER

> No, I do not believe she was ever-virgin. Yes, I do believe she had other children.


I see, and how many Church Fathers would you agree with and how many disagree with so that you can be right?

----------


## TER

I would also like to see quotes from Church Fathers which disagree with St. Ignatius about the authority of Bishops.  Which Christians after St. Ignatius repudiated what he wrote?  If what he wrote was so scandalous and so impious and so far out from the established catholic and orthodox faith of the Christians of his time and after, surely somewhere we will find some kind of protest or dissent.

----------


## TER

The truth is erowe that you will find no one repudiate St. Ignatius until the fathers of Protestantism come around who taught a vastly different ecclesiology which has led to more disunity in communion and doctrine in the short span of a few centuries than the entire history of Christianity before it.  And the second century Christians who were being persecuted and martyred for the faith?  They all believed in the ecclesiology expressed by St. Ignatius.  And the third century Christians?  The same thing, falling under the authority of their bishops and believers in the sacramental life within one Body, the Church.  And the Christians who compiled the Scriptures and by divine inspiration compiled the canon of the Bible, they too professed the same ecclesiology and faith of St. Ignatius.  So tell me how they are wrong and you are right.  What great knowledge and authority do you have over them that you sit here in the year 2014, using an incomplete collection of writings you call the Scriptures, and judge them and what they wrote.  Are you a modern Church Father come to reveal the truths hidden from them and correct their fallen ways?  As a logical man, do you not see how illogical and arrogantly proud you sound?

----------


## erowe1

> The truth is erowe that you will find no one repudiate St. Ignatius until the fathers of Protestantism


How could you possibly know this?

This reminds me of your arrogant (read: not humble) insistence to someone here recently that not one single person until Muhammed ever thought of the idea that Jesus was replaced by someone else on the cross. It was obvious to the most casual observer that you had absolutely no business pretending to have the command of early Christian literature that would be required for someone to be warranted to make such a claim. And here you're making an even larger claim covering 15 centuries rather than just 6. How many of the extant Christian writings haven't even yet been translated into English? How many other languages are they in? How's your Latin? Your Coptic? Your Syriac? Your Georgian? Your Armenian? And then there are all the writings that are now lost. And then there are all the believers who never wrote anything. And then there's the problem of who to count of the people whose views we do know about. If I find someone, will you just dismiss them as a heretic on account of the very view I show them to have had? And if so, wouldn't that just mean you'd be practicing circular argument?

----------


## erowe1

> I see, and how many Church Fathers would you agree with and how many disagree with so that you can be right?


Why do you add the line "so that you can be right" to the end of this?

And how could you possibly expect me to answer the question about how many? Do the numbers matter somehow?

Are you going to pretend that you agree with all of them, even when they disagree with one another?

----------


## Kevin007

> Erowe, as much as you despise me, I am trying to help you.  You are a bright person, but you putting yourself above the Church Fathers and the Saints is concerning.  Humble yourself, admit that they are much smarter and spiritually illuminated than you, conform your mind to the mind of the Church and through such humility and obedience even greater faith and joy will be given to you.  Relying on your critical mind as the ultimate authority is detrimental to your spiritual well being, and for this reason Christ established elders (bishops), priests, deacons, and great saints so that we might learn from them.  This begins with stopping relying so much on our three pound brains, as humility would have it no other way.
> 
> But don't take my word on it, I am a miserable sinner with no such authority.  Instead, go sit down with a local Orthodox priest, read the Church Fathers and above all pray.


no mention of the Holy Spirit here...to help you interpret Scripture. Jesus said He would send a helper...the Holy Spirit to help you understand all things. Are you relying on Him? Or the words of men?


John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 
 This promise was made in the first instance to the Apostles, but the Apostles themselves applied it to all believers. 


1 John 2:20, 27 [20] But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. [27] As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit -- just as it has taught you, remain in him.

----------


## Kevin007

> Kevin--please understand this--whenever we take Holy Communion with the Lord and the Eucharist--we are not simply "reoffering Christ as  sacrifice" as you say--*What Holy Communion is----is literally taking Jesus into ourselves* as Jesus Himself said to do.  What we are then doing is remembering not only what Jesus did on that cross, but His entire ministry and resurrection from that cross.  So we are communing with Him--we are partaking of that blood and body along with His resurrection as well--in communion.
> 
> Communion means this--the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level.  We are partaking of the mind and body of Christ into ourselves as well.  This is not hanging Him on the cross again as you believe--this is communing in the Spirit with our Lord--
> 
> This is why we are told not to do this unworthily because we can bring damnation to ourselves not discerning the blood and body of Christ.  This isn't something we take lightly or should do if we do not understand what the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ means.  This is something very sacred as we are told in the word of God.
> 
> I know that even in some of the Protestant churches--they do not allow small children to take communion--because they are not old enough to discern the body and the blood.  So this isn't something that's just *Catholic* either--but the EOC takes far more care keeping this Holy tradition sacred than the Protestants do--which is the way it was done by the very Apostles of Christ.
> 
> Also, you made the statement that the OT Jews kept "reoffering Christ as a sacrifice"--this was not possible because Jesus had not even been born, crucified or resurrected yet in the OT.
> ...


this is not Biblical. As A BELIEVER; the Holy Spirit already indwells you. Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not in you. Jesus is fully God, but fully MAN. Jesus is not in thousands of places at once- but the Holy Spirit is. Jesus is in Heaven. He has not returned to earth since Pentecost and will not be here again until the end of the 7 year Tribulation.

----------


## Kevin007

> So _you_ say Kevin, but that is not what the early Church believed, what the Apostles taught, or what Christ said.  If you are comfortable relying on your interpretation over all these saints and the Lord Himself, then do as you will.  But you are in the minority in your opinion and definitely not in accordance with the apostolic teachings.


Many Scholars believe it was figurative, including many Church Fathers. Even the RCC Catechism states that it was not talking literally.. (I will have to dig up the section/verse). Jesus is in Heaven Ter.. where do you think He is right now? The Holy Spirit indwells Believer's and guides us in all truth... not mere sinful men.

Eusebius and Augustine were just 2 who took Jesus' words  the  words  spiritually. 
It  was  only  in  the  Lateran Council  (1215)  that the  literal  interpretation  was  declared  as  official  dogma in the RCC.

----------


## Kevin007

> *Jesus' work on the Cross is eternal*, meaning it is outside of time and perpetual.  Although it occurred within the appointed time in _our_ history, it's plan and consequences are eternal.  Christ offered Himself once on the cross to destroy the power of eternal death, but His sacrifice is eternal.  
> 
> When the faithful celebrate the Holy Eucharist, they do so in _true_ remembrance, meaning they declare the eternal works of Christ done on the Cross and share in the witness of His life-giving resurrection.  Not simply as a past time event and apart from our being and lives but in real re-_membrance_, that is, to become a _member_ of this witness and event. 
> 
> Christ died once in history for the love of the world, but we celebrate His resurrection every Lord's day, partaking of His very Body and Blood which He offers for the life of the world.  This is what Christ directed, what the Apostles taught, and what the Church has continuously done since the very beginning.  You calling it a mere symbol puts you outside this communion of faith.


yes, of course.. that is why He said it is FINISHED. 

NIV- JOHN 19:30-

When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "*It is finished*." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

----------


## TER

> Originally Posted by TER View Post
> The truth is erowe that you will find no one repudiate St. Ignatius until the fathers of Protestantism





> How could you possibly know this?
> 
> This reminds me of your arrogant (read: not humble) insistence to someone here recently that not one single person until Muhammed ever thought of the idea that Jesus was replaced by someone else on the cross. It was obvious to the most casual observer that you had absolutely no business pretending to have the command of early Christian literature that would be required for someone to be warranted to make such a claim. And here you're making an even larger claim covering 15 centuries rather than just 6.


I am a lazy arrogant liar because I did not know the esoteric teachings of the Basilidians, a Gnostic Docetic  heretical sect which doubted the _real_ resurrection of the Lord and which were excommunicated from the Church from receiving the Holy Eucharist?  There may be some sects which believe in the Easter Bunny, am I a lazy arrogant liar because I did not know that?  But I refuse to fill my mind with garbage when there are plenty of writings by the Fathers of the Church which I have yet begin to read.  When I said to Muhawid that no single person until Muhammed ever thought Jesus was replaced by someone else on the cross, that is what I knew, for nowhere did I ever read such a thing from the writings of the Church Fathers or the early Church.  It was pointed out to me then that there existed an apocryphal book which could be twisted to allude such a thing.  _But then when examining it I found that it actually didn't_, in fact, the Muslims have no ground to stand on in making such a claim because the Apocalypse of Peter DOES NOT say that another took Christ's place.  Please review here for more explanation.  

As for the Basilidians, apparently there was such a heretical group which taught such a thing.  And the rich money this elitist heretic gave to the Church and his membership within it was justly returned and rescinded which is exactly how the Church has dealt with arch heretics distorting the faith of the Apostles.

 I am not lazy because I did not read the teachings and beliefs of a heretical small sect by Basilides, rather, I spend my time trying to get through the teachings of the Church Fathers which the Church has declared to be beneficial and orthodox.   You instead, go pick and choose here and there, whatever feels good in your mind, whatever justifies your positions and the church you have created (where you are the only church father) and deny the teachings of the Christian Saints.  Which you do, repeatedly, including with St. Ignatius.  Because you don't want to accept what St. Ignatius taught, you simply cast it away as 'innovative' and against the will of God.  That is the lazy approach my friend, that is the arrogant and prideful approach to boot.  The much more difficult way is to be obedient, to be humble, to accept that the Church has by the cumulative efforts of multitudes of Saints handed down the orthodox faith.  Cafeteria Christianity is the lazy way, no matter how many books one has read.  Filling the mind with information only to cater it to what YOUR mind thinks and seems logically right is the lazy way.  The way of self-denial and of the cross is the much more difficult way.  But blessed are those who walk in it, and in humility submit to the wisdom of the glorified saints above one's one vain thoughts.




> How many of the extant Christian writings haven't even yet been translated into English?


Many, but by the grace of God every year more and more are getting translated, rich patristic writings from the Fathers of the Church, which proclaim the orthodox faith of the Church!  The Orthodox Christian monasteries in America have been quite busy! Let us see how many more get translated which teach justification by faith alone, the Calvinistic heretical distortion of predestination, and the other beliefs you have put on your lunch tray.




> How many other languages are they in? How's your Latin? Your Coptic? Your Syriac? Your Georgian? Your Armenian?


Those, and Greek as well, and what you will find in all those writings in all those languages the continued and universal affirmation of St. Ignatius' orthodoxy, for all of those are Apostolic Churches which consider him a saint and have Bishops and Priests and Deacons, proclaiming the heirarchy of the episcopy, witnessing to the Presence of the Lord in the Holy Eucharist, and teaching a faith extremely opposed to your religion in myriad ways (of course, you will pick and choose which looks good to your appetite so as to further conform them to your church).  I unfortunately don't have time to learn Latin, Coptic, Syrian, Georgian, and Armenian, but I would wager a good sum with you that their beliefs (those of the Coptic, Syrian, etc) regarding ecclesiology and soteriology _much more_ resembles mine than yours.  And that is not because I am smarter than you, but because I depend on much smarter people than either of us to proclaim the apostolic faith.  That is not lazy, that is acknowledging my unworthiness compared to the saints.




> And then there are all the writings that are now lost.


It is quite ironic that the person who requires hard evidence and frequently uses the argument of silence to defend his personal beliefs now offers the notion that there may be some hidden writings somewhere which would prove him right.  Don't hold your breath.




> And then there are all the believers who never wrote anything. And then there's the problem of who to count of the people whose views we do know about. If I find someone, will you just dismiss them as a heretic on account of the very view I show them to have had? And if so, wouldn't that just mean you'd be practicing circular argument?


I will not dismiss them as a heretic unless the Church has done so.  That is the fundamental difference between me and you.  You are the Pope of your religion, choosing who is right, who is wrong, who is heretical and who is not.  I am but a mere sinner, a member of the laity, who (not by laziness, but by the grace of God) can see how unworthy I am and how much I lack in wisdom and knowledge and the grace of the Holy Spirit compared to the giants of the faith whom you so easily toss aside as fools.

Learning more about the various heretical groups is not my area of interest.  I have already too high a pile of books on my book shelf to read.  My goal is to become a member of the Church which Christ has established and not to create my own.  And that is not the easy way, that is the hard way.  The much easier way, which is according to the spirit of these pluralistic and relativistic times, is designer Christianity and becoming the pope of my own church.

----------


## Kevin007

The Priesthood was done away with in the OT. ALL Believer's are priests.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's  special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called  you out of darkness into his wonderful light. (1 Peter 2:9)

Believer's do have ONE HIGH Priest; Jesus.

----------


## Kevin007

Jesus  (our Priest) intercedes  for Believer's  before God the  Father-

(Hebrews 9:24)

For  Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a  copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in  God's presence.

Keep in mind that in the NT there is no mention of a priesthood separate from the laity
with  the  purpose  of  offering  sacrifice  for  sin.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> this is not Biblical. As A BELIEVER; the Holy Spirit already indwells you. Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not in you. Jesus is fully God, but fully MAN. Jesus is not in thousands of places at once- but the Holy Spirit is. Jesus is in Heaven. He has not returned to earth since Pentecost and will not be here again until the end of the 7 year Tribulation.





> The Priesthood was done away with in the OT. ALL Believer's are priests.


 


> Many Scholars believe it was  figurative, including many Church Fathers. Even the RCC Catechism states  that it was not talking literally.. (I will have to dig up the  section/verse). Jesus is in Heaven Ter.. where do you think He is right  now? The Holy Spirit indwells Believer's and guides us in all truth...  not mere sinful men.
> 
> Eusebius and Augustine were just 2 who took Jesus' words  the  words  spiritually. 
> It   was  only  in  the  Lateran Council  (1215)  that the  literal   interpretation  was  declared  as  official  dogma in the RCC.





> this is not Biblical. As A BELIEVER; the Holy Spirit already indwells  you. Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not in you. Jesus is fully God,  but fully MAN. Jesus is not in thousands of places at once- but the Holy  Spirit is. Jesus is in Heaven. He has not returned to earth since  Pentecost and will not be here again until the end of the 7 year  Tribulation.


 (This one deserves an extra comment-the EOC has always recognized that Jesus is fully God and fully man-and that claims to the contrary are heretical.  This comment of yours is irrelevant.)

SMH...

----------


## TER

Kevin, the more you tell yourself something doesn't make it true.  Your basic understanding of the faith is not according to the early Saints and Fathers of the Christian Church.  You can't just separate the Church from history, you have to look at the history of the Church within the world.  The Church did not disappear, it was contending in the world down those early centuries so as to hand down the Christian Creed which we today proclaim (and the books which they canonized by the Holy Spirit).  Unless you demonstrate that your interpretations of the Holy Scriptures are correct by providing corollary quotes from the Father, then you disregard the lights God has created in the world in His glorified saints, that were not hidden under tables, but proclaimed and celebrated and memoralized even thousands of years later.  Without the proofs that your interpretations are the ancient and orthodox interpretations, then your arguments are simply your own which you use for whatever reasons you have.  But they do not make them historical or truthful.

Please read the lives and the works of the Saints who defended and passed down the faith through the early centuries of persecutions, and see that though many voices, there are certain dogmas of the faith and teachings of the Apostles which have been unified in witness in one body of believers, namely, the New Testament Church.  This Church did not disappear.  The Holy Spirit did not hide.  The Body was not hidden in the world but spread throughout the world around one Cup the Holy Eucharist, sealed in communion by the very Body and Blood of Christ.  You say you were a Catholic.  Well, it seems you unfortunately had a bad experience.  Do not turn against the Fathers of the Church and the collective witness of the Saints because of it.

----------


## Kevin007

*Ter*- *about 1,000 years after Jesus, the RCC  celebrated the Last Supper as a commemorative meal- not as a transubstantiation of bread and wine into flesh and blood.*

----------


## TER

Pride comes before every fall.  It did with Lucifer as well as Adam.  In the desert, Satan came to tempt the Lord, using the demons of pride, avarice, and gluttony.  These all together are the source of all sins and constitute the original sins of Adam.  For he thought by disobeying the only Father he had, namely God, and eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would become as great as God.  This on account of pride.  By him ignoring the only Father he had and seeking the wisdom and power on his own terms and his own way, he succumbed to the demon of avarice.  By not fasting and instead falling to temptation and eating what was not his to eat instead of having God his Father as his bread and living word, he succumbed to the demon of gluttony.  Christ destroys all of Satan's temptations by overcoming those three very sins which are the mother of all sins and the ones which led Adam to fall.  Likewise do we when we do battle with these passions which seek to destroy us.  

Our commandment therefore is obedience, humility, and self control.  Obedience to our Fathers, first with God and then those whom He has chosen, namely the Godbearing Saints.  Next humility in recognizing that we are poor before God and that our riches do not come from material gain on our own terms, but by submitting ourselves before our Fathers, first with God and then in those whom He has filled by His Holy Spirit.  Lastly, we are commanded to have self control in what we feed into our minds and our souls, staying away from those things that our Fathers have told us to fast from, first according to God and next to those whom He has ordained to feed His sheep.

Obedience, humility and self-control are the virtues which Christ has demonstrated empowers us over all the passions and reverses the power of Satan's temptations upon us.  This means not picking and choosing against God what we want and what we think is best for us or what looks appetizing in our tempted minds, but listening to our Fathers who know better, first God our Father in Heaven, and next those Fathers which He has sanctified by His Holy Spirit and who do His will in order to guide us and protect us from corrupting our minds and distancing ourselves from Him.  Christ has reversed the curse of Adam who ate what he shouldn't have, and offers now to us through mercy and love the true food of Heaven, the fruits of which are not only the Tree of Knowledge, but also the Tree of Life.   But to eat this Holy Food requires obedience otherwise it does not bring life but judgment, and not communion of joy and wisdom, but rather fear and death.  For if mishandling and disrespecting the Ark was a cause of judgment and death in the Old Covenant (something those who disrespect the Ark of the New Covenant, namely the Virgin Mary, should think long and hard on), how much more judgment upon those who disrespect and belittle the very Body and Blood of the Son of God?  Likewise, while it is the fruit of disobedience which led to Adam's fall, it is the Fruit of Heaven which Christ offers Himself in humility, obedience and love which gives us life and communion with our Fathers, first with God and next to those He dwells in, namely the Church.

----------


## TER

> *Ter*- *about 1,000 years after Jesus, the RCC  celebrated the Last Supper as a commemorative meal- not as a transubstantiation of bread and wine into flesh and blood.*


And what does this have to do with the apostolic faith?

----------


## Terry1

> yes, of course.. that is why He said it is FINISHED. 
> 
> NIV- JOHN 19:30-
> 
> When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "*It is finished*." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.


Please explain in detail just what it was that Jesus "finished" on the cross Kevin.  And mind this also--if there were nothing left for us to do on this earth and no calling or purpose that needs to be done by us--then why didn't our Lord Jesus take mankind with him at the time of His resurrection?  Why are we left here on earth if God didn't have something He wanted us to complete and do towards the salvation of mankind?

----------


## Terry1

> Jesus  (our Priest) intercedes  for Believer's  before God the  Father-
> 
> (Hebrews 9:24)
> 
> For  Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a  copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in  God's presence.
> 
> Keep in mind that in the NT there is no mention of a priesthood separate from the laity
> with  the  purpose  of  offering  sacrifice  for  sin.


Jude 1:3 King James Version (KJV)

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort* you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

*

^^^^This is the Apostolic faith we are all told to contend for.  Are you saying that you don't believe that the history of saints has preserved the truth and faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Scripture is telling you different here Kevin.  That we are indeed to follow those before us who kept the faith.  The writer here used the words "exhort you"--which means that we are being strongly and urgently advised to follow the same path as those saints who came before us and while walking in the Spirit of the Lord which keeps us on the right track spiritually.

----------


## TER

Some more verses from the NT addressing the authority placed in the heirarchy and the obedience required of the faithful (a good work) in order to keep pure and undefiled the teachings of Christ and the Apostles:


Titus 1

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and* appoint elders in every city* (that is, make rulers with authority, ie bishops - TER) as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a *bishop* must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 *holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.*

10 For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of them, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. *Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith*, 14 not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth. 15 To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. 16 *They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work*.

...

Titus 2 

11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

15 Speak these things, *exhort, and rebuke with all authority*. Let no one despise you.

...

Titus 3

 Remind them *to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work*, 2 to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men. 3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, *that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men.*

9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. 10* Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.*

PHILEMON

*If then you count me as a partner, receive him as you would me.* (the person he is sending is Onesimus, who was a first century Bishop and who was known and loved by St. Ignatius having referred to him in his own epistles- TER) 18 But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. 19 I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay—not to mention to you that you owe me even your own self besides. 20 Yes, brother, let me have joy from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in the Lord.

21 *Having confidence in your obedience*, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say. 22 But, meanwhile, also prepare a guest room for me, for I trust that through your prayers I shall be granted to you.

----------


## TER

Timothy 1

(St. Timothy, BTW, was a first century Bishop of Ephesus.  Let us see what the great Apostle Paul said to him)

 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—*remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine*, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.

...

This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, *that by them you may wage the good warfare*, 19 having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, 20 of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, _whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme._

...

1 Timothy 3

This is a faithful saying:* If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work.* 2 A *bishop* then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, *how will he take care of the church of God?*); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.


8 Likewise *deacons* must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 *But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.* 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

...

1 Timothy 4

Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity. 13 Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 14 *Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.* 15 Meditate on these things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all. 16 Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, *for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.*

...

1 Timothy 5

*Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor*, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,”[c] and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. 20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

21 I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality. 22 *Do not lay hands on anyone hastily*, nor share in other people’s sins; keep yourself pure.

...

1 Timothy 6

*If anyone teaches otherwise* *and does not consent to wholesome words*, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, 4 *he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words*, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5 useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.[b]

...

O Timothy! *Guard what was committed to your trust*, _avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith._

Grace be with you. Amen.

----------


## TER

And here is some more:

2 Timothy

I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, _as my forefathers did_, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day, 4 greatly desiring to see you, being mindful of your tears, that I may be filled with joy, 5 when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also. 6 Therefore I remind you to *stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.* 7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of *power and of love and of a sound mind.*

...

*Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me*, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed to you, *keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us*.

15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 16 The Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; 17 but when he arrived in Rome, he sought me out very zealously and found me. 18 *The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day*—and you know very well how many ways he ministered to me at Ephesus. (here, St. Paul is PRAYING FOR THE DEAD to Timothy, the Bishop of Ephesus-TER)

2 Timothy 2

You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 *And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.*

...

2 Timothy 3 

But you have *carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith,* longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 *But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,* 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

...

2 Timothy 4

I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. *Convince, rebuke, exhort,* with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions,* do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.*

----------


## TER

Our good Apostle call out by name some of the earliest leaders of authority in the Church, many by whom he layed hands on and appointed:


2 Timothy 4

Be diligent to come to me quickly; 10 for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica—*Crescens* for Galatia (*BISHOP OF GALATIA*- TER), *Titus* for Dalmatia (*BISHOP OF CRETE*-TER). 11 Only *Luke* is with me (*APOSTLE*-TER). Get *Mark* and bring him with you (*BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA*-TER), for he is useful to me for ministry. 12 And *Tychicus* (*BISHOP OF CEASAREA*-TER) I have sent to Ephesus. 13 Bring the cloak that I left with *Carpus* at Troas (*BISHOP OF VERRIA*-TER) when you come—and the books, especially the parchments.

...

Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of *Onesiphorus* (*BISHOP OF COLOPHON and later at CORINTH*-TER). 20 *Erastus* (*BISHOP OF PANEAS*-TER) stayed in Corinth, but *Trophimus* (*ONE OF THE SEVENTY*-TER) I have left in Miletus sick.

21 Do your utmost to come before winter.

*Eubulus* (*EARLY MARTYR*-TER) greets you, as well as *Pudens* (*PRIEST, EARLY MARTYR*-TER), *Linus* (*SUCCESSOR TO ST. PETER AS BISHOP OF ROME*-TER), Claudia, and all the brethren.

14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. *May the Lord repay him according to his works*. 15 You also must beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words.

----------


## Kevin007

> Jude 1:3 King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort* you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> *
> 
> ^^^^This is the Apostolic faith we are all told to contend for.  Are you saying that you don't believe that the history of saints has preserved the truth and faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Scripture is telling you different here Kevin.  That we are indeed to follow those before us who kept the faith.  The writer here used the words "exhort you"--which means that we are being strongly and urgently advised to follow the same path as those saints who came before us and while walking in the Spirit of the Lord which keeps us on the right track spiritually.


We are to follow Jesus and the Word, in the Bible.

