The BIBLE only is the standard for truth... (3)

[Thekla]

We are living in a secular age.

What percentage of Catholics follow their churches teaching on birth control?
Which percentage of Catholics go to Church each Sunday, for according to Tradition it is a mortal sin to no do so without excuse?
Which percentage of Christians of any kind read their Bible regularly?
Which percentage of Christians of any kind believe that the body is literally resurrected, and in other such miracles?

It is a very small group of people that do, and to the extent that people in GT are more likely than average to believe these kinds of things, there is every likelihood that people here have more in common with each other than with the people in their actual non-virtual faith community that they have direct bodily contact with.

The most dynamic faith in the last one hundred and fifty years has been secularism, and it is not too much scripture that has led to that state of affairs, but too little.

And from what did secularism arise ? A Christian culture.

Nothing you stated changes the fact that the erosion of respect for the context from which the NT Scriptures were written influences how the Scriptures are understood.

It is ironic that the mass availability of the Scriptures and high literacy rates have not resulted in more widespread and fervent belief, nor greater unity.

Yet under the Ottoman yoke, when literacy rates were much lower (by political design, leading to spotty underground education at great risk), still the teachings of Christianity survived, and Christianity prevailed.

 

[SolomonVII]

Christianity has been reduced to two percent of the population of Turkey.

The pipulation of Greece and Russia are now in death spirals

 

[sunlover1]

All that Christ did was a "natural expression" of Himself; His actions are our guide as well as the Scripture. If it is so hard to understand when He walked the earth with us, then (again) this will be so with Scripture.

We study to show ourselves approved.

Yet even in this post, there is a "denomination mentality" (the co-redemptrix issue); it will be hard to shed.

No there isn't. I was stating a truth.
I should condemn them because of their misunderstandings?
Is that what Christ taught? No, He taught love each other.
Love covers a multitude of sin.

And of course, it will happen - though sometimes I think what is called "denomination mentality" is looking at the other guy, not oneself.

Since I refuse to join one, i have no other option.
I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm judging you, I'm not, I'm judging division.
SN
This subject makes me realize how much I miss our dear
friend George. AKA RevRandy

He too longed for unity.
Guess he found it.

And reflects the modern culture, which defines the person politically. This was not the case at the time the Scriptures were written, as the mindset was different. In fact, Christ quite specifically said "all ethnoi" - and an ethnoi denotes a cultural entity, each with a particular manner of understanding, learning, expressing self. Our modern (and political) desire to discard this is perhaps part of the reason we "see" denominationally when in fact what we see is modes of understanding that do not quickly translate to our own.

The second aspect is of course disagreement on doctrine; this cannot just be smoothed over to "look good", to have the appearance of unity.

yes, that is the argument i continue to hear.
As if I suggested this option. I don't.

If I were to ask you what doctrine your worshiping community would jettison for the sake of unity - what would it/they be ? Or what of the RC core doctrine you would introduce and live in your community for the sake of unity - could you answer "all of them" ?
And what changes would that introduce downstream ? A change in teaching does change more than the teaching; in the matter of (for example) the filioque, some see the downstream effect of this teaching introduced into the creed as the present understanding of the RC pope.

I think that the filioque issue is ridiculous, tbh.
What I would do?
I'd tell both sides to drop it.
God didn't call us to figure out all of the whys,
He called us to bring HIM to the World.
We don't need to know HOW He does what He does.

Yes, He did. And His actions are just as strongly His teaching; the words interpret the actions and the actions interpret the words.

Some of His words are found in the Holy Scriptures; some of His teachings carried by the apostles are not so explicitly found there, but became the basis for maintaining the integrity of the understanding of the words found in the Scriptures.

So, for example, we cannot discard the commandment of baptism - for those who received the Scripture but not their context, this is something that has become "debatable"

How much of the Scriptures would you be willing to discard for the sake of unity ?

ZERO.
But some things are a bit confusing and
there is room for error
Some feel babies should be baptized.
So let them. Will that hurt something?
Some feel that adults only. so let them.
Is that a crime?
It's really a matter of the heart.
Do we want to obey God or do we want
to have our ways?

I know you love me Thekla.
And you know me well enough to know my beliefs
and my faith in God. And even a bit of my heart
(out of the abundance of the heart...)
Would you, if you weren't in a denomination, share the Lord's
Supper together with me?
Please don't answer that , it was just food for thought.
Nothing more.
I might be heart broken by your answer



Good night.
ILY

 

[Thekla]

Christianity has been reduced to two percent of the population of Turkey.

Are you counting the CryptoChristians ?

