How do we know . . . .

[Mathetes the kerux]

You might try finding out where the headquarters of The Church of Antioch is.... On a street called Straight in Damacus.

You reject what you do not understand. But then, so would I.

Forgive me...

And your point? You asserted the authority of the Antiochian church and that Ananias was an Antiochian Preist . . . hogwash. Ananias was a Damascan . . . and I doubt that when Barnabas and Saul went to Antioch that the Antiochian Church said "Oh my . . . we had better establish creedance for our beloved Paul and set up a home office in the place of his conversion so that our authority will be set . . ." NO SIR.

Paul wasn't even recognised as anything special until he had spent some time there. He was originally just ONE OF THE BOYS.

And you still haven't addressed your error about his three years in the wilderness . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

that's what I was thinking.

It would be just as easy to write "and they didn't have sex. (not using modern vernicular, of course, but there would be no question then, would there?)

Indeed . . .

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

OK Matthew.

I appologize. And I'm also finished speaking to you.

Your on your own buddy.

In case your wondering... it was the "hogwash" comment.

Forgive me...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

OK Matthew.

I appologize. And I'm also finished speaking to you.

Your on your own buddy.

In case your wondering... it was the "hogwash" comment.

Forgive me...

Did I offend you? I am sorry. Hogwash is a idiom that is much better than some other common American idioms to portray the same concept.

Would you be better served if I just said . . . garbage? . . . or I don't buy it?

Because they convey the same thought. Ananias was not an Antiochian priest . . . and the Authority plea for the church at Antioch based on an office in Damascus is really . . . feable.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Did I offend you? I am sorry. Hogwash is a idiom that is much better than some other common American idioms to portray the same concept.

Would you be better served if I just said . . . garbage? . . . or I don't buy it?

Because they convey the same thought. Ananias was not an Antiochian priest . . . and the Authority plea for the church at Antioch based on an office in Damascus is really . . . feable.

Ananias was and is an Antiochian priest.

So says The Church of Antioch.

Forgive me...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Ananias was and is an Antiochian priest.

So says The Church of Antioch.

Forgive me...

The Scriptures state that he was just a disciple in Damascus . . .

and your line of reasoning was to appeal to him as something different for the sake of authority?

That is circular reasoning.

Here is the circle:
1. The Antiochian church has authority
2. Because Paul was stationed there
3. and Ananias was an Antiochian priest
4. Because the Antiochian church says so

You are using the Antiochian churches statements on authority to prove its own authority. That, dear brother is a form of fallacious logic called circular reasoning.

So . . . I dont buy it because it is feable (is this a more acceptable statement for you than "hogwash"?).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Scriptures state that he was just a disciple in Damascus . . .

and your line of reasoning was to appeal to him as something different for the sake of authority?

That is circular reasoning.

Here is the circle:
1. The Antiochian church has authority
2. Because Paul was stationed there
3. and Ananias was an Antiochian priest
4. Because the Antiochian church says so

You are using the Antiochian churches statements on authority to prove its own authority. That, dear brother is a form of fallacious logic called circular reasoning.

So . . . I dont buy it because it is feable (is this a more acceptable statement for you than "hogwash"?).

How far would Damascus have been from Jerusalem?
That word is used 15 times, 13 in Acts and 2 times in Paul's Epistles. Just curious.

Acts 9:2 He requests beside of him letters into Damascus/damaskon <1154> toward the synagogues, so that if-ever any-ones he may be finding of the way, whether they were men and women, having been bound he may be leading them into Jerusalem.

1154 Damaskos {dam-as-kos'} [metioned 13 times in Acts, 2 times in 2 Corin and Gala 1.
of Hebrew origin 01834;; n pr loc
AV - Damascus 15; 15
Damascus = "silent is the sackcloth weaver"

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Perhaps you think that The Church of Antioch does not keep records or perhaps they don't know who or what they are?

What possible reason would a Christian Church gain from lying about such a thing?

You simply will not accept facts from the source. It's called "falling on deaf ears".

