And then along came Mary...

[PassthePeace1]

NOt entirely true- the Anglicans maintained apostolic succession, as did the Swedish Lutherans.
Yet the point remains- sorry for the hair splitting.

I knew that...lol..about the Anglicans, but I didn't know that about the Swedish Lutherns.

Thanks...Peace be with you..Pam

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

NOW how do you figure that?? COME on..lets stop playing word games. EASTERN orthodox..Oriental and Catholic are the same??SO why not join together then..and be in REAL "unity" as you all claim to be...

In point of fact, there is a provisional accord which has been struck between the OO and EO, and it is simply a matter of time until our unity is manifested in full communion. Ergo, referring to us as two denominations is a misnomer on several levels.

Certainly you cannot compare, with a straight face, the relationship between OO and EO, and the relationship between the Assemblies of God and the United Church of Christ

 

[Iollain]

In point of fact, there is a provisional accord which has been struck between the OO and EO, and it is simply a matter of time until our unity is manifested in full communion. Ergo, referring to us as two denominations is a misnomer on several levels.

Certainly you cannot compare, with a straight face, the relationship between OO and EO, and the relationship between the Assemblies of God and the United Church of Christ

Soooo.....who is going to give in there?

 

[PassthePeace1]

That's ok, we have a High Priest.

Yes, so do we...goes by the same name as yours.

Peace be with you..Pam

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Soooo.....who is going to give in there?

It matters not who "gives in." What matters is the facts, and I have listed them.
Thx for asking.
James

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

That's ok, we have a High Priest.

One wonders what you then do with the other ordained authority, biblically named: episkopates, presvyteros, and deacons.

Full gospel- accept no substitues.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I knew that...lol..about the Anglicans, but I didn't know that about the Swedish Lutherns.

Thanks...Peace be with you..Pam

And to you.
James

 

[Iollain]

One wonders what you then do with the other ordained authority, biblically named: episkopates, presvyteros, and deacons.

Full gospel- accept no substitues.

Why, what do you do with them?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Why, what do you do with them?

Accept, embrace, preserve.
You?

 

[racer]

No they just don't apply to the Church that existed 1600 years prior..

So, what then? In what year did a term have to be defined to "apply" to the church?

 

[IamAdopted]

When the Protestants left in protest, the Catholic Church...no bishops went with them...thus breaking Apostolic Succession.

EO, OO, and RCC, all have Apostolic Succession, a lineage that goes back to the 12 Apostles.

All three have preserved Apostolic Succession, the Sacraments in their true sense, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Peace be with you...Pam

When this split happend was when the bible was read and truth revealed. As the Lord started to reaveal truth to those whom started to protest what the cc taught of course the Bishops didn't leave.. Christ is the Head of His church. He is the builder of His church. This Apostolic succession I don't even find in scripture so this does not bother me about this.. The fact is that Gods word was being spoken as it is written.

 

[NDIrish]

When this split happend was when the bible was read and truth revealed.

Ah, I see...so it's your (fallible) opinion that neither the Bible was read nor truth revealed for 1,600 years after Christ's death and ascention??? Be careful with your answer!

 

[IamAdopted]

Oh there those whom knew the truth that Christ had saved.. Yes there were.. There were those whom sought after Truth and Gods righteousness..They thirsted and hungered and Jesus made a promise that these would be filled.. Jesus is true to His word. He is faithful to fullfil what He has promised.. When Men were revealed the truth and could no longer believe what the cc was teaching that they went out from among them. Then we all know what started to happen.. Even those within the church that saw the truth were deemed heretic.. But when Jesus stated upon this Rock I will build my church it was not Peter whom was the rock the the confession of Peter and Jesus was faithful to His word. For many that were in the church came out and the truth started to be revealed more and more even at the death of some of those it came out from..

 

[sunlover1]

de·nom·i·na·tion
Pronunciation: \di-ˌnä-mə-ˈnā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century


A word not created until 1600 years after the start of the Church, and coincidently not created until AFTER the reformation...hmm..

There was no trinity till the name was
created?
I don't think that makes
a difference repentant.
We can use the word later
to refer to the former, surely.