----------


## Kevin007

> Please explain in detail just what it was that Jesus "finished" on the cross Kevin.  And mind this also--if there were nothing left for us to do on this earth and no calling or purpose that needs to be done by us--then why didn't our Lord Jesus take mankind with him at the time of His resurrection?  *Why are we left here on earth if God didn't have something He wanted us to complete and do towards the salvation of mankind?*


what do you mean by this sentence? I'll answer the rest asap, just got in.

----------


## Kevin007

Ter, before I go eat.... Timothy- These verses refer to oral revelation from Paul's inspired  mouth to Timothy, it says nothing about apostolic succession, which you somehow get from it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Back to the thread topic for a moment... toady is the feast of the nativity of the Theotokos.   From last year, bust still relevant: 


> *Arise, O Lord, Thou and the Ark of Thy holiness*		 			 								Posted on September 8, 2010 Updated on August 29, 2010 The Nativity of the Theotokos _The Nativity of the Theotokos, September 8_ In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, one God.  Amen.  In the Book of Exodus, after the Hebrew people left the land of  Egypt, they wandered in the desert for some forty years before they  finally came to the Promised Land.  During this time, they met with God  on the holy mountain of Sinai.  There, they worshiped God by offering up  sacrifices to Him.  One of these sacrifices is described in the 24th  chapter of Exodus, and then the next passage is dedicated to a meeting  that took place between God and the Prophet Moses.  Moses ascends up the mountain to meet with God, and there God gives  Moses some very detailed instructions regarding worship.  Everything is  there for how to construct the mobile worship space for the Hebrews,  called the Tabernacle, including details on dimensions, building  materials, tapestries, specific designs for iconography, what the  priests should wear, and so on.  Anyone who takes the time to read  chapters 25 through 29 of Exodus could never come away with the  impression that God does not care about the details of how we worship  Him.  The first chapter with these instructions is dedicated to an object  which is at the very center of the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant.   The Ark was a large wooden chest covered with gold and adorned with  images of angels.  On it was a golden throne called the Mercy Seat.   Eventually the Ark was used to contain several holy objects, including  the tablets of the Ten Commandments, a bowl of the manna God sent down  from heaven to feed the Hebrews, and the miraculously budding staff of  Aaron, the brother of Moses.  The Ark was a throne where God communed with His people.  It was so  holy that to touch it unworthily was to die.  It was at the very center  of Hebrew worship of the One True God, and it was sometimes even carried  into battle with them to bring the power of God to bear in the face of  Israels enemies.  The Old Testament Scriptures mention the Ark a number  of times, and several rare scriptural expressions are used when  referring to the Ark.  When we come to the New Testament, we see a repeat of some of these  rare expressions of language, but this time, this language refers not to  the Ark, not to the Temple in Jerusalem, nor to any other object.   Rather, this language is used when referring to Mary, the Mother of  Jesus Christ, the One True God.  When the Gospel writers wanted to refer  to the Virgin, they realized by the power of the inspiration of the  Holy Spirit that all the symbolism and real power that surrounded the  Ark of the Old Covenant now had been transferred to the Ark of the New  Covenant, the Virgin Mary herself, the Theotokos.  This is why when we come to the feasts of the Mother of God, such as  we celebrate today, we often hear in the hymns quotations from the Old  Testament referring to the Ark of the Covenant.  In the Virgin Mary, we  approach the new Ark of the New Covenant, no longer a lifeless golden  box but a living, breathing human being who mystically and physically  contained within herself the Everlasting God of the Universe.  In the Old Testament, to approach the Ark of the Covenant was to  approach the Lord God Himself.  This was not because God could be  contained within a golden box, but rather because God chose that golden  box as a place of utmost holiness and divine presence on Earth.  There  on that Mercy Seat God communed with His people in a powerful, mystical  way.  And now the Lord has approached us once again, but the locus of  His coming to Earth is a human woman.  And just as the Ark of the Old Covenant was carefully constructed and  prepared by human hands, so, too, was the new Ark carefully prepared.   But instead of the preparation of carpenters and goldsmiths, the  preparation of the Virgin Mary was by her quiet and humble obedience to  and cooperation with the will of God.  This is why we honor the Virgin Mary, not because we want to elevate  her to the status of a goddess and worship her, but because she is the  carefully prepared vessel which bore the God of the Universe, the Second  Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, Jesus Christ.  Through her  came our salvation.  Through her came a new life for every human being  and the whole world.  Through her came union between God and man.  Therefore, we approach her today and venerate her on her birthday  because we desire to approach and come close to the Son of God.  We  respect her and sing about her glory because that glory is the glory of  the awesome God.  We call upon her here at the center of our worship  just as the Hebrews placed the old Ark at the center of theirs, not  because she or a golden box are to be the object of worship, but because  the Ark is the place of worship, because the Ark of the Old Covenant  and now the Ark of the New Covenant are the place where God has chosen  to draw near to His people.  As we look upon the icon of the Holy Virgin, we see that she points  us to her Son.  Today, as we celebrate her birth into this world, may we  hear her call to draw near to her holy Son.  As we gaze upon the glory  that surrounds her as more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious  beyond compare than the seraphim, may we be drawn into a true encounter  with that glory, the glory which is Gods and may also be ours if we  are in union and communion with Him, just as she is.  To the Holy Trinity therefore be all glory, honor and worship, to the  Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto  ages of ages.  Amen.

----------


## heavenlyboy34



----------


## Kevin007

only the God Father can forgive your sins if you have accepted Christ. Can you point to me in Scripture where Mary or anyone else can forgive sins?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> only the God Father can forgive your sins if you have accepted Christ. *Can you point to me in Scripture where Mary or anyone else can forgive sins?*


No, and no one here has made a claim to that she can.  But feel free to keep whacking that strawman if you so desire.

----------


## Kevin007

> No, and no one here has made a claim to that she can.  But feel free to keep whacking that strawman if you so desire.


did you even see/read what you posted? You don't go to Mary to get to God. The Father Himself forgives us our sins THROUGH JESUS, NOT Mary.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> did you even see/read what you posted? You don't go to Mary to get to God. The Father Himself forgives us our sins THROUGH JESUS, NOT Mary.


Of course I read.  What I posted was 100% correct.  We've been through this more than enough times for you to understand this.  Now you're just trolling.  And badly.

----------


## Kevin007

> Of course I read.  What I posted was 100% correct.  We've been through this more than enough times for you to understand this.  Now you're just trolling.  And badly.


Why are you asking for Mary to intercede for you? Asking a living person to pray with you is much different than what you do.

----------


## Kevin007

1 Timothy 2:5 

For there is one God and *one* mediator *between God and man*kind, the man Christ *Jesus*.



First Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is  one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."  There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the  ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and the saints cannot be mediators.  They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells  us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father:  "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through  Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With  Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints  to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more closely than His Son?  Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the  2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the  Father in heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the  saints interceding for us?

http://www.gotquestions.org/prayer-saints-Mary.html

HB- so we have two-thirds of the trinity interceding for us. This isn't enough?

----------


## Dr.3D

> 1 Timothy 2:5 
> 
> For there is one God and *one* mediator *between God and man*kind, the man Christ *Jesus*,


Obviously, some folks think Mary has more pull with God than Jesus does.

----------


## TER

> Obviously, some folks think Mary has more pull with God than Jesus does.


Please tell us, Dr.3D, who do you accuse of such a thing?

----------


## Kevin007

> Obviously, some folks think Mary has more pull with God than Jesus does.


 Mary was a sinner, just like the rest of us.

----------


## Kevin007

> Please tell us, Dr.3D, who do you accuse of such a thing?



You still haven't answered the question- why are you asking Mary to intercede for you? Scriptures please.

----------


## Kevin007

> Obviously, some folks think Mary has more pull with God than Jesus does.


pretty damn clear there is ONE mediator.

----------


## TER

> only the God Father can forgive your sins if you have accepted Christ. Can you point to me in Scripture where Mary or anyone else can forgive sins?


JOHN 20:23

So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 *If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.*”

----------


## TER

> You still haven't answered the question- why are you asking Mary to intercede for you? Scriptures please.


Because Christ loves and honors His mother, and just as He obeyed her and changed the water to wine, He weighs her intercessions quite seriously.  

Don't you ask your loved ones and friends to pray for you and to intercede for you?

The problem you are having is that you do not believe the saints who have left this world can do such a thing.  However, the Scriptures which were canonized does reveal this is so, and the witness and experience of the Church reveals it to be so as well.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Mary was a sinner, just like the rest of us.


That's right, so why do you suppose some folks pray to Mary instead of Jesus?

----------


## TER

Kevin, when your mother prays for you, is she having any effect or do her prayers make no difference?

----------


## TER

> That's right, so why do you suppose some folks pray to Mary instead of Jesus?


Because she is our Mother in Christ, and we love her, and just as we ask one another to pray for us, we ask His very mother to do so as well.  If you think you do not need her intercession, then that is fine.  Some of us don't think so highly of ourselves.

----------


## Dr.3D

I slander no one.  If the shoe fits, wear it.

----------


## TER

> Please tell us, Dr.3D, who do you accuse of such a thing?


??

----------


## TER

> I slander no one.  If the shoe fits, wear it.


You do, but you are too much a coward to admit it.

----------


## Dr.3D

> You do, but you are too much a coward to admit it.


Yeah, and you pray to dead people.

----------


## TER

> Yeah, and you pray to dead people.


And so did the Righteous of the Old Testament.  And so did the Saints of the early Church.  But you are smarter then them, I get it.

----------


## Dr.3D

> And so did the Righteous of the Old Testament.  And so did the Saints of the early Church.  But you are smarter then them, I get it.


Glad you finally figured that out.

----------


## TER

I still would like to ask you about the accusation you made above.  Who has put the Virgin Mary above the Lord?  When in this thread, before you trolled it and added nothing of value but a deceiving lie, has anyone put the Virgin Mary above the Lord?

----------


## TER

> Glad you finally figured that out.


Sad you haven't.

----------


## TER

Actually, I may have misread your post.  Forgive me.  Are you saying that you are smarter then the Righteous of the Old Testament and the Saints of the Christian Church?

But please, don't let this distract us.  Who do you accuse?

----------


## TER

Kevin, when your mother prays for you, is she having any effect or do her prayers make no difference?

----------


## Kevin007

> Kevin, when your mother prays for you, is she having any effect or do her prayers make no difference?



my mother is dead, so no.

----------


## Kevin007

Ter and HB- Maybe you should read this again- 

Catholics argue that praying to Mary and  the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for  us. Let us examine that claim. (1) The Apostle Paul asks other  Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe  believers praying for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16;  Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). *The Bible nowhere mentions anyone  asking for someone in heaven to pray for him. The Bible nowhere  describes anyone in heaven praying for anyone on earth. (2) The Bible  gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our  prayers.* Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in  heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations.


http://www.gotquestions.org/prayer-saints-Mary.html

----------


## TER

> my mother is dead, so no.


I am sorry to here that Kevin.  My sincere pray for you and for her.

I hope this isn't too personal a question, but do you pray for her?

----------


## TER

> Ter and HB- Maybe you should read this again- 
> 
> Catholics argue that praying to Mary and  the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for  us. Let us examine that claim. (1) The Apostle Paul asks other  Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe  believers praying for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16;  Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). *The Bible nowhere mentions anyone  asking for someone in heaven to pray for him. The Bible nowhere  describes anyone in heaven praying for anyone on earth. (2) The Bible  gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our  prayers.* Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in  heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations.
> 
> 
> http://www.gotquestions.org/prayer-saints-Mary.html


They are finite beings given grace by the Almighty and Uncreated God.  If God wants them to hear our prayers, He has His means to see it through.

Did you know that the canonized Scriptures does in fact reveal the intercessions of dead saints?  And of angels as well?

----------


## Kevin007

> I am sorry to here that Kevin.  My sincere pray for you and for her.
> 
> I hope this isn't too personal a question, but do you pray for her?


I pray that she went to Heaven, but as far as "I know" she wasn't a Christian. She died in 1992 from cancer when I was 19 (smoking). I don't mind.

----------


## Kevin007

> They are finite beings given grace by the Almighty and Uncreated God.  If God wants them to hear our prayers, He has His means to see it through.
> 
> Did you know that the canonized Scriptures does in fact reveal the intercessions of dead saints?  And of angels as well?


there is NO NEED to have anyone else hear our prayers but Jesus- as there is one mediator. I have no Scriptural evidence of such.

----------


## TER

> I pray that she went to Heaven, but as far as "I know" she wasn't a Christian. She died in 1992 from cancer when I was 19 (smoking). I don't mind.


So  you pray for your mother who is dead, which is good.  May the Lord hear your prayers and grant her forgiveness of her sins.

----------


## TER

> there is NO NEED to have anyone else hear our prayers but Jesus- as there is one mediator. I have no Scriptural evidence of such.


Then why do _you_ pray for someone?  Why would you pray for someone unless it may have an effect?

----------


## Kevin007

> They are finite beings given grace by the Almighty and Uncreated God.  If God wants them to hear our prayers, He has His means to see it through.
> 
> *Did you know that the canonized Scriptures does in fact reveal the intercessions of dead saints*?  And of angels as well?


if you are talking about 2 Maccabees, yes I know that; but for several reasons, which I listed why they do not count for anything and are not reliable, nor Holy Spirit inspired. I made a post about it yesterday.

----------


## TER

> if you are talking about 2 Maccabees, yes I know that; but for several reasons, which I listed yesterday I believe.


It was part of the inspired canon of the Holy Scriptures.

----------


## Kevin007

> Then why do _you_ pray for someone?  Why would you pray for someone unless it may have an effect?
> 
> I pray for those living. My mother- I do not pray for her anymore because it is too late. You can accept Jesus on this side of eternity only. Once I learned this I stopped praying that prayer. I prayed that she was saved *before* she died.


Those who have died cannot influence anything now.
  Living people pray for each other, of course- like at Church.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Actually, I may have misread your post.  Forgive me.  Are you saying that you are smarter then the Righteous of the Old Testament and the Saints of the Christian Church?
> 
> But please, don't let this distract us.  Who do you accuse?


Perhaps if you find the time, you can view this video and understand where I'm coming from.

----------


## Kevin007

> It was part of the inspired canon of the Holy Scriptures.


inspired by who? There is no proof of that.

----------


## Kevin007

> So  you pray for your mother who is dead, which is good.  May the Lord hear your prayers and grant her forgiveness of her sins.


you misunderstand, read above. But thanks for the thought regardless Ter.

----------


## TER

> Perhaps if you find the time, you can view this video and understand where I'm coming from.


I was wondering about your initial post in this trolling, which accused people of believing that the Virgin Mary is greater then Christ.  You made a pretty serious accusation.  Can you back it up?  If not, then go away and stop trolling this thread.  This thread if for discussion and debate, not drive by slander.  There has been much rebuking as of late, but people are backing their rebukes up.  Why don't you be a man and do the same.

----------


## Kevin007

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

----------


## TER

> you misunderstand, read above. But thanks for the thought regardless Ter.


I don't think I misunderstand.  You said you prayed that your mother might go to the Kingdom of Heaven.  You are praying for her and she is dead.  You are praying for the dead, which is biblical and beneficial for her.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I was wondering about your initial post in this trolling, which accused people of believing that the Virgin Mary is greater then Christ?  You made a pretty serious accusation.  Can you answer this?  If not, then go away and stop trolling this thread.  This thread if for discussion and debate, no drive by slander.  There has been much rebuking as of late, but people are backing their rebukes up.  Why don't you be a man and do the same.


If you will view the video, you will understand how all of this veneration of Mary came about.   If not, then you can just go on and on and I'll leave you alone as I'll understand you are not interested in what may be the truth.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> there is NO NEED to have anyone else hear our prayers but Jesus- as there is one mediator. *I have no Scriptural evidence of such*.


 You're not looking enough.  Here's the tl;dr version of the biblical explanation:  


> Advocates of the doctrine say that Jesus' parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:1931 indicates the ability of the dead to pray for the living. On the basis of Christ's intercession for believers, who is present at the Right hand of God (Romans 8:34;Hebrews 7:25), it is argued by extension that other people who have died but are alive in Christ may be able to intercede on behalf of the petitioner (John 11:25;Romans 8:3839).  Aquinas quotes Revelations 8:4: "And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel".[4]  Both those for and against the intercession of saints quote Job 5:1.

----------


## Kevin007

> I don't think I misunderstand.  You said you prayed that your mother might go to the Kingdom of Heaven.  You are praying for her and she is dead.  You are praying for the dead, which is biblical and beneficial for her.


but it isn't Ter; once I learned this, I stopped. See the story Of Lazarus and the rich man. There is a gulf fixed. Nothing can change once you die as far as your salvation goes.

----------


## TER

> If you will view the video, you will understand how all of this veneration of Mary came about.   If not, then you can just go on and on and I'll leave you alone as I'll understand you are not interested in what may be the truth.


You may think you have the truth, and the videos you chose to make your point, but if your truths go against the witness of the Church which Christ established, then I have need of neither you or your videos.  So you can now exit door left thank you.

----------


## TER

> but it isn't Ter; once I learned this, I stopped. See the story Of Lazarus and the rich man. There is a gulf fixed. Nothing can change once you die as far as your salvation goes.


So you don't pray for your mother's soul?  I'm not understanding you.  You said before you did, and now you say you don't.

----------


## Dr.3D

> You may think you have the truth, and the videos you chose to make your point, but if your truths go against the witness of the Church which Christ established, then I have need of neither.  So you can now exit door left thank you.


I will be gone.  

I now understand, you are not interested in what may be the truth.

Please forgive me for trying to bring it to you.

I shall bother you no more.

----------


## Kevin007

HB, the verses listed is not living believers praying to dead saints. You ignored the verse I listed about only there being one mediator, Jesus.

----------


## TER

> I will be gone.  
> 
> I now understand, you are not interested in what may be the truth.
> 
> Please forgive me for trying to bring it to you.
> 
> I shall bother you no more.


Thank you.  If your truths are as truthful as your accusations, then I appreciate you trolling elsewhere.

----------


## Kevin007

> So you don't pray for your mother's soul?  I'm not understanding you.  You said before you did, and now you say you don't.


 before I knew any better I did, before I was saved in 1997.

----------


## TER

> before I knew any better I did, before I was saved in 1997.


I see.  Why don't we move on to a different topic.

I asked you earlier why you pray for anyone.  Do you believe your prayers have any value or can make any difference?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yeah, and you pray to dead people.


This is incorrect.  A common mistake.  Saints are not the object of prayer, but the people we know have "run the race" in Pauline lingo and can intercede for us.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I will be gone.  
> 
> I now understand, you are not interested in what may be the truth.
> 
> Please forgive me for trying to bring it to you.
> 
> I shall bother you no more.


The premises and most claims (especially the part about Constantine) in your video are false-and secular historians agree with me.  The history channel went to $#@! years ago, bro.  I suggest ignoring everything they publish on any subject ~2001-today.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> HB, the verses listed is not living believers praying to dead saints. You ignored the verse I listed about only there being one mediator, Jesus.


You used the term "mediator", which I agree the saints are not.  You keep throwing in red herrings and erecting strawmen.  What's the point of debating with you when you can't even be honest?

----------


## Kevin007

> So you don't pray for your mother's soul?  I'm not understanding you.  You said before you did, and now you say you don't.


no I do not. Nothing I can do can save her or help her.

----------


## TER

> no I do not. Nothing I can do can save her or help her.


Okay.  Understood.  Now please answer this question:  Why do you pray for anyone?

----------


## Kevin007

> You used the term "mediator", which I agree the saints are not.  You keep throwing in red herrings and erecting strawmen.  What's the point of debating with you when you can't even be honest?


what do you think a mediator is? It is not a strawman. What is a strawman is you using verses that have nothing to do with proving your point. Jesus is the only person/man that can hear your prayers and bring them to God.

----------


## Kevin007

> Okay.  Understood.  Now please answer this question:  Why do you pray for anyone?


  I pray to Jesus only, first of all. Secondly, I pray for my unsaved loved ones on this side of eternity, while they are alive; that they might accept His free gift of salvation BEFORE they die.

----------


## TER

> I pray to Jesus only, first of all. Secondly, I pray for my unsaved loved ones on this side of eternity, while they are alive; that they might accept His free gift of salvation BEFORE they die.


Do you believe your prayers can have an effect in making them become saved?

----------


## Kevin007

> Do you believe your prayers can have an effect in making them become saved?


 If the Lord wills, but they themselves have to take heed to the Holy Spirit themselves. No person can make anyone else become saved. But God does hear our prayers (of the living) if prayed sincerely and to Jesus. Jesus hears us and petitions them to God the Father.

It is up to them (free will) while they are still alive to either accept or reject His gift of salvation.

----------


## TER

> If the Lord wills, but they themselves have to take heed to the Holy Spirit themselves. No person can make anyone else become saved. But God does hear our prayers (of the living) if prayed sincerely and to Jesus. Jesus hears us and petitions them to God the Father.


Yes, if the Lord wills.  Do you think your active part in this (the prayer for your loved ones to be saved) had any effect whatsoever in the Lord willing it?

----------


## Kevin007

> Yes, if the Lord wills.  Do you think your active part in this (the prayer for your loved ones to be saved) had any effect whatsoever in the Lord willing it?


so far, no, because they are not saved AFAIK.

----------


## TER

> so far, no, because they are not saved AFAIK.


So then why pray at all?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> what do you think a mediator is? It is not a strawman. What is a strawman is you using verses that have nothing to do with proving your point. Jesus is the only person/man that can hear your prayers and bring them to God.


 


> mediator [mee-dee-ey-ter]      Examples     Word Origin  noun 1. a person who mediates, especially between parties at variance.


   What is the only English word with "xyz"?      CITE     Translate     Facebook     Share     Twitter     Tweet     Google+     Share  mediation [mee-dee-ey-shuh n]      Synonyms     Examples     Word Origin  noun 1. action in mediating between parties, as to effect an agreement or reconciliation. 2. International Law. an attempt to effect a peaceful settlement between disputing nations through the friendly good offices of another power.  


> intercessor [in-ter-ses-er, in-ter-ses-er]   noun 1. a person who intercedes.


 


> intercession [in-ter-sesh-uh n]      Examples     Word Origin  noun 1. an act or instance of interceding. 2. an interposing or pleading on behalf of another person. 3. a prayer to God on behalf of another. 4. Roman History. the interposing of a veto, as by a tribune.


You absolutely did erect a strawman.  The verses I post are relevant to my point.  Just because you don't like the evidence does not make it invalid.

----------


## TER

Kevin, my friend, it is late.  If you are busy doing something else, then we can take this conversation up tomorrow.  But if you wish to discuss tonight, please try to cut the time to answer simple questions.  It makes the debate drag out and it is already late here and I need to get to bed for work tomorrow.

----------


## Kevin007

> Kevin, my friend, it is late.  If you are busy doing something else, then we can take this conversation up tomorrow.  But if you wish to discuss tonight, please try to cut the time to answer simple questions.  It makes the debate drag out and it is already late here and I need to get to bed for work tomorrow.


ME TOO, Gn.

----------


## TER

Goodnight Kevin.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So then why pray at all?


+1  OSAS, predestination, and other such doctrines are SO depressing.   In my experience, those somewhat nihlistic views are some of the major things that turn people off from Christianity.  It makes God seem just plain mean, arbitrary, and tyrannical.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> ME TOO, Gn.


'Night Kev. ~hugs~

----------


## jmdrake

> So you think you are more or even as much as blessed as the one who bore the Savior?  Do you think you or anyone you know has listened and obeyed The Lord better than the one who gave her pure and virginal flesh to him and who alone was with Him at both the time he was born and the time He died on the cross?
> 
> Perhaps you misinterpret the passage you quoted?  Perhaps Christ is not putting down His mother here but only more fully revealing how blessed she as a person must then be?


Peter didn't misinterpret anything.  He didn't interpret anything.  He simply quoted the scripture as it is written.  As for who has listened to and obeyed Jesus the best, only Jesus knows the answer to that.  He hasn't called us at this point to judge anyone or exalt anyone.  No need for any loaded "Do you think you're all that" questions.

Edit: And I don't think he was saying Jesus was putting His mother down.  But I do believe Jesus was (gently) rebuking the woman that was lifting her (Mary) up.  Jesus said "If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto Me."  Jesus was referring to the serpent Moses lifted up in the wilderness.  But that very serpent which God gave as a pointer to Jesus' death because a stumbling block to Israel itself.  It's so easy for man to slip and worship the symbol instead of the Savior.  That said, I don't believe the veneration of Mary is a point of salvation one way or the other.