Pity

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The Church on the street called Staight belongs to Antioch, always has, always will. It was a Parish Church then, it is the headquarters now.

Forgive me...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

How far would Damascus have been from Jerusalem?
That word is used 15 times, 13 in Acts and 2 times in Paul's Epistles. Just curious.

Acts 9:2 He requests beside of him letters into Damascus/damaskon <1154> toward the synagogues, so that if-ever any-ones he may be finding of the way, whether they were men and women, having been bound he may be leading them into Jerusalem.

1154 Damaskos {dam-as-kos'} [metioned 13 times in Acts, 2 times in 2 Corin and Gala 1.
of Hebrew origin 01834;; n pr loc
AV - Damascus 15; 15
Damascus = "silent is the sackcloth weaver"

About 20 mi.s

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Church on the street called Staight belongs to Antioch, always has, always will. It was a Parish Church then, it is the headquarters now.

Forgive me...

Only to the Orthodox.

Hebrew 12:22 But ye have come toward Zion's mountain, and to a city of God, a living Jerusalem, heavenly, and to myriads of messengers,
28 Thru which, a kingdom unshakable beside receiving, we may be having grace thru which we may be offering divine service/latreuwmen <3000> (5725) well pleasing to the GOD with piety and fear

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The Church on the street called Staight belongs to Antioch, always has, always will. It was a Parish Church then, it is the headquarters now.

Forgive me...

Wait a sec . . . you are assuming a formal structure of church governance that early in the 1st Cent? That the church in Antioch had some sort of church satelite plant in Damascus that was run by a former Antiochian priest? And that the church in Antioch had some sort of official authority over a group of believers that was almost 5 times closer to Jerusalem than themselves?

Again, I don't think so. Official Church structure was instituted BY PAUL in the LATTER portions of his ministry and you would have us believe that the Antiochian church would have had this in place BEFORE Paul laid them out?

Christianity was largely unformed when Paul was converted . . . it was a mass of hugely growing believers jumping exponentially as the Kingdom of God encroached upon an took Satanic territory. Paul's wisdom brought significant aid in creating infrastructre . . . but this was late in the game . . . like 20 years after his Damascus experience . . . yet you would assert a full fledged already operating schema before he is even converted?

All this stuff you are asserting is just not reconcileable with the text, brother. And if tradition is not reconcileable with the text . . . then tradition is wrong.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Wait a sec . . . you are assuming a formal structure of church governance that early in the 1st Cent? That the church in Antioch had some sort of church satelite plant in Damascus that was run by a former Antiochian priest? And that the church in Antioch had some sort of official authority over a group of believers that was almost 5 times closer to Jerusalem than themselves?

Again, I don't think so. Official Church structure was instituted BY PAUL in the LATTER portions of his ministry and you would have us believe that the Antiochian church would have had this in place BEFORE Paul laid them out?

Christianity was largely unformed when Paul was converted . . . it was a mass of hugely growing believers jumping exponentially as the Kingdom of God encroached upon an took Satanic territory. Paul's wisdom brought significant aid in creating infrastructre . . . but this was late in the game . . . like 20 years after his Damascus experience . . . yet you would assert a full fledged already operating schema before he is even converted?

All this stuff you are asserting is just not reconcileable with the text, brother. And if tradition is not reconcileable with the text . . . then tradition is wrong.

I'm not assuming anything. I will only pass to you the information given to me by The Church. If I ever give my opinion.. I will be sure to label it as such. These are the facts of what The Orthodox Church teaches it's catechumens.

By "The Orthodox Church" I mean...

The Church of Jerusalem
The Church of Antioch
The Church of Alexandria
The Church of Constantinople
and when refering to many things I will also include
The Church of Rome

These are the five Churches of the first 1000 years of the Church's history.



There is more to know about Christianity than just the text of Scripture friend.

The Church has ALWAYS had a formal structure. See ACTS 15. In fact, it was all they had... no NT texts had yet been written.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Only to the Orthodox.

