Mary and Joseph

[Uphill Battle]

You are the one who continuously brings up these issues that are nto being addressed here- I have not used the expression "One True Church," nor have I even invoked my Church. It is you who have, again and again. I have and will continue to discuss issues.

except that the validity of all arguments from an RCC or Orthodox perspective hinge on the belief in their infallible truth and/or "right belief" You don't have to invoke it to mean it.

You moderate the Debate team. I suspect you understand what appopriate debate etiquette is and is not. My question is why you are at such variance with same.

you are right. I spoke rudely, and for that I apologize. My frustration with the issue is immense.

Fact: the only one who has made this claim on this thread is you. This is a strawman and poor etiquette to boot. The subject was, for example, baptism- not Orthodox Church. I brought up some points on the theology of baptism, and you begin to complain that we think we're the one true Church.
This is absurd.

again, I forward that the arguments hinge on the notion that you "got it right" with no possiblity of error.

Just as the thought of always being right, the locus of truth, and you own personal pope is difficult to give up, I assume.

on the contrary, I know that I will NEVER have it all right. I never have, don't now, and never will. And I'm comfortable with that. I will continue to study and seek, and know that perfection is not within my grasp.

Yes you did make such accusations: spoon-fed is a HIGHLY condescending and frankly arrogant expression used, as I mentioned, by atheists who call themselves freethinkers and us, of course, as thoughtless, mindless drones. In the very same manner, you tell us we're spoon fed. Who is spoon fed? The enfeebled and infirm. Please do not deflect from the implications of your own statement.

agreed, Again, I apologize. I can do nothing more. I spoke in anger.

Regarding our alleged inability to set history straight:
Please feel free to challenge me regarding history. You make claim to study, but your statements are full of holes. If you're going to take positions, please specify and prove. Thanks in advance.

I need only point to one example to show that RCC and EO cannot get the shared history straight. They claim Peter as first pope of Rome, and that Roman Catholicism is the original, true church. Orthodox, on the other hand, claim differently. One history truly exists, and neither side is the same.... hence, they cannot get their shared history straight.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

except that the validity of all arguments from an RCC or Orthodox perspective hinge on the belief in their infallible truth and/or "right belief" You don't have to invoke it to mean it.

Orthodox belief is not based in arguments and definitions, but is based in worship and agreement over time. Ortho right doxa worship.

you are right. I spoke rudely, and for that I apologize. My frustration with the issue is immense.

Very well, I understand frustation, it certainly is not my intent to add to it. Let' focus on the issues, I think you will find that, whether you agree with us or not, we have something to add to the conversation. I also believe that Protestants have something worthwhile to add to the conversation, when speaking in the positive about what they hold dear, as opposed to negative, as in what is wrong with so and so.

again, I forward that the arguments hinge on the notion that you "got it right" with no possiblity of error.

I am a flawed human who, een in the presence of truth, only understand a small portion, and live up to less. The difference beween you and I is that, while we both hold the bible to be true and trustworthy, you are suspect of corporate readings of same, whereas I trust coporate more than my own- even while I believe myself to be, in all candor, smater and more spiritual than most people I meet. Smart enough to know my limitations.

on the contrary, I know that I will NEVER have it all right. I never have, don't now, and never will. And I'm comfortable with that. I will continue to study and seek, and know that perfection is not within my grasp.

No mine. Yet I believe that the fallible apostles in the Church wote infallible words, and that fallible men recognized and protected and identified the infallible words. Likewise, I believe that fallible bishops and clergy lead the Church into all perfection (maturity)

agreed, Again, I apologize. I can do nothing more. I spoke in anger.

It is forgotten. Thank you for saying so.

I need only point to one example to show that RCC and EO cannot get the shared history straight. They claim Peter as first pope of Rome, and that Roman Catholicism is the original, true church. Orthodox, on the other hand, claim differently. One history truly exists, and neither side is the same.... hence, they cannot get their shared history straight.

Peter is the first pope of Rome- we agree with this. He is the Rock of which Chist spoke. We simply disagree on the interpretation of history, not the narrative of same. So Peter is the Rock, and the first. This does not mean he is the monarch.

I think you and I are both aware that history is interpretive, it is not just a collection of dates and 'facts.' Given the conflicts which took place between Rome and the East (the sacking of Constantinople, the failure of Rome to act when the Turks came to Constantinople unless we submitted to the Pope, which we