----------


## TER

> Peter didn't misinterpret anything.  He didn't interpret anything.  He simply quoted the scripture as it is written.  As for who has listened to and obeyed Jesus the best, only Jesus knows the answer to that.  He hasn't called us at this point to judge anyone or exalt anyone.  No need for any loaded "Do you think you're all that" questions.
> 
> Edit: And I don't think he was saying Jesus was putting His mother down.  But I do believe Jesus was (gently) rebuking the woman that was lifting her (Mary) up.  Jesus said "If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto Me."  Jesus was referring to the serpent Moses lifted up in the wilderness.  But that very serpent which God gave as a pointer to Jesus' death because a stumbling block to Israel itself.  It's so easy for man to slip and worship the symbol instead of the Savior.  That said, I don't believe the veneration of Mary is a point of salvation one way or the other.


Hi jmdrake!  Nice to see you again!  

Both Peter and you misinterpret the verse, first by stating that Christ is rebuking the woman (which He wasn't) and that what He was answering her was about lifting up Mary, which the woman wasn't.

The woman did not say 'Blessed is your mother, or the one who fed you and gave birth to you', for had she said that, then just as the Archangeal Gabriel said, so would have Christ confirmed that the Virgin was indeed blessed and full of grace.  What the women said instead was blessed is the womb and the breasts, not referring to the person of Mary but to the mere body parts of a women which does not make a person.  But even these body parts were blessed having contained The Lord of Hosts and God Himself and been suckled by the pure lips of our Lord and Savior.

Christ did not rebuke because He did NOT say 'rather, or instead' which is the common mistranslation used in the modern Protestant bibles you are using.  Instead, the literal translation from the original Greek is "but more than that", or "even more so", which both confirms not only that the womb which bore Christ and the breasts which fed Him were blessed, but that those individuals who do His will are more blessed.  And indeed, knowing that none has so much followed the will of God over the Virgin Mary, by who's flesh the Lord was incarnate in, we can be pretty confident that Christ, the Perfect Man and Perfect Son not only loves His mother, but honors her.

----------


## jmdrake

> Hi jmdrake!  Nice to see you again!


Thanks.




> Both Peter and you misinterpret the verse, first by stating that Christ is rebuking the woman (which He wasn't) and that what He was answering her was about lifting up Mary, which the woman wasn't.


You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own fact.  The fact is that Peter didn't offer any interpretation.  You reacted to a possible interpretation because you could plainly see it.  That in itself should tell you something.  When you have to scramble to come up with an alternative interpretation for a verse for which someone has offered no interpretation, it's very possible that your alternative interpretation is contrived.




> The woman did not say 'Blessed is your mother, or the one who fed you and gave birth to you', for had she said that, then just as the Archangeal Gabriel said, so would have Christ confirmed that the Virgin was indeed blessed and full of grace.  What the women said instead was blessed is the womb and the breasts, not referring to the person of Mary but to the mere body parts of a women which does not make a person.  But even these body parts were blessed having contained The Lord of Hosts and God Himself and been suckled by the pure lips of our Lord and Savior.
> 
> Christ did not rebuke because He did NOT say 'rather, or instead' which is the common mistranslation used in the modern Protestant bibles you are using.  Instead, the literal translation from the original Greek is "but more than that", or "even more so", which both confirms not only that the womb which bore Christ and the breasts which fed Him were blessed, but that those individuals who do His will are more blessed.  And indeed, knowing that none has so much followed the will of God over the Virgin Mary, by who's flesh the Lord was incarnate in, we can be pretty confident that Christ, the Perfect Man and Perfect Son not only loves His mother, but honors her.


If you're going to go back to the original Greek then go back and quote the original Greek as opposed to the interpretation of it that you accept.  The word in question is interpreted *both* as "rather" and "moreover".  So your claim that the Protestant interpretation is "wrong" is itself inaccurate.  Young's literal translation:

_8 And he said, `Yea, rather, happy those hearing the word of God, and keeping [it]!'_

But note, the angel that appeared before Mary never said her womb was blessed.  The angel said *Mary* was blessed.  Nobody is arguing that she wasn't.  In fact nobody is arguing that it wasn't a blessing to her for her womb to carry Jesus just like I'm sure it was a blessing to the colt that bore Jesus into Jerusalem.  The question is, what should be the focus of the Christian?  Jesus was redirecting the focus of that woman back to Him.  You don't consider that a "gentle rebuke"?  Fine.  That's your opinion.  You are entitled to yours, I am entitled to mine.  But the focus of Christianity is always supposed to be Jesus.

----------


## pcosmar

> Hi jmdrake!  Nice to see you again!  
> 
> Both Peter and you misinterpret the verse, first by stating that Christ is rebuking the woman (which He wasn't) and that what He was answering her was about lifting up Mary, which the woman wasn't.
> .


I gave no interpretation. I gave the scripture.The recorded word of Christ. I never said he rebuked anyone (those are your words)

He said what was most important..

And I have posted other scripture through this thread,,  which you ignore out of hand because it does not agree with YOUR particular teaching.

You keep referring to "my interpretation" or "my theology" "my religion",, and yet you can not even describe what it is.. You have no idea.

It just disagrees with your blind following of your religion,, so it must be wrong.

I have asked simply, that you put Scripture (the Word of God) before the teachings of men..

I ask this as someone who does this. I have had to correct my thinking several times over the years,, as God showed me things in His Word.
Growth is an ongoing process.

----------


## jmdrake

> I gave no interpretation. I gave the scripture.The recorded word of Christ. I never said he rebuked anyone (those are your words)
> 
> He said what was most important..
> 
> And I have posted other scripture through this thread,,  which you ignore out of hand because it does not agree with YOUR particular teaching.
> 
> You keep referring to "my interpretation" or "my theology" "my religion",, and yet you can not even describe what it is.. You have no idea.
> 
> It just disagrees with your blind following of your religion,, so it must be wrong.
> ...


Great post!  Small correction.  I'm the one that first used the word "rebuke".  But I don't see it in a negative term which is why I said "gentle rebuke" as in "correction".  It's like when Joseph and Mary were chastising the boy Jesus when He was "lost" in the temple and He said "Didn't you know I would be about my Father's business?"

Anyhow, I agree that it is important to let the scriptures speak for themselves.

----------


## Rond

> At Pentecost, Mary was among the 120 in the upper room, and she participated in the first massive outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Church. As she aged, she lived in Ephesus with John the apostle. *When she died, Jesus received her soul directly into heaven. And three days after her death, she followed her Son in resurrection, and was assumed bodily into heaven*. Mary is the first Christian to experience the fullness of salvationincluding resurrection and glorification. This is a belief that has been passed down in the Church from generation to generation, throughout the ages. *And while Scripture does not record the time of her assumption into heaven, it does record a glorious vision of her in heaven after her assumption* had already taken place. The apostle John had stood with Mary at the foot of the cross, he had taken Mary to live in his own house, and then in the final book he wrote, St. John tells us of Mary, exalted in the heavens.



Pardon me, but I respectfully disagree with this.  Since the Scriptures do not teach this, it is not true, and is a false tradition of man.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Pardon me, but I respectfully disagree with this.  Since the Scriptures do not teach this, it is not true, and is a false tradition of man.


Tradition, yes.  False, no.

----------


## Rond

> Tradition, yes.  False, no.


How do you know what a true tradition is as opposed to a false one?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How do you know what a true tradition is as opposed to a false one?


A number of things, such as historical and archeological proofs.  Sometimes oral traditions for "mystical" traditions.  The same thing happens in secular history.

----------


## Rond

> A number of things, such as historical and archeological proofs.  Sometimes oral traditions for "mystical" traditions.


What historical or archeological proof is there that the apostles believed in the bodily assumption of Mary?

----------


## Kevin007

> Pardon me, but I respectfully disagree with this.  Since the Scriptures do not teach this, it is not true, and is a false tradition of man.


exactly..... btw... can TER or HB  give just one example of an apostolic oral tradition that is still practiced in the church today?

----------


## Kevin007

> JOHN 20:23
> 
> So Jesus said to them again, Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you. 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 *If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.*


context is King.

----------


## Kevin007

The OT was written by God’s inspired prophets, judges, and kings. It was faithfully copied and preserved by 

Jewish scribes. The OT of modern Protestant Bibles contains the same books as the Hebrew Bible. 


      The NT was written by Christian apostles. None of them were Roman Catholics, because there was no Roman Catholic Church at the time. This was more than two centuries before the Emperor Constantine and Bishop Silvester joined together to create the RCC.

----------


## Kevin007

As far as tradition goes, you can’t have Scripture and tradition as equal sources of authority. When there is a conflict between the two, then one or the other has to take priority.

----------


## Kevin007

A number of the doctrinal statements of the “infallible” Second Vatican Council conflict with official doctrinal pronouncements of previous “infallible” popes. For example, according to Vatican 2’s *Declaration on Religious Liberty* every person has the “right to religious freedom.”


 This contradicts Pope Pius IX*.* There has been protest from “traditionalist” conservative Catholics, and the formation of some groups that want to go back to pre-Vatican II Catholicism. One group is the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement. Another is True Catholic, which has elected its own Pope because it considers John XXIII and every Pope after him to not valid popes.

----------


## Terry1

> exactly..... btw... can TER or HB  give just one example of an apostolic oral tradition that is still practiced in the church today?



Can you?  What traditions do you suppose Paul was talking about here then?

2 Thessalonians 2:
15Therefore, brethren,* stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught*, whether by word, or our epistle.

Then tell me what "traditions" Paul was taking about that made "void the word of God".  Because by your belief--the entire word of God contradicts itself.  So you have to understand why Paul distinguishes between "traditions to hold fast to and do" and "traditions that make void the word of God".  Just the same as "dead works" vs "works of faith".  

Because reading you--you make no distinctions between *dead traditions* vs *traditions to hold fast to* or *dead works* vs *works of faith*.  

What is Paul saying here Kevin.  Is he contradicting himself or is he telling you that there's a reason that there is a difference and why.

----------


## Rond

> Can you?  What traditions do you suppose Paul was talking about here then?
> 
> 2 Thessalonians 2:
> 15Therefore, brethren,* stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught*, whether by word, or our epistle.
> 
> Then tell me what "traditions" Paul was taking about that made "void the word of God".  Because by your belief--the entire word of God contradicts itself.  So you have to understand why Paul distinguishes between "traditions to hold fast to and do" and "traditions that make void the word of God".  Just the same as "dead works" vs "works of faith".  
> 
> Because reading you--you make no distinctions between *dead traditions* vs *traditions to hold fast to* or *dead works* vs *works of faith*.  
> 
> What is Paul saying here Kevin.  Is he contradicting himself or is he telling you that there's a reason that there is a difference and why.



So the apostles believed in the bodily assumption of Mary?   Where do you get this idea?

----------


## Terry1

> The OT was written by God’s inspired prophets, judges, and kings. It was faithfully copied and preserved by 
> 
> Jewish scribes. The OT of modern Protestant Bibles contains the same books as the Hebrew Bible. 
> 
> 
>       The NT was written by Christian apostles. None of them were Roman Catholics, because there was no Roman Catholic Church at the time. This was more than two centuries before the Emperor Constantine and Bishop Silvester joined together to create the RCC.


What is this now--3rd, 4th or 5th time I've asked you to at least try and understand the difference between the EOC and the Roman Church?  There are differences with regard to the Mariology doctrine, belief and practice.  Until you recognize these and understand the difference, you're not qualified to discuss the topic.

HB, TER nor myself are Roman Catholics.  So who are you speaking to then here?

----------


## Terry1

> So the apostles believed in the bodily assumption of Mary?   Where do you get this idea?


There is a difference between the Latin Catholics and the EOC with regard to Mary.  The Latin Catholic Feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15, and the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos (the falling asleep of the Mother of God) on the same date, preceded by a 14-day fast period. 

Eastern Christians believe that Mary died a natural death, that her soul was received by Christ upon death, and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death and that she was taken up into heaven bodily in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb was found empty on the third day. "...Orthodox tradition is clear and unwavering in regard to the central point [of the Dormition]: the Holy Virgin underwent, as did her Son, a physical death, but her body – like His – was afterwards raised from the dead and she was taken up into heaven, in her body as well as in her soul. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and lives wholly in the Age to Come.

 The Resurrection of the Body ... has in her case been anticipated and is already an accomplished fact. That does not mean, however, that she is dissociated from the rest of humanity and placed in a wholly different category: for we all hope to share one day in that same glory of the Resurrection of the Body which she enjoys even now."

----------


## Rond

> There is a difference between the Latin Catholics and the EOC with regard to Mary.  The Latin Catholic Feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15, and the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos (the falling asleep of the Mother of God) on the same date, preceded by a 14-day fast period.   Eastern Christians believe that Mary died a natural death, that her soul was received by Christ upon death, and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death and that she was taken up into heaven bodily in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb was found empty on the third day. "...Orthodox tradition is clear and unwavering in regard to the central point [of the Dormition]: the Holy Virgin underwent, as did her Son, a physical death, but her body – like His – was afterwards raised from the dead and she was taken up into heaven, in her body as well as in her soul. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and lives wholly in the Age to Come.   The Resurrection of the Body ... has in her case been anticipated and is already an accomplished fact. That does not mean, however, that she is dissociated from the rest of humanity and placed in a wholly different category: for we all hope to share one day in that same glory of the Resurrection of the Body which she enjoys even now."


    Let me restate my question:  So the *apostles* believed in the bodily assumption of Mary? Where do you get this idea?

----------


## Terry1

> Let me restate my question:  So the *apostles* believed in the bodily assumption of Mary? Where do you get this idea?


Do you actually understand what the "assumption of Mary" entailed?  What do you believe "assumption" means in the context that it's used?  I really don't think you understand it completely if you're arguing with it.  

Obviously, Mary endured with John as Jesus asked of John to take Mary with him.  There's no evidence otherwise that Mary went anywhere else, besides with John to Jerusalem and Ephesus where there were no remains or mention of Mary's death.  This is mostly an *assumption* based upon the evidence or lack thereof.  That Mary lived until she died and was resurrected the same as Jesus.  The difference is that Mary did not resurrect on her own as Jesus did--her body was taken up into heaven and glorified the same as Jesus.

I really don't understand the problem you have with this belief anyway.  This isn't a belief that's detrimental to the eternal soul--this is simply a belief to venerate or respect the work of Mary, the Mother of God as she is portrayed by John himself in Revelation 12 as he uses her royal image to give reference to the very body and Church of Christ itself.

In fact this isn't just a "Catholic belief"--some of the Protestant reformers such as Heinrich Bullinger believed in the assumption of Mary. His 1539 polemical treatise against idolatry expressed his belief that Mary's sacrosanctum corpus ("sacrosanct body") had been assumed into heaven by angels.  So you're not just arguing against a Catholic belief, but also a Protestant one depending on which Protestant doctrine (out of the hundreds) you want to subscribe to.

----------


## Rond

> Do you actually understand what the "assumption of Mary" entailed?  What do you believe "assumption" means in the context that it's used?  I really don't think you understand it completely if you're arguing with it.  
> 
> Obviously, Mary endured with John as Jesus asked of John to take Mary with him.  There's no evidence otherwise that Mary went anywhere else, besides with John to Jerusalem and Ephesus where there were no remains or mention of Mary's death.  This is mostly an *assumption* based upon the evidence or lack thereof.  That Mary lived until she died and was resurrected the same as Jesus.  The difference is that Mary did not resurrect on her own as Jesus did--her body was taken up into heaven and glorified the same as Jesus.
> 
> I really don't understand the problem you have with this belief anyway.  This isn't a belief that's detrimental to the eternal soul--this is simply a belief to venerate or respect the work of Mary, the Mother of God as she is portrayed by John himself in Revelation 12 as he uses her royal image to give reference to the very body and Church of Christ itself.
> 
> In fact this isn't just a "Catholic belief"--some of the Protestant reformers such as Heinrich Bullinger believed in the assumption of Mary. His 1539 polemical treatise against idolatry expressed his belief that Mary's sacrosanctum corpus ("sacrosanct body") had been assumed into heaven by angels.  So you're not just arguing against a Catholic belief, but also a Protestant one depending on which Protestant doctrine (out of the hundreds) you want to subscribe to.



Let me repeat my question: So the *apostles believed in the bodily assumption of Mary? Where do you get this idea?*

----------


## Terry1

> Let me repeat my question: So the *apostles believed in the bodily assumption of Mary? Where do you get this idea?*


Let me ask you this--where do you get the idea that they didn't?  There's more evidence to support the assumption of Mary than there isn't based upon the words of Jesus and John of Revelation himself.

If God took Enoch and Elijah up into heaven--what would make you believe that He wouldn't resurrect His own earthly Mother who's described as royalty and given the status of the Mother of the church of Christ and the Lord Jesus Himself?

----------


## Rond

> Let me ask you this--where do you get the idea that they didn't?  There's more evidence to support the assumption of Mary than there isn't based upon the words of Jesus and John of Revelation himself.


Terry, where do you get the idea that the apostles didn't believe in men on mars?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Let me restate my question:  So the *apostles* believed in the bodily assumption of Mary? Where do you get this idea?





> Terry, where do you get the idea that the apostles didn't believe in men on mars?


So, it seems to me that its more of an unfounded, silly belief than an actually detrimental one.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, where do you get the idea that the apostles didn't believe in men on mars?


Where do you get the idea that "all doesn't mean all" and that "world doesn't mean world" or that "dead faith" doesn't mean dead faith, or that "God created evil" which are all false and unbiblical and can not possibly be true based upon your flawed understanding and belief in modern day reformers who have done more harm to the body of Christ in their effort to please the will of satan more than God.

I guarantee you that your belief is far-far more dangerous to the eternal soul than the belief that Mary was resurrected and those who honor and respect her as such.

----------


## Terry1

> So, it seems to me that its more of an unfounded, silly belief than an actually detrimental one.


Because you and Rond want to go after the Catholics and their beliefs without first dissecting your own understanding which beliefs whether provable or not are more dangerous to the eternal soul.  I guarantee you that these traditions and practices taught by the early church fathers to venerate the saints and respect their work are not going to affect their heavenly status the same as believing as the Protestants do, such as "there's no need to repent of anything after confessing Christ" or the belief that one is "once saved always saved" no matter who they rape, rob, kill or whatever perversion they practice while on this earth.  That will cause these people to lose their salvation in this life while foolishly thinking they're still saved no matter what.

It's certainly not the Catholics you should be tearing apart in here--it's your own flawed and false teachings that *will most definitely* cause one to lose their salvation in this life and the next.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because you and Rond want to go after the Catholics and their beliefs without first dissecting your own understanding which beliefs whether provable or not are more dangerous to the eternal soul.  I guarantee you that these traditions and practices taught by the early church fathers to venerate the saints and respect their work are not going to affect their heavenly status the same as believing as the Protestants do, such as "there's no need to repent of anything after confessing Christ" or the belief that one is "once saved always saved" no matter who they rape, rob, kill or whatever perversion they practice while on this earth.  That will cause these people to lose their salvation in this life while foolishly thinking they're still saved no matter what.
> 
> It's certainly not the Catholics you should be tearing apart in here--it's your own flawed and false teachings that *will most definitely* cause one to lose their salvation in this life and the next.


Even still you have no idea what we believe.  I don't think the assumption of Mary is a damnable doctrine (from what I understand of it) but I do think some of the other Roman Marian doctrines are.

----------


## Rond

> Where do you get the idea that "all doesn't mean all" and that "world doesn't mean world" or that "dead faith" doesn't mean dead faith, or that "God created evil" which are all false and unbiblical and can not possibly be true based upon your flawed understanding and belief in modern day reformers who have done more harm to the body of Christ in their effort to please the will of satan more than God.  I guarantee you that your belief is far-far more dangerous to the eternal soul than the belief that Mary was resurrected and those who honor and respect her as such.


  "All doesn't mean all without exception" is the rational way that any person who can string together a coherent sentence understands it.

----------


## Terry1

The three Churches who trace their lineage back to the beginning, Orientals Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe in the assumption.  This has been the belief since the beginning from Ethiopia to Britain, India to Spain.  Even many of the reformers believed in the assumption--can you prove them all wrong too?

Can you* prove* that they're all wrong?  I think I'll go with the early church fathers over the Protestant reformers any day of the week.

----------


## Rond

> Because you and Rond want to go after the Catholics and their beliefs without first dissecting your own understanding which beliefs whether provable or not are more dangerous to the eternal soul.  I guarantee you that these traditions and practices taught by the early church fathers to venerate the saints and respect their work are not going to affect their heavenly status the same as believing as the Protestants do, such as "there's no need to repent of anything after confessing Christ" or the belief that one is "once saved always saved" no matter who they rape, rob, kill or whatever perversion they practice while on this earth.  That will cause these people to lose their salvation in this life while foolishly thinking they're still saved no matter what.  It's certainly not the Catholics you should be tearing apart in here--it's your own flawed and false teachings that *will most definitely* cause one to lose their salvation in this life and the next.


   Why are you acting like a bafoon?  Why do you feel the need to exaggerate to the point of absurdity?  What person do you know of who has ever advocated that you can "rape steal and murder" as much as you want after you become a Christian?

----------


## erowe1

It's easy to prove that the belief in the bodily assumption of Mary didn't arise until long after the apostles. This is not based on an argument from silence, but the cumulative evidence of all early Christian writings. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars will back me up on that.

Also, whatever the apostles did believe about Mary, we can say with absolute certainty that they did not consider those beliefs to be part of the Gospel. Paul tells us what the Gospel is in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, and Mary is not mentioned in it. There are lots of other passages that summarize the key points of the apostolic preaching of that which one must believe in order to be a Christian, and none of them mention Mary either. None of the summaries of the kerygma in Acts mention her. Nowhere in Romans, or anywhere in any of Paul's letters, is she mentioned, save for the vague phrase once in Galatians, "born of a woman." None of the other epistles mention her. The Gospels say a lot about her, but in what they say, at no point do they intimate that some belief about her is necessary for salvation. Mark and John don't even mention that she was a virgin when Jesus was born. Nowhere in the Bible is the notion that she was a perpetual virgin mentioned or supported, the closest we get to anything like that is Jesus telling the beloved disciple in the Gospel of John, "Behold, your mother," which gives us nothing to go on. If they did believe that she was a perpetual virgin, it's utterly impossible for honest readers of their writings to believe that they considered such a belief important for Christians, not only because they never mention it, but also because they so frequently say things that undermine it, such as talking about Jesus's brothers and sisters, without any notion that this would cause any problems for anyone.

It's possible that Mary's body was assumed to Heaven without decay. It's possible that the brothers and sisters of Jesus came from some other woman's womb. I won't say it's possible that she was sinless, except for the sake of argument, let's posit that too. Even if all these things are true, what is absolutely, unequivocally, impossible, is to make any of these doctrines part of the Gospel, or something that it is important for Christians to believe. Once anyone does that, they have clearly departed from the traditions that have been passed down to us from the apostles, and opted instead to attach themselves to later innovative teachings.

----------


## Rond

> The three Churches who trace their lineage back to the beginning, Orientals Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe in the assumption.  This has been the belief since the beginning from Ethiopia to Britain, India to Spain.  Even many of the reformers believed in the assumption--can you prove them all wrong too?  Can you* prove* that they're all wrong?  I think I'll go with the early church fathers over the Protestant reformers any day of the week.


  The assumption of Mary was not an "early" belief.  It MAYBE can be traced back to the 6th century.  It was not the belief of the apostles or any of the early Christians.  As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

----------


## erowe1

> The assumption of Mary was not an "early" belief.  It MAYBE can be traced back to the 6th century.  It was not the belief of the apostles or any of the early Christians.  As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.


I think we can trace it to the 4th century. But you're right. It definitely was not an early belief.

That's the problem with certain segments of Christendom who are so hell-bent on apologetics for the things they from certain human beings in their denominations. They take writers from the early middle ages and call them "early," as a way to avoid recognizing that teachings that arose around that time are departures from the much older apostolic faith.

----------


## Terry1

> The assumption of Mary was not an "early" belief.  It MAYBE can be traced back to the 6th century.  It was not the belief of the apostles or any of the early Christians.  As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.


THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES


The Assumption is the oldest feast day of Our Lady, but we don't know how it first came to be celebrated. 
Its origin is lost in those days when Jerusalem was restored as a sacred city, at the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (c. 285-337). By then it had been a pagan city for two centuries, ever since Emperor Hadrian (76-138) had leveled it around the year 135 and rebuilt it as <Aelia Capitolina> in honor of Jupiter.

For 200 years, every memory of Jesus was obliterated from the city, and the sites made holy by His life, death and Resurrection became pagan temples.

After the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336, the sacred sites began to be restored and memories of the life of Our Lord began to be celebrated by the people of Jerusalem. One of the memories about his mother centered around the "Tomb of Mary," close to Mount Zion, where the early Christian community had lived.

On the hill itself was the "Place of Dormition," the spot of Mary's "falling asleep," where she had died. The "Tomb of Mary" was where she was buried.

At this time, the "Memory of Mary" was being celebrated. Later it was to become our feast of the Assumption.

