Addressing Heretical Application of the Trinity Doctrine

[Wgw]

The majority of Orthodox prayers are addressed to the Father, some to the Son; the Holy Spirit is rarely directly prayed to but is in no way prohibited. Especially since in our prayer we routinely seek the intercessions of the saints; if you can pray to say, St. Barsanuphius, and ask him to pray for you, then surely prayer to the Holy Spirit is permissible.

In the epiclesis of the liturgy the action of the Holy Spirit in transforming the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord is requested.

 

[he-man]

A brother from India was telling me one day in another christian forum of how he used to not believe that the Holy Spirit did those dramatic manifestations any more until one day, after his adult Sunday School class was done on the lesson of the Pentecost, his church held a service to honor the Holy Spirit on that calender day of Pentecost.

There is no worship of the Holy Spirit, this is what the Pentecost means:the first fruits represent the prophets and the wheat represents those who have accepted Christ, after his first appearence. The Tares are the weeds or chaff which is blown and gathered and then thrown away and burned up in bundles during the harvest
Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the repository; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Ps 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into the gravel, and all the nations that forget God. 2Th 1:9 Who shall pay the penalty with destruction everlasting from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Pentecost, (Πεντηκοστή) in Ancient Greek, is a Jewish holiday that occurs on the sixth day of the Hebrew month of Sivan (late May or early June); Shavuot (Hebrew: שבועות‎‎, lit. "Weeks"), The holiday is one of the Shalosh Regalim, the three Biblical pilgrimage festivals. It marks the conclusion of the Counting of the Omer, and its date is directly linked to that of Passover. Thus, the counting of the Omer begins on the second day of Passover and continues for the next 49 days, or seven complete weeks, ending on the day before Shavuot. According to this calculation, Shavuot will fall on the day of the week after that of the first day of Passover (e.g., if Passover starts on a Thursday, Shavuot will begin on a Friday).
The Torah mandates the seven-week Counting of the Omer, beginning on the second day of Passover, to be immediately followed by Shavuot.
This counting of days and weeks is understood to express anticipation and desire for the giving of the Torah. On Passover, the people of Israel were freed from their enslavement to Pharaoh; on Shavuot they were given the Torah and became a nation committed to serving God. Shavuot is not explicit in the Biblical text but In the Bible, Shavuot is called the Festival of Weeks (Hebrew: חג השבועות, Ḥag ha-Shavuot, Exodus 34:22, Deuteronomy 16:10); Festival of Reaping (Hebrew: חג הקציר, Ḥag ha-Katsir, Exodus 23:16), and Day of the First Fruits (Hebrew יום הבכורים, Yom ha-Bikkurim, Numbers 28:26).
In ancient times, the grain harvest lasted seven weeks and was a season of gladness (Jer. 5:24, Deut. 16:9-11, Isa. 9:2). It began with the harvesting of the barley during Passover and ended with the harvesting of the wheat at Shavuot. Shavuot was thus the concluding festival of the grain harvest, just as the eighth day of Sukkot (Tabernacles) was the concluding festival of the fruit harvest. During the existence of the Temple in Jerusalem, an offering of two loaves of bread from the wheat harvest was made on Shavuot.
Sources: Neusner, Jacob (1991). An Introduction to Judaism: A Textbook and Reader.
The Temple Institute. "The Festival of Shavout: Bringing the Firstfruits to the Temple". The Temple Institute. Retrieved September 5, 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavuot

 

[timewerx]

I reckon when so many denomenations honors the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, addressing the Holy Spirit in prayer to come and fall on them, as some hymnals & bulletins will lead them to do, no one will see how that is NOT honoring the Father at all.

YOu cannot ask the Holy Spirit to fall on you nor to anyone - this is what Sorcerers do in command of spirits and it is an EVIL thing to do!

The Holy Spirit will come to anyone deemed worthy and note, it will not cause that person to lose control nor speak jibberish uncontrollably!

If you see such thing happening inside the church cast out that spirit, it's probably evil!

 

[Wgw]

YOu cannot ask the Holy Spirit to fall on you nor to anyone - this is what Sorcerers do in command of spirits and it is an EVIL thing to do!

The Holy Spirit will come to anyone deemed worthy and note, it will not cause that person to lose control nor speak jibberish uncontrollably!

If you see such thing happening inside the church cast out that spirit, it's probably evil!

I agree that Charismatic glossolalia is not of the Holy Spirit. However in Orthodoxy our priests pray for the Holy Spirit to consecrate the Eucharist, and other things. And we have been doing this since at least the third cenrury, as the ancient Anaphora of Hippolytus testifies.

 

[he-man]

I agree that Charismatic glossolalia is not of the Holy Spirit. However in Orthodoxy our priests pray for the Holy Spirit to consecrate the Eucharist, and other things. And we have been doing this since at least the third cenrury, as the ancient Anaphora of Hippolytus testifies.