The pipulation of Greece and Russia are now in death spirals

I'm not sure why you would mention this, or how it is you evaluate this information statistically ...

I also thought to mention:

both Russia (then the USSR) and Greece suffered massive population losses during WWII ... we should be thankful for their sacrifice.
If you look at the statistics for population loss and recovery, you will find that recovering such losses takes a great deal of time. Add to this the Greek civil war, the fact that Germany did not pay all the war reparations due to Greece after WWII, the junta (US supported) and the effect all this had on modernizing a country that had been under the Ottoman Empire (and thus behind on modernizing vis a vis western Europe) ... it is hardly surprising Greece's population is "low". For Russia, following the collapse of the USSR the life expectancy fell by over ten years; given the level of poverty during the transition to a market economy (steered by US advisers, some who have stated that 'oligarchy is the most efficient route to capitalism), it is no wonder the population there has not fully recovered.

 

[Thekla]

We study to show ourselves approved.

Yes, we do.

No there isn't. I was stating a truth.
I should condemn them because of their misunderstandings?

In fact, I really don't think anything can be fully evaluated wrested from its context, so I'm not certain what misunderstanding the co-redemptrix teaching represents.
And I've no firm idea what you think is the "misunderstanding" in the co-redemptrix teaching.

Is that what Christ taught? No, He taught love each other.
Love covers a multitude of sin.

Quite right, and the love extends of course beyond what we find convenient (or even comfortable) or it is not love.

Since I refuse to join one, i have no other option.

Yet I'm not certain that your understanding of "denomination" is anything more than a reflection of the modern political view of man or not.
In fact, if one is not part of a "denomination" how can one accurately assess what a denomination is ?
To some extent, if my earlier experience is any guage "denomination" can roughly cover a set of doctrines, practices, Christian historical experience, cultural expression of these, etc.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm judging you, I'm not, I'm judging division.
SN

No worries - I don't think that you are judging me
And I do not consider myself part of a denomination, though I know you might disagree. If that is the case, I'm not sure what about the Church I walk in marks it for you as a denomination.
But I am sure that unity will come; true unity is hard to find, but certainly worth pursuing instead of "looks" unity.

This subject makes me realize how much I miss our dear
friend George. AKA RevRandy

He too longed for unity.
Guess he found it.

I miss him too, but I also do not miss him as he isn't "gone" but with the Lord. In this, we are not separated (and if he is bold before God I'm sure he prays for us). No Christian is ever really separated from any other Christian; not even death can separate us from the love of God - which encompasses all.

yes, that is the argument i continue to hear.
As if I suggested this option. I don't.

Of course, but it bears repeating as this is part of the issue as much as any other.

I think that the filioque issue is ridiculous, tbh.

My purpose in mentioning this was as an illustration of the effect of a teaching downstream. (This is the wisdom that is demonstrated at each Council, for example; statements were evaluated for their downstream meaning).

What I would do?
I'd tell both sides to drop it.
God didn't call us to figure out all of the whys,
He called us to bring HIM to the World.
We don't need to know HOW He does what He does.

I agree - we don't need to know the "how" (which is why in my Church the teachings are maintained, but the how is left alone as much as possible - for the "hows" of God are beyond the finite mind anyway).

The filioque is not about the how, but about the Who.

And here comes the Scripture again ... the filioque is not found in Scripture, is not consistent with what Christ Himself taught (as I mentioned before).

In this, should we drop honoring the very words in Scripture, the words that proceed from the mouth of our Lord ?

Or instead, as it is a matter of Scripture, should we instead discuss it and come to a mutual understanding ?

It's a thread on the Bible as the authority - what say you ?

ZERO.

Yet, for example, to ask us to discard the methods we have received is asking us to discard Scripture ... as we consider the actions of Christ as much His teaching as His words.

But some things are a bit confusing and
there is room for error

To some extent, yes. But then again, some things that seem confusing are not; we have 2,000 years of God-given experience and the teachings received (which includes methods) from before the NT Scriptures were written (and further widely available).

Some feel babies should be baptized.
So let them. Will that hurt something?
Some feel that adults only. so let them.
Is that a crime?
It's really a matter of the heart.

In the Church I walk with, I rarely if ever hear about how "others do things"; we focus on our growth in Christ.
If someone has a praxis of maintaining baptism only for adults, this is not my business really. Nor am I sure what role this would play in unity. (Among those I walk with on a large and millenia scale, there is of course allowance for diversity in praxis; it's called "economia" and is a matter for our spiritual father, bishops - those with the charisma for such matters - as long as it does not abrogate dogmatic teachings.)