For a time, the "Memory of Mary" was marked only in Palestine, but then it was extended by the emperor to all the churches of the East. In the seventh century, it began to be celebrated in Rome under the title of the "Falling Asleep" ("Dormitio") of the Mother of God.

Soon the name was changed to the "Assumption of Mary," since there was more to the feast than her dying. It also proclaimed that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven.

That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

In the eighth century, St. John Damascene was known for giving sermons at the holy places in Jerusalem. At the Tomb of Mary, he expressed the belief of the Church on the meaning of the feast: "Although the body was duly buried, it did not remain in the state of death, neither was it dissolved by decay. . . . You were transferred to your heavenly home, O Lady, Queen and Mother of God in truth."

All the feast days of Mary mark the great mysteries of her life and her part in the work of redemption. The central mystery of her life and person is her divine motherhood, celebrated both at Christmas and a week later (Jan. 1) on the feast of the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. The Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8) marks the preparation for that motherhood, so that she had the fullness of grace from the first moment of her existence, completely untouched by sin. Her whole being throbbed with divine life from the very beginning, readying her for the exalted role of mother of the Savior.

The Assumption completes God's work in her since it was not fitting that the flesh that had given life to God himself should ever undergo corruption. The Assumption is God's crowning of His work as Mary ends her earthly life and enters eternity. The feast turns our eyes in that direction, where we will follow when our earthly life is over.

The feast days of the Church are not just the commemoration of historical events; they do not look only to the past. They look to the present and to the future and give us an insight into our own relationship with God. The Assumption looks to eternity and gives us hope that we, too, will follow Our Lady when our life is ended.

The prayer for the feast reads: "All-powerful and ever-living God: You raised the sinless Virgin Mary, mother of your Son, body and soul, to the glory of heaven. May we see heaven as our final goal and come to share her glory."

In 1950, in the Apostolic Constitution <Munificentissimus Deus>, Pope Pius XII proclaimed the Assumption of Mary a dogma of the Catholic Church in these words: "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heaven."

With that, an ancient belief became Catholic doctrine and the Assumption was declared a truth revealed by God.

Father Clifford Stevens

----------


## erowe1

> THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES
> 
> 
> The Assumption is the oldest feast day of Our Lady, but we don't know how it first came to be celebrated. 
> Its origin is lost in those days when Jerusalem was restored as a sacred city, at the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (c. 285-337). By then it had been a pagan city for two centuries, ever since Emperor Hadrian (76-138) had leveled it around the year 135 and rebuilt it as  in honor of Jupiter.
> 
> For 200 years, every memory of Jesus was obliterated from the city, and the sites made holy by His life, death and Resurrection became pagan temples.
> 
> After the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336, the sacred sites began to be restored and memories of the life of Our Lord began to be celebrated by the people of Jerusalem. One of the memories about his mother centered around the "Tomb of Mary," close to Mount Zion, where the early Christian community had lived.
> ...


Notice that even that article (blog post?--you conspicuously avoid providing your source for it) doesn't dare go so far as to pretend that the belief in the assumption of Mary goes back to the apostles, or any time close to them.

Frankly, it's very gratuitous to say that it goes back to the time of Constantine. I doubt that the author has any real evidence for that. But the fact that even someone as tendentious as this, who's willing to push the evidence as far as he is, won't go so far as to say more than that should give you caution before you do.

So, like I said, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars (Father Clifford Stevens isn't a scholar, but let's say he's close enough) will back up what I said about the belief in the Assumption arising much later than the apostles.

Something for you to think about.

ETA: Wow. Scratch what I just said. Right after demonstrating that the belief in the Assumption does not go back to the apostles, this hack then just says out of the blue, "That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves." I missed that line in my first read through. Now that I see it, it stands out like a sore thumb as something that doesn't fit the rest of the article at all. Even the papal proclamation he mentions at the end does not intimate that the belief goes back to apostolic times.

----------


## Terry1

> I think we can trace it to the 4th century. But you're right. It definitely was not an early belief.
> 
> That's the problem with certain segments of Christendom who are so hell-bent on apologetics for the things they from certain human beings in their denominations. They take writers from the early middle ages and call them "early," as a way to avoid recognizing that teachings that arose around that time are departures from the much older apostolic faith.


How dare you, FF, Rond and Kevin all assume the early Apostolic forefathers of faith were wrong based upon your belief in the modern 15th century reformers who have perverted the Gospel of Christ and dispensed with ancient early church history and teachings that can most certainly be traced to the Apostles of the New Testament church.  When even many of these reformers supported the belief of the assumption of Mary.

You're not only discrediting these early Apostles, but also many of the Protestant reformers of your own following as well.

----------


## erowe1

> How dare you, FF, Rond and Kevin all assume the early Apostolic forefathers of faith were wrong based upon your belief in the modern 15th century reformers


Can you please provide the quote where I base anything--anything at all--on something some 15th century reformer said?

Also, the Apostolic Fathers never mention the Assumption of Mary, or anything similar to it. Most don't mention Mary at all, and those that do only note in passing that she was the mother of Jesus and a virgin at the time, which statements occur in contexts where they are making a point about Jesus, not about her.

----------


## Terry1

> Notice that even that article (blog post?--you conspicuously avoid providing your source for it) doesn't dare go so far as to pretend that the belief in the assumption of Mary goes back to the apostles, or any time close to them.
> 
> Frankly, it's very gratuitous to say that it goes back to the time of Constantine. I doubt that the author has any real evidence for that. But the fact that even someone as tendentious as this, who's willing to push the evidence as far as he is, won't go so far as to say more than that should give you caution before you do.
> 
> So, like I said, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars (Father Clifford Stevens isn't a scholar, but let's say he's close enough) will back up what I said about the belief in the Assumption arising much later than the apostles.
> 
> Something for you to think about.
> 
> ETA: Wow. Scratch what I just said. Right after demonstrating that the belief in the Assumption does not go back to the apostles, this hack then just says out of the blue, "That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves." I missed that line in my first read through. Now that I see it, it stands out like a sore thumb as something that doesn't fit the rest of the article at all. Even the papal proclamation he mentions at the end does not intimate that the belief goes back to apostolic times.


Your problem isn't the credibility of the source--your problem is that the source is "Catholic".  I'm not going to do your leg work for you--the burden of proof or lack thereof isn't on me--it's upon you to prove otherwise since you're the one in contention with it.

----------


## Terry1

> Can you please provide the quote where I base anything--anything at all--on something some 15th century reformer said?
> 
> Also, the Apostolic Fathers never mention the Assumption of Mary, or anything similar to it. I can't recall off had if they ever even mention Mary at all. There might be a line somewhere in them about Jesus being born of a Virgin.


erowe--your entire belief is based upon Calvinism.  You've made that more than clear over time and through our discussions in here.  Have you changed your mind since then?

----------


## erowe1

> erowe--your entire belief is based upon Calvinism.


Please show me the quote where I say that.




> You've made that more than clear over time and through our discussions in here.


No, I haven't. Think so? Then prove it.

----------


## Terry1

> Please show me the quote where I say that.


Is this a denial on your part that you practice Calvinism?

----------


## erowe1

> Is this a denial on your part that you practice Calvinism?


Yes. I don't know what it means to "practice Calvinism." At no time in my life have I ever based any doctrine of my Christian faith that I have ever held on anything Calvin said.

Don't believe it? Show me the evidence that I ever have.

ETA: Let me be clear again. This is something I've said many times. If you really want to identify what I've made clear time and time again here, it's this. I strive to align my beliefs with the teachings of the apostles at all points, and at no point do I knowingly adopt any doctrine that was a later innovation that departed from those teachings.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes. I don't know what it means to "practice Calvinism." At no time in my life have I ever based any doctrine of my Christian faith that I have ever held on anything Calvin said.
> 
> Don't believe it? Show me the evidence that I ever have.


Seriously? lol

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ht=John+Calvin

----------


## Rond

> Is this a denial on your part that you practice Calvinism?



When is it going to sink in for you that a Christian believes what he believes based on what the BIBLE ALONE says and not what any man says?

----------


## erowe1

> Your problem isn't the credibility of the source--your problem is that the source is "Catholic".  I'm not going to do your leg work for you--the burden of proof or lack thereof isn't on me--it's upon you to prove otherwise since you're the one in contention with it.


It has nothing to do with his being Catholic.

Roman Catholic scholars support what I said. I can show you examples. 

I'm not sure what leg work you think I was asking you to do. Believe me, I've already done it. Go ahead and give me the burden of proof. It is easy to prove that the belief in the Assumption of Mary did not arise until long after the apostles.

That said, why do you reject the burden of proof for yourself? Why do you so carelessly commit yourself to some claim about history that you heard taught by some human being, without knowing of any actual reason to believe that the claim is true? Don't you want to make sure that you don't make sure that, before you go around asserting that the apostles taught something, that that assertion is actually true?

----------


## Terry1

> When is it going to sink in for you that a Christian believes what he believes based on what the BIBLE ALONE says and not what any man says?


I find it rather amusing that you and erowe deny subscribing to the very father of the doctrine you write about and subscribe to. lol  Something's very wrong about that--wouldn't you agree?

----------


## erowe1

> Seriously? lol
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ht=John+Calvin


Did you read that thread?

It looks to me like you just walked right into my trap. Skip to post #24.

While you're there, note also that when Calvin does come up, my own words only prove exactly what I just told you, and disprove what you said about me. At no point do I base any belief of mine on anything Calvin says.

----------


## Terry1

> Did you read that thread?
> 
> It looks to me like you just walked right into my trap.


And just what "trap" was that?   Please do explain--just how you had this mystical foreknowledge that I would find that particular link and post it.  LOL

----------


## erowe1

> And just what "trap" was that?   Please do explain--


Read the thread. It's all right there.

I edited my above post to make it easier.

The fact that you actually thought that you were supporting the claim you made about me by giving that link is kind of funny. The way you debate is a lot like Ronin Truth: just plop a link there without reading anything in it and pretend it says what you just said. There is no possible way that you actually read anything at all in that thread and thought that it supported your claim that I base any beliefs on anything Calvin said.

----------


## pcosmar

> erowe--your entire belief is based upon Calvinism.


Curious. What would make you believe that.
I seem to remember him challenging some claims by Calvinists as well. 

I really don't know, and had never asked him. But he does seem well read and his positions researched (beyond my own studies in places)

----------


## Terry1

> Read the thread. It's all right there.
> 
> I edited my above post to make it easier.
> 
> The fact that you actually thought that you were supporting the claim you made about me by giving that link is kind of funny. The way you debate is a lot like Ronin Truth: just plop a link there without reading anything in it and pretend it says what you just said. There is no possible way that you actually read anything at all in that thread and thought that it supported your claim that I base any beliefs on anything Calvin said.



I see--so this excludes what you have previously stated your beliefs are that are consistent with Calvin?  As in "no free will" and that "dead faith" doesn't mean "dead" at all or that we have been already predestined in this life and that our eternal security can not be lost based upon the doctrine of predestination.  Are you going to deny that you ever stated these as your beliefs as well?  Are you going to deny the TULIP doctrine as well or parts of it that you subscribe to?

----------


## erowe1

> I see--so this excludes what you have previously stated your beliefs are that are consistent with Calvin?  As in "no free will" and that "dead faith" doesn't mean "dead" at all or that we have been already predestined in this life and that our eternal security can not be lost based upon the doctrine of predestination.  Are you going to deny that you ever stated these as your beliefs as well?  Are you going to deny the TULIP doctrine as well or parts of it that you subscribe to?


Can you show me the quote you're talking about?

I agree with Calvin on things. So do you. That doesn't mean that I base any belief on anything he said.

I have never said "no free will." If Calvin said "no free will," I'm unaware of that.

I have never said dead faith doesn't mean dead faith. If Calvin said that, then I'm unaware of it.

No, I won't deny the parts of TULIP that I agree with. But TULIP doesn't come from Calvin. And every part of TULIP was held by many theologians all throughout Church history, including Roman Catholic ones, long before Calvin.

ETA:
Speaking of free will, what do you think about that John Cassian quote? You know, the one that you assumed was from John Calvin, and that illustrated that I based my beliefs on what Calvin said? The one that says that our free wills are directed by God so as to choose what we were unwilling to choose until God directed our free wills to choose it?

Cassian doesn't see any conflict between what he calls "free will" and the belief that God ultimately is the one who makes us choose what we choose. Do you?

Cassian was criticized by the Church Fathers you seem to revere for being too Pelagian in his day. Are you more Pelagian than him? Less Pelagian? Or about the same?

----------


## Rond

> I find it rather amusing that you and erowe deny subscribing to the very father of the doctrine you write about and subscribe to. lol  Something's very wrong about that--wouldn't you agree?


    John Calvin believed in universal atonement.   I believe in limited atonement.    John Calvin believed in infant baptism. I believe in believer's baptism.    John Calvin believed that baptism's from Rome are valid. I don't believe baptisms from satanic churches are valid.    John Calvin believed that the state should enforce the Mosaic law. I don't believe there should be a state.    John Calvin believed in common grace. I don't believe in common grace.       Etc, ect, etc.   Why do you insist on saying that I get my belief from Calvin.  I NEVER quote Calvin except to DISAGREE with him.

----------


## Terry1

> Can you show me the quote you're talking about?
> 
> I agree with Calvin on things. So do you. That doesn't mean that I base any belief on anything he said.
> 
> I have never said "no free will." If Calvin said "no free will," I'm unaware of that.
> 
> I have never said dead faith doesn't mean dead faith. If Calvin said that, then I'm unaware of it.
> 
> No, I won't deny the parts of TULIP that I agree with. But TULIP doesn't come from Calvin. And every part of TULIP was held by many theologians all throughout Church history, including Roman Catholic ones, long before Calvin.
> ...



So lets' get this settled first here please.  Are you denying that you've ever made the statement that "dead faith" doesn't mean what it says and that you stated that your belief was that faith could not die because it was a free gift?  I distinctly remember several of us correcting you on that.  

I have never agreed with any part of Calvin's doctrine because he's so far off the mark concerning faith, the Gospel and Grace-- that anything that he writes that is consistent with some scripture, also at the same time denies the rest of it.  So nothing Calvin ever taught, wrote or preached was correct.

----------


## erowe1

> So lets' get this settled first here please.  Are you denying that you've ever made the statement that "dead faith" doesn't mean what it says


Of course I deny that. That's ridiculous to say that I ever said that.

Now I do recall you telling me that I said that. But that's another thing. You have a tendency to tell people they said things other than what they said. See the previous page of this thread, for example.




> and that you stated that your belief was that faith could not die because it was a free gift?


Living faith cannot die. But that's totally different than saying that there's no such thing as dead faith, or that "dead faith" doesn't mean what it says.

And what does this have to do with Calvin anyway? Did something I said about dead versus living faith come from Calvin?




> I have never agreed with any part of Calvin's doctrine


Calvin's writings take up tens of thousands of pages. How much of them have you read?

----------


## Terry1

erowe--here you are pushing the doctrine of Predestination as referenced in post # 25 in this thread--which is pure undiluted Calvinism as referenced here also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism). 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght=dead+faith

And here also, you are pushing the doctrine of Calvin in post #53  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght=dead+faith

And again here in post #118--while at the same time supporting a pure doctrine of Calvin--at the same time deny that Calvin has anything to do with it--again.  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght=dead+faith

The fact is that this is not biblical erowe--it is all John Calvin's version of Predestination and doctrine and not consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ one bit.  Now this is something we do disagree on, but your denial that it has anything to do with John Calvin is utterly ridiculous in light of the fact that this is the man you follow and believe in according to your own beliefs stated in these threads and posts.  

I find you less than intellectually honest here and I'm sure I'm not the only one who can see this.

----------


## Rond

> The fact is that this is not biblical erowe--it is all John Calvin's version of Predestination and doctrine and not consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ one bit.  Now this is something we do disagree on, but your denial that it has anything to do with John Calvin is utterly ridiculous in light of the fact that this is the man you follow and believe in according to your own beliefs stated in these threads and posts.



Terry1,

Why do you follow Pelegius and Arminius?  That's where your doctrine comes from. Why do you you worship men?

----------


## erowe1

> erowe--here you are pushing the doctrine of Predestination as referenced in post # 25 in this thread--which is pure undiluted Calvinism as referenced here also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism). 
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght=dead+faith
> 
> And here also, you are pushing the doctrine of Calvin in post #53  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght=dead+faith
> 
> And again here in post #118--while at the same time supporting a pure doctrine of Calvin--at the same time deny that Calvin has anything to do with it--again.  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght=dead+faith
> 
> The fact is that this is not biblical erowe--it is all John Calvin's version of Predestination and doctrine and not consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ one bit.  Now this is something we do disagree on, but your denial that it has anything to do with John Calvin is utterly ridiculous in light of the fact that this is the man you follow and believe in according to your own beliefs stated in these threads and posts.  
> ...


At no point in any of those posts do I base anything I say on anything Calvin said. Nor do I say anything that wasn't also taught by many others all throughout Church history long before Calvin.

Was Gottschalk also a Calvinist?

If you disagree with something I said, why not use my own words and argue against them, rather than try to smear me with some association with someone I don't associate myself with and then argue against me on the basis of an association I never made?

----------


## erowe1

> Terry1,
> 
> Why do you follow Pelegius and Arminius?  That's where your doctrine comes from. Why do you you worship men?


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Rond again."

----------


## Rond

> erowe--here you are pushing the doctrine of Predestination as referenced in post # 25 in this thread--which is pure undiluted Calvinism as referenced here also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism).



Terry, if you don't believe in the plainly BIBLICAL doctrine of predestination, then you shouldn't even pretend to be a Christian anymore.   There are dozens and dozens of instances in the Bible where the doctrine of predestination is plainly taught.

----------


## Terry1

> At no point in any of those posts do I base anything I say on anything Calvin said. Nor do I say anything that wasn't also taught by many others all throughout Church history long before Calvin.
> 
> Was Gottschalk also a Calvinist?
> 
> If you disagree with something I said, why not use my own words and argue against them, rather than try to smear me with some association with someone I don't associate myself with and then argue against me on the basis of an association I never made?


Here again in your own words asserting that "faith" can not die--which you just denied saying a couple posts ago.

Post #484 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght=dead+faith

----------


## Rond

> Here again in your own words asserting that "faith" can not die--which you just denied saying a couple posts ago.  Post #484 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght=dead+faith


  Erowe hands your backside to you in the discussion you had on that page.  Frankly, it disturbs me how the wheels don't turn in your head fast enough to see this.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, if you don't believe in the plainly BIBLICAL doctrine of predestination, then you shouldn't even pretend to be a Christian anymore.   There are dozens and dozens of instances in the Bible where the doctrine of predestination is plainly taught.


Pure undiluted Calvinism--no--it's a damnable heresy invented by a tyrant and the false protestant pope of Geneva whose life, practice and writings echo the Quran and Sharia law more than they do the Christian bible.

----------


## Terry1

> Erowe hands your backside to you in the discussion you had on that page.  Frankly, it disturbs me how the wheels don't turn in your head fast enough to see this.


erowe clearly denied saying what he most certainly did say--all I did was jog his terrible memory. LOL

----------


## erowe1

> erowe clearly denied saying what he most certainly did say--all I did was jog his terrible memory. LOL


Please provide both quotes, not your paraphrases or attempts to twist them. Just quote me saying something, and then quote me denying that I said it.

----------


## Terry1

> Please provide both quotes, not your paraphrases or attempts to twist them. Just quote me saying something, and then quote me denying that I said it.


The proof is all in the links and the post numbers there erowe.  Now what eh?   You keep asking for proof and the proof has been provided already--which means your quiver is now empty and you have nothing left but to own up to your own words.  Question is can you do that or should I be embarrassed for you at this point?

----------


## erowe1

> The proof is all in the links and the post numbers there erowe.  Now what eh? LOL


At no point do I say something there which I later claim not to have said.

Disagree?

Then please provide the quotes, unedited, and un-redacted, one after the other, without any commentary from you about what either of them supposedly really means.

In fact, in those threads and this one, I repeat the exact same things in nearly the same words, with the exact same clarifications, and with the exact same contradictions of your own misrepresentations of my position.

Dead faith does mean dead faith. I neither deny its existence, nor that the phrase means what it says.

Living faith cannot die.

Faith that is dead was never living faith prior to that.
This is my position as I've given it in this thread, and it's the same thing I said in any others.

----------


## Rond

> erowe clearly denied saying what he most certainly did say--all I did was jog his terrible memory. LOL


Like most everything you say on these boards, it cannot be backed up by anything.  Not quotes, not verses, not logic, not arguments....nothing.

----------


## Terry1

> Like most everything you say on these boards, it cannot be backed up by anything.  Not quotes, not verses, not logic, not arguments....nothing.


So *you* say.  I guess the same could easily be said about you as well.

----------


## Rond

> So *you* say.  I guess the same could easily be said about you as well.



I feel bad for Erowe1 that an informed, intelligent person like him has to deal with the gutter arguments of the internet.  I don't know how he does it sometimes.

----------


## Terry1

> At no point do I say something there which I later claim not to have said.
> 
> Disagree?
> 
> Then please provide the quotes, unedited, and un-redacted, one after the other, without any commentary from you about what either of them supposedly really means.
> 
> In fact, in those threads and this one, I repeat the exact same things in nearly the same words, with the exact same clarifications, and with the exact same contradictions of your own misrepresentations of my position.
> 
> Dead faith does mean dead faith. I neither deny its existence, nor that the phrase means what it says.
> ...


These are *your words and quote*--now just how far will you go to keep denying what you actually said right here?  You are absolutely amazing in this quest to convince everyone here that you didn't say what you most certainly did say.





> I don't know what you're talking abut.
> 
> When you say "something that can happen," are you still talking about faith dying or becoming dead? Because, as you can see just by reading your own quotes, *James never refers to faith dying or becoming dead.  
> *You don't dispute that do you? Surely, by now you've had a chance to reread the verses you quoted and see that, sure enough, neither one refers to faith dying or becoming dead.


You denied that James is saying exactly what he's saying in James 2:17  Even so *faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone*.

----------


## Terry1

> I feel bad for Erowe1 that an informed, intelligent person like him has to deal with the gutter arguments of the internet.  I don't know how he does it sometimes.


Once again you rely on personal attacks because you have nothing left to discuss that supports your position.  "Rond"--"Sola"--nothing changes does it--but just the name eh?

----------


## Rond

> You denied that James is saying exactly what he's saying in James 2:17  Even so *faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone*.


  No he didn't deny that.  He denied your insane, unbiblical assertion that faith BECOMES dead.  The verse does not in any way say that.

----------


## Terry1

> No he didn't deny that.  He denied your insane, unbiblical assertion that faith BECOMES dead.  The verse does not in any way say that.


Well of course you or erowe don't believe that's what James most certainly *is saying, everyone knows we disagree on this, but the point was that erowe denied ever making that statement that he most certainly did make.  All I was doing was *refreshing* his memory with his own words.  

I won't get into a debate with you about James 2:17--again or erowe either for that matter because it's a futile endeavor in both of your cases.

----------


## Rond

> James 1:17-18
> 
> Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.




The apostle James refutes your entire idea of synergism. EVERY good gift is from above, and He brought Christians fourth by His own will.

----------


## Kevin007

> There is a difference between the Latin Catholics and the EOC with regard to Mary.  The Latin Catholic Feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15, and the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos (the falling asleep of the Mother of God) on the same date, preceded by a 14-day fast period. 
> 
> *Eastern Christians believe that Mary died a natural death, that her soul was received by Christ upon death, and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death and that she was taken up into heaven bodily in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb was found empty on the third day. "...Orthodox tradition is clear and unwavering in regard to the central point [of the Dormition]: the Holy Virgin underwent, as did her Son, a physical death, but her body – like His – was afterwards raised from the dead and she was taken up into heaven,* in her body as well as in her soul. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and lives wholly in the Age to Come.
> 
>  The Resurrection of the Body ... has in her case been anticipated and is already an accomplished fact. That does not mean, however, that she is dissociated from the rest of humanity and placed in a wholly different category: for we all hope to share one day in that same glory of the Resurrection of the Body which she enjoys even now."



you can BELIEVE it, but it is not scriptural. No where is there proof of this.There is no biblical reference to the assumption of Mary.John was written around 90 A.D., which is more than 100 years after Mary was born. (Surely Mary was more than ten years old when Jesus was born.) If Mary had been supernaturally assumed into Heaven, wouldn’t John (the disciple that Mary lived with) have mentioned it?

----------


## Kevin007

FYI-  The Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the RC faith in 1950. This means that every RC is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine- *Assumption of Mary*.

----------


## jmdrake

> FYI-  The Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the RC faith in 1950. This means that every RC is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine- *Assumption of Mary*.


So which infallible pope was right?

----------


## Kevin007

> So which infallible pope was right?


 exactly.....my point.