Exactly, because the Holy Spirit is not a person but is what flows from the Eminence of God's power. The New Testament writers do not witness to the Holy Spirit as fully and clearly as they do to the Son.PART ONE..We do not intend to seek in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, what is not there, a formal statement of trinitarian doctrine.
PART ONE The Triune God by E J Fortman Page 32

 

[Wgw]

Exactly, because the Holy Spirit is not a person but is what flows from the Eminence of God's power. The New Testament writers do not witness to the Holy Spirit as fully and clearly as they do to the Son.PART ONE..We do not intend to seek in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, what is not there, a formal statement of trinitarian doctrine.
PART ONE The Triune God by E J Fortman Page 32

No. The Orthodox emphatically reject that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. We venerate Him as a person. We reject the Roman interpolation of the Filioque precisely because it depersonalizes the Holy Spirit by suggesting double procession from the Father and the Son. Our triadology rests on the father as the eternal source of the son, begotten of the father before all worlds, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father.

The Holy Spirit is in fact the Person of the Holy Trinity we know the most intimately, even though he is also the quietest. And we do pray directly to him, albeit infrequently. There was one very prevalent school of thought in the early medieval church that had an excessive amount of liturgical influence that went something like all prayers should be addressed to the father through the son by the Holy Spirit. However we have a great many prayers that do not adhere to this pointless dictum.

But in short, we worship the Holy Spirit as the Lord, the Gover of life, who spoke through the prophets, who proceeds from the father and together with the father and son is worshipped and glorified.

This clause was added to the Niceno-Constantinoplean Creed of 381, commonly called the Nicene, which is the only creed recognized by the Orthodox, as its predecessor from the First Council of Nicea in 325 did confess "And we believe in the Holy Spirit" but nothing else, leading to the rising of a sect called the Pneumatomachians, who were opposed to the idea of a personal Holy Spirit, in opposition to the ancient and apostolic faith.

For the vast majority of Christians, the Person of the Holy Trinity they will most likely encounter in this life is the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit will not cause them to engage in glossolalia or convulsions; these are not fruits of the Spirit but are characteristic of mediumship according to Fr. Seraphim Rose, in his seminal heresiological classic Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future.

 

[Wgw]

There is no worship of the Holy Spirit, this is what the Pentecost means:the first fruits represent the prophets and the wheat represents those who have accepted Christ, after his first appearence. The Tares are the weeds or chaff which is blown and gathered and then thrown away and burned up in bundles during the harvest
Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the repository; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Ps 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into the gravel, and all the nations that forget God. 2Th 1:9 Who shall pay the penalty with destruction everlasting from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Pentecost, (Πεντηκοστή) in Ancient Greek, is a Jewish holiday that occurs on the sixth day of the Hebrew month of Sivan (late May or early June); Shavuot (Hebrew: שבועות‎‎, lit. "Weeks"), The holiday is one of the Shalosh Regalim, the three Biblical pilgrimage festivals. It marks the conclusion of the Counting of the Omer, and its date is directly linked to that of Passover. Thus, the counting of the Omer begins on the second day of Passover and continues for the next 49 days, or seven complete weeks, ending on the day before Shavuot. According to this calculation, Shavuot will fall on the day of the week after that of the first day of Passover (e.g., if Passover starts on a Thursday, Shavuot will begin on a Friday).
The Torah mandates the seven-week Counting of the Omer, beginning on the second day of Passover, to be immediately followed by Shavuot.
This counting of days and weeks is understood to express anticipation and desire for the giving of the Torah. On Passover, the people of Israel were freed from their enslavement to Pharaoh; on Shavuot they were given the Torah and became a nation committed to serving God. Shavuot is not explicit in the Biblical text but In the Bible, Shavuot is called the Festival of Weeks (Hebrew: חג השבועות, Ḥag ha-Shavuot, Exodus 34:22, Deuteronomy 16:10); Festival of Reaping (Hebrew: חג הקציר, Ḥag ha-Katsir, Exodus 23:16), and Day of the First Fruits (Hebrew יום הבכורים, Yom ha-Bikkurim, Numbers 28:26).
In ancient times, the grain harvest lasted seven weeks and was a season of gladness (Jer. 5:24, Deut. 16:9-11, Isa. 9:2). It began with the harvesting of the barley during Passover and ended with the harvesting of the wheat at Shavuot. Shavuot was thus the concluding festival of the grain harvest, just as the eighth day of Sukkot (Tabernacles) was the concluding festival of the fruit harvest. During the existence of the Temple in Jerusalem, an offering of two loaves of bread from the wheat harvest was made on Shavuot.
Sources: Neusner, Jacob (1991). An Introduction to Judaism: A Textbook and Reader.
The Temple Institute. "The Festival of Shavout: Bringing the Firstfruits to the Temple". The Temple Institute. Retrieved September 5, 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavuot

A brother from India was telling me one day in another christian forum of how he used to not believe that the Holy Spirit did those dramatic manifestations any more until one day, after his adult Sunday School class was done on the lesson of the Pentecost, his church held a service to honor the Holy Spirit on that calender day of Pentecost.