Hebrew 12:22 But ye have come toward Zion's mountain, and to a city of God, a living Jerusalem, heavenly, and to myriads of messengers,
28 Thru which, a kingdom unshakable beside receiving, we may be having grace thru which we may be offering divine service/latreuwmen <3000> (5725) well pleasing to the GOD with piety and fear

Headquarters of The Church of Antioch.

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

I'm not assuming anything. I will only pass to you the information given to me by The Church. If I ever give my opinion.. I will be sure to label it as such. These are the facts of what The Orthodox Church teaches it's catechumens.

By "The Orthodox Church" I mean...

The Church of Jerusalem
The Church of Antioch
The Church of Alexandria
The Church of Constantinople
and when refering to many things I will also include
The Church of Rome

These are the five Churches of the first 1000 years of the Church's history.



There is more to know about Christianity than just the text of Scripture friend.

The Church has ALWAYS had a formal structure. See ACTS 15. In fact, it was all they had... no NT texts had yet been written.

Forgive me...

and where do the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea figure into those "five" churches?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

and where do the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea figure into those "five" churches?

Especially "thyatira" and "philadelphia"

into Ephesos/ efeson//efeson,
and into Smurna/ smurnan//smurnan
and into Pergamos/ pergamon//pergamon
and into Thuateira/ quateira//quateira
and into Sardeis/ sardeiV//sardeiV
and into Philadelpheia/ filadelfeian//filadelfeian
and into Laodikeia/ laodikeian//laodikeian

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Reve 2: 18 And to the messenger of the in Thyatira/quateira Out-called, write! The-yet is saying the Son of the God, the One having the eyes of Him as flame of fire, and the feet of Him as to white-copper.
20 But I am having according of thee. That thou suffer the woman Jezebel, the saying herself Prophetess, and she is teaching and is straying the my bond-servants, to prostitute and to be eating idol-sacrifices/eidwloquta <1494>.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

and where do the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea figure into those "five" churches?

They were all Parishes following St. John of The Church of Jerusalem. All Churches have The Church of Jerusalem as their mother. The Church of Antioch's mother is Jerusalem.

Follow the Bishops.

Forgive me...

 

[sunlover1]

Wait a sec . . . you are assuming a formal structure of church governance that early in the 1st Cent? That the church in Antioch had some sort of church satelite plant in Damascus that was run by a former Antiochian priest? And that the church in Antioch had some sort of official authority over a group of believers that was almost 5 times closer to Jerusalem than themselves?

Again, I don't think so. Official Church structure was instituted BY PAUL in the LATTER portions of his ministry and you would have us believe that the Antiochian church would have had this in place BEFORE Paul laid them out?

Christianity was largely unformed when Paul was converted . . . it was a mass of hugely growing believers jumping exponentially as the Kingdom of God encroached upon an took Satanic territory. Paul's wisdom brought significant aid in creating infrastructre . . . but this was late in the game . . . like 20 years after his Damascus experience . . . yet you would assert a full fledged already operating schema before he is even converted?

All this stuff you are asserting is just not reconcileable with the text, brother. And if tradition is not reconcileable with the text . . . then tradition is wrong.

So check against Scripture.

Reiterating the OP question.

 

[Uphill Battle]

They were all Parishes following St. John of The Church of Jerusalem. All Churches have The Church of Jerusalem as their mother. The Church of Antioch's mother is Jerusalem.

Follow the Bishops.

Forgive me...

interesting take on it.

 

[racer]

I agree. They are the same. Oral teaching, written teaching.

So, you agree that the content of oral and written teacings is the same? That nothing is taught orally that is not preserved in Scripture?

I agree. I've not said anything differently that we should adhere to both

This statement implies that you believe the content of oral and written Scripture to be different?

We can rightly discern what is written in Scripture. I never said that we can't.

Then how does belonging to a supposed infallible church make any difference?

We must take Scripture in the context of tradition.

Why do you presume that those who disagree with you do not do this?