----------


## Kevin007

In 380 A.D., Emperor Theodosius publis hed an edict requiring that all Roman subjects profess the faith of the Bishop of Rome.In 390 A.D., Bishop Ambrose excommunicated Emperor Theodosius and required him to do penance for 8 months in order to be restored to the Church. Theodosius complied.

It is amazing how much power the RCC gained in UNDER 70 YEARS. Constantine had promoted the Church by giving it special benefits, but Theodosius forced people to become Catholics by imposing punishments on anybody who disagreed with the Bishop of Rome. Constantine had asked for advice from Bishop Silvester, but Emperor Theodosius obeyed orders given by Bishop Ambrose. RC'ism was now the state religion of the Empire. The RCC; which was born under Constantine, had now become so powerful that a bishop could give orders to the Emperor. How about that?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Once again you rely on personal attacks because you have nothing left to discuss that supports your position.  "Rond"--"Sola"--nothing changes does it--but just the name eh?


Yes, we know who he is.  At least he provides sound arguments.  I'm seriously just shaking my head reading this entire freaking thread and wondering why I bother.  Most people here are intelligent politically but when the topic turns to religion they make baseless assertions.

I don't care what doctrine you want to preach, we can debate those issues, but the whole "You get your doctrine from Calvin" schtick is just getting old.

----------


## otherone

> Most people here are intelligent politically but when the topic turns to religion they make baseless assertions.


lol.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> lol.


Actually, its worse than baseless, its flat out deception.

----------


## Terry1

> Erowe hands your backside to you in the discussion you had on that page.  Frankly, it disturbs me how the wheels don't turn in your head fast enough to see this.


You got wheels instead of brains?  Certainly explains a lot.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, we know who he is.  At least he provides sound arguments.  I'm seriously just shaking my head reading this entire freaking thread and wondering why I bother.  Most people here are intelligent politically but when the topic turns to religion they make baseless assertions.
> 
> I don't care what doctrine you want to preach, we can debate those issues, but the whole "You get your doctrine from Calvin" schtick is just getting old.


I think we should rename "Rond".  Got any ideas?  I was thinking maybe something like "guesswho_you'dberight", or maybe "aquaundiesalldaylong".

----------


## RJB

> FYI-  The Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the RC faith in 1950. This means that every RC is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine- *Assumption of Mary*.


LOL.  Let's see you produce some proof other than a link to a website with no proof.

BTW, I don't know why you keep going after Roman Catholics.  (I've been transitioning to Eastern Orthodoxy these last few month.) There aren't any posting in this thread and you've been told this a few times.  What's your obsession with this unrelated matter?

----------


## RJB

This thread is a bit silly.  Up to almost 1000 posts, and all it's done is given people a chance to attack everything from the Eucharist to the mother of our Lord to claiming St Patrick was a Protestant--  (BTW I know he wasn't called the P-word, but come guys...)

Of course this isn't in the bible.  The bible is about the gospel and the spreading of it.  The Assumption is basically a miracle that happened afterwards, along with the miracles God worked through the Apostles that aren't in the bible as well.

For me, part of my faith in Christ is in his promise to never abandon his Church.  So, I trust the Church (the pillar and foundation of the truth) that this happened.  As Terry stated above, the 3 Churches that sprang *directly* from the Apostles believe this.  Some of the reformers believed this.  This was *firmly* established by at least 451 AD when the Orientals schismed.  This is believed by the back water churches in Ethiopia, India, middle east, Ireland etc.  I'm sure Constantine did not go to these remote places and twist the arms.  I also see no reason why such a thing would be made up and spread so wide.

As I said for me, it's my faith in Christ's work through his Church.  AT&T misplaced the cellular text messages between St Ignatious of Antioch and St John.  No, I can prove it to a p-word (or what ever each of you individuals prefer to be called *this* day) that this happened, but neither can you prove the Church wrong either.  So meh...

BTW, I've been limiting my time on the forum already.  If the administration prefers drama over content by allowing Sola to come back I'm going to leave for quite a while along with a few others.  No big swan song from me.  Have fun AquaBuddha

----------


## Terry1

> This thread is a bit silly.  Up to almost 1000 posts, and all it's done is given people a chance to attack everything from the Eucharist to the mother of our Lord to claiming St Patrick was a Protestant--  (BTW I know he wasn't called the P-word, but come guys...)
> 
> Of course this isn't in the bible.  The bible is about the gospel and the spreading of it.  The Assumption is basically a miracle that happened afterwards, along with the miracles God worked through the Apostles that aren't in the bible as well.
> 
> For me, part of my faith in Christ is in his promise to never abandon his Church.  So, I trust the Church (the pillar and foundation of the truth) that this happened.  As Terry stated above, the 3 Churches that sprang *directly* from the Apostles believe this.  Some of the reformers believed this.  This was *firmly* established by at least 451 AD when the Orientals schismed.  This is believed by the back water churches in Ethiopia, India, middle east, Ireland etc.  I'm sure Constantine did not go to these remote places and twist the arms.  I also see no reason why such a thing would be made up and spread so wide.
> 
> As I said for me, it's my faith in Christ's work through his Church.  AT&T misplaced the texts between St Ignatious of Antioch and St John.  No, I can prove it to a p-word (or what ever each of you individuals prefer to be called *this* day) that this didn't happen, but neither can you prove the Church wrong either.  So meh...
> 
> BTW, I've been limiting my time on the forum already.  If the administration prefers drama over content by allowing Sola to come back I'm going to leave for quite a while along with a few others.  No big swan song from me.  Have fun AquaBuddha


Pretty much sums it up for me too.  Now comes their whining, neg repping and infractions because their insults and personal attacks weren't ignored.  Nah--don't need it either.  Leave some bread crumbs will ya.  lol  

The Calvinist can have this forum--hope they're happy tearing each other apart from this point on.  Maybe they can argue over which perseverance doctrine is right--Baptist once saved always saved with a free will or Presbyterian Predestination and no free will.  That should keep them busy for a while if the Catholics bow out.

----------


## jmdrake

> LOL.  Let's see you produce some proof other than a link to a website with no proof.


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pi...s-deus_en.html
_APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF
POPE PIUS XII 

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION


November 1, 1950

_

Now that doesn't prove that Gelasius declared it heresy, but why did it take so long to become dogma if it was always believed by the early Christians?

----------


## Terry1

> In 380 A.D., Emperor Theodosius publis hed an edict requiring that all Roman subjects profess the faith of the Bishop of Rome.In 390 A.D., Bishop Ambrose excommunicated Emperor Theodosius and required him to do penance for 8 months in order to be restored to the Church. Theodosius complied.
> 
> It is amazing how much power the RCC gained in UNDER 70 YEARS. Constantine had promoted the Church by giving it special benefits, but Theodosius forced people to become Catholics by imposing punishments on anybody who disagreed with the Bishop of Rome. Constantine had asked for advice from Bishop Silvester, but Emperor Theodosius obeyed orders given by Bishop Ambrose. RC'ism was now the state religion of the Empire. The RCC; which was born under Constantine, had now become so powerful that a bishop could give orders to the Emperor. How about that?


FYI
It's my opinion that you should be more worried about thinking that you're OSAS instead of trying to tear apart those who believe that Jesus resurrected Mary's body after she died.  Thinking that you'll never lose your salvation no matter what you say or do to others or how you live in this life is the very belief that will cause you to lose it.

I don't think believing that Mary was resurrected will have the same effect on the eternal soul as OSAS will.  You weigh it out for yourself.   And this is my last post in this thread and forum for a long while--see ya--buh-bye.

----------


## erowe1

> The apostle James refutes your entire idea of synergism. EVERY good gift is from above, and He brought Christians fourth by His own will.


Not only that, but the very passage about dead works in question in James 2 refutes her view too.

It must be the case that continuance of ones faith is among the good works that results from living faith. Thus, if somebody does have living faith, then that faith will bear fruit in good works, including the continuance of that faith. But if that faith doesn't continue, then it must have been dead faith.

Living faith, since this is its nature, cannot die. Dead faith must, therefore, be faith that was not living faith in the first place.

----------


## erowe1

> LOL.  Let's see you produce some proof other than a link to a website with no proof.
> 
> BTW, I don't know why you keep going after Roman Catholics.  (I've been transitioning to Eastern Orthodoxy these last few month.) There aren't any posting in this thread and you've been told this a few times.  What's your obsession with this unrelated matter?


Maybe because the RCC is the denomination that has made belief in the Assumption of Mary into a dogma the denial of which disqualifies you from belonging to the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

I honestly don't consider the belief in the Assumption of Mary to be any terrible thing. It's not impossible that it happened. It wouldn't be the first thing that happened to her that made her completely unique. But this elevation of that idea into making it equal to the Gospel is terrible. And I hope that anybody who doesn't think it is takes a moment to consider the implications of that.

----------


## erowe1

> This thread is a bit silly.  Up to almost 1000 posts, and all it's done is given people a chance to attack everything from the Eucharist to the mother of our Lord to claiming St Patrick was a Protestant--  (BTW I know he wasn't called the P-word, but come guys...)


If you know he wasn't called the P-word, then why did you put it like that? That's just a straw man. Do you have any objection to what I actually did say about St. Patrick?

----------


## erowe1

> LOL.  Let's see you produce some proof other than a link to a website with no proof.
> 
> BTW, I don't know why you keep going after Roman Catholics.  (I've been transitioning to Eastern Orthodoxy these last few month.) There aren't any posting in this thread and you've been told this a few times.  What's your obsession with this unrelated matter?


Could you explain what you mean by "transitioning"?

If you believe any of the things that the EOC believes that differ from RC dogma, then the RCC has already anathematized you. There is no transition. You're out of the fold and according to dogmas that human beings who lead that denomination have affirmed in what they considers to be ecumenical councils and in the infallible words of popes spoken ex cathedra, you have no membership at all in the body of Christ in Heaven or on Earth, until you repent of those EO doctrines.

Of course, you may be like me and St. Patrick, and not believe that they really have the authority to do that. But if that's the case you would be neither EO nor RC.

----------


## Rond

> Not only that, but the very passage about dead works in question in James 2 refutes her view too.
> 
> It must be the case that continuance of ones faith is among the good works that results from living faith. Thus, if somebody does have living faith, then that faith will bear fruit in good works, including the continuance of that faith. But if that faith doesn't continue, then it must have been dead faith.
> 
> Living faith, since this is its nature, cannot die. Dead faith must, therefore, be faith that was not living faith in the first place.



Absolutely.  And we have abundant evidence from Scripture that it is GOD who causes a Christian to bear the fruit that he bears.  Jesus said:





> * John 15:16
> 
> You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last--and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.*


Terry, this verse refutes your ENTIRE man-centered worldview.   Jesus CHOOSES the ones who are His and He APPOINTS all that are His to bear fruit that WILL LAST.

Synergism completely refuted.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think we should rename "Rond".  Got any ideas?  I was thinking maybe something like "guesswho_you'dberight", or maybe "aquaundiesalldaylong".


Or we could just unban Sola's account and be done with it.

----------


## Kevin007

Who was the Church built on? The RCC admits that Jesus is the ROCK. In the Catechism, paragraph 424- “Moved by the grace of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  drawn  by  the  Father,  we  believe  in  Jesus  and  confess: You  are  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.‟  On  the  rock  of  this  faith  confessed by St Peter, Christ built his Church." OUCH.

Keep in mind the entire Chapter is built on Jesus being the solid foundation, the "rock".

----------


## Kevin007

In  the  New  Testament  no  mention  is  made  of a priesthood,  distinct  from  the laity,  with  the  purpose  of  offering  sacrifice  for  sin.  Not  only  so, the  apostles Peter  and  John  teach  us  that  all  Christians  are  priests. Addressing  ordinary Christians, Peter says: “You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritualhouse,  a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices  acceptable  to  God through Jesus Christ.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> In  the  New  Testament  no  mention  is  made  of a priesthood,  distinct  from  the laity,  with  the  purpose  of  offering  sacrifice  for  sin.  Not  only  so, the  apostles Peter  and  John  teach  us  that  all  Christians  are  priests. Addressing  ordinary Christians, Peter says: “You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritualhouse,  a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices  acceptable  to  God through Jesus Christ.


False.  Presbyters- 1 Timothy 5:17 Elders-Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5  Bishops-Acts 20:17, 28 1 Timothy, etc, etc.  There's more I can cite, but I doubt you'll even read it.  Reading the NT, especially Acts, one comes to understand the importance of the priesthood.

----------


## Kevin007

> False.  Presbyters- 1 Timothy 5:17 Elders-Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5  Bishops-Acts 20:17, 28 1 Timothy, etc, etc.  There's more I can cite, but I doubt you'll even read it.  Reading the NT, especially Acts, one comes to understand the importance of the priesthood.


this isn't the roman catholic priesthood.

----------


## erowe1

> False.  Presbyters- 1 Timothy 5:17 Elders-Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5  Bishops-Acts 20:17, 28 1 Timothy, etc, etc.  There's more I can cite, but I doubt you'll even read it.  Reading the NT, especially Acts, one comes to understand the importance of the priesthood.


What he said was not false. You seem to have misread it.

In the apostolic Church presbyters did not have any kind of a role perceived by anyone as offering sacrifices for sin.

You are on the right track though in going to the NT to understand what presbyters really are supposed to be. Don't let anyone talk you out of that.

----------


## Rond

> What he said was not false. You seem to have misread it.
> 
> *In the apostolic Church presbyters did not have any kind of a role perceived by anyone as offering sacrifices for sin.*
> 
> You are on the right track though in going to the NT to understand what presbyters really are supposed to be. Don't let anyone talk you out of that.



Exactly....which is what priests do.  There is no office of people who mediate the sacrifice of Christ to others in the New Testament.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Exactly....which is what priests do.  There is no office of people who mediate the sacrifice of Christ to others in the New Testament.


I'm just curious if anyone knows, how does the Presbyterian view of communion relate to this?  I know the Baptist view (which I hold) is that communion is a memorial only, but Presbyterians believe that communion is spiritually the body and blood of Christ.

----------


## Kevin007

the EO's and RC's take their ball and go home?

----------


## Terry1

> the EO's and RC's take their ball and go home?


No, it's not that at all Kevin.  It simply gets frustrating and tiring attempting to teach university level theology to elementary students still on the milk of the word.

Hosea 4: 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

----------


## robert68

> No, it's not that at all Kevin.  It simply gets frustrating and tiring attempting to teach university level theology to elementary students still on the milk of the word.
> 
> Hosea 4: 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.


That would mean all knowledgeable in the world are either followers of the EOC or RCC. Maybe where the pigs fly.

----------


## Terry1

> That would mean all knowledgeable in the world are either followers of the EOC or RCC. Maybe where the pigs fly.


We're talking Christianity 101--that even learned Protestant leaders understand.  When Christians can't even understand the difference between the two major covenants, those two laws and the differences between them--yes--they need to be quiet until they do learn that difference and why.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No, it's not that at all Kevin. It simply gets frustrating and tiring attempting to teach university level theology to elementary students still on the milk of the word. Hosea 4: 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.


This^^  Plus, some of us have real lives to attend to off the interwebz. (like yours truly)

----------


## Kevin007

> No, it's not that at all Kevin.  It simply gets frustrating and tiring attempting to teach university level theology to elementary students still on the milk of the word.
> 
> Hosea 4: 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.


want to respond to some of the other threads, like the A.S and others? You just have insults but no defense.. Why not explain....

----------


## Kevin007

> We're talking Christianity 101--that even learned Protestant leaders understand.  When Christians can't even understand the difference between the two major covenants, those two laws and the differences between them--yes--they need to be quiet until they do learn that difference and why.


when EO's and Catholics don't even understand Apostolic Succession has been broken many times, yes there is a problem. When they do not understand that there are no special segment of Priests, yes there is a problem. When they think there is a purgatory, even though Jesus cleansed us from all sin, yes there is a problem. When no where in the Bible does it say the sacraments or RCC is needed for salvation, yes there is a problem. And dozens of others.

----------


## Terry1

> when EO's and Catholics don't even understand Apostolic Succession has been broken many times, yes there is a problem. When they do not understand that there are no special segment of Priests, yes there is a problem. When they think there is a purgatory, even though Jesus cleansed us from all sin, yes there is a problem. When no where in the Bible does it say the sacraments or RCC is needed for salvation, yes there is a problem. And dozens of others.


It's obvious that you have little to no knowledge of the difference between the Greek and Latin Catholics or their beliefs regarding the things you mention.  This is why it's pointless to attempt having a discussion with you.  You can't even understand basic Christianity that's taught by the Protestants as well.  You're just off on some self-serving tangent and belief system that you believe being "self-taught" has bettered you spiritually in some strange way.  

Do you even understand what the EOC doctrinal belief is regarding "purgatory"?  No you don't, but I'm sure you'll Google it shortly.

You're off on the internet gathering a lot of crapola that you can't even understand yourself and only posting and quoting things from rabid internet sites that seem to agree with your POV.

Fact is Kevin--if there were a prime example as to why we have a great need for Priests, Elders and those who have done their spiritual homework in the word of God--you're it.  You need to study and pray more for guidance in the word of God.  The only reason some of these others like FF, Sola and erowe support you is because they disagree with the Catholics as well, but they're in as bad of shape as you are knowledge-wise as well.  They don't agree with your doctrine either, but as the saying goes--they will remain your friends as long as you have the same enemy in common--in your minds.

----------


## Kevin007

> It's obvious that you have little to no knowledge of the difference between the Greek and Latin Catholics or their beliefs regarding the things you mention.  This is why it's pointless to attempt having a discussion with you.  You can't even understand basic Christianity that's taught by the Protestants as well.  You're just off on some self-serving tangent and belief system that you believe being "self-taught" has bettered you spiritually in some strange way.  
> 
> Do you even understand what the EOC doctrinal belief is regarding "purgatory"?  No you don't, but I'm sure you'll Google it shortly.
> 
> You're off on the internet gathering a lot of crapola that you can't even understand yourself and only posting and quoting things from rabid internet sites that seem to agree with your POV.
> 
> Fact is Kevin--if there were a prime example as to why we have a great need for Priests, Elders and those who have done their spiritual homework in the word of God--you're it.  You need to study and pray more for guidance in the word of God.  The only reason some of these others like FF, Sola and erowe support you is because they disagree with the Catholics as well, but they're in as bad of shape as you are knowledge-wise as well.  They don't agree with your doctrine either, but as the saying goes--they will remain your friends as long as you have the same enemy in common--in your minds.


I'm talking about Roman Catholics. And yes, I know exactly what they believe as I was one from the age of 0 to 24. Then I became a new creature in Christ and was baptized (again) as an adult when I knew what it meant. My faith is in Jesus, not in church or man. Elders are not priests. There is biblical evidence for elders in the NT, but not RC Priests. ALL BELIEVER'S Are Priests.

----------


## Kevin007

*Question: "What does the Bible say about confession of sin to a priest?"

Answer:*  The concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in  Scripture. First, the New Testament does not teach that there are to be  priests in the New Covenant. Instead, the New Testament teaches that all  believers are priests. First Peter 2:5-9 describes believers as a holy  priesthood and a royal priesthood. Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 both  describe believers as a kingdom of priests. In the Old Covenant, the  faithful had to approach God through the priests. The priests were  mediators between the people and God. The priests offered sacrifices to  God on behalf of the people. That is no longer necessary. Because of  Jesus sacrifice, we can now approach Gods throne with boldness  (Hebrews 4:16). The temple veil tearing in two at Jesus death was  symbolic of the dividing wall between God and humanity being destroyed.  We can approach God directly, ourselves, without the use of a human  mediator. Why? Because Jesus Christ is our great High Priest (Hebrews  4:14-15; 10:21) and the only mediator between us and God (1 Timothy  2:5). The New Testament teaches that there are to be elders (1 Timothy  3), deacons (1 Timothy 3), bishops (Titus 1:6-9), and pastors (Ephesians  4:11)  but not priests.

When it comes to confession of sin, believers are told in 1 John 1:9 to  confess their sins to God. God is faithful and just to forgive our sins  as we confess them to Him. James 5:16 speaks of confessing our  trespasses to one another, but this is not the same as confessing sins  to a priest as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Priests / church  leaders are nowhere mentioned in the context of James 5:16. Further,  James 5:16 does not link forgiveness of sins with the confession of sins  to one another.
Read more:  http://www.gotquestions.org/confessi...#ixzz3DERce9NX

----------


## lilymc

> No, it's not that at all Kevin.  It simply gets frustrating and tiring attempting to teach university level theology to elementary students still on the milk of the word.
> 
> Hosea 4: 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.


Terry, I'm genuinely disappointed to see this change in you...your words above were oozing with pride, haughtiness and bitterness.  That type of attitude is not of God.

And while the scripture you posted is, of course, VERY true, who you are aiming it at is completely backwards.

There are not just a handful of doctrines that the EO/RCC are wrong on, there are TONS.   The whole teaching on salvation is wrong.  One doesn't have to go through numerous churchy ceremonies and jump through hoops in order to be saved.  In fact, that works-based teaching is what cults are based on.

The people you are calling unknowledgeable "children" actually have a lot of knowledge and wisdom.  One of them, IIRC, is (or was) a pastor.  Many of us have studied the bible for years.

Not only are they knowledgeable, but they have been patient, mature and civil on this thread... at least from what I've seen, and for the most part.

Anyway... I'm no longer debating on this thread (for now) but I hope that if it continues, everyone will let go of any anger and debate in a civil way.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, I'm genuinely disappointed to see this change in you...your words above were oozing with pride, haughtiness and bitterness.  That type of attitude is not of God.
> 
> And while the scripture you posted is, of course, VERY true, who you are aiming it at is completely backwards.
> 
> There are not just a handful of doctrines that the EO/RCC are wrong on, there are TONS.   The whole teaching on salvation is wrong.  One doesn't have to go through numerous churchy ceremonies and jump through hoops in order to be saved.  In fact, that works-based teaching is what cults are based on.
> 
> The people you are calling unknowledgeable "children" actually have a lot of knowledge and wisdom.  One of them, IIRC, is (or was) a pastor.  Many of us have studied the bible for years.
> 
> Not only are they knowledgeable, but they have been patient, mature and civil on this thread... at least from what I've seen, and for the most part.
> ...


One question here Lily--why are you addressing me and not Kevin with regard to his "oozing with pride, haughtiness and bitterness?"  Surly it couldn't be because you're more in agreement with his POV than the EOC's.  Now I know you're just too nice a person to do something like that.




> Originally Posted by Kevin007  
> 
> well FF, the Protestants scared the EO'S and RC's away, at least for a few days


As if Kevin was able to "scare us off"--LOL  I've been more frightened of rambunctious kittens with little claws.

----------


## lilymc

> One question here Lily--why are you addressing me and not Kevin with regard to his "oozing with pride, haughtiness and bitterness?"  Surly it couldn't be because you're more in agreement with his POV than the EOC's.  Now I know you're just too nice a person to do something like that.


I'm not sure what post you are talking about.... His response to you?   

Anyway, I'm not going to get into a whole argument on who is being this, that or the other.  Nobody here is perfect.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm not sure what post you are talking about.... His response to you?   
> 
> Anyway, I'm not going to get into a whole argument on who is being this, that or the other.  Nobody here is perfect.


You already singled me out, so it's too late to say "well, no one is perfect".  That should have been a forethought before you made that post to me, doncha think?  It's okay--I understand--I forgive too. 




> Originally Posted by Kevin007 
> 
>  well FF, the Protestants scared the EO'S and RC's away, at least for a few days


I'll say it again-- I've been more frightened of rambunctious kittens with little claws.

----------


## Kevin007

Terry- I have a question. Do you think you are going to Heaven? And if you do, why?

----------


## Terry1

> Terry- I have a question. Do you think you are going to Heaven? And if you do, why?


I don't know Kevin--I just can't presume upon God as to whom He chooses.  I know I have that hope as long as I walk in the Spirit of the Lord and try to hear what I'm being called to do and do just that.  

So what say you then--do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God has already chosen and glorified you and why--when your life is not over yet?  What have you to be tried and tested for if you've already been chosen and glorified?  What have you to "overcome" in this life if Jesus did it all on that cross? Rev. 3:5

Why were you told to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling".  Gods word didn't say *work out your sinful life as a sinner*.  He told you to work out your salvation.  What do you think He meant by that?

Why is our faith tested in this life if there is no test and Jesus finished your work and calling here on earth already?  Why weren't we resurrected with Jesus was there a reason for that? Can you answer those?  I'm sure you'll come up with something.