As he was honoring the Holy Spirit in worship, he felt something like liquid nitrogen seeping through his skull, and then he began to confess against his will an apology to the Holy Spirit for not believing that He did those dramatic manifestations today.

The Lord led me to discern that spirit as not the Holy Spirit that was coming over him.

#1. It defies the line of discernment given in 1 John 4:1-4 about what is the spirit of the antichrist & Whom is the real Holy Spirit when the real Holy Spirit would not be coming into a believer again when He is already within the believer as promised for coming to & believing in Jesus Christ.

That means any believer that "feels" a sensational sign in the flesh of a spirit coming over them & filling them again is NOT the Holy Spirit that was received by faith in Jesus Christ when they were saved at the hearing of the gospel.

It is phenomenon like this that we get preaching "another" baptism with the Holy Spirit with evidence of tongues ( which happens to comes with no interpretation ) as well as other signs and lying wonders after the workings of Satan that focuses on receiving the "Spirit" again and again and again.

This is why believers doubt their salvation and so when they address the Holy Spirit to come & fall on them after seeing an incident like that, guess what? It happens again, and thus in their minds they believe that if one does not speak in tongues ( which is still not of other men's lips for God to speak unto the people but babbling nonsense ), they do not have the Holy Spirit, and therefore they are not saved.

Because of these "second & repeating encounters, many believers try explain Biblically what it is, but scripture warned it was not of Him ( 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 & 13:5 )

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way......

The iniquity is broadening the way in the worship place to include the worship of the Holy Spirit with the Father & the Son which is how these churches are at risk for these phenomenons of visiting seducing spirits to occur.

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

To be left behind at the pre tribulational rapture event in becoming that vessel unto dishonour in His House is a damnation, but although the prodigal son had given up his first inheritance for wild living, he is still son as they will be received later on after the great tribulation just because they have His seal.

IMPORTANT: Paul is not reminding believers when they had received the Holy Spirit by faith in Jesus Christ which was by the hearing of the gospel.

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

To receive the Holy Spirit again is to make the Father look evil as if He did not give you the Holy Spirit the first time when knocking at the door of Jesus Christ.

Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. 10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

May the Lord Jesus Christ help you to see that promise and assurance that the Holy Spirit once received, would not be received again.

And yet when churches ignore Jesus's words on the only way to the Father is through the Son ( John 14:6 ) in worship, by including the Holy Spirit with the Father & the Son, God allows this dishonorable worship to suffer a thief to break through which is why the "holy laughter" movement went across the denomenational barrier as happening in Catholic & Protestant churches and thus no longer a streamlined Pentecostal/Charismatic event in 1994.

This does not mean it happened in every church, but it does mean that the devil like a roaming lion seeking whom he may devour, can happen when the way is broadened in the worship place for seducing spirits to come in.

Proverbs 25:26 A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring. 27 It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory. 28 He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls.

Did not Jesus mentioned the falling down for broadening the way in Matthew 7:13-27 at this link?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7:13-27&version=KJV

So there is a need to narrow the way back to the Son for the focus in worship or risk being left behind. That also includes not believing there is a presence in communion since the Son of God is the focus and not the bread nor the wine in worship service.

Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: 26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. 30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

#2. The Spirit of Christ is representing Christ as being meek & lowly in heart. Here was a brother doing what I have been led not to do, and that is the thanks a believer will get for taking time out to honor the Holy Spirit? So that was not the Holy Spirit.

#3. The Holy Spirit will not speak of Himself, but glorify the Son, and this seducing spirit was certainly taking that spotlight from the Son in worship when they were honoring the Holy Spirit.

#4. God prefers a willing genuine confession and not a forced one.

You do realize that the doctrine of the Rapture has only been around for about 150 years? If you read the Apostolic a Fathers like Ss. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, and Irenaeus, all of whom were martyred, or the later Nicene Fathers like Ss. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom and Cyril, you will find nothing like anything you just posted.

Also, in terms of worship, the only ancient preference among members of the trinity was towards the Father, but this was inconsistent. However, it's why if you open up an old Anglican Book of Common Prayer, you'll find the Collects are generally structured, "Heavenly Father, we beseech Thee that...through our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen." Or the Roman form, which adds, "Who livest and reigneth with Thee in the Unity of the Holy Spirit, World without End." Or the Orthodox form. "For unto thee are due all honor, glory and worship, together with Thine only begotten son and Thy Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages, Amen."

Unto ages of ages by the way is the most literal translation of the Greek NT usually rendered as "Forever and ever" in English.