For myself, "let the little children come" - they are baptized. Recently I read of an infant who had recently been baptized (in Greece). A nun was interacting with the child and asked him "And will you follow Jesus all your life ?". And though only months old, and still incapable of more than 'infant babbling' the child responded "Yes, I will." Out of the mouth of babes - glory to God +

Do we want to obey God or do we want
to have our ways?

Of course, to follow God.
His words, His actions, His way

I know you love me Thekla.
And you know me well enough to know my beliefs
and my faith in God. And even a bit of my heart
(out of the abundance of the heart...)

I do love you, and wish we could meet.
And I admire your faith, which is obviously strong; for this one always gives thanks to God whenever and wherever one sees it +

Would you, if you weren't in a denomination, share the Lord's
Supper together with me?
Please don't answer that , it was just food for thought.
Nothing more.
I might be heart broken by your answer



Good night.
ILY

I will answer !

And I am not "in a denomination", but I do walk with a community.

I am miles away from you, so this is not an option.

I also know that when I commune, I commune with everyone in Christ - whether separated by distance, or time, or even death - for the "one in Christ" eliminates all of these.

Nor do I commune with those I do not walk with; it would be imo presumptuous (against them) to do so without the humility and love to know them and the method there, but also reckless until I know enough to know agreement ... which requires walking to know.

I learned today of yet another community where the understanding of Christ's resurrection is "metaphoric"; such things tend not to be always immediately available knowledge. (We can use the same terms, but have vastly different understandings behind the terms we use.)

G'night

Christ is risen +

 

[sculleywr]

What traditions did he give?
A list would be helpful

Before I jump in, I know you will say that much of it sounds just like what Scripture says, and that is because Scripture IS Tradition, but it is only part therein. Tradition includes proper exegesis of Scripture and the logical results of much of our christology-centered theology.

here is the following, with things connected to those major dogmas:

1. Theology proper ("Who is the Father?"
God is the almighty, uncreated Being Who created all things visible and invisible. God's very nature is Grace, which makes Grace itself uncreated. As per the Creed:

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
Simple, Straightforward and to the point
​

2. Christology ("Who is Christ?")
Christ is the Lord, sharing perfectly in essence both what it means to be completely God, and what it means to be completely man (as Man was originally created, being without sin, refer to Anthropology, in number 5). He Has two natures, two wills, but is only one person. He is the only hypostatic union in existence, having God and man perfectly unified, being everything it means to be both, without confusion and without subtraction from the natures of either (remember this as it becomes important later on in the final dogma). The rest is summed up in the Creed as regards Christ:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;
Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;
And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;
And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.
​

3. Pneumatology ("Who is the Holy Spirit?")
The Holy Spirit is the Giver of Life, the voice of the Apostles and Prophets, the heart of the Church as Christ is the Head. He proceeds from the Father ALONE, and is equal in divinity to the Father and to the Son. This is per the Creed.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

​

4. Trinitarianism ("What does it mean to be a Trinity?"
God is one God in Three Persons. Each person (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) shares completely with eachother what it means God, but nothing of what it means to be the other Persons. There is nothing that the Father and Son share that the Spirit does not share. And there is nothing that the Son does not share with the Spirit that he shares with the Father.
Example: Christ has a physical body, but neither the Father nor the Spirit have one. Christ also has full divinity, something that both the Father and the Spirit have.

5. Anthropology (What and who is man?)
Man was created perfect, as man and woman, in God's image. Man was created with free will and volition. In Eden, man was tempted by Satan and fell into sin, becoming corrupted and infected with a disease more dangerous than any cancer.

6. Soteriology (Can we be saved and how?)
Salvation is the work of God, in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is accepted by man in his free will assent and repentance. However, repentance is not just a promise to follow Christ. Salvation is by no means a "free ride" into heaven. Such would not accomplish the purpose of God. Salvation is not merely entrance into heaven when I die. Entrance into heaven is, in fact, the least important part of it all. Salvation is an intimate relationship with God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. By the High Priestly Prayer of Christ in the book of John in the Garden, Eternal Life is knowledge and oneness with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Therefore, salvation cannot simply be conferred to mankind, as one cannot simply confer an intimate knowledge of a finite being in one step, much less intimate knowledge of an infinite Creator. Nor is righteousness simply imputed to mankind (a doctrine resultant of bad translation, or perhaps a bad translation resultant of bad doctrine). Rather, the action of God in response to man's repentance literally MAKES us righteous.
God does the main work, we simply make sure we are on the right train. The eventual goal is that we be in perfect communion with God in the way that Adam and Eve were intended to be.