----------


## Kevin007

> I don't know Kevin--I just can't presume upon God as to whom He chooses.  I know I have that hope as long as I walk in the Spirit of the Lord and try to hear what I'm being called to do and do just that.  
> 
> So what say you then--do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God has already chosen and glorified you and why--when your life is not over yet?  What have you to be tried and tested for if you've already been chosen and glorified?  What have you to "overcome" in this life if Jesus did it all on that cross? Rev. 3:5
> 
> Why were you told to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling".  Gods word didn't say *work out your sinful life as a sinner*.  He told you to work out your salvation.  What do you think He meant by that?
> 
> Why is our faith tested in this life if there is no test and Jesus finished your work and calling here on earth already?  Why weren't we resurrected with Jesus was there a reason for that? Can you answer those?  I'm sure you'll come up with something.


youre confusing salvation with sanctification. As far as your bible verse goes, it is a common misinterpretation by non- Protestants. I will give you the correct interpretation, but answer me this. Was there anyone in the NT that lost their salvation?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> youre confusing salvation with sanctification. As far as your bible verse goes, it is a common misinterpretation by non- Protestants. I will give you the correct interpretation, but answer me this.* Was there anyone in the NT that lost their salvation*?


Here's one back at ya-was there anyone in the NT who _gained_ salvation (having not had it to begin with) or anyone who re-gained their salvation after losing it?



btw, Terry was correct in her use of "salvation" instead of "sanctification".  They are very distinct, as you say. ~hugs~

----------


## Terry1

> youre confusing salvation with sanctification. As far as your bible verse goes, it is a common misinterpretation by non- Protestants. I will give you the correct interpretation, but answer me this. Was there anyone in the NT that lost their salvation?


Since the word of God says it's most certainly possible to lose it, which I know you disagree with, then I'm sure that many have fallen since the NT was written and as the Apostle Paul tells you is most certainly a possibility.  This is also why Paul tells you in 2 Timothy 2:10 that the "that the elect may or might obtain salvation"--because one is only "elect" as long as they're walking in the Spirit of the Lord--which is always a *choice*.  Otherwise Paul wouldn't be indicating that the elect could lose something that they already have.  That's only a state of spiritual being as long as we continually walk in the spirit of the Lord--  The state of being elect isn't something that's permanent upon confession of belief--that's where that state of being begins and is only sustained as long as the believer remains in faith by choosing to follow the Lord by walking in the Spirit of the Lord continually.  You should study those scriptures indicating this.

----------


## Kevin007

> I don't know Kevin--I just can't presume upon God as to whom He chooses.  I know I have that hope as long as I walk in the Spirit of the Lord and try to hear what I'm being called to do and do just that.  
> 
> So what say you then--do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God has already chosen and glorified you and why--when your life is not over yet?  What have you to be tried and tested for if you've already been chosen and glorified?  What have you to "overcome" in this life if Jesus did it all on that cross? Rev. 3:5
> 
> Why were you told to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling".  Gods word didn't say *work out your sinful life as a sinner*.  He told you to work out your salvation.  What do you think He meant by that?
> 
> Why is our faith tested in this life if there is no test and Jesus finished your work and calling here on earth already?  Why weren't we resurrected with Jesus was there a reason for that? Can you answer those?  I'm sure you'll come up with something.


so in the bible you read, you don't find these passages?

*John 10:27-29* 				 					My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give  them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch  them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater  than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.			 	

John 3:16? 


John 5:24: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

John 6:37: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

 Romans 8:33-34 "Who will bring any charge  against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he  that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died more than that, who was raised to  life - is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us." Who  will bring a charge against God's elect? No one will, because Christ is  our advocate. Who will condemn us? No one will, because Christ, the One  who died for us, is the one who condemns. We have both the advocate and  judge as our Savior.

and dozens of others.

So, according to your own answer, Terry- you do not know....correct? Why would you say that when Jesus Himself said otherwise?

----------


## Kevin007

2 Timoty 2:10 isn't about a believer losing salvation....its talking about election.

----------


## Kevin007

> Here's one back at ya-was there anyone in the NT who _gained_ salvation (having not had it to begin with) or anyone who re-gained their salvation after losing it?
> 
> 
> 
> btw, Terry was correct in her use of "salvation" instead of "sanctification".  They are very distinct, as you say. ~hugs~


you don't gain salvation. That would imply earning it or working for it.

----------


## Kevin007

Acts 16:30-31

----------


## jmdrake

> Terry- I have a question. Do you think you are going to Heaven? And if you do, why?


_
1 Corinthians 10:12New King James Version (NKJV)

12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall._ 

I believe I'm going to heaven.  But the NT makes it clear that there will be people who think they are bound for heaven that end up not being there.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> you don't gain salvation. That would imply earning it or working for it.


Paul calls it "running the race.  You simply don't recognize it because of your bias.

----------


## Kevin007

> _
> 1 Corinthians 10:12New King James Version (NKJV)
> 
> 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall._ 
> 
> I believe I'm going to heaven.  But the NT makes it clear that there will be people who think they are bound for heaven that end up not being there.


how do you know youre not one of them?

----------


## Kevin007

> Paul calls it "running the race.  You simply don't recognize it because of your bias.


running the race isn't salvation....

----------


## Kevin007

> Paul calls it "running the race.  You simply don't recognize it because of your bias.


and you don't have a bias? WE ALL DO.

----------


## Terry1

> so in the bible you read, you don't find these passages?
> 
> *John 10:27-29* 				 					My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give  them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch  them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater  than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.


I'm going to try and appeal to your own sense of Biblical logic here Kevin--(Lord help me).  Who can't be snatched out of the fathers hand Kevin?  I want you to think about this.  Who can not possibly be snatched from the Father in heaven?  Is it those of us still here on earth or those whom God has already chosen and glorified in heaven?  

Do our confessions save us, even if we live a life of sin after our confession until we die?  Are these the ones that "can not be snatched out of the Fathers hands"?  You can't say that they were "never saved" if they sincerely confessed Christ their savior once--if our confessions are all it takes as you believe, then they were saved at the time they were drawn to confession and simply fell from and out of faith and belief.





> John 3:16? 
> 
> 
> John 5:24: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”


What is belief Kevin?  Many believe in the Lord and hate him, so this indicates that something has to follow our belief to give us everlasting life.  Can people believe for a time and then fall away?  Does that mean they were never saved or that they once were and stopped believing by their actions and deeds.  You do believe we have a free will--at least you said you did.  So do you believe that people can change their minds about following Jesus and stop following Him for the rest of their lives?  So because they believe in Jesus still but choose a life of sin and debauchery--do you think this is the kind of belief that gives everlasting life to those who believe in Jesus no matter what they do to others or what kind of perverted life they live?




> John 6:37: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”



No Jesus casts no one out that comes to Him, but rather they choose to go another way and follow another path other than the Lord.





> Romans 8:33-34 "Who will bring any charge  against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he  that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died more than that, who was raised to  life - is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us." Who  will bring a charge against God's elect? No one will, because Christ is  our advocate. Who will condemn us? No one will, because Christ, the One  who died for us, is the one who condemns. We have both the advocate and  judge as our Savior.


How do you know whom God has chosen?  Can you see into the hearts and minds of men?  The word tells us that the heart above all things is wicked and even when it comes to ourselves--we do not know what we are truly capable of given a true test of our carnal natures.  So can we then presume upon God that He has already chosen us before we have finished this life and test?






> So, according to your own answer, Terry- you do not know....correct? Why would you say that when Jesus Himself said otherwise?


Because you're not seeing and hearing spiritually what those scriptures are actually saying Kevin.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> and you don't have a bias? WE ALL DO.


I've admitted my bias numerous times.  However, my bias does not cause me to ignore true facts or claim false facts to be true.  You routinely make up your own "facts".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> running the race isn't salvation....


It was to Paul.

----------


## Kevin007

http://one-evil.org/content/entities..._break_07.html

*Major historic breaks in Apostolic Succession*

 There exists no less than seven (7) major historic breaks in the   Apostolic Succession claimed by the Catholic Church from 65 CE to 891 CE   of such magnitude and change that any claimed interregnum, or any  other  legal device is complete impossible to be sustained.
 Of the 826 years between 65 CE and 891 CE, for approximately 559  years  no pre-Christian, Christian or Pagan Cybele High priest was in  power  in Rome. 


Evidence to prove the complete forgery of the Liber Pontificalis,   ancient relics and associated forged documents including the falsity  of  claimed Apostolic Succession during this clear break comes in four   specific forms:
 1. The Indisputable fact that Christianity both as a word and a religion was not formed until Emperor Constantine created the Holy Roman Empire and Christianity   as its Imperial State Religion in 326. Therefore it would be  impossible  to have any Christian official residing in Rome before the  date  Christianity is formed. Therefore any people listed must clearly  either  be wholly ficticious, or base on real characters but with key  facts  altered. Therefore the Apostolic Succession of the Catholic  Church is  false;
 2. The clear facts proving the Catholic Church was not created until 742 by Pepin the short and his brothers Carloman and Winfred.   Therefore it would be impossible to have any Catholic Bishop in Rome   from France prior to this date. Therefore any people listed prior to   this date must be either wholly ficticious or based on real characters   but with key facts altered. Therefore the Apostolic Succession of the   Catholic Church is false;
 3. The Clear facts proving that the Roman Catholic Cult did not seize power from the Catholic Church for the first time until Pontifex M. Gregory IV in 827 and again under Pontifex M. Sergius III in 904. That the veneration of Cybele disguised as "Queen of Heaven" Mother Mary, the celibacy of priests, human sacrifice of children and the burning of heretics, simulation of human cannibalism by the congregation during communion are all illegal and forged heretical additions to the original doctrine of the Catholic Church   and remain complete at odds with the original teachings of both   Christianity and the original Catholic Church formed in 742. Therefore   the Apostolic Succession of the Catholic Church is false;
 4. The evidence presented here in this article supports the   proposition that Apostolic Succession of the Catholic Church is wholly   false.

----------


## Terry1

> running the race isn't salvation....


"Running the race" is most certainly the test of the course of our lives here on earth.  It's our testimony in heaven as to what we stood for and acted upon in full faith and belief here and now--today until the end of our lives.  It's most certainly what God will judge us by and how He chooses whom He will.

----------


## Terry1

> http://one-evil.org/content/entities..._break_07.html
> 
> *Major historic breaks in Apostolic Succession*
> 
>  There exists no less than seven (7) major historic breaks in the   Apostolic Succession claimed by the Catholic Church from 65 CE to 891 CE   of such magnitude and change that any claimed interregnum, or any  other  legal device is complete impossible to be sustained.
>  Of the 826 years between 65 CE and 891 CE, for approximately 559  years  no pre-Christian, Christian or Pagan Cybele High priest was in  power  in Rome. 
> 
> 
> Evidence to prove the complete forgery of the Liber Pontificalis,   ancient relics and associated forged documents including the falsity  of  claimed Apostolic Succession during this clear break comes in four   specific forms:
> ...


What's this?  You have completely abandoned the current discussion--that btw--you started and reverted now back to something else.  Why is that Kevin?

----------


## Kevin007

> "Running the race" is most certainly the test of the course of our lives here on earth.  It's our testimony in heaven as to what we stood for and acted upon in full faith and belief here and now--today until the end of our lives.  It's most certainly what* God will judge us by and how* He chooses whom He will.


God has already "judged" as as justified when we believed on His Son as our Savior. God judges Believer's works at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Rewards are given or lost, not our salvation.

----------


## Kevin007

> What's this?  You have completely abandoned the current discussion--that btw--you started and reverted now back to something else.  Why is that Kevin?


I can do two things at once. You are completely ignoring the proof in the other thread; why is that? Thats why I brought it in here.

----------


## Terry1

> God has already "judged" as as justified when we believed on His Son as our Savior. God judges Believer's works at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Rewards are given or lost, not our salvation.


That's not what God said here Kevin.  The works that will either give us life or death happen right here on earth--no where else.  Everything happens here and now--today and until the end of this life.  Only then are we safe from the test of this life and only then we can not be snatched out of the Father's hands and that is what we are "Predestined to be"--after this life.

Until then--we are commanded to walk in the Spirit of the Lord and do the good works that Jesus told us are the only way to glorify the Father in Heaven.  Jesus told you--whatever you do unto others--you also do unto Me.  Everyone has a choice as to whom they will follow at any given time throughout our lives here on earth.

Revelation 20: 

 12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life:* and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.* 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

----------


## Kevin007

> That's not what God said here Kevin.  The works that will either give us life or death happen right here on earth--no where else.  Everything happens here and now--today and until the end of this life.  Only then are we safe from the test of this life and only then we can not be snatched out of the Father's hands and that is what we are "Predestined to be"--after this life.
> 
> Revelation 20: 
> 
>  12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life:* and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.* 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


yes, the DEAD. Believer's are alive to Christ. Believer's are already judged at the JSOC/BEMA SEAT, sometime after the rapture and before the return of Jesus, at the end of the 7 year trib.

----------


## Kevin007

> That's not what God said here Kevin.  *The works that will either give us life or death happen right here on earth-*-no where else.  Everything happens here and now--today and until the end of this life.  Only then are we safe from the test of this life and only then we can not be snatched out of the Father's hands and that is what we are "Predestined to be"--after this life.
> 
> Until then--we commanded to walk in the Spirit of the Lord and do the good works that Jesus told us are the only way to glorify the Father in Heaven.  Jesus told you--whatever you do unto others--you also do unto Me.
> 
> Revelation 20: 
> 
>  12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life:* and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.* 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


so you think works get you to Heaven still? Accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior is not a work. It is a free gift.

----------


## Kevin007

> That's not what God said here Kevin.  The works that will either give us life or death happen right here on earth--no where else.  Everything happens here and now--today and until the end of this life.  Only then are we safe from the test of this life and only then we can not be snatched out of the Father's hands and that is what we are "Predestined to be"--after this life.
> 
> Until then--we are commanded to walk in the Spirit of the Lord and do the good works that Jesus told us are the only way to glorify the Father in Heaven.  Jesus told you--whatever you do unto others--you also do unto Me.  Everyone has a choice as to whom they will follow at any given time throughout our lives here on earth.
> 
> Revelation 20: 
> 
>  12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life:* and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.* 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Rev 20 is talking about only UNBelievers.

----------


## Terry1

> so you think works get you to Heaven still? Accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior is not a work. It is a free gift.


*sigh*

----------


## Terry1

> Rev 20 is talking about only UNBelievers.


How and why do you think names are "blotted from the Book of Life" as if they never were?

Rev. 3
5 *He that overcometh,* the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and *I will not blot out his name out of the book of life*, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Psalm 69:
27Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness.

28Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous

----------


## lilymc

> That's not what God said here Kevin.  The works that will either give us life or death happen right here on earth--no where else.  Everything happens here and now--today and until the end of this life.  Only then are we safe from the test of this life and only then we can not be snatched out of the Father's hands and that is what we are "Predestined to be"--after this life.
> 
> Revelation 20: 
> 
>  12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life:* and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.* 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


The reason our works are judged is to determine the level of punishment, for unbelievers.... Or, reward in heaven for believers.

So yes, everyone's works will be judged, but not for salvation.     

A person is either saved or not saved.   The names of those who are saved are in the Book of Life.    But again, even in heaven there are different degrees of reward, so THAT is why our works are judged.  Not to determine whether or not we're saved.   We are saved by Grace, through faith.  It's a one time thing.

You are mixing up salvation with sanctification.

----------


## Terry1

> The reason our works are judged is to determine the level of punishment, for unbelievers.... Or, reward in heaven for believers.
> 
> So yes, everyone's works will be judged, but not for salvation.     
> 
> A person is either saved or not saved.   The names of those who are saved are in the Book of Life.    But again, even in heaven there are different degrees of reward, so THAT is why our works are judged.  Not to determine whether or not we're saved.   We are saved by Grace, through faith.  It's a one time thing.
> 
> You are mixing up salvation with sanctification.


We are justified by faith because faith is the evidence and actions followed by our belief.  Faith is what you do based upon what you believe.  No--I'm not confusing salvation with sanctification at all--I have to say that you and Kevin are at this point.

That's not what God says here Lily.  Every deed good or evil shall be judged.  Names will be and are continually being blotted out of the Book of Life as we speak.

Ecclesiastes 12
13Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, *Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man*. *14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
*
Matthew 5:  16 *Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.*

----------


## Kevin007

Terry- the Book of life is everyone who was ever born. If a person dies as a believer his name is retained in the book of life, if he dies unsaved he is blotted out.

----------


## Kevin007

> We are justified by faith because* faith is the evidence and actions followed by our belief*.  Faith is what you do based upon what you believe.  No--I'm not confusing salvation with sanctification at all--I have to say that you and Kevin are at this point.
> 
> That's not what God says here Lily.  Every deed good or evil shall be judged.  Names will be and are continually being blotted out of the Book of Life as we speak.
> 
> Ecclesiastes 12
> 13Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, *Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man*. *14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
> *
> Matthew 5:  16 *Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.*


no, faith is believing without seeing.

----------


## Terry1

> no, faith is believing without seeing.


And how do we "believe without seeing" Kevin?  By doing nothing and waiting to die or by answering the call and doing what the Lord is asking us to do in this life?  How can your light shine in this world without doing something to show evidence of your belief?  Do you think talking about Jesus is getting the Lords work done here on earth?  Is talking about Jesus feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, supporting the churches and comforting those who need a helping hand who can't help themselves?  How can a hungry person appreciate a Christian who tells him about Jesus but won't feed him?  Do you understand this?

Your faith is what you do in response to what you believe.  Without doing something and acting upon your faith as James tells you--faith without works is dead being alone.  And that scripture means exactly what it says.  If you never do anything based upon what is you believe and in whom--your faith is dead--you have no faith and grace of no effect any longer after one goes for so long in this state of mind and heart.

----------


## Kevin007

> And how do we "believe without seeing" Kevin?  By doing nothing and waiting to die or by answering the call and doing what the Lord is asking us to do in this life?  How can your light shine in this world without doing something to show evidence of your belief?  Do you think talking about Jesus is getting the Lords work done here on earth?  Is talking about Jesus feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, supporting the churches and comforting those who need a helping hand who can't help themselves?  How can a hungry person appreciate a Christian who tells him about Jesus but won't feed him?  Do you understand this?
> 
> Your faith is what you do in response to what you believe.  Without doing something and acting upon your faith as James tells you--faith without works is dead being alone.


I wouldn't worry about what I do My point is you believe in Jesus and His sacrifice by faith. I'm not talking about good works (sanctification). You see, salvation comes FIRST... works (fruit/sanctification) will follow... but we are saved by faith and not by works, lest any man should boast. Works and fruits are an outgoing/outpouring action of what change has ALREADY taken place (salvation). The thief on the Cross and millions of "death bed" conversions- the true ones- only God knows are proof works are not needed for salvation- but believe certainly is. You can do good works (atheists, Muslims etc), but without faith in Jesus as your Savior; you are not saved/child of the Most High/going to Heaven etc etc.

----------


## Kevin007

> *And how do we "believe without seeing"* Kevin?  By doing nothing and waiting to die or by answering the call and doing what the Lord is asking us to do in this life?  How can your light shine in this world without doing something to show evidence of your belief?  Do you think talking about Jesus is getting the Lords work done here on earth?  Is talking about Jesus feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, supporting the churches and comforting those who need a helping hand who can't help themselves?  How can a hungry person appreciate a Christian who tells him about Jesus but won't feed him?  Do you understand this?
> 
> Your faith is what you do in response to what you believe.  Without doing something and acting upon your faith as James tells you--faith without works is dead being alone.  And that scripture means exactly what it says.  If you never do anything based upon what is you believe and in whom--your faith is dead--you have no faith and grace of no effect any longer after one goes for so long in this state of mind and heart.



Romans 10:17.

----------


## Terry1

> I wouldn't worry about what I do My point is you believe in Jesus and His sacrifice by faith. I'm not talking about good works (sanctification). You see, salvation comes FIRST... works (fruit/sanctification) will follow... but we are saved by faith and not by works, lest any man should boast. Works and fruits are an outgoing/outpouring action of what change has ALREADY taken place (salvation). The thief on the Cross and millions of "death bed" conversions- the true ones- only God knows are proof works are not needed for salvation- but believe certainly is. You can do good works (atheists, Muslims etc), but without faith in Jesus as your Savior; you are not saved/child of the Most High/going to Heaven etc etc.


Your faith and works of faith are the very same thing as Paul tells you in Thes.  The works we're not saved by are the dead works of the Old Law.  This is where you fall flat in understanding the difference between the two covenants and two separate laws and sets of works. 

You need to study the difference between these two covenants/laws and understand why Paul and the entire NT tell you to do good works and why then Paul and the rest turn right around and tell you that we're not saved by the "works of the law"--(the OT law of Moses).  You still do not understand the difference and you're not alone.  Many Protestant churches are teaching this silly doctrine that's not biblical.

----------


## lilymc

> That's not what God says here Lily.  Every deed good or evil shall be judged.  Names will be and are continually being blotted out of the Book of Life as we speak.
> 
> Ecclesiastes 12
> 13Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. *14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
> *
> Matthew 5:  16 *Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.*


Yes, every deed will be judged.  That's what I said, that our works will be judged, but that is not to determine salvation.

It is to determine the level of punishment or reward.

As for what you said about being blotted out of the book of life....  

I would like to do more study on this, but it seems to me that everyone who was ever born is originally listed in the book of life.   

Unbelievers and unrepentant sinners are blotted out, but once a person is truly saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit, they will never be blotted out.  

To think of God as someone who constantly has his eraser hovering over the book, ready to wipe out believers for sinning, I believe is wrong and it goes against the whole idea of what salvation is.   We are new creations when we are saved.   We have the Holy Spirit, we are not how we used to be.    That doesn't mean that we will never sin again, but we have new heart, new life, a new nature. And when we do mess up, we hate that we messed up, we are repentant and we sincerely want to be right with God and to allow Him to transform us, continually.    But we are already saved.  

We don't jump back and forth from being saved....to unsaved... to saved again... to unsaved.   That is just not correct.  Once we are truly saved, we're saved, we are born from above, and there are numerous scriptures that show that we will never be snatched away or separated from the love of God.

Those who choose to leave God or appear to have lost their salvation were people who never went through regeneration and were never sealed with the Holy Spirit in the first place.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, every deed will be judged.  That's what I said, that our works will be judged, but that is not to determine salvation.
> 
> It is to determine the level of punishment or reward.
> 
> As for what you said about being blotted out of the book of life....  
> 
> I would like to do more study on this, but it seems to me that everyone who was ever born is originally listed in the book of life.   
> 
> *Unbelievers and unrepentant sinners are blotted out, but once a person is truly saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit, they will never be blotted out.*  
> ...


So then you also believe that people are once saved always saved I see.  Well Lily--on this we do disagree and for now--we'll just have to leave it at that.  People change their minds and do fall from faith and grace as the word tells us is possible.  No one is guaranteed eternal life in this life.  We have the hope if we continually walk in the Spirit of the Lord and "keep the faith" as Paul said.  

I would be scared to death to presume upon God whom He decides to choose--not even myself because I know this life isn't over yet. 

Peace in Christ

----------


## Kevin007

> Your faith and works of faith are the very same thing as Paul tells you in Thes.  The works we're not saved by are the dead works of the Old Law.  This is where you fall flat in understanding the difference between the two covenants and two separate laws and sets of works. 
> 
> You need to study the difference between these two covenants/laws and understand why Paul and the entire NT tell you to do good works and why then Paul and the rest turn right around and tell you that *we're not saved by the "works of the law"--(the OT law of Moses).*  You still do not understand the difference and you're not alone.  Many Protestant churches are teaching this silly doctrine that's not biblical.


this is not true. Ephesians does not say works of the law, but works (only). Besides we are not saved by EITHER, we are saved by the blood of Jesus. Works of faith do not save you. If works of faith saved you, you could save yourself. Nothing can be added to Jesus' perfect work.

----------


## RJB

> Rev 20 is talking about only UNBelievers.


So you believe the "UNBelievers" can work their way into heaven without Jesus' work on the cross based on this verse?  Am I reading you right?

----------


## Kevin007

> So then you also believe that people are once saved always saved I see.  Well Lily--on this we do disagree and for now--we'll just have to leave it at that.  People change their minds and do fall from faith and grace as the word tells us is possible.  No one is guaranteed eternal life in this life.  We have the hope if we continually walk in the Spirit of the Lord and "keep the faith" as Paul said.  
> 
> I would be scared to death to presume upon God whom He decides to choose--not even myself because I know this life isn't over yet. 
> 
> Peace in Christ



I would be scared to death to not know how many works I had to do to get to Heaven...

----------


## Kevin007

> So you believe the "UNBelievers" can work their way into heaven without Jesus' work on the cross based on this verse?  Am I reading you right?


where did I say that? No they cannot.

----------


## Kevin007

/Paul isn't saying their works (of faith) saved them..Please show me where he said that....

----------


## Kevin007

let me be clear. Works do not save unsaved people. Works do not save Believers. Pretty simple. Jesus saves, not your works.