 

[he-man]

lso, in terms of worship, the only ancient preference among members of the trinity was towards the Father, but this was inconsistent. However, it's why if you open up an old Anglican Book of Common Prayer, you'll find the Collects are generally structured, "Heavenly Father, we beseech Thee that...through our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen." Or the Roman form, which adds, "Who livest and reigneth with Thee in the Unity of the Holy Spirit, World without End." Or the Orthodox form. "For unto thee are due all honor, glory and worship, together with Thine only begotten son and Thy Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages, Amen."
Unto ages of ages by the way is the most literal translation of the Greek NT usually rendered as "Forever and ever" in English.

What does the Old Testament tell us of God? It tells us there is one God, But it tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we take the New Testament writers together They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. The Triune God A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity Edmund J. Fortman

 

[Tellastory]

The majority of Orthodox prayers are addressed to the Father, some to the Son; the Holy Spirit is rarely directly prayed to but is in no way prohibited.

Thank you for sharing the Oriental Orthodox church believes, but Jesus is the only One that answers our prayers so that the Father may be glorified in the Son for answered prayers. That is why there is only One Mediator between God and man, specified as the man Christ Jesus.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me....13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Especially since in our prayer we routinely seek the intercessions of the saints; if you can pray to say, St. Barsanuphius, and ask him to pray for you, then surely prayer to the Holy Spirit is permissible.

St. Barsanuphius is with the Lord Jesus Christ but he is hardly in a position to be a mediator when he is not "god" to perform such duties.

And do note how some Catholics give credit to the "ones" they had asked to pray for them for answered prayers. That's not honouring the Son nor the Father.

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.....41 I receive not honour from men. 42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. 44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

The Holy Spirit was sent to NOT speak of Himself ( John 16:13 ), but of the Son ( John 15:26 ) in glorifying Him ( John 16:14 ) and so in short, He has been sent to honour the Son and He does that by leading us to honour the Son. The Holy Spirit will not lead us in any other way in honouring God the Father except by honouring the Son ( John 15:27 ).

In the epiclesis of the liturgy the action of the Holy Spirit in transforming the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord is requested.

The Holy Spirit is in us; and He has no necessity to transform the bread or the wine for anything in communion when it is to be done only in remembrance of Him. If it was to be done for something far more important that just in remembrance of Him, there would be no need to say to do that in remembrance of Him.

 

[Wgw]

What does the Old Testament tell us of God? It tells us there is one God, But it tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we take the New Testament writers together They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. The Triune God A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity Edmund J. Fortman

Have you actually read the Gospels of Matthew or John or do you just read Arian propaganda? Not wanting to be harsh, but anyone who has read those Gospels, and Luke Acts for that matter, in the context of the Old Teatament, can only rationally subscribe to a Trinitarian, Arian or soft pneumatomachian triadology.

But at that however, the defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity proved their point scripturally. Read the Acts of the Council of Nicea or the Council of Constantinople, or the writings of Ss. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyassa, Ambrose of Milan, Ephrem the Syrian, and John Chrysostom, and then get back to me. St. Athansius actually compiled the book you call The New Testament; the first definitive editions of the entire NT were supplied to Rome by the Church of Alexandria,,and it was St. Athanasius who in one of his Paschal letters first enumerated the 27 books that are legitimately part of the New Testament. It took about 200 more years for his canon to be broadly accepted; many doubted the Catholic Epistles, the Pastoral Epistles and the Apocalpyse. And continued to include texts St. Athansius deemed to be unscriptural. like 1 Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, and in some cases outright heretical texts like the Acts of Thomas and the Apocalpyse of Peter. But in the end, St. Athanasius prevailed and was thus the original editor of your New Testament.

Why does this matter? Because he also was responsible for defeating Arius at the Council of Nicea, and for articulating clearly the doctrine of the Trinity as the most viable explanation for the three Divine Persons mentioned by name in the New Testament. And one can thus be sure that his selection of NT texts would exclude any material that would actually refute the idea of the Trinity, as some Gnostic gospels and the jewish Christian Gospel of the Hebrews did, for example.

It's ludicrous to rely on the New Testament of St. Athanasius without subscribing to, at a minimum, the Nicene Creed of 325, if not the expanded creed of 381 commonly called the Nicene.

The creed commonly attributed to St. Athanasius is printed in some Eastern Orthodox prayerbooks, sans the filioque, but we do not regard it as a creed, and scholars dount that St. Athanasius wrote it. For a proper look at the Trinitarian theology of St. Athansius, one must read his works On The Incarnation and the Life of St. Anthony, which are in my opinion both so important to Christian doctrine that I would include them in an appendix to the Holy Bible itself, along with the Didache, the writings of Ss. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, the Patristic writings I've cited, the works of St. John Cassian (whose view of original sin is more nuanced than the flawed rheology of Augustine), the Ladder of Divine Ascent, and the Philokalia. Those writings almost comprise a sort of Christian Talmud.

 

[Wgw]

Thank you for sharing the Oriental Orthodox church believes, but Jesus is the only One that answers our prayers so that the Father may be glorified in the Son for answered prayers. That is why there is only One Mediator between God and man, specified as the man Christ Jesus.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me....13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.