7. Iconography (Can images of Christ be made?)
Iconography is a gift of God directly resultant of the nature of Christ, and even a direct reflection thereof. Do NOT get me wrong. The Icon cannot express the invisible qualities of God. To say so would be idolatry. However, an Icon can display Christ. Though we do not know exactly what Christ looked like, that is not the point of the Icon. The point of the Icon is to put on proud display the very reason for which we can even gather as the Children of God: Christ became man.
As a man, if one were to take a polaroid with them in the TARDIS, he could snap a picture of Christ. Icons are an acknowledgement and very visible declaration of the fact that God became man. The God of matter became matter so that He might redeem the world of Matter and the people of matter.
This theology spreads to the Saints as they are, themselves, reflections of Christ. This is the main reason we have candles: the candles represent that the saints and the Icons have no light of their own, but are rather only reflections of the Uncreated Light, or perhaps windows into heaven.
It is known to many Orthodox that Icons have been used by God to perform miracles. A popular example is the Iveron Icon in Hawaii, which provides an unlimited amount of myrrh, despite being made simply of wood and paint. Despite the miracle, the Icon is not, itself, performing any great work. The Work is the action of God, and not of man, nor of the image. It is of utmost importance that we realize and understand that the source of all truth and power is God.

This is, to my limited ability, the very basics. Everything within Apostolic Tradition refers in one way or another to these truths. It is probably boiled down and simplified (perhaps overly simplified), but it is my attempt. I ripped a lot of this from the Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy Podcast by Father Andrew Stephen Damick

My Orthodox friends who have been in the Faith longer (or shorter as the case maybe) can add or correct as they will.

 

[SolomonVII]

Are you counting the CryptoChristians ?



I'm not sure why you would mention this, or how it is you evaluate this information statistically ...

You were mentioning how so many Christians have lost core beliefs. It is worthwhile threfore to make the comparison with those who have ejected unity for truth and to see how that as worked out.
You say that it i prevailing. The greatest Christian empire in the world reduced to a small percentage of the population through the greater part of its territory, and without the basic Judeo-Christian ethic required to sustain a viable population does not speak well of the truth b eing preserved in any sense either.

If these statistics mean nothing, then neigher ought the firty percent of Christian who believe Jesus sinned mean anything either.

The one modern society where Christianity as a tradition has most been preserved is America, which has a rradition where Scripture as the standard of truth has been dominant.

Even id people don;t believe in the statment that Scripture is the only standard of truth, ninety percent of any mainstream Traditional believe is directly supported by Scripture. Raather than seeing SS standard as the threat therefore, which is to repeat the past where the devout had their patriarchs appointed by the caliphs to guard against the Catholic enemy, maybe it is time to note that those who advocate Scripture only advocate the greater part of what Traditionalist believe,and begin to build bridges.

The coonservative right is not the bigger enemy to Christian truth of any tradition.

 

[Thekla]

Please see my edit on my previous reply to you.

You were mentioning how so many Christians have lost core beliefs. It is worthwhile threfore to make the comparison with those who have ejected unity for truth and to see how that as worked out.

I'm not sure what you are meaning specifically by "ejected unity for truth".

You say that it i prevailing. The greatest Christian empire in the world reduced to a small percentage of the population through the greater part of its territory, and without the basic Judeo-Christian ethic required to sustain a viable population does not speak well of the truth b eing preserved in any sense either.

Ah, so only the Anglo-Saxon economic system is the true Christian way

If you study the situation in Greece, you will find that these supposedly "ethic-less" people worked more hours per year (per day, and with fewer vacation days) and on average retired later in life than those economic-wonder-working Germans. So no, this was not due to laziness. Further, if you investigate more deeply, you will find:
1. following the adoption of the euro, the conversion rate of drachma to euros left people's savings of much lower value
2. expenses of course rose rapidly to euro-pricing, further exacerbating the situation
3. the EU demanded that Greece gut her agricultural industry (including destroying mature olive groves); Greece had not enough industrial infrastructure to gap the loss
4. her tourism industry suffered as the drachma had made vacationing there inexpensive for euro-holders
5. the EU required a higher percentage of military investment for Greece; much of this came from Germany (which was found to be charging Greece more than other countries)
6. she was required to invest in infrastructure (as was Portugal) which though unneeded certainly benefited the extra-Grecian companies that built this
7. having discovered that German multinationals had raised prices and engaged in bribery, as well as owed massive amounts in (corporate) back-taxes, Germany refused to let Greece pursue German corporations for financial and legal redress
8. at the beginning of the financial crisis, persistently before Greece's bond issues, someone was flooding the market with re-sale bonds at heavily discounted prices - both spiking the CDS rates and interrupting the sale of the fresh bonds, though spiking rates there based on the CDS rates (someone made a bundle through illegal manipulation, an investigation is underway, though such shenanigans rarely meet prosecution in the US anayway)
9. the Greek bail-out, like Ireland, is basically a bank bail-out; surely, banks should take the risk for the loans they write
10. no surprise - the politicians lied (and then voted to make themselves immune from prosecution)
11. the EU economy is badly set up; debt is taken on by other countries creating a domino affect. Further, though linking vastly different economies, it has no surplus recycling mechanism (unlike the US) which basically guarantees this sort of mess.