----------


## RJB

> where did I say that? No they cannot.


In relation to Revelations 20 and the story of the sheep and the goats:  When they say that they are judged by their deeds, it seems that you believe that that is for the unsaved.  I'm trying to understand your belief in what these passages say.

----------


## jmdrake

> how do you know youre not one of them?


I didn't say I "know".  I said I "believe".  People can "believe" all sorts of things.  I'll ask you a question I asked Sola_Fide.  What about an openly gay Calvinist?  He "believes" that he's part of the "elect" and the fact that he's perfectly fine being gay, happily "married" to another man etc has no bearing on his salvation.  After all it's not about "works".  He believes TULIP perfectly and every other belief most Calvinists believe.  He just doesn't think being gay is a problem.  (And I don't know.  Maybe you don't either.  Sola_Fide certainly does).  So is that person saved or not?

Here is all that I can "do".  Jesus said "Abide in me and I in you and you will bear much fruit".  So I don't "worry" about my works.  When I see myself messing up, which is a lot, I ask myself if I'm really abiding in Jesus.  My mess ups are a warning sign that I'm not giving myself over to Him fully.  That's the "work" of a Christian which is trusting in Jesus.  (See John 6:29)  The cool thing about this is, this concept let me quit worrying about gay friends an family members.  If they're abiding in Jesus and if Jesus wants to change that about them, eventually He will.

----------


## Kevin007

> I didn't say I "know".  I said I "believe".  People can "believe" all sorts of things.  I'll ask you a question I asked Sola_Fide.  What about an openly gay Calvinist?  He "believes" that he's part of the "elect" and the fact that he's perfectly fine being gay, happily "married" to another man etc has no bearing on his salvation.  After all it's not about "works".  He believes TULIP perfectly and every other belief most Calvinists believe.  He just doesn't think being gay is a problem.  (And I don't know.  Maybe you don't either.  Sola_Fide certainly does).  So is that person saved or not?
> 
> Here is all that I can "do".  Jesus said "Abide in me and I in you and you will bear much fruit".  So I don't "worry" about my works.  When I see myself messing up, which is a lot, I ask myself if I'm really abiding in Jesus.  My mess ups are a warning sign that I'm not giving myself over to Him fully.  That's the "work" of a Christian which is trusting in Jesus.  (See John 6:29)  The cool thing about this is, this concept let me quit worrying about gay friends an family members.  If they're abiding in Jesus and if Jesus wants to change that about them, eventually He will.



the second part makes no sense. As to the first part, if the guy was  truly saved- God changes some things right away. He still gives us free  will to sin if we want to. I'm not saying it is good or that person will  not lose rewards at the Bema Seat; but they are saved. If you think  some one is saved just by their behavior alone; you are assuming too  much. I know Christians who are not walking the walk, and non'  Christians who are living "well". There are a lot of backsliding  Christians. Look at the story of the Prodigal son. The son realized his  sins and came home, BUT that son was ALWAYS the fathers SON- even when  he was out living it up. Once we are sons of God, no one can snatch us  away. We are sealed until the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit. ALL  Believers are at different times in the sanctification process/walk with  God. Some are in fellowship, some fall out- but nothing we can do  changes our eternal relationship with our Father. He keeps us.

I'm not saying good works as Believers are not fruitful or welcomed by God, but they do not save you or keep you saved; only Jesus does that (did that).

----------


## jmdrake

> the second part makes no sense.


What doesn't make sense?  Abiding in Jesus?  That's what he asks us to do.  Not worrying about the salvation of gay friends and family and trusting Jesus to work in them?  What else can I do?  By worrying I can't even make a hair on my head grow.  Your "makes no sense" statement is what makes no sense.




> As to the first part, if the guy was  truly saved- God changes some things right away. He still gives us free  will to sin if we want to. I'm not saying it is good or that person will  not lose rewards at the Bema Seat; but they are saved. If you think  some one is saved just by their behavior alone; you are assuming too  much.


If you think I think someone is "saved by their behavior alone" then you are the one assuming too much.  I don't believe there are any Christians that believe in "Sola_Works".  But I wasn't even saying that we are saved by our works.  We are saved by our trusting in Jesus.  I use the word trust because the word belief has become too cheapened.  You can believe in someone's existence without trusting them to the point of giving your life over to them.




> I know Christians who are not walking the walk, and non'  Christians who are living "well". There are a lot of backsliding  Christians. Look at the story of the Prodigal son. The son realized his  sins and came home, BUT that son was ALWAYS the fathers SON- even when  he was out living it up. Once we are sons of God, no one can snatch us  away. We are sealed until the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit. ALL  Believers are at different times in the sanctification process/walk with  God. Some are in fellowship, some fall out- but nothing we can do  changes our eternal relationship with our Father. He keeps us.


The idea that Christians are immediately sealed goes against scripture.

_Revelation 7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads._

Sealing is a process.  That's why we are told not to grieve the Holy Spirit that seals us.

_Ephesians 4:29-31King James Version (KJV)

29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:_

That is also why Paul said "I die daily".

As far as nothing being able to "snatch us from Jesus", I agree.  That doesn't mean we can't leave on our own and not return.  Some may say "Those who leave never believed in the first place."  That sounds like the snake handlers who say "Those who get bitten and die didn't have enough faith."  Oh, and for the record, you changed the scenario I gave.  I wasn't talking about the Christian out sinning, realizes he is sinning, and "returns".  I'm talking about the one who professes his Christianity and lives his life in what to you is obvious sin but what he sees nothing wrong with and dies in that sin.  Yes, I know Christians sin and repent.  That's *not* what I was asking you about.





> I'm not saying good works as Believers are not fruitful or welcomed by God, but they do not save you or keep you saved; only Jesus does that (did that).


I never said that works save you.  You just attributed that to me for no apparent reason.  I said works are a sign of your abiding in Christ.

----------


## Terry1

> the second part makes no sense. As to the first part, if the guy was  truly saved- God changes some things right away. He still gives us free  will to sin if we want to. I'm not saying it is good or that person will  not lose rewards at the Bema Seat; but they are saved. If you think  some one is saved just by their behavior alone; you are assuming too  much. I know Christians who are not walking the walk, and non'  Christians who are living "well". There are a lot of backsliding  Christians. Look at the story of the Prodigal son. The son realized his  sins and came home, BUT that son was ALWAYS the fathers SON- even when  he was out living it up. Once we are sons of God, no one can snatch us  away. We are sealed until the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit. ALL  Believers are at different times in the sanctification process/walk with  God. Some are in fellowship, some fall out- but nothing we can do  changes our eternal relationship with our Father. He keeps us.
> 
> I'm not saying good works as Believers are not fruitful or welcomed by God, but they do not save you or keep you saved; only Jesus does that (did that).


So if the Holy Spirit has to drop bricks upon your head in order to make you listen and you just keep walking away saying "I don't have to do that because it won't save me"--"my belief alone will though"--just how long do you think God is going to tolerate you ignoring His voice and you still believing that you've inherited the kingdom of heaven?  This is what John 15: 5 and Hebrews 6:4 are talking about.  Your fruits of the spirit are your good works done in an action of faith to back up your belief.  You stop listing and doing--then you have no evidence, no light that shines, nothing but whatever's rolling around in your mind telling you that you're still saved no matter what.

Not only are you grieving the Holy Spirit, but also presuming upon God that He'll accept you no matter how long you ignore His voice and do nothing based upon what it is that you believe.  Yes--James meant every word that reconfirms all of the other Apostles and prophets including Jesus Himself in Matthew---"faith without works is dead being alone".

----------


## lilymc

> So then you also believe that people are once saved always saved I see.  Well Lily--on this we do disagree and for now--we'll just have to leave it at that.  People change their minds and do fall from faith and grace as the word tells us is possible.


Yes, I stated that in a number of posts, pages back on the thread. But no worries if you missed it... I too haven't been on this thread the entire time. 

Yes, people do change their minds and fall from "faith."  I didn't deny that.  I'm saying that no one who is truly saved loses their salvation.  There are many people who go to church, maybe even appear to be a good christian, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are saved.   In fact, those who have a works-based mentality are already showing a lack of faith, because they seem to think that they need to do more, to earn their way to salvation.     





> No one is guaranteed eternal life in this life.  We have the hope if we continually walk in the Spirit of the Lord and "keep the faith" as Paul said.  
> 
> I would be scared to death to presume upon God whom He decides to choose--not even myself because I know this life isn't over yet. 
> 
> Peace in Christ


I don't think I ever claimed that people were guaranteed eternal life.   But there are tons of scriptures that show that once we are truly saved and born from above, we can't be "unsaved" or thrown out.       

We certainly do need to keep the faith, because it is not easy being a Christian in a fallen, upside down world.  We will inevitably have trials, challenges, we will be hated by some, and (now in some parts of the world, in the future pretty much everywhere) persecuted or worse.    In the bible there are tons of encouraging words to believers who lived back then - and of course that apply to believers today -  to persevere, and to continually pursue holiness/sanctification.   But that doesn't mean that we have to constantly strive for our salvation.   Salvation and sanctification are not the same thing.

Anyway, I understand if you want to agree to disagree.   

Peace and blessings!

----------


## Terry1

> the second part makes no sense. As to the first part, if the guy was  truly saved- God changes some things right away. He still gives us free  will to sin if we want to. I'm not saying it is good or that person will  not lose rewards at the Bema Seat; but they are saved. If you think  some one is saved just by their behavior alone; you are assuming too  much. I know Christians who are not walking the walk, and non'  Christians who are living "well". There are a lot of backsliding  Christians. Look at the story of the Prodigal son. The son realized his  sins and came home, BUT that son was ALWAYS the fathers SON- even when  he was out living it up. Once we are sons of God, no one can snatch us  away. We are sealed until the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit. ALL  Believers are at different times in the sanctification process/walk with  God. Some are in fellowship, some fall out- but nothing we can do  changes our eternal relationship with our Father. He keeps us.
> 
> I'm not saying good works as Believers are not fruitful or welcomed by God, but they do not save you or keep you saved; only Jesus does that (did that).


So if a guy is drawn to the Lord--confesses Jesus as his savior and then falls back into sin--you're saying he was never saved.  What if the guy repents and comes back to the Lord--is he saved then Kevin?  Then what if he spends the rest of his life choosing to fall back into sin and never repents again?  Does that mean he was "never saved"?  No--that kind of thinking is insanity and far-far from biblical.  

What happens is people are drawn to the Lord and they come to confess belief in Jesus the savior.  Then some will stumble for a time and come back to the Lord and some won't.  This is what Hebrews 6:4 is talking about.  Grieving the Holy Spirit to the point where God has been patient and given them space to repent and they never return.  Then they're cut off permanently when God knows in their hearts they won't return.  

Revelation gives evidence that God is patient with people for a time and gives them space to repent and if they don't after a period of time--only God knowing this will cut them off permanently.  God is talking about the churches here, but this applies to individuals as well.

21And *I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.* 22Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts:* and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.*

----------


## lilymc

I haven't watched the whole thing (there are 2 parts), so I can't say for sure that the entire thing is good, but based on what I've seen so far, I think this is a good teaching.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So if a guy is drawn to the Lord--confesses Jesus as his savior and then falls back into sin--you're saying he was never saved.  What if the guy repents and comes back to the Lord--is he saved then Kevin?  Then what if he spends the rest of his life choosing to fall back into sin and never repents again?  Does that mean he was "never saved"?  No--that kind of thinking is insanity and far-far from biblical.  
> 
> What happens is people are drawn to the Lord and they come to confess belief in Jesus the savior.  Then some will stumble for a time and come back to the Lord and some won't.  This is what Hebrews 6:4 is talking about.  Grieving the Holy Spirit to the point where God has been patient and given them space to repent and they never return.  Then they're cut off permanently when God knows in their hearts they won't return.  
> 
> Revelation gives evidence that God is patient with people for a time and gives them space to repent and if they don't after a period of time--only God knowing this will cut them off permanently.  God is talking about the churches here, but this applies to individuals as well.
> 
> 21And *I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.* 22Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts:* and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.*


In that general vein...



> *By their fruits*, ye shall know them.

----------


## Terry1

> So you believe the "UNBelievers" can work their way into heaven without Jesus' work on the cross based on this verse?  Am I reading you right?


I'm so sorry I missed this post RJB, you hit the nail on the head and that is exactly what they're arguing without even realizing they are.  They're saying that our good works won't save us, but then they only do them because they're trying to be good.  That's not living and walking in the Spirit of the Lord--what they are actually advocating here is "dead works" and accusing those that do "good works in faith and the Spirit of the Lord" of doing what they are actually doing themselves.  This is a blatant case where their own swords have fall back down upon their own heads.  I've made this point before as well.

----------


## Kevin007

RJB, based on what verse are you talking about? Of course unbelievers cannot work their way into Heaven. That judgment isn't about salvation, but works by believers whether they were done for God or for man. Boy you guys need to catch up. And your Rev. verse above isn't talking about what you think it is.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you believe the "UNBelievers" can work their way into heaven without Jesus' work on the cross based on this verse?  Am I reading you right?


God's standard is a lifetime of perfect obedience.  Nobody can meet that standard.  Only Jesus can meet it on behalf of a person.

----------


## Kevin007

> God's standard is a lifetime of perfect obedience.  Nobody can meet that standard.  Only Jesus can meet it on behalf of a person.


he doesn't even realize verse 23 is about punishment....

----------


## RJB

> RJB, based on what verse are you talking about? Of course unbelievers cannot work their way into Heaven. That judgment isn't about salvation, but works by believers whether they were done for God or for man. Boy you guys need to catch up. And your Rev. verse above isn't talking about what you think it is.


This is but one verse.  I've noticed there are quite a few verses that you guys say don't apply to you.  Such as the sheep and the Goats being judged by their deeds one for punishment, one for damnation.  This verse and the one in Rev 20 are similar.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is another one.  If a believer committing adultery doesn't put one in jeopardy and this only applies to unbelievers, then if I am reading your logic correct, a non-believer who isn't a drunkard, adulterer, etc. can get to heaven by behaving himself?



> 1 Cor. 6:9-10
> 
> Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.



BTW.  I gave up trying to change you're minds.  I'm just curious how you think about this.

----------


## RJB

> If you know he wasn't called the P-word, then why did you put it like that?


   I was having fun.  I wrote that because that's how many Catholics would view what you wrote.  That's why I wrote it and corrected myself.




> That's just a straw man.


  Oh relax.



> Do you have any objection to what I actually did say about St. Patrick?


  You offered little proof.  But to look at the history of Ireland I would need a whole lot more proof.

*First, Ireland was never conquered by Rome.*  So there goes the argument that Roman Catholicism was shoved down their throats by the all powerful comicbook villain Constantine, that Ronin likes to bring up.  This may be why the Irish are some of the most inherently loyal Roman Catholics--  They don't have the genetic memory of Roman Imperial oppression.

2nd.  If Saint Patrick was a Rond/Sola/Aqua Christian, he wouldn't be a saint in the Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church.  Also the Irish would not have become devout Roman Catholics without one heck of a fight.   There would also be a remanant of the "Sola" Church somewhere hidden in Ireland which I've seen no evidence of..

3rd.  There is no way Saint Patrick was a proto-Baptist, because the Irish sure don't drink like Baptists.

----------


## RJB

Right now it's personal and I don't want to talk about it on the open forum.  Maybe in a few months to a year.  

If you are genuinely interested PM me.




> Could you explain what you mean by "transitioning"?
> 
> If you believe any of the things that the EOC believes that differ from RC dogma, then the RCC has already anathematized you. There is no transition. You're out of the fold and according to dogmas that human beings who lead that denomination have affirmed in what they considers to be ecumenical councils and in the infallible words of popes spoken ex cathedra, you have no membership at all in the body of Christ in Heaven or on Earth, until you repent of those EO doctrines.
> 
> Of course, you may be like me and St. Patrick, and not believe that they really have the authority to do that. But if that's the case you would be neither EO nor RC.

----------


## Kevin007

> This is but one verse.  I've noticed there are quite a few verses that you guys say don't apply to you.  Such as the sheep and the Goats being judged by their deeds one for punishment, one for damnation.  This verse and the one in Rev 20 are similar.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is another one. * If a believer committing adultery doesn't put one in jeopardy* and this only applies to unbelievers, then if I am reading your logic correct, a non-believer who isn't a drunkard, adulterer, etc. can get to heaven by behaving himself?
> 
> 
> 
> BTW.  I gave up trying to change you're minds.  I'm just curious how you think about this.


in jeapordy of what? *1 Cor. 6:9* begins by saying, _“Do you not know that the wicked_(unsaved)_ will not inherit the Kingdom of God?_” and goes on to list behavior found among unrighteous people. Not talking about Believer's.

----------


## RJB

> in jeapordy of what? *1 Cor. 6:9* begins by saying, _Do you not know that the wicked_(unsaved)_ will not inherit the Kingdom of God?_ and goes on to list behavior found among unrighteous people. Not talking about Believer's.


Wicked.  Exactly.  Adulterers, drunkards, etc.

What about the sheep and the goats.  Did unbelievers get to heaven by doing good deed?

----------


## Kevin007

> Wicked.  Exactly.  Adulterers, drunkards, etc.
> 
> What about the sheep and the goats.  Did unbelievers get to heaven by doing good deed?


I wouldn't call any Believer wicked. Jesus is speaking of the unsaved.

----------


## RJB

> I wouldn't call any Believer wicked. Jesus is speaking of the unsaved.


Why would a book for believers talk about the moral choices for non-believers?  It would have been simpler to say


> "Do you not know the wicked, unbelievers shall not inherit the kingdom."


  But it doesn't.  It warns US of wicked actions to avoid.

 I think it would be unwise to ignore a command that the bible gives us and shrug it off.

But then it gets back to if it is written for non-believers and a nonbeliever does not engage in such actions are they saved?

----------


## Kevin007

> Why would a book for believers talk about the moral choices for non-believers?  It would have been simpler to say  But it doesn't.  It warns US of wicked actions to avoid.
> 
>  I think it would be unwise to ignore a command that the bible gives us and shrug it off.
> 
> But then it gets back to if it is written for non-believers and *a nonbeliever does not engage in such actions are they saved?
> 
> o*


no.

----------


## RJB

> no.


But you're avoiding the issue.  Why does Jesus give us so many commands?  Unless you believe those commands are only for non-Christians. The New testament should then only have one sentence:  "Have faith in Jesus Christ.  Amen."  But it doesn't.  It has quite a message.

But the Gospel is one of Faith, Hope, and Charity.  With charity being the greatest.  If Luther had obsessed over the 4 Gospels and Corinthians instead of Roman, he may have said we are saved by love alone.

----------


## Kevin007

> But you're avoiding the issue.  Why does Jesus give us so many commands?  Unless you believe those commands are only for non-Christians. The New testament should then only have one sentence:  "Have faith in Jesus Christ.  Amen."  But it doesn't.  It has quite a message.
> 
> But the Gospel is one of Faith, Hope, and Charity.  With charity being the greatest.  If Luther had obsessed over the 4 Gospels and Corinthians instead of Roman, he may have said we are saved by love alone.


Jesus gave us so many commands to make our life easier and to show we cannot keep them.

----------


## erowe1

> 2nd.  If Saint Patrick was a Rond/Sola/Aqua Christian, he wouldn't be a saint in the Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church


I don't see why not. Paul is considered a saint in those churches.




> Also the Irish would not have become devout Roman Catholics without one heck of a fight.


They did put up a fight. That's part of the issue.




> There would also be a remanant of the "Sola" Church somewhere hidden in Ireland which I've seen no evidence of..


There was for a long time.

----------


## RJB

> I don't see why not. Paul is considered a saint in those churches.


You're being silly.  LOL




> They did put up a fight. That's part of the issue.


Who did they fight?




> There was for a long time.


Prove it.

----------


## Terry1

> Jesus gave us so many commands to make our life easier and to show we cannot keep them.


Jesus gave you only *two* commandments in the Gospel that encompass everything regarding our Salvation and a choice that you didn't have under the Old Testament Law of Moses.  What other commandments are you referring to then?

----------


## RJB

> Jesus gave us so many commands to make our life easier *and to show we cannot keep them*.


Ah, you say how do we know when we have enough works to attain heaven, but how do we know when we have enough faith?  Even Sola/Rond/Aqua had so little faith and so much doubt in God's ability to draw people to him that he came back under an assumed name, lost _his_ temper when his message didn't get across, etc.  He should have had more faith in God.

----------


## Kevin007

> Jesus gave you only *two* commandments in the Gospel that encompass everything regarding our Salvation and a choice that you didn't have under the Old Testament Law of Moses.  What other commandments are you referring to then?


no. Commandments (works) and salvation do not go together. You lump it in there like its a work. Salvation is a free gift.

----------


## erowe1

> Who did they fight?


Palladius, who was sent there by the bishop of Rome to get all those new Irish Christians he was hearing about to join his denomination, for one.




> Prove it.


I'll get to that later.

----------


## erowe1

> Ah, you say how do we know when we have enough works to attain heaven, but how do we know when we have enough faith?


Only the tiniest amount is enough. Jesus says a mustard seed. So if it is genuine saving faith, then any at all.

----------


## RJB

> Jesus gave you only *two* commandments in the Gospel that encompass everything regarding our Salvation and a choice that you didn't have under the Old Testament Law of Moses.  What other commandments are you referring to then?


Terry.  Jesus told us to do this because he really didn't want us to do that.  Only unbelievers are supposed to listen to Jesus when he says that.

----------


## RJB

> Only the tiniest amount is enough. Jesus says a mustard seed. So if it is genuine saving faith, then any at all.


I doubt you have that if you feel the need to pester the poor Catholics on this forum.

----------


## RJB

I'm going to take a break for the evening.  I don't doubt your faith erowe1, nor Sola's nor Kevin's.  I'm in a mood to joke around and I may wind up being more annoying when dealing with more serious subjects.  Besides my wife and I are going to spend some time together.

Have a great evening my brothers and sisters.

----------


## Terry1

> no. Commandments (works) and salvation do not go together. You lump it in there like its a work. Salvation is a free gift.


Which works?  "dead works of the OT law of Moses or "works of faith" under the NT law of faith-- of which James tells you "without works, faith alone is dead".  

This is an evil stronghold of confusion over some of you who refuse to believe that what we do and how we live in this life actually makes a difference with regard to our eternal destinies.  This is also why you can't reconcile one scripture with another in the NT or Old.

----------


## Kevin007

> Which works?  "dead works of the OT law of Moses or "works of faith" under the NT law of faith-- of which James tells you "without works, faith alone is dead".  
> 
> This is an evil stronghold of confusion over some of you who refuse to believe that what we do and how we live in this life actually makes a difference with regard to our eternal destinies.  This is also why you can't reconcile one scripture with another in the NT or Old.


it doesn't make a difference. We are judged on our salvation by what Jesus did, not what we do. As far as rewards, and sanctification, yes, we are judged. Our salvation isn't judged, our walk with God is judged. Our lack of works or works done selfishly will be judged. Our good works will be rewarded. Believers lose rewards, not salvation. All who are at the JSOC are Believers. It is not a judgment of salvation, as we were already saved and Believers are already in Heaven at the JSOC.

