How do we know . . . .

[racer]

It compiled the very Bible we read.

When you refer to "it" to which church do you refer? The RCC, the EOC or the OOC?

However, You get points for stating that the church "compiled" the Bible instead of claiming it "created" it.

How do you conclude that since a group of men worked together to compile the Scriptural texts into one book, those men have supreme authority over it and to interpret the contents contained therein? How do you reach that conclusion?

Jesus commissioned the Apostles to go out and teach in His name.

You act like we haven't read our bibles.

He also promised them the Holy Spirit

Oh . . . He promised the Holy Spirit to the apostles only?

 

[Montalban]

Redundant errancy--even when one only seeks to be sarcastic--only doubles the embarassment.

Being the "pillar and ground" of truth is "NOT" the same as being "THE" truth.

Excepting that the Aposltes were taught the truth and are its foundation

 

[racer]

That is because we see RCC and EOC and OOC as being One Church... CATHOLIC.

Oh, kinda of like how non-RCs/EOs/OOs consider ourselves pretty much one church . . .

 

[racer]

That is because we see RCC and EOC and OOC as being One Church... CATHOLIC.

Oh, and I guess I missed it, so can you tell me, just when did the Orthodox submit to the authority and supremacy of the Pope?

 

[racer]

Yes and Sola Scriptura lead to ----> misrepresentation and abuse of the doctrine

How do you figure? Can you explain to me how Sola Scriptura lead to all of this supposed confusion?

 

[racer]

Excepting that the Aposltes were taught the truth and are its foundation

Unless your Catholic, then the foundation is Peter. But, never mind all that, you're all just one BIG happy church.

This still does not establish or affirm the assertion that "The Church" is synonymous with "The Truth."

Point is therefore wasted and moot.

 

[Montalban]

When you refer to "it" to which church do you refer? The RCC, the EOC or the OOC?

For the purposes of this argument that is irrelevant.

There was one church then. Which church is the rightful church NOW is irrelevant.

However, You get points for stating that the church "compiled" the Bible instead of claiming it "created" it.

By compiling it, they did create it. You lose points for trying to create a distinction that doesn't exist in that context

How do you conclude that since a group of men worked together to compile the Scriptural texts into one book, those men have supreme authority over it and to interpret the contents contained therein? How do you reach that conclusion?

By the fact that they concluded which books to contain within it. They chose the books. The books didn't choose them.

If I appoint you to a job I must have 'authority' in order to do so.

That's the way a heirarchy works. You seem to think that the book being created was authorising them to do that to it.

You act like we haven't read our bibles.

No. I act like that's all you read

Oh . . . He promised the Holy Spirit to the apostles only?

Look at the examples in the NT when someone converts there's a laying on of hands by those in charge. Through them the Holy Spirit comes.

 

[racer]

One only has to remember that the Apostles are the 'foundation' of the Church and Jesus talked of the houses built on different foundations for you to realise this.

Point aside, because it is moot and I fail to get your point, it still does not address the assertion that the "Church" is synonymous with the "Truth."

 

[Montalban]

Unless your Catholic, then the foundation is Peter. But, never mind all that, you're all just one BIG happy church.

That's false reasoning.

If I claim "Orthodoxy is the Church" and someone else claims "Catholicism is the Church" that does not mean we are both wrong.

This still does not establish or affirm the assertion that "The Church" is synonymous with "The Truth."

So the Apostles teaching the truth founded a church that doesn't teach the truth?

Point is therefore wasted and moot.

Only by your weird creation of a house that's got faulty foundations but might still be a house of 'truth'.

 

[Montalban]

Point aside, because it is moot and I fail to get your point, it still does not address the assertion that the "Church" is synonymous with the "Truth."

There are many references to 'truth', such as Jesus saying "I am the way, the truth and the light"

And he said to Peter, and thence to the other Apostles that he will found the church on them (the rock), and they're the foundation. If you think that the church they founded is not 'the truth', of which they are it's 'foundation' - which is the truth then you've a strange creation.

We know the tree by the fruit it bears.

IF the church is founded on the Apostles (and their truthful teachings) it must be 'the truth'.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Yes and Sola Scriptura lead to ----> misrepresentation and abuse of the doctrine

Yeah we really should have kept thos indulgences around huh . . . probably should have made shirts with the addage "when the coin in the coffer clings . . . the soul from purgatory springs" . . .

 

[Montalban]

How do you figure? Can you explain to me how Sola Scriptura lead to all of this supposed confusion?

You only have to look at where Protestants both argue that no 'practice' matters (because you're all part of the one invisible church of believers), and yet within that one church you differ over what you do. Even within one Protestant church; Anglicanism, you've got people who disagree over women priests, gay priests, the 'real presence' within the Eucharist.

Some churches handle snakes. Others speak in tongues.

Compare this to Paul's admonishings of the church to unity of faith.

 

[Montalban]

Racer's view of church is that it is not 'true' even though its foundations are?

