Is there One Protestant in the First Millenium?

[Standing Up]

It represent progress, I think, when EO agree with the Protestant understanding that the real flesh that Jesus talks about actually cannot literally be human flesh that is being referred to.

"Real Presence" indeed.

Hmm, you really think they're moving to a 'fond recalling' that the priesthood of believers may conduct?

Last I heard they can't have communion without the bishop's signature, the properly ordained EO-only bishop.

 

[Montalban]

Post #921 again doesn't deal with what I wrote.

I cited StandingUp himself saying that John of Damascus taught EO/RCC doctrine.

Apparently that now becomes me backtracking.

I'm still unsure if he accepts his own argument or has changed his mind on whether John of Damascus is a good example or not.

I'm also equally unsure what this has to do with the OP.

The problem here is that, unable/unwilling to answer the OP he demanded I show an EO from the first 1,000 years.

I suggested John of Damascus. He agreed* (and has also denied his own post twice -which I've had to reference twice as evidence).

I've also noted his has subsequently asked if I agree with EVERYTHING that John of Damascus has said - and I note that this is a different measure than what Protestants apply.

How this is 'me' backsliding I've no idea. What it is is position taken by a Protestant based on two mistakes, which have not been acknowledged in any of his posts. His posts now distance themselves twice from ever making that admission, and I've twice referenced him. And this too hasn't been acknowledged. Instead yet again it's been suggested that I'm moving from my position I'm not the one arguing against myself, nor changing the parameters of the discussion!

*His agreement was, as noted based on two misunderstandings of his own;
that John of Damascus taught nothing new - which in fact proved my point
and that John of Damascus was not from the first 300 years, which didn't matter.

 

[Montalban]

So far the arguments presented are 'everyone was', or 'Paul was' which are 'just-so' statements.

Other Protestants have argued that they've taught nothing new (another 'just-so' statement)

Others yet have argued that one can't know what exactly Protestants teach anyway.

Others have tried turning the challenge around - and even though it's off-topic, I met this with one example. One Protestant has then agreed (but only because they thought he was not in the right time-zone) and then denied this twice - easily refutable as I can, and have posted links to his initial agreement.

What it all points to, is after almost 1,000 posts Protestants can't seem here to make up their minds enough to answer the OP.

 

[Standing Up]

Post #921 again doesn't deal with what I wrote.

I cited StandingUp himself saying that John of Damascus taught EO/RCC doctrine.

John of D is your man. Let's review. Montalban says Jod taught the same thing as the church.

Originally Posted by Montalban

That John of Damascus said nothing new – which misses the point. That he taught the same thing as the church is in fact evidence that meets the challenge
​

Originally Posted by Standing Up

So you're back to standing by your man. Okay, so you agree with everything John of D (JoD) says, that he perfectly represents the church?

JoD "taught the same thing as the church"

Yes >>>>>

No >>>>>>

as such, this is "evidence that meets the challenge".

If not, then you reject JoD.

I await a clear answer from you.
​

You're backtracking Montalban, which is okay. So, your answer is no JoD does not teach the same thing.

Protestants 5, EO 0

C'mon. Are you sticking to what you said or not?

Originally Posted by Montalban

That John of Damascus said nothing new – which misses the point. That he taught the same thing as the church is in fact evidence that meets the challenge
​

SU: true or not Montalban? I mean you say it, so you must think it true. But let's nail this down.

Is he your man or not?

 

[SolomonVII]

Hmm, you really think they're moving to a 'fond recalling' that the priesthood of believers may conduct?

Last I heard they can't have communion without the bishop's signature, the properly ordained EO-only bishop.

The more that the ceremony is understood as a remembrance rather than a gnawing at the literal flesh of Jesus, the more that a special level of the priesthood will be seen as being redundant.

EO, I have noticed, have nowhere near as systematic a theology as RCC. "This is what we have always believed" becomes harder to either prove or dispute in such a structure

One step at a time.

 

[Montalban]

StandingUp also said that John of Damascus taught nothing new/the same as EO/RCC. I have no idea what his argument is at present

I've still no idea what this has to do with the OP

The strangest thing is he his twice quoted this from my post:

That John of Damascus said nothing new – which misses the point. That he taught the same thing as the church is in fact evidence that meets the challenge

In the context of my post it is what I said about StandingUP and John of Damascus

In a court if both sides agree to a point then it's AGREED upon. It looks rather silly if one side agrees, then denies they said they agreed, when it's on record, and then accuses the other side of backsliding, and argues against them on a point they've already agreed to!

 

[SolomonVII]

Didn't Peter know the prophecy of Jesus from the OT?

NKJV) Zechariah 12:10 " And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced.
Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for [his] only [son,] and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.
[Revelation 1:7]

NKJV) Matthew 20:19 "and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again."

NKJV) Luke 18:32 "For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon.
33 "They will scourge [Him] and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again."