I forgot, New Words after 1400 are of Satan.
Thanks for remindin' me!

No they just don't apply to the Church that existed 1600 years prior..

Well, either way,
a rose is a rose is a rose.

You made a claim that they are different EO Churches, and that there are divisions with in us..so please validate your statement, or take back this false statement.

EO, RCC and OO not being in communion is not a divison in the sense you are talking.. We are 3 seperate entity's..

Ask a member of each one and you'll get a different answer..ut this has nothing to do with your false statement...the fact is there is only ONE EOC, ONE RCC and ONE OO..you can't say the same for Protestants.

In point of fact, there is a provisional accord which has been struck between the OO and EO, and it is simply a matter of time until our unity is manifested in full communion. Ergo, referring to us as two denominations is a misnomer on several levels.

Certainly you cannot compare, with a straight face, the relationship between OO and EO, and the relationship between the Assemblies of God and the United Church of Christ

Luke 18:11-14
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

1 Corinthians 4:7
7 For who maketh thee to differ from another?
and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?
now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory,
as if thou hadst not received it?

1 Peter 5:5
Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility:
for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

 

[sunlover1]

Ah, I see...so it's your (fallible) opinion that neither the Bible was read nor truth revealed for 1,600 years after Christ's death and ascention??? Be careful with your answer!

Mark 12:13
13 And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Luke 18:11-14
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

1 Corinthians 4:7
7 For who maketh thee to differ from another?
and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?
now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory,
as if thou hadst not received it?

1 Peter 5:5
Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility:
for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Why beat around the bush, why not just come out and call people hypocrites, pharisees, and prideful, instead of bastardizing the scripture to do so?

It is Holy Scripture, not to be used for the vain and common purpose of calling names.

God will not wink at this abominable practice.

 

[sunlover1]

Why beat around the bush, why not just come out and call people hypocrites, pharisees, and prideful, instead of bastardizing the scripture to do so?

I'm sorry you feel that way.
Maybe you agree then, with this "OUR
church is not bad, YOUR church is."
mentality.
Personally, I don't.
It's not godly,
it's not edifying,
it's not fruitful.
It looks like pride.
Suppose Father walked in and saw it
rather than me.

It is Holy Scripture, not to be used for the vain and common purpose of calling names.

Thank you.
Here's what it says as well.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

God will not wink at this abominable practice

Thank you for your input.

sunlover

 

[IamAdopted]

Why beat around the bush, why not just come out and call people hypocrites, pharisees, and prideful, instead of bastardizing the scripture to do so?

It is Holy Scripture, not to be used for the vain and common purpose of calling names.

God will not wink at this abominable practice.

But you can do this with the theories that the church puts forth and this is okay and not the same? Please explain to me this? I am curious by nature and want to know why when you do it that is okay but when we bring truth into the picture of the theory be are somehow bastardizing the scripture..

 

[Rick Otto]

The Reformers didn't walk away from the Catholic Church. They were kicked out.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I'm sorry you feel that way.
Maybe you agree then, with this "OUR
church is not bad, YOUR church is."
mentality.

You mean like when you quote scriptures about hypocrisy at people- that seems to be a "your Church is bad" mentality to me. As for me, I've made no negative comments about any church here, so I guess either you're confused or talking about your own fallible manner.
Either way, cool.

Personally, I don't.
It's not godly,
it's not edifying,
it's not fruitful.
It looks like pride.
Suppose Father walked in and saw it
rather than me.

I don't know- perhaps this would be a good thing to take to prayer, as I have just explained how this is all happening on your side.

For the record:
The Orthodox Church isn't perfect.
She is beautiful, and She is genuine. As for you and yours, that is for you and God to sort out.
However, comparing the issues of contention between the OO and EO with the issues between AoG and SDAs is patently ridiculous. There is virtually no disagreement between OO and EO. Is it prideful that we are not yet unified completely? No, it is wisdom to take time before making covenant.

Thank you.
Here's what it says as well.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


Thank you for your input.

sunlover

Yeah, I've read that...though I have no idea why you're quoting it at me. Is this a riddle?