Is that correct a summary?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

transubstantiation? I told you... I'm not Catholic.

Forgive me...

I know you are not RC . . . I am just trying to flesh out what you mean by eucharist . . . the basic good of the grace in the celebration of the Lord's supper . . . or some theological specified articulation.

 

[Rick Otto]

Unity of Faith = Conformity of Practice?

 

[Montalban]

Yeah we really should have kept those indulgences around huh

So inventing a new church was better?

 

[Montalban]

Unity of Faith = Conformity of Practice?

For Orthodox, they are not separate.

They are in Protestantism, where, in practice you could be a 'faithful' serial killer

"For "the devils also believe and tremble," as the Scripture tells us."
Augustine - Homily X

Even Satan 'believes' in Jesus

 

[Asinner]

Do you really think it's whoever has the most numbers is what counts and what identifies the church. Other churches have martyrs, and there will be many more before Jesus returns. Do you think all of those things are specific to your church?

Can 50,000,000 souls be so easily dismissed as "numbers"? 50 million martyrs in one century is significant. Also, I mentioned more than martyrdom. I mentioned "selflessness, unceasing prayer to the Holy Trinity, humility, meekness, love, or the gifts of the Spirit." As for these being specific to the Orthodox Church -YES! I know of no other Christian group that has had 50 million martyrs in the last century, do you? And although I have found love, meekness, and selflessness among many Christians outside of Orthodoxy, I have yet to meet one that has accomplished unceasing prayer accompanied with these virtues, nor have I even begun to attain this. But I have hope that it is attainable because those who have gone before me have attained unto the Likeness of Christ.

We can argue theology all day, but what stands out in the end is sacrifice for Christ and manifestation of the Holy Spirit. To me, this is what distinguishes truth. This is rarely discussed though. Anyone's interpretation of Scripture can be argued.

This is how we know truth . . . in the people of Christ. Therein is the proof. Not in whose interpretation is better, or who can discern the writings of Augustine more clearly, or who is the better orator/persuader . . . all is vanity. Let us look where is Christ. Christ is found in His people and they will not be of this world.

Love,
Christina

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

a common ... what common scriptures came out of a worshiping community with common understanding and that community was a church call it a local church tradition... (God forbid to call it universal...ahhhh) but it was a common consience, that interpret and gathered the texts and doc that it is scripture. They were the Church fathers (brrrr what a word!!! forbiden ) who were enough educated and diversed with the texts. So how come that "common system of hermineutics" that constitutes in majority western scholars after the 1500 s so remote isolated to the scripture historiacally and geographically would have more validity as to do SS than the Fathers who did SS back in the 2nd century??

Impossible... also about the "fuidity" very weak point we are conserned with "true and authentic Bible Kyrigma" here not fuidity...Also about the non-essentials... who says what is and what is not? The "common system of hermineutics" who are already "far and remote" from the kyrigma of Christ??

Purification of Doctrine and oversimplification is not guarantee to lead you to the Truth. Certain "truths" exagerated in the Scripture... SS brings about more danger than solving any i.e rapture , predestination, Grace only, Born again...etc... all these are docrines .. are they not? Do you all claim them? do you prove them in the Scripture? You are either "truthful" or not and the Church would not be a Church if it fails to stand up for that ....truth.

as to do SS than the Fathers who did SS back in the 2nd century??

Are you familiar with the variant abberances of the many o church patrist that don't jive with the scriptures? Concepts of the person and work of Christ . . . concepts of universal salvation . . . you can hardly point to a healthy heremeneutic that early . . . the church was still in a great deal of flux . . . enter the age of the creeds (thank God) to give some semblance of orthodoxy.

Impossible... also about the "fuidity" very weak point we are conserned with "true and authentic Bible Kyrigma" here not fuidity...Also about the non-essentials... who says what is and what is not? The "common system of hermineutics" who are already "far and remote" from the kyrigma of Christ??

Um . . . do you know what kerygma means? Are you familiar with the theological conotation . . . THAT IS THE ESSENTIALS (1 Cor 15). And proper heremeneutics is right in line with this. Maybe I am not getting your post right . . . I am having a bit of a hard time discerning the thought as it seems disjointed to me.

 

[Montalban]

I know you are not RC . . . I am just trying to flesh out what you mean by eucharist . . . the basic good of the grace in the celebration of the Lord's supper . . . or some theological specified articulation.

Jesus said his body is real food

Paul says that it's not just bread.

Many Protestants miss this in the Bible

1 Corinthians 11
The Lord's Supper
17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
And when I come I will give further directions.

Specifically they missed St. Paul saying it's not just a 'meal'
20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat

It is NOT the "Lord's Supper". If you want to 'eat' a meal, do so at home...
21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in?

He repeats that this was 'received' from Jesus
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you:

Then in the same passage he repeats Jesus' words (having already said that it is NOT a 'communal meal'; the Lord's Supper)