"The Passion of the Christ" movie teaser trailer - YouTube

I think most of the apostles that Jesus picked were simple folk. There are different ideas of course, but some historians have put out the idea that the lower classes that Jesus appealed to were barely thought of as real(saved) Jews by the elites who had access to, and controlled all the information. The hoi polloi just weren't in a position to question their elites. They could only follow and submit to the powers that could do them great harm. Jesus appeared to have that kind of power to challenge them, but being stripped naked and stripped of his skin and dignity changed all that in their minds. They could only see the same powers that oppressed them from the day that they were born

I wouldn't assume that Peter had access to all the intricacies of Zechariah, or how much that Jewish rabbis of the period actually taught the suffering servant as Messiah. Many would have found this demeaning, and a cursed way to die. This is not what they wanted for the Messiah. They wanted someone who could crush Rome, like Moses crushed Pharoah, like Joshua and David crushed the giants and the Philistines.

All that aside, Jesus taught all this to Peter; he even walked on water. One might think that someone who was a witness to these kind of miracles daily would find belief easy.

It wasn't easy for the Hebrews in the desert either though apparently—even as they drank water for thousands or even millions that flowed from a rock that they carried around with them, even as they gorged themselves on all the meat that they could handle in a wilderness that could barely grow a cactus.

I guess what was ultimately served as sufficient evidence for belief for Peter and the apostles was only when Jesus triumphed over the will and might of the combined forces of Jerusalem and Rome, and walked away from a horrific death. Jesus being opposed by the might of the whole world, and overcoming even Rome-this was the proof that the apostles needed to conquer all fear and meekness in the face of the powers of this world that had controlled all of mankind until that point in time.

Maybe everything all seemed like magic before. Magic was the norm for that kind of world without science. It was impressive, but it wasn't real power, like resided in the palaces of the Romans and their collaborators.

But taking all that Rome could dish out, and then sitting down to eat a piece of fish; that showed real power!

 

[Montalban]

I think most of the apostles that Jesus picked were simple folk. There are different ideas of course, but some historians have put out the idea that the lower classes that Jesus appealed to were barely though of as real Jews by the elites, that had access to, and controlled the information. The hoi polloi weren't in a position to question their elites. They could only follow and submit to the powers that could do them great harm.

Just out of curiosity does that make them protestants?

 

[SolomonVII]

Just out of curiosity does that make them protestants?

What is your definition of Protestant?

 

[Montalban]

What is your definition of Protestant?

Someone who believes in sola fide and sola scriptura. What's yours?

 

[Montalban]

After several weeks now I'm still unsure of StandingUp's argument regarding John of Damascus.

In what appears to be a goal-shift he asked me to point out any EO from the first 1,000 years.

I said John of Damascus

He agreed! He said John of Damascus taught/summarized EO/RCC doctrine.

He has subsequently asked me if I accept all of John of Damascus' teachings. I've no idea why when we both agree he's Orthodox.

Subsequently Standing Up has changed his position; claiming he never agreed to this. I evidenced where he did. Some weeks later he again denied this. Again I referenced to where he did.

I'm now being asked yet again if I agree with everything John of Damascus said. I think he's Orthodox. I'm not sure of ANY evidence that he's a Protestant or a heretic. So alas I'm still unsure of what direction this line of questioning is going... especially when we agreed at one stage.

I've no idea what new information Standing Up has to change his mind.

I also do not know how this is a case of me backpedaling as I've not changed my stance at all.

 

[SolomonVII]

Someone who believes in sola fide and sola scriptura. What's yours?

Just curious of how your question in any way related to my response to LLoJ, that's all.

 

[Standing Up]

StandingUp also said that John of Damascus taught nothing new/the same as EO/RCC. I have no idea what his argument is at present

Still backtracking. Let's try again.


John of D is your man. Let's review. Montalban says Jod taught the same thing as the church. Not me.

Originally Posted by Montalban

That John of Damascus said nothing new – which misses the point. That he taught the same thing as the church is in fact evidence that meets the challenge
​

Originally Posted by Standing Up

So you're back to standing by your man. Okay, so you agree with everything John of D (JoD) says, that he perfectly represents the church?

JoD "taught the same thing as the church"

Yes >>>>>

No >>>>>>

as such, this is "evidence that meets the challenge".

If not, then you reject JoD.

I await a clear answer from you.
​

You're backtracking Montalban, which is okay. So, your answer is no JoD does not teach the same thing.

Protestants 5, EO 0

C'mon. Are you sticking to what you said or not?

Yes or no Montalban? Yes or no?

 

[Standing Up]

After several weeks now I'm still unsure of StandingUp's argument regarding John of Damascus.

That's because you won't answer the question, but keep misrepresenting instead. Let's review.

Montalban says Jod taught the same thing as the church.

Originally Posted by Montalban

That John of Damascus said nothing new – which misses the point. That he taught the same thing as the church is in fact evidence that meets the challenge
​

SU: Are you absolutely sure? You're gonna stand by your statement and your man? Answer the question Montalban.