----------


## Kevin007

*The Doctrine of Rewards: The Judgment Seat (Bema) of Christ*

                                   Related Media                                                                                                 One  of the prominent doctrines of the New Testament is the Doctrine of  Rewards and the Judgment Seat of Christ. It is a doctrine often ignored  or, when taught, it is misrepresented because of the term judgment  that is used in translating the Greek text. Commenting on this Samuel  Hoyt writes:
 Within the church today there exists considerable  confusion and debate regarding the exact nature of the examination at  the judgment seat of Christ. The expression the judgment seat of  Christ in the English Bible has tended to cause some to draw the wrong  conclusion about the nature and purpose of this evaluation. A common  misconception which arises from this English translation is that God  will mete out a just retribution for sins in the believers life, and  some measure of retributive punishment for sins will result.1
 As it will be shown below, though it is tremendously  serious with eternal ramifications, the judgment seat of Christ is not a  place and time when the Lord will mete out punishment for sins  committed by the child of God. Rather, it is a place where rewards will  be given or lost depending on how one has used his or her life for the  Lord.
 In 1 Thessalonians 2:19-20, the Apostle Paul drew  courage and was motivated by the fact of rewards at the return of the  Lord for the church which he mentions in every chapter in this epistle  and becomes the primary subject of 2 Thessalonians. The Lords return  and what this means not only to the world but to us individually is a  very prominent subject of the New Testament.
 It is significant that among the final words of Revelation, the last book of the Bible, we find these words of the Lord:
 Rev. 22:12 Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
 While salvation is a gift, there are rewards given  for faithfulness in the Christian life and loss of rewards for  unfaithfulness. Rewards become one of the great motives of the  Christians life or should. But we need to understand the nature of  these rewards to understand the nature of the motivation. Some people  are troubled by the doctrine of rewards because this seems to suggest  merit instead of grace, and because, it is pointed out, we should  only serve the Lord out of love and for Gods glory.
 Of course we should serve the Lord out of love and  for Gods glory, and understanding the nature of rewards will help us do  that. But the fact still remains that the Bible promises us rewards.  God gives us salvation. It is a gift through faith, but He rewards us  for good works. God graciously supplies the means by which we may serve  Him. Indeed, He works in us both to will and to do as we volitionally  appropriate His grace (Phil. 2:12-13), but the decision to serve, and  the diligence employed in doing so, are our responsibility and our  contribution and God sees this as rewardable. Compare the following  passages:
 1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am  what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored  even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.
 Colossians 1:29 And for this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.
*Key Verses on Rewards:* Rom. 14:10-11; 1 Cor. 3:11-15; 2 Cor. 5:9-10; 1 John 2:28; Rev. 3:11-12.
*The Meaning of the 
Judgment (Bema) Seat*

 Both Romans 14:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:9 speak of the judgment seat. This is a translation of one Greek word, the word _bema_. While _bema_  is used in the gospels and Acts of the raised platform where a Roman  magistrate or ruler sat to make decisions and pass sentence (Matt.  27:19; John 19:13), its use in the epistles by Paul, because of his many  allusions to the Greek athletic contests, is more in keeping with its  original use among the Greeks.
 This word was taken from Isthmian games where the  contestants would compete for the prize under the careful scrutiny of  judges who would make sure that every rule of the contest was obeyed  (cf. 2 Tim. 2:5). The victor of a given event who participated according  to the rules was led by the judge to the platform called the _Bema_. There the laurel wreath was placed on his head as a symbol of victory (cf. 1 Cor. 9:24-25).
 In all of these passages, Paul was picturing the  believer as a competitor in a spiritual contest. As the victorious  Grecian athlete appeared before the _Bema_ to receive his perishable award, so the Christian will appear before Christs _Bema_ to receive his imperishable award. The judge at the _Bema_ bestowed rewards to the victors. _He did not whip the losers._2 We might add, neither did he sentence them to hard labor.
 In other words, it is a reward seat and portrays a  time of rewards or loss of rewards following examination, but it is not a  time of punishment where believers are judged for their sins. Such  would be inconsistent with the finished work of Christ on the Cross  because He totally paid the penalty for our sins. Chafer and Walvoord  have an excellent word on this view:
 With reference to sin, Scripture teaches that the  child of God under grace shall not come into judgment (John 3:18; 5:24;  6:37; Rom. 5:1; 8:1; 1 Cor. 11:32); in his standing before God, and on  the ground that the penalty for all sinpast, present, and future (Col.  2:13)has been borne by Christ as the perfect Substitute, the believer  is not only placed beyond condemnation, but being in Christ is accepted  in the perfection of Christ (1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:6; Col. 2:10; Heb.  10:14) and loved of God as Christ is loved (John 17:23).3
 Again, Chafer writes concerning the _Bema_, It  cannot be too strongly emphasized that the judgment is unrelated to the  problem of sin, that it is more for the bestowing of rewards than the  rejection of failure.4
*The Time of the Bema*

 This event will occur immediately following the  rapture or resurrection of the church after it is caught up to be with  the Lord in the air as described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.
*Arguments in support of this view:*
 (1) In Luke 14:12-14, reward is associated with the resurrection and the rapture is when the church is resurrected.
 (2) In Revelation 19:8, when the Lord returns with  His bride at the end of the tribulation, she is seen already rewarded.  Her reward is described as fine linen, the righteous acts of the  saintsundoubtedly the result of rewards.
 (3) In 2 Timothy 4:8 and 1 Corinthians 4:5, rewards  are associated with that day and with the Lords coming. Again, for  the church this means the event of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.
 So the order of events will be (a) the rapture which  includes our glorification or resurrection bodies, (b) exaltation into  the heavens with the Lord, (c) examination before the _Bema_, and (d) compensation or rewards.
*The Place of the Bema*

 It will occur somewhere in the heavenlies in the  presence of the Lord. This is evident from 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and  Revelation 4:2 and 19:8.
*The Participants at the Bema*

 (1) All the passages dealing with the _Bema_ or  rewards are addressed to believers or pertain to believers of the  church (Rom. 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:12f; 2 Cor. 5:9f; 1 John 2:28; 1 Thess.  2:19-20; 1 Tim. 6:18-19; Tit. 2:12-14 [note the emphasis on good  works]).
 The resurrection program and the thus the reward of  Old Testament saints occurs after the tribulation, after church age  saints are already seen in heaven and rewarded and returning with the  Lord to judge the earth (cf. Rev. 19:8 with Dan. 12:1-2; Matt. 24).
 (2) All believers, regardless of their spiritual state, will be raptured and will stand before the _Bema_  to give an account of their lives and will either receive rewards or  lose rewards. Some believe in a partial rapture theory which says that  only those in fellowship with the Lord will be raptured as a form of  punishment for their sin. As mentioned above, this is not only contrary  to the finished work of Christ who once and for all paid the penalty for  our sins, but it is contrary to the teaching of 1 Thessalonians 5:9-11.
 9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for  obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us,  that whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with Him.
 The context suggests that Paul has in mind the  return of Christ for the churchthe rapture (1 Thess. 4:13-18). The  rapture is the means of our deliverance from the wrath he discusses in  chapter 5:1-3. Further, the words awake or asleep of verse 10 refer to  a spiritual or moral condition, not whether one is alive or dead when  Christ returns as in 4:13-14. This is clear from both the context of  5:4-8 and by the fact he changed the words he used for sleep. He used  the Greek _katheudo_ in 5:10 rather than _koimao_, the word he used metaphorically in 4:13-14 of physical death. Though _katheudo_  was used of physical sleep and even death, it was also commonly used of  spiritual apathy or carnal indifference to spiritual matters, and this  is clearly the context of chapter 5. The point, then, is this: Because  of the perfect and finished nature of Christs death (note the words  who died for us of verse 10), whether we are spiritually alert or not,  we will live together with Him through the rapture to face the  examination of the _Bema_.
*The Examiner or Judge at the Bema*

 This is none other than the Lord Jesus who is even  now examining our lives and will bring to light the true nature of our  walk and works when we stand before Him at the _Bema_ (Rev. 1-2; 1 Cor. 4:5f; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 John 2:28). In Romans 14:10 the Apostle called this examining time the _Bema of God_ while in 2 Corinthians 5:10 he called it the _Bema of Christ_. The Point: Jesus who is God is our examiner and rewarder.
*The Purpose and Basis of the Bema*

 The purpose and the basis is the most critical issue of all and brings us face to face with the practical aspects of the _Bema_. Some crucial questions are: Why are we brought before the _Bema_?  Is it only for rewards or their loss? Will any punishment be meted out?  Will there be great sorrow? Whats the basis on which the _Bema_ is conducted? Is it sin, good works, or just what?

----------


## Kevin007

https://bible.org/article/doctrine-r...at-bema-christ

----------


## TER

> Yes, if the Lord wills.  Do you think your active part in this (the prayer for your loved ones to be saved) had any effect whatsoever in the Lord willing it?





> so far, no, because they are not saved AFAIK.





> So then why pray at all?


Kevin, since you are up for questions, perhaps you can give me an answer to this one from a while back.

----------


## Kevin007

> Kevin, since you are up for questions, perhaps you can give me an answer to this one from a while back.


because we are told to pray....

----------


## TER

> Yes, if the Lord wills.  Do you think your active part in this (the prayer for your loved ones to be saved) had any effect whatsoever in the Lord willing it?





> so far, no, because they are not saved AFAIK.





> So then why pray at all?





> because we are told to pray....


Why do you think God told us to pray?

----------


## Kevin007

because we are told to, it is a form of serving God. It is a way to (sometimes) get answered prayer.

----------


## TER

> because we are told to, it is a form of serving God. It is a way to (sometimes) get answered prayer.


But why would we need to serve God?  

Also, do you believe your prayers can sway God to answer them?

----------


## Kevin007

> But why would we need to serve God?  
> 
> Also, do you believe your prayers can sway God to answer them?


what are you getting at?

Prayers must be in the will of God for them to be answered yes.

----------


## TER

> what are you getting at?
> 
> Prayers must be in the will of God for them to be answered yes.


Can God's will be changed on account of prayer, or is prayer just an impotent gesture which God has commanded?

----------


## Kevin007

> Can God's will be changed on account of prayer, or is prayer just an impotent gesture which God has commanded?


God's will will be done. He is in control. We can be outside of His will for our lives though. No His will is perfect, ours is not. It is His will all men be saved, but we have free will.

----------


## TER

> God's will will be done. He is in control. We can be outside of His will for our lives though. No His will is perfect, ours is not. It is His will all men be saved, but we have free will.


You have not answered the questions I asked.  Can God change His will or is God constrained from changing His will?

----------


## Kevin007

> You have not answered the questions I asked.  Can God change His will or is God constrained from changing His will?


Gods will is perfect. It will not change. He is the same forever.

----------


## TER

> Gods will is perfect. It will not change. He is the same forever.


So then why pray?

----------


## Kevin007

> So then why pray?


because we are told to.

----------


## TER

> because we are told to.


So God told us to do something that has an effect or that doesn't have an effect?

----------


## Kevin007

> So God told us to do something that has an effect or that doesn't have an effect?


has an effect meaning the effect He wants or we want? It has an effect if it is in His will, yes.

----------


## TER

> has an effect meaning the effect He wants or we want? It has an effect if it is in His will, yes.


We know that God's will is Supreme and that whatever He wills come to be.  Do you think, however, that by prayer and petitioning God He can change His will if He wills to?

----------


## Kevin007

> We know that God's will is Supreme and that whatever He wills come to be.  Do you think, however, that by prayer and petitioning God He can change His will if He wills to?


He can do whatever He wants of course, but my understanding is He is the same today, yesterday and forever.

----------


## TER

> He can do whatever He wants of course, but my understanding is He is the same today, yesterday and forever.


Kevin, I have to go to bed.  I would like to take this up at a different time. In the meanwhile, please meditate on this parable:

18 Then He spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart, 2 saying: “There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God nor regard man. 3 Now there was a widow in that city; and she came to him, saying, ‘Get justice for me from my adversary.’ 4 And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, ‘Though I do not fear God nor regard man, 5 yet because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.’”

6 Then the Lord said, “Hear what the unjust judge said. 7 And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? 8 I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?"

----------


## TER

*Seeing the Virgin Mary through Biblical Eyes*

JULY 6, 2015 BY SERAPHIM HAMILTON



In order to understand the role that the Virgin Mary plays in Scripture, one first needs to understand the symbolism of Bride and Groom that runs through the pages of the Bible.

If one understands the role that Bride and Groom plays, then one will understand why the Virgin Mary is central to the Bible. She is fundamental to the story of redemption, just as fundamental as Eve is to the story of the Fall.

One often hears it declared that Mary is a “minor biblical character.” After all, she is only mentioned in Luke, Acts, John, and perhaps Revelation. The fallacy in this statement is obvious from the fact that the entire Old Testament is about Jesus Christ, yet Christ is understood in the Old Testament not by direct, explicit reference to His name, but rather in the language of symbolism, typology, and prophecy. The role that Mary plays in Scripture is quite similar. If one wants to discern a truly Biblical Mariology, a Mariology that isn’t arbitrary in its use of Scripture, then one must tune one’s ear to the language of symbolism.

We begin, then, in Genesis 1. In Genesis 1:1, God creates the heavens and the earth. In later biblical reflections on this event (for example, in Colossians 1:15-16), it is evident that the heavens spoken of in verse one refers to God’s throne-room, a room surrounded by a heavenly council of angels. The earth is formless, void, and dark. In the six days that follow, God proceeds to form, fill, and enlighten the earth, beginning to bring it to the maturity of its heavenly prototype. God crowns the creation by making a man in His own Image. In context, one ought to understand the “image” of God as being appointed to do the things that God does- in other words, he is meant to form, fill, and enlighten the world, bringing it further to the maturity of its heavenly prototype.
In Genesis 2:7, we are given a more detailed picture of the way that this is to occur.

The text of Genesis 2 similarly begins with a formless, void, and dark world. No shrub of the field had been created, and the grains made on the third day had not yet sprouted ears. God responds to this formless and void world with the “let there be light” of the first human being, the light of the world. This entire narrative is introduced as the “generations of the heavens and the earth.” Every other reference to “generation” in Genesis refers to the offspring. The generations of Adam are Adam’s offspring. The generations of Isaac introduces the life of Jacob, and so on. There is no reason to make an exception for Genesis 2:4: Adam is the son of the heavens and the earth. He is made by a mixture of God’s Spirit and the dust of the ground. This is why “image and likeness” in Genesis 5:1-2 is understood to refer to sonship, and it is why Adam is referred to as the “son of God” in Luke 3. In this birth, God is the masculine partner while the ground, the adamah is the feminine partner.

This establishes the fundamentally feminine identity of creation: the world responds to the overture of God, her husband. With respect to God, all humanity is feminine. With respect to the creation, all humanity is masculine.

When we come to the creation of Eve, there are more interesting details that will become important in this study. God “opens” and “closes” the side of Adam, language that is more typical for a door than it is for a man. Even more significantly, Eve is described as having been “built” out of Adam’s side. This is language that is used for the construction of cities in Scripture, not people. This connection becomes more explicit in Genesis 4, where Cain exalts himself by presuming to take human life. After exalting himself, Cain builds a city for his son, Enoch. Enoch is the son, fulfilling the role of Adam. The city is the feminine partner, fulfilling the role of Eve. Cain presumes to take the role of God in this story.

When we approach the curses of Genesis 3, the foundation for a biblical understanding of Eve (and thus, Mary) is set. Eve is introduced to two great battles which will take place throughout the history of salvation. First, God places enmity between the Serpent and the Woman. Second, God places enmity between the Seed of the Serpent and the Seed of the Woman. Eve is told that the Seed will eventually crush the head of the Serpent. These details become important as one proceeds through Scripture. Consider the relationship of Genesis 12 and Genesis 20. In Genesis 12, the Serpentine Pharaoh attempts to seize the Woman. The attack here focuses on the first battle of Genesis 3. Abram wisely deceives the Serpent, rendering a lex talionis back on the Serpent’s deception of Eve. In Genesis 20, the focus is on the second battle, between the Serpent and the Seed. The Serpentine Abimelech seizes Sarah to produce Seed through her, and this is Satan’s attempt to prevent the birth of Isaac. Ultimately, however, Abimelech repents and God gives him children.

Because the Woman was made out of the side of the Man, the Woman replicates the battle of the Seed against the Serpent. Two examples from the book of Judges stand out. In Judges 5, Jael, the Woman, takes a tent peg and crushes the head of Sisera. The crushing of the head of the Serpent lays the foundation for the true Tent, which is the dwelling place of God. For this, Jael is praised as “most blessed among all women”, a word of praise later applied in the Gospel of Luke to the Virgin Mary. Second, in Judges 9, Abimelech, a wicked king, oppresses Israel. Here we are not even told the Woman’s name so as to emphasize the typological character of this event. The “Woman” hurls a millstone down from a tower, crushing the head of the oppressive king.

After God describes the salvation which will ultimately be wrought through the Seed, Adam accepts the promise of salvation by renaming his wife Eve: the “mother of all living.” The Seed will destroy the one who deceived the Woman and brought death into the world. Eve, as mother of the Seed, is mother of the living. This fact brings into focus a reality which is very often underemphasized in biblical theology. Eve is not merely to be understood as bride of Adam. Equally ultimate with this reality is the truth that Eve is the mother of the Seed.

I noted above that the creation of Eve is spoken of in terms of the building of a city. This is why “Daughter Zion” is very often spoken of as a woman. Consider the way that God describes Jerusalem in Isaiah. In Isaiah 54, Daughter Zion is invited to sing and rejoice, because, having been barren in the death of exile, God will bring life out of her womb and multiply the nation. The context is the famous prophecy of the Suffering Servant. The Servant plays the role of the Kinsman-Redeemer. Daughter Zion is without a husband, and the Servant is appointed to raise up Seed through her. In response, however, Israel treats the Servant as a Kinsman-Redeemer who fails to do his duty (Deuteronomy 25:9), spitting in His face (Isaiah 50:6). Ultimately, however, through the Servant’s vicarious suffering, He will “see His Seed” (Isaiah 53:10), raising up a whole nation of “Servants” recreated after His Image (Isaiah 54:17).

In Isaiah, then, God freely mixes the language for Eve as Mother with the language for Eve as Bride. The original city of God was the bride of Adam, but Daughter Zion is the bride of the Lord. These two threads come together beautifully in the incarnation of the Lord as the true and Last Adam. In Isaiah 65-66, the restored Jerusalem is identified as the entire creation, renewed through the work of the Servant. Isaiah 65:17 has God declaring that He will “create a new heavens and a new earth”, and Isaiah 65:18 uses the same language for the New Jerusalem. Revelation 21 therefore sees the New Creation, the City of God, as a great pyramid, the whole world having been transformed into God’s holy mountain, as was prophesied in Daniel 2:44-45.

All of these threads come together in the New Testament. In Luke 1:35, the Virgin Mary is told that the Spirit of God will “overshadow” her, bringing forth Christ, the Last Adam. This is a reference to Genesis 2, when the Spirit of God similarly overshadowed the feminine Adamah and brought forth the first Adam. Isaiah 28:27-29 describes Israel as the ground, and God’s judgments as preparing the ground for the seed that will be planted. When language of the ground and the Spirit is used with reference to the Virgin Mary, we are being told that she is the climax of the history of Israel. The entire cultivation of Israel as the people of the Seed strained towards the Woman in whom the Seed could finally be planted.

In the Magnificat, the Virgin Mary applies to herself language that was used for Jael: the most blessed of all women. As we have seen, the story of Jael calls us back to the promise of the war between Eve and the Serpent. In applying this language to herself, Mary is identifying herself as the one in whom the promises to Eve are fulfilled. As Eve is promised motherhood of the Seed, so Mary fulfills this prophecy and becomes the New Eve. This is why when the Virgin brings Christ to the prophet Simeon, she is told that “a sword will pierce through your own soul also” (Luke 2:35). The Woman replicates the experience of the Seed. As the Seed is pierced, so also is the heart of the Virgin.

The Woman’s double-identity of Mother and Bride explains why Mary is a personal symbol of the entire Church. The Virgin Mary is the one in whom the promises to Eve are fulfilled. The Bible presents Mary as fulfilling the role of Eve as Mother. It presents the Church as the fulfillment of Eve’s role as Bride. The Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 11 therefore sees himself as playing the role of Adamic guardian of the Church-Bride, whom the Serpent is attempting to deceive. Paul wishes to present the Church-Bride as pure to her true husband, who is Christ.

The fact that both Mary and the Church are presented as fulfillments of Eve implies that there is a sense in which the Church and Mary are to be identified. This is most excellently presented in Revelation 12, a much-discussed and much debated passage of Scripture. If one is familiar with the Old Testament, it becomes significantly easier to understand. The vision begins with a Woman crying out in birth pains, with the Dragon waiting to attack the Seed whom she bears. This is a reference to Genesis 3, where the pain of Eve in childbearing is multiplied. Here, Eve encapsulates the entire history of Israel. Israel’s long, tortured story is the story of Eve crying out in birth pains, waiting for the Son to be born and crush the Dragon. Israel’s history focuses down to the person of the Virgin Mary, and that is who this Woman is in Revelation 12:5.

As the book of Revelation opens the book that was closed at the end of Daniel (compare Daniel 12:4-7 and Revelation 10:1-7), Revelation 12 reveals the meaning of the visions of Daniel. In Daniel 11, the prophet is given a history of the “times of the Gentiles” down to the war of the Archangel Michael (Daniel 12:1, fulfilled in Revelation 12:7). While the interpretation of this passage is controversial, with some identifying the king who “does what he wills” as a future Antichrist, I believe that the best reading of this passage identifies continuity between this history and the history told in the rest of Daniel 11, without a massive chronological gap. The king who “does what he wills” is Herod the Great, who fulfills the history of fallen Adam. Daniel 11:40-43 should then be understood as the war between Octavian (as king of the north) and Mark Antony (as king of the South). After this war, Herod made peace with Octavian and served as Rome’s vassal in Judea. We are told in 11:44-45 that the king will hear news from the east that “alarms him” and devote “many to destruction” after which he himself will die. The text itself is ambiguous about whether the king is the one who “does what he wills”, the king of the north, or the king of the south. From hindsight, it is quite obvious that this is the “king who does what he wills”, or Herod the Great. This prophecy is fulfilled in Matthew 2. We are told that wise men “from the east” (an allusion to Daniel 11) come to King Herod and inform him about the coming birth of the messianic seed. Herod then orders the destruction of all the male infants in Bethlehem. Joseph, Mary, and Christ flee into the wilderness.

Given that Revelation opens up the visions of Daniel, we see this fulfilled in Revelation 12. The Dragon attempts to consume the Seed at His birth, but God gives the Woman refuge in the wilderness of Egypt. The entire history of the life of Christ is collapsed into a few verses. The child is caught up to the throne of God. The ascension is depicted in more detail in Revelation 4-5, where Jesus ascends to God’s throne. After this, an angelic war arises in heaven. This is why we consistently see angels strengthening Jesus throughout the gospels. Satan attempts to deceive Jesus and make Him fall, while the righteous angels strengthen Him through His victories. At last, the Dragon-Serpent is “fallen from Heaven” and cast out from God’s heavenly court, where he had previously had right of access as “ruler of the whole world, which can be seen in Job 1. The Serpent is placed under the feet of the Seed, the Last Adam.

Following this, the life of Christ and Mary is replicated in the life of the Church. When Satan is driven to the Earth, he first attempts to attack the Church-Bride. This is the “great persecution” that broke out from Jerusalem early in the Apostolic Age. After this fails, Satan attempts to corrupt the Bride so that he might produce his own children through her. These “poisonous waters” which he pours out is the Judaizing heresy which broke out after the great persecution. After Paul wages holy war against this heresy and defeats it, Satan prepares for one last strike- a strike on the Seed, the “rest of her offspring”, whom he attempts to kill in the Neronic persecutions.

We can see, then, that the Woman of Revelation 12 is the New Eve, personally embodied in the Virgin Mary, mother of the Seed, and corporately embodied in the Church, Bride of the Last Adam. Two Old Testament texts reinforce this connection. The Woman of Revelation 12 is described as clothed with the sun, with a moon under her feet, and with a crown of twelve stars. One of the sources of this imagery is Genesis 37. In Genesis 37, Joseph (one star) sees his brothers (eleven stars) and his father (the sun) and mother (the moon) bowing down to him. The heavenly lights are thus identified as symbolic representations of the heavenly people of God. The other allusion is to Song of Solomon 6. Solomon describes his bride as one “like the dawn, beautiful as the moon, bright as the sun.” He refers to the young women who saw her and “called her blessed”, symbolically identifying the Woman with the New Eve through an allusion to Judges 5, discused above.

Importantly, the “Woman” discussed throughout the Solomonic literature is “Lady Wisdom.” Solomon is the prototypical wise king, a figure of the Last Adam, to whom birds and beasts are brought (1 Kings 4:33). As the bride was taken out of Adam’s side, so the bride of Adam replicates the character of Adam. Lady Wisdom replicates the character of her husband. One wants to be precise in assocating the Mother of God with wisdom, since the incarnation of eternal wisdom is Jesus Christ alone. Even so, as Eve is taken from Adam’s side, so also Mary and the Church are taken from the side of Christ- they therefore replicate His character as “Wisdom.” A wise husband gives rise to a wise woman.

Given the identification of the Virgin Mary with the woman of Revelation 12:5, several connections with the Song of Solomon emerge. First, the Virgin Mary is a queen: the queen of the kingdom of God. The woman spoken of in the Song is Solomon’s queen, and Mary is similarly a queen. Second, the Virgin Mary is the symbolic equivalent of the people of Israel. This is why she wears all of Israel’s symbols in herself- she is bright “like the sun”, she has the “moon under her feet” and she is crowned with the twelve tribes of Israel- just like the City of God in Revelation 21 is crowned with twelve jewels matching the twelve tribes of Israel. As the Church reigns as kings and priests on earth, it becomes obvious that Mary embodies everything that the Church is called to embody. Christ is a divine person who has assumed human nature. Mary the first human person in whom the entire goal of God’s economy has been accomplished.

Understanding the Scripture can be difficult. It requires intense reading, prayer, and reflection on the contents of this divine book. Yet, as Solomon proclaimed, “it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, the glory of kings to search it out” (Proverbs 26:1). If we, as the royal children of God, are diligent in searching out what God has concealed, then we might just find ourselves face to face with His blessed mother, the Holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.

----------