Consider - Spain was one of the healthiest economies in Europe before Wall St. blew up the world.

If these statistics mean nothing, then neigher ought the firty percent of Christian who believe Jesus sinned mean anything either.

See above.

(Who knew that wealth was the indicator of being like Jesus )

The one modern society where Christianity as a tradition has most been preserved is America, which has a rradition where Scripture as the standard of truth has been dominant.

And our economic foibles blew up the world economy, and just years after forcing millions into food insecurity through commodity speculation and vast profit taking. "Fudgly" and illegal activity in the banking and investment sector in this country has not been prosecuted - for example, the fines paid by HSBC and Wachovia for laundering Mexican cartel drug money represented a small percentage of the profit they made from breaking the law (and supporting a bloody business, which during the downturn represented a huge chunk of their actual cash-on-hand). That's the spirit ?

Even id people don;t believe in the statment that Scripture is the only standard of truth, ninety percent of any mainstream Traditional believe is directly supported by Scripture. Raather than seeing SS standard as the threat therefore, which is to repeat the past where the devout had their patriarchs appointed by the caliphs to guard against the Catholic enemy, maybe it is time to note that those who advocate Scripture only advocate the greater part of what Traditionalist believe,and begin to build bridges.

The coonservative right is not the bigger enemy to Christian truth of any tradition.

Oh really ?

Given the paucity of research behind your previous statements, and the apparent bias, I'll give that a pass ...

Finally, per your economic standards China is more Christian than the US (touted as an economic powerhouse).
And so is Canada.

As you missed my previous post, please scan your evaluation against real conditions:
population loss in WWII etc., and offer a comparison with countries facing similar losses and challenges.

Guess the Christian ethic of self-sacrifice is not such a grand thing ... if you desire to roll in the grands

 

[SolomonVII]

I'm not sure what you are meaning specifically by "ejected unity for truth".

I mean 'rejected' union for truth.
I think you are more than able to pick up the meaning in spite of typos.

Ah, so only the Anglo-Saxon economic system is the true Christian way

It is interesting that you would take that quoted comment, in which I had made no reference to anything Anglo-Saxon, or economic, to mock the Anglo-Saxon economic system.
It does reveal a lot about your inner motivations. It is never, ever, just about the religion.

It never, ever was, truth be told.



...

The rest of your post as well, is just excuses that really matter little to me, as 'lazy Greeks without ethics' was never part of my argument anyway.

You have only confirmed my basic facts that indeed populations of the former Byzantine cultural region are in a death spiral and the greatest Christian Empire in history is having Christian majority populations wiped out to single digit percentages throughout most of its former lands.

This is not "prevailing against the Ottoman yoke", or even faring any better against the forces of modernism and secularism that the rest of Christianity is facing.

We can talk about the 50 percent of Christians in secular and maybe even Anglo-Saxon countries who believe that Jesus sinned.
Or, we can compare them to the the Christian populations that have been reduced to 2% over the centuries, and even these greatly reduced populations who chose truth over unity who no longer have the Judeo-Christian will to procreate a next generation.

Gennadius Scholarius was by all accounts a holy and sincere man, who burned his bridges to the Western Church for the purest of intentions. He rejected unity for truth. Whether this really was an issue of truth, is indeterminate. Whether his understanding reflected fundamental differences in Christian truth between the Catholic and the Orthodox faiths; whether the argument that these are small cultural differences or fundamental different versions of Christ being taught in the leavened vs unleavened, Son vs sans Son; whether heresy or just details, is a malleable feature of Catholic/Orthodox relations to this day. The arguments change according to who is being argued against, and who is being courted.

Suffice to say that he at least was sincere enough in believing that he was preserving the truth, and has sanctified for doing as much by the Orthodox.