St. Barsanuphius is with the Lord Jesus Christ but he is hardly in a position to be a mediator when he is not "god" to perform such duties.

And do note how some Catholics give credit to the "ones" they had asked to pray for them for answered prayers. That's not honouring the Son nor the Father.

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.....41 I receive not honour from men. 42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. 44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

The Holy Spirit was sent to NOT speak of Himself ( John 16:13 ), but of the Son ( John 15:26 ) in glorifying Him ( John 16:14 ) and so in short, He has been sent to honour the Son and He does that by leading us to honour the Son. The Holy Spirit will not lead us in any other way in honouring God the Father except by honouring the Son ( John 15:27 ).



The Holy Spirit is in us; and He has no necessity to transform the bread or the wine for anything in communion when it is to be done only in remembrance of Him. If it was to be done for something far more important that just in remembrance of Him, there would be no need to say to do that in remembrance of Him.

How can you dare to say St. Barsanuphius is in Heaven? How can you presume such knowledge when St. Barsanuphius, who is a relatively minor monastic saint by the way, would have fled from your company, like St. John the Evangelist fleeing the bath at the arrival of Cerinthus?

Your teachings are radically divergent from those of the Early Church. You seem to mix Sabellianism with various beliefs of a more contemporary origin. And once again, the Orthodox do not accept Sola Scriptura, so hurling Bible verses at us out of context is not going to change our mind. St. Irenaeus likened Holy Scripture to a mosaic depicting a King; rearrange the tiles and you can produce a dog or a fox. This is why we preserve without addition, subtraction, or alteration the ancient faith we believe was handed down from the Apostles. The history of the first three centuries of Christianity is obscured by the fog of war; Christianity was an underground religion and within 150 years of the ascension of Our Lord and the descent of the Holy Spirit (one cannot help but be amused by the image of the divine persons passing each other in the lobby proceeding to and from the heavenly elevator), there were seemingly as many heresies as years that had elapsed, so that St. Irenaeus was able to fill a five volume treatise with descriptions of them and their errors.

Now we can say with absolute certainty that our faith is essentially unchanged from that of the fifth century, by which time the Oriental Orthodox liturgy existed and our defining theology or Christology had been formed against Nestorianism. We can also say with some certainty that our faith, and most probably, our liturgy as well, are unchanged from the Fourth Century.

However,we can also deduce that our faith is the same as that of Ss. Irenaeus and Hippolytus, and Tertullian before his conversion to Montanism, because the polemics agaimst heresies these authors wrote define Orthodoxy via negation. And St. Hippolytus for his part wrote the prototypical Eucharistic liturgy in his work on the Apostolic Traditions.

And from that we reach the Apostolic Fathers, who were largely disciples of St. John. So if any rupture occurred, it had to have happened around 70-80 AD, perhaps in the confusion following the destruction of the Temple.

But of the Early Christian sects, the proto-Orthodox Catholic sect, which through lasting schism was sadly divided into the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Roman Catholics, alone survived the test of time. The Paulicians, who were probably Marcionites, endured in Armenia until the 19th century when they embraced Orthodoxy. However they were never a major theological force and I ascribe their survival unto the threshold of modernity an example of Divine mercy. Towards the end their doctrines do not appear that different from that of radical sects like the Doukhobors and Molokans who broke away from the Russian Orthodox following the deposition of Patriarch Nikon by the Czar. It's possible the Armenian Paulicians weren't even authentic but were a newer group with the same name. In any case, all Christians today with the exception of newly formed neo Gnostic and Messianic Jewish groups are descended from the ancient Orthodox Church, which is why the Athanasian canon of 27 NT books is universally accepted even in churches that have foolishly discarded his creed.

 

[Tellastory]

How can you dare to say St. Barsanuphius is in Heaven? How can you presume such knowledge when St. Barsanuphius, who is a relatively minor monastic saint by the way, would have fled from your company, like St. John the Evangelist fleeing the bath at the arrival of Cerinthus?

If you say you offer prayers to this saint to pray for you, then that would place him in Heaven as prayers are offered upward to God as any other religion would tell you that prayers are given upward to their "gods" for answers to their prayers.

That is why Jesus is the only Mediator between God and men, specified as the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5

With the Holy Spirit in us, the Son of God, our Passover Lamb, is the only way our prayers can have access to God the Father to be heard through the Son as He always live to make intercessions for us ( Hebrews 7:25 ) so that when the Father says "Yes..", the Son answers our prayers as confirmed in scripture in John 14:13-14.

Now unto other other point; I know St. Barsanuphius is in Heaven because of these words.

2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:.....

.....6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

So where is Jesus now that all the departed saints should be?

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Now unless you are saying that this St. Barsanuphius is still alive and living down here, then I reckon I misunderstood your post.