 

[SolomonVII]

But I guess my definition of a Protestant is tied into the history of Christianity, and a reaction against the excesses and corruption of the RCC, and a desire to return to a simpler faith of the early Christian community. In its five solas, what is really being rejected is an institutional church that has come to place itself in charge of the salvation of the individual.

It was not the first reformatory and reactionary movement in the Catholic Church of course. I believe it was Gregory the Great who sought to do this at one point, and like the Protestant Reformation, his reforms were more a revolution than a return to what had been before.

There is no going back in time. You cannot help but arrive there with all your modern baggage.
Living in time entails change too, hopefully for the better and a maturing in Christ, and not getting mired in a traditionalist mindset, where what comes before is what is worshipped.

So the whole question from that perspective becomes impossible. I suppose that one could say that Jesus was the first Protestant, calling the religious leaders of his day hypocrites, and the devilish sons of vipers and snakes He was protesting to, and his sole biography is from scripture, and his sole inspiration is his faith in the Father.

But of course engaging in that kind of thinking in the end is about as useful as saying that Jesus was a liberal, or Jesus was a freedom fighter, or the dozens of other terms that interested parties impose upon him to justify their movements.

Jesus wasn't a Protestant, or an RCC, or an EO, or an OOO. He was Jewish, and so were the simple folk he chose for his apostles. He had profound scriptural understanding of course, and from a very early age too, but the scripture is not clear at all on if this was the result of studying, or from a miraculous source.
It is possible that the descendants of kings still had Scripture in their family possession.

Anything at this point though would be pure speculation.

Sola Scriptura though, for the common man, first requires Guttenburg. That changes everything, having the Words of God at your fingertips. That is not something that Peter would have had, and the oppression that was the lot of the common man back then is not something we want to return to either.
Nor ought we want to remain mired in it, as if the Protestant revolution did not happen at all, and took the decisions on our salvation from the institutional priests and placed them right back with us, the priesthood of believers. These are fruits of the Protestant reformation, and they have affected not just Protestants but Catholics and EO too, as we are now in a position to own the information for ourselves.

 

[patricius79]

I'm not even sure if some Protestants here are sure if they want to continue to agree that he taught EO/RCC teaching or not.

okay, but I mean have you seen a post which shows that there was at least one person in the first millenium who testifies to at least two specifically Protestant interpretations?

I honestly want to know if I missed something

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Montalban

That John of Damascus said nothing new – which misses the point. That he taught the same thing as the church is in fact evidence that meets the challenge
​

SU: Montalban will continue to misrepresent what I've said and won't be able to give a straight answer, so we'll just start with what he recently said about JoD "teaching the same thing as the church".

I'm wondering what the NT is of the EO?

Here's John of Damascus':

The New Testament contains four gospels, that according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke, that according to John: the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the Evangelist: seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude: fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul: the Revelation of John the Evangelist: the Canons of the holy apostles, by Clement.

Is the Canon of the holy apostles scripture of EO? For the church, 27 books of the NT are scripture.

Church 1, JoD 0

The point of course is JoD does not represent someone who teaches the same.

 

[Standing Up]

okay, but I mean have you seen a post which shows that there was at least one person in the first millenium who testifies to at least two specifically Protestant interpretations?

I honestly want to know if I missed something

I'll bite again. You've missed many. But, everyone needs to realize there is not one single person who encompasses everything. For example, while Irenaeus taught Mary did not remain a virgin, he also taught to accept Rome's version of easter. He taught scripture is the ground and pillar of our faith, but also taught acceptance of Rome's doctrines.

So, rather than a person, like Polycarp or Melito or the martyrs of Lyons, the question became did the 5 solas exist from the beginning? The answer is yes. No one denies them.

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Montalban

That John of Damascus said nothing new – which misses the point. That he taught the same thing as the church is in fact evidence that meets the challenge
​

SU: Montalban will continue to misrepresent what I've said and won't be able to give a straight answer, so we'll just start with what he recently said about JoD "teaching the same thing as the church".

I'm wondering what the OT is of the EO?

Here's John of Damascus':

"There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark. "

Is the Wisdom of Solomon scripture for EO? JoD says no.

Church 2, JoD 0

The point of course is JoD does not represent someone who teaches the same.

 

[SolomonVII]

Originally Posted by Montalban

That John of Damascus said nothing new – which misses the point. That he taught the same thing as the church is in fact evidence that meets the challenge
​

SU: Montalban will continue to misrepresent what I've said and won't be able to give a straight answer, so we'll just start with what he recently said about JoD "teaching the same thing as the church".

I'm wondering what the OT is of the EO?

Here's John of Damascus':

"There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark. "

Is the Wisdom of Solomon scripture for EO? JoD says no.

Church 2, JoD 0

The point of course is JoD does not represent someone who teaches the same.

page 213