It is a fitting footnote then that he wore his Ottoman yoke well, and fittingly was appointed by the Caliph to be the Caliph's first Patriarch of the new and improved Empire, as a man worthy to protect the Faith against any and all of the insidious encroachments of Catholics heretics.

As one bridge is being burned, another is being built.

In the meantime, the city of Constaninople becomes a more tolerant city that it had been for a thousand years, with the Monophysite Armenians no longer being made to feel unwelcome or in any way different than any other group of Christians in the city by the new powers that be.

Something is lost; something is gained.


Where we differ is in our definitions of 'prevailing'.

 

[SolomonVII]

China, even as it is persecuting Christians, has a burgeoning Christian population by most accounts.

Evangelicals especially are doing good work in China.

 

[SolomonVII]

Given the paucity of research behind your previous statements,

That is really an unfortunate, and even desparate statement.

I posted a whole audio university course the last time I was asked to give the background of where the details of my posts were coming from.

You were there when I did that.

You came. You saw.

I conquered.

 

[sunlover1]

Before I jump in, I know you will say that much of it sounds just like what Scripture says, and that is because Scripture IS Tradition, but it is only part therein. Tradition includes proper exegesis of Scripture and the logical results of much of our christology-centered theology.

here is the following, with things connected to those major dogmas:

1. Theology proper ("Who is the Father?"
God is the almighty, uncreated Being Who created all things visible and invisible. God's very nature is Grace, which makes Grace itself uncreated. As per the Creed:

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
Simple, Straightforward and to the point
​

2. Christology ("Who is Christ?")
Christ is the Lord, sharing perfectly in essence both what it means to be completely God, and what it means to be completely man (as Man was originally created, being without sin, refer to Anthropology, in number 5). He Has two natures, two wills, but is only one person. He is the only hypostatic union in existence, having God and man perfectly unified, being everything it means to be both, without confusion and without subtraction from the natures of either (remember this as it becomes important later on in the final dogma). The rest is summed up in the Creed as regards Christ:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;
Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;
And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;
And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.
​

3. Pneumatology ("Who is the Holy Spirit?")
The Holy Spirit is the Giver of Life, the voice of the Apostles and Prophets, the heart of the Church as Christ is the Head. He proceeds from the Father ALONE, and is equal in divinity to the Father and to the Son. This is per the Creed.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

​

4. Trinitarianism ("What does it mean to be a Trinity?"
God is one God in Three Persons. Each person (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) shares completely with eachother what it means God, but nothing of what it means to be the other Persons. There is nothing that the Father and Son share that the Spirit does not share. And there is nothing that the Son does not share with the Spirit that he shares with the Father.
Example: Christ has a physical body, but neither the Father nor the Spirit have one. Christ also has full divinity, something that both the Father and the Spirit have.

5. Anthropology (What and who is man?)
Man was created perfect, as man and woman, in God's image. Man was created with free will and volition. In Eden, man was tempted by Satan and fell into sin, becoming corrupted and infected with a disease more dangerous than any cancer.

6. Soteriology (Can we be saved and how?)
Salvation is the work of God, in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is accepted by man in his free will assent and repentance. However, repentance is not just a promise to follow Christ. Salvation is by no means a "free ride" into heaven. Such would not accomplish the purpose of God. Salvation is not merely entrance into heaven when I die. Entrance into heaven is, in fact, the least important part of it all. Salvation is an intimate relationship with God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. By the High Priestly Prayer of Christ in the book of John in the Garden, Eternal Life is knowledge and oneness with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Therefore, salvation cannot simply be conferred to mankind, as one cannot simply confer an intimate knowledge of a finite being in one step, much less intimate knowledge of an infinite Creator. Nor is righteousness simply imputed to mankind (a doctrine resultant of bad translation, or perhaps a bad translation resultant of bad doctrine). Rather, the action of God in response to man's repentance literally MAKES us righteous.
God does the main work, we simply make sure we are on the right train. The eventual goal is that we be in perfect communion with God in the way that Adam and Eve were intended to be.

7. Iconography (Can images of Christ be made?)
Iconography is a gift of God directly resultant of the nature of Christ, and even a direct reflection thereof. Do NOT get me wrong. The Icon cannot express the invisible qualities of God. To say so would be idolatry. However, an Icon can display Christ. Though we do not know exactly what Christ looked like, that is not the point of the Icon. The point of the Icon is to put on proud display the very reason for which we can even gather as the Children of God: Christ became man.
As a man, if one were to take a polaroid with them in the TARDIS, he could snap a picture of Christ. Icons are an acknowledgement and very visible declaration of the fact that God became man. The God of matter became matter so that He might redeem the world of Matter and the people of matter.
This theology spreads to the Saints as they are, themselves, reflections of Christ. This is the main reason we have candles: the candles represent that the saints and the Icons have no light of their own, but are rather only reflections of the Uncreated Light, or perhaps windows into heaven.
It is known to many Orthodox that Icons have been used by God to perform miracles. A popular example is the Iveron Icon in Hawaii, which provides an unlimited amount of myrrh, despite being made simply of wood and paint. Despite the miracle, the Icon is not, itself, performing any great work. The Work is the action of God, and not of man, nor of the image. It is of utmost importance that we realize and understand that the source of all truth and power is God.

This is, to my limited ability, the very basics. Everything within Apostolic Tradition refers in one way or another to these truths. It is probably boiled down and simplified (perhaps overly simplified), but it is my attempt. I ripped a lot of this from the Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy Podcast by Father Andrew Stephen Damick

My Orthodox friends who have been in the Faith longer (or shorter as the case maybe) can add or correct as they will.

Thank you.
Now these are things that you say Paul gave but were not written?
And, just out of curiosity, did you write all of this out from your
own memory?
Thanks.

 

[simonthezealot]

Simon, why do you say The "only" standard, when clearly God is the standard?
Or did you mean the only standard besides the obvious ?

Yes.
God is the ultimate manifestation of the truth, but He has revealed His truth to us through His Word, the Bible.

 

[Dorothea]

It is ironic that the mass availability of the Scriptures and high literacy rates have not resulted in more widespread and fervent belief, nor greater unity.

Yet under the Ottoman yoke, when literacy rates were much lower (by political design, leading to spotty underground education at great risk), still the teachings of Christianity survived, and Christianity prevailed.

I hadn't thought of that. Makes you really think and wonder. :o

 

[Thekla]

That is really an unfortunate, and even desparate statement.

I posted a whole audio university course the last time I was asked to give the background of where the details of my posts were coming from.

You were there when I did that.

You came. You saw.

I conquered.

Actually, I was referring to your comments on the modern era.

There are several audio/visual sources available on the Byzantine Empire (including complete courses - we used these when my children were studying the history, along with two texts); I am not familiar with the professor who created the one you posted.

And yes, I am aware of that matter in Byzantine history; however, given the statements you made re: the modern era, I focused on that. Hope you don't mind.

However, on that matter, since the Scriptures are the op topic; given that the filioque (in English especially and certainly) changes the teaching of Christ on the matter in the Scriptures, would you sacrifice the teaching of the Scriptures to escape the threat of Islam, or stand by your beliefs preferring a ruler who wouldn't force compliance with a teaching that is not found in Scripture ?

 

[Thekla]

Yes.
God is the ultimate manifestation of the truth, but He has revealed His truth to us through His Word, the Bible.

Sorry, but I disagree there too - Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos was the revelation, and the most direct revelation:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us ... 1 John 1:1-2

 

[Thekla]

I mean 'rejected' union for truth.
I think you are more than able to pick up the meaning in spite of typos.


It is interesting that you would take that quoted comment, in which I had made no reference to anything Anglo-Saxon, or economic, to mock the Anglo-Saxon economic system.
It does reveal a lot about your inner motivations. It is never, ever, just about the religion.

Not mocking, no

In fact, the Anglo-Saxon model became prominent at the end of WWII via Bretton Woods; it is a flawed model depending on where on is. It did however allow the US to become wealthier by taking on debt (Reagan's increase in military spending demonstrates this) as whenever the US issued debt, foreign money flowed into Wall St.

And even if you do believe that I was "mocking" an economic system, I'm not sure why you would pronounce a "death spiral" without looking into the historical causes of the matter.

It never, ever was, truth be told.



...

The rest of your post as well, is just excuses that really matter little to me, as 'lazy Greeks without ethics' was never part of my argument anyway.

Actually, not a few economic analyses of the situation do not consider the matters I posted "excuses", but core problems leading to the crisis. One can read the likes of Steve Keen; blogs such as ZeroHedge, GolemXIV (run by the author of The Debt Generation, etc. etc.).

After all, the idea that Greeks solely caused the economic crisis is patently, demonstrably false.

On the other hand, the rank unwarrantedly illegal and unethical behavior that made a few quite wealthy in the States, the City of London, and elsewhere is well documented, with bailouts, bonuses, and failure to prosecute well known.

Is this sort of shoddy behavior the mark of a society where the teachings of Scripture has taken hold ?

You have only confirmed my basic facts that indeed populations of the former Byzantine cultural region are in a death spiral and the greatest Christian Empire in history is having Christian majority populations wiped out to single digit percentages throughout most of its former lands.

It's the statistics and history that matter, not what anyone wishes to be for the sake of argument.

And it should be recalled that the Christian population of Jerusalem dwindled precipitously; was this evidence that the Christians of the 1st century were not adhering to Christ ? (or did the persecutions happen because they didn't have the NT Scriptures ?)

Noting population dumps because of a brutal war and challenging circumstances is no great feat; that this betokens a permanent situation is premature.

This is not "prevailing against the Ottoman yoke", or even faring any better against the forces of modernism and secularism that the rest of Christianity is facing.

Yes, there were conversions and martyrdoms aplenty, but Christianity did survive even in the most severe circumstances. If Christianity cannot survive WWII etc., then do you mean that only economic conditions will guarantee its survival ?

We can talk about the 50 percent of Christians in secular and maybe even Anglo-Saxon countries who believe that Jesus sinned.
Or, we can compare them to the the Christian populations that have been reduced to 2% over the centuries, and even these greatly reduced populations who chose truth over unity who no longer have the Judeo-Christian will to procreate a next generation.

Again, Turkey is not the east entire. Nor have you accounted for the ranks of CryptoChristians, whose numbers are growing. And as I pointed out, for the first time since Smyrna was burnt to the ground in 1922, with most of the Christian population fleeing or killed, the EO have been permitted to have public processions on Great Friday. This is progress in a land where public display of the cross was a crime (and, as my grandfather said, Christians did not dare to walk in remote areas alone).

Gennadius Scholarius was by all accounts a holy and sincere man, who burned his bridges to the Western Church for the purest of intentions. He rejected unity for truth. Whether this really was an issue of truth, is indeterminate. Whether his understanding reflected fundamental differences in Christian truth between the Catholic and the Orthodox faiths; whether the argument that these are small cultural differences or fundamental different versions of Christ being taught in the leavened vs unleavened, Son vs sans Son; whether heresy or just details, is a malleable feature of Catholic/Orthodox relations to this day. The arguments change according to who is being argued against, and who is being courted.

Yet he never signed the decree.

And the laity are just as responsible for keeping the faith once delivered as the bishops in the EO; is this something you object to in your Church ?

Suffice to say that he at least was sincere enough in believing that he was preserving the truth, and has sanctified for doing as much by the Orthodox.

He left the Council early and did not sign.

It is a fitting footnote then that he wore his Ottoman yoke well, and fittingly was appointed by the Caliph to be the Caliph's first Patriarch of the new and improved Empire, as a man worthy to protect the Faith against any and all of the insidious encroachments of Catholics heretics.

But I did think you had said that Scripture was the norm; thus, do you believe the Holy Spirit (despite what Christ stated) originates in the Son ? Perhaps you can quote the verses that support that ...
As one bridge is being burned, another is being built.

In the meantime, the city of Constaninople becomes a more tolerant city that it had been for a thousand years, with the Monophysite Armenians no longer being made to feel unwelcome or in any way different than any other group of Christians in the city by the new powers that be.

And this is positive.

Something is lost; something is gained.


Where we differ is in our definitions of 'prevailing'.

I for one do not think the present matters (discussed above) in the US economic system demonstrate the effect of adherence to the Scriptures at all.

 

[Dorothea]

Wasn't nearly all the Bible - OT and NT started from passing down by word of mouth (tradition), the revelations of God? I think I'd read a few years back that the writings of Moses didn't come about until around 500 years later. Anybody know?

 

[sunlover1]

Wasn't nearly all the Bible - OT and NT started from passing down by word of mouth (tradition), the revelations of God? I think I'd read a few years back that the writings of Moses didn't come about until around 500 years later. Anybody know?

I would think so. From parents to children, much as we do now
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become
convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings
which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

They memorized Scripture
(Thy Word have I hid in my heart
that I might not sin against you)

Oh that we would be so wise and obedient as them.
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God

Like apples of gold in settings of silver Is a word spoken in right circumstances.
Like an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold Is a wise reprover to a listening ear.…

 

[tadoflamb]

I answered the 7 of Hebrews 6.

Yes, and as I already mentioned, Hebrews 6 says instructions were given. What were those instructions? I understand if you don't have anything to present.

My turn. Since Paul tells us to abide the traditions, did you observe the man-made Sunday Easter or the first fruits (resurrection) last 4/16 as the apostles and Christ would have?

Once again, kind of a strange, legalistic and pharisaical question, but if you must know, I celebrated Easter on the same day the over-whelming majority of Christians did, even some who claim the BIBLE only is the standard for truth.