 

[he-man]

Have you actually read the Gospels of Matthew or John or do you just read Arian propaganda? Not wanting to be harsh, but anyone who has read those Gospels, and Luke Acts for that matter, in the context of the Old Teatament, can only rationally subscribe to a Trinitarian, Arian or soft pneumatomachian triadology. But at that however, the defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity proved their point scripturally. Read the Acts of the Council of Nicea or the Council of Constantinople, the writings of Ss. Athanasius,

??? In Matthew and Luke we hear Him say: `no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son. chooses to reveal him' (Mt 11.27; Lk 10.22). Jesus uses the Aramaic word Abba that was too familiar to be used in Jewish prayer.1 He speaks differently of the Father in relation to Himself and to His disciples: 'my heavenly Father' and `your Father who is in heaven' (Mt 15.13; 5.44-45). The Synoptists only rarely apply the title `Lord' to Jesus. In Mark and Matthew the Lord is usually God Himself, as is the case in the Old Testament. When the title is applied to Jesus it is often only a courtesy title and means no more than `Sir,' `Master.'
Acts is fond of the title kyrios and applies it both to God the Father and to Jesus Christ. In his speech in chapter 2, Peter says that Jesus was made Lord and Christ at His exaltation, and he quotes for this the words of Ps 110.1, which Jesus Himself had used in Mk 12.35-37. The title as used by Peter here indicates that Jesus is now an exalted heavenly Lord, but it does not seem to affirm or imply that Jesus is God.
Peter says, 'This Jesus God raised up ... and made both Lord and Christ' (Acts 2.32, 36) he indicates that both the title and the power of 'Lord' are a gift bestowed by God on Jesus in virtue of His resurrection. This is a probable interpretation of what Peter said and meant. But it is also probable that Peter meant that God then 'established' Jesus in the exercise of the lordship that always belonged to Him.2 Mal 3:2 But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.
There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.
NOTES: 1. J. Jeremias, The Central Message of the New Testament (London, 1965), pp. 18-21.
2. N. M. Flanagan, The Acts of the Apostles (Collegeville, Minn., 1960), p. 14.
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

 

[Wgw]

My point is, Tellastory, why do you post as Id you think St. Barsanuphius is in Heaven? The Orthodox believe he is, not in the least because of a miraculous intervention attributed to him that has repeatedly saved an Italian town believed to be under his protection as it were, through his orayers on their behalf, as recently as World War II. But you, rejecting our theology, our mystical praxis (which is how we identify saints), and our veneration of saints, have no grounds other than our word, which I assume you would doubt, that St. Barsanuphius, who was a Palestinian monk of the 6th century, is in Heaven.

 

[Wgw]

??? In Matthew and Luke we hear Him say: `no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son. chooses to reveal him' (Mt 11.27; Lk 10.22). Jesus uses the Aramaic word Abba that was too familiar to be used in Jewish prayer.1 He speaks differently of the Father in relation to Himself and to His disciples: 'my heavenly Father' and `your Father who is in heaven' (Mt 15.13; 5.44-45). The Synoptists only rarely apply the title `Lord' to Jesus. In Mark and Matthew the Lord is usually God Himself, as is the case in the Old Testament. When the title is applied to Jesus it is often only a courtesy title and means no more than `Sir,' `Master.'
Acts is fond of the title kyrios and applies it both to God the Father and to Jesus Christ. In his speech in chapter 2, Peter says that Jesus was made Lord and Christ at His exaltation, and he quotes for this the words of Ps 110.1, which Jesus Himself had used in Mk 12.35-37. The title as used by Peter here indicates that Jesus is now an exalted heavenly Lord, but it does not seem to affirm or imply that Jesus is God.
Peter says, 'This Jesus God raised up ... and made both Lord and Christ' (Acts 2.32, 36) he indicates that both the title and the power of 'Lord' are a gift bestowed by God on Jesus in virtue of His resurrection. This is a probable interpretation of what Peter said and meant. But it is also probable that Peter meant that God then 'established' Jesus in the exercise of the lordship that always belonged to Him.2 Mal 3:2 But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.
There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.
NOTES: 1. J. Jeremias, The Central Message of the New Testament (London, 1965), pp. 18-21.
2. N. M. Flanagan, The Acts of the Apostles (Collegeville, Minn., 1960), p. 14.
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

In the Syriac Orthodox Church we refer to our saints and bishops as Mor or Mar, which translates roughly as Lord or Master, and to our Patriarch as Mor Moran, meaning Lord of Lords, roughly. However this does not prevent us from regarding Christ as the Lord, who to differentiate we use the Greek Kyrios, as in Kyrie Eleison. And in like manner the usages you refer to in the NT are pointless and inaccurate.

However I'm unwilling to address the Scrioture you're throwing in my face, illiteratly and out of context. The Orthodox Church does not recognize Sola Scriptura. The Acts of the Council of Nicea and of Constantinople and the writings of the fourth century fathers contain all the scriptural proof we need to believe in the Holy Trinity. If you want to engage with me on that point, read the books I told you to, and if/when you have, I will respond to specific objections you can raise with the interpretation the Nicene Fathers made in their exegesis. But just as the Supreme Court only considers errors made in the interpretation of the law by lower courts, and one cannot introduce new evidence before the Supreme Court, I, who as an individual believer am ultimately accountable for my choice of religion before God, will only consider appeals against the exegesis made by the founders of my religion, in the fourth century. To convince me you have to show me specifically how and where the Fourth Century fathers such as Ss. Athansius, Basil, and Gregory the Theologian, erred, in their exegesis, by exposing logical flaws and contradictions in the statements they made about the Bible vs. those of the Apostolic fathers, that were not subsequently corrected by the work of later Orthodox theologians.

In short, an Orthodox willing to discuss the veracity of his faith, and most aren't, but those that are, will require the interlocutor to have a familiarity with the entire Patristic Corpus and the other writings that comprise Holy Tradition, if he is merciful. If I were of a more aggressive disposition, like Fr. Andrew Stephen Dammick of the blog Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, I would simply set you up to trip on one of the more incontrovertible arguments made by the Holy Fathers. I've yet to see a Unitarian or even a Calvinist stand toe to toe in debate with an Orthodox priest or scholar and win, and I for my part am disinterested in such battles. I'm here purely to tell you about the specific beliefs of the Christian martyrs in the Middle East.

 

[Wgw]

By the way, speaking of Aramaic, the Syriac Orthodox Church to which I belong uses a dialect of it, Classical Syriac, as our liturgical language, just as the Jews of Jesus's time still prayed in Hebrew, and some of our members are native speakers of a newer Syriac dialect called Turoyo. Due to the 1915 genocide by the Turks, another dialect, Mhlaso, became extinct, the last native speaker dying a few years ago.

The Assyrian Church of the East, which perishes alongside us in Iraq, not only uses Syriac liturgically (they pronounce Classical Syriac better than we do; the West Syriac accent has five vowells and so Mar becomes Mor, Suraya becomes Suroyo, and only the consonantal A, Aleph, is retained (as Oleph), so we say Aloho for God where they pronounce Alaha or Aloha), but also speaks an Eastern Aramaic dialect known as Neo Assyrian, that while not Syriac, is closely related to it, in the vernacular. Most Assyrians speak Aramaic natively except those born in the diaspora, which is why ISIL is such a huge risk; their language could become extinct if they are driven out of Iraq (some live in Iran also where they are treated alright for the moment, but the Ayatollah is the Ayatollah).

So please don't even say "Aramaic" to me; the Syriac churches represent the majority of continued users of it and our scholars pull above their weight when it comes to Assyriology. In fact, if you compare the Galilean Aramaic reconstruction of the Lord's Prayer that you can find on the Net with the Syriac Orthodox version, you will find the two to be very close. In fact, the Jewish hymn "Kaddish" as in Holy Holy Holy, Lord God of Hosts, which was in use in Jewish worship in the time of our Lord, is sung without modification in the Syriac and Assyrian churches (Qaddish, Qaddish, Qaddishat Aloho...).

One interesting quirk of the Peshitta, the Syriac Bible, is whereas the Greek original preserves literal Aramaic words and then gives the Greek translation, these are mostly removed from the Peshitta as being superfluous, because the Aramaic used by our Lord is mostly comprehensible to anyone who can read the Peshitta.

 

[he-man]

In the Syriac Orthodox Church we refer to our saints and bishops as Mor or Mar, which translates roughly as Lord or Master, and to our Patriarch as Mor Moran, meaning Lord of Lords, roughly. However this does not prevent us from regarding Christ as the Lord, who to differentiate we use the Greek Kyrios, as in Kyrie Eleison. And in like manner the usages you refer to in the NT are pointless and inaccurate.
However I'm unwilling to address the Scrioture you're throwing in my face, illiteratly and out of context. The Orthodox Church does not recognize Sola Scriptura. The Acts of the Council of Nicea and of Constantinople and the writings of the fourth century fathers contain all the scriptural proof we need to believe in the Holy Trinity. .

The Synoptists only rarely apply the title `Lord' to Jesus. In Mark and Matthew the Lord is usually God Himself, as is the case in the Old Testament. When the title is applied to Jesus it is often only a courtesy title and means no more than `Sir,' `Master.' Acts is fond of the title kyrios and applies it both to God the Father and to Jesus Christ and means no more than `Sir,' `Master.' .
In his speech in chapter 2, Peter says that Jesus was made Lord and Christ at His exaltation, and he quotes for this the words of Ps 110.1, which Jesus Himself had used in Mk 12.35-37. The title as used by Peter here indicates that Jesus is now an exalted heavenly Lord, but it does not seem to affirm or imply that Jesus is God. It has been objected that when Peter says, 'This Jesus God raised up ... and made both Lord and Christ' (Acts 2.32, 36) he indicates that both the title and the power of 'Lord' are a gift bestowed by God on Jesus in virtue of His resurrection. No one can come to the Father except through Jesus (14.6). Jesus is sent by the Father and lives through the Father (6.57) and does the works of the Father (10.32). The Father is greater than Jesus (14.28) Obviously there is no Trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts.
The Triune God A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity Edmund J. Fortman

 

[Wgw]

Nothing Scriptural shows a Trinity.

In the King of kings Bible we read:

Zechariah: 14:9 And the "I AM" shall be King over all the earth: in that Day shall there be one "I AM", and His name One [not a trinity].

Dude, have you actually read the New Testament? Does the ending of Matthew ring a bell? Beyond that, do you even grasp that there is a difference between a belief in the Holy Trinity, and Tritheism? I think at present only the Mormons are Tritheists, and only locally, since they believe God the Father was once a man, which implies additional unknown deities on Kolob outside our Triad. Not wanting to discuss Mormonism in this thread, I simply had to mention it as the lone sect practicing a Tritheistic faith.

And again, I will not as a rule theologically respond to proof texts. If you want to challenge the Trinitarian beliefs of the majority of Christisns, I insist you criticize the exegesis of Tertullian, who coined the word, and Ss. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Ephrem the Syrian, Ambrose of Milan, Epiphanius of Salamis, and John Chrysostom, who in the fourth century defended it. And regarding Sabellianism, St. Irenaeus clearly condemned it as well, presenting Biblical proofs. I need to see a rebuttal of their exegesis, not random proof texts you've pulled up to support your position.

 

[Wgw]

The Synoptists only rarely apply the title `Lord' to Jesus. In Mark and Matthew the Lord is usually God Himself, as is the case in the Old Testament. When the title is applied to Jesus it is often only a courtesy title and means no more than `Sir,' `Master.' Acts is fond of the title kyrios and applies it both to God the Father and to Jesus Christ and means no more than `Sir,' `Master.' .
In his speech in chapter 2, Peter says that Jesus was made Lord and Christ at His exaltation, and he quotes for this the words of Ps 110.1, which Jesus Himself had used in Mk 12.35-37. The title as used by Peter here indicates that Jesus is now an exalted heavenly Lord, but it does not seem to affirm or imply that Jesus is God. It has been objected that when Peter says, 'This Jesus God raised up ... and made both Lord and Christ' (Acts 2.32, 36) he indicates that both the title and the power of 'Lord' are a gift bestowed by God on Jesus in virtue of His resurrection. No one can come to the Father except through Jesus (14.6). Jesus is sent by the Father and lives through the Father (6.57) and does the works of the Father (10.32). The Father is greater than Jesus (14.28) Obviously there is no Trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts.
The Triune God A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity Edmund J. Fortman

What part of The Orthodox do not accept Sola Scriptura don't you understand?

To attack my belief in the Holy Trinity, and get a response from me other than a disdainful dismissal, you must take the time to read the texts of those who defined the Trinity and attack their exegesis; quoting the writings of non-Orthodox scholars and their proof texting is not going to get you anywhere with me.

I "double dog dare" anyone reading this thread to read the Patristic texts on the Trinity and present a criticism of their logic. I won't promise to agree with it, but anyone who does this will earn my intellectual respect and I will critically engage with that person.

 

[Wgw]

The King of kings Bible also contains the Koran, in harmony with the Old and New Testament.

See the full Bible here online: http://jahtruth.net/kofk-free/Bible/

As Christians and churches misinterpreted the Old & New Testaments, God made it clear in the Koran:-

Sura 5:74. They thought there would be no trial (or punishment); so they became blind and deaf; yet "I AM" (in mercy) turned to them; yet again many of them became "blind" and "deaf" (Enoch 88:67). But "I AM" sees well all that they do.
5:75. They do blaspheme who say: "("I AM") is Jesus the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! Worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with God,- "I AM" will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.
5:76. They do blaspheme who say: "I AM" is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous Penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
5:77. Why turn they not to "I AM", and seek His forgiveness? For "I AM" is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
5:78. Jesus the son of Mary was no more than an Apostle; many were the Apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how "I AM" doth make His Signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

Yes, the Koran is also the word of God. As rabbis, priests and imams do NOT follow true Scripture, then they are all in error.

Neither the false Quran nor the true and Holy Scriptures are the Word of God; John 1:1-14 plainly states the Word is Jesus Christ.

Regarding the Quran, here is my opinion of it, and that I think of most Christians in the Middle East:

Read:

We have given you a false Quran, filled with unedifying blasphemies, through our servant Mohammed, who we have deceived through impersonating the Archangel Gabriel, so that he may think himself a prophet. Heed not Thou verses if Thou hast any wisdom in Thee. For if Thou wilt ignore our warning, the future will be worst than the past, and Thy lords of this World shall be unmerciful with Thee.

Say:

Verily Allah is merciful, compassionate, all-knowing, and we are His enemies, the spawn of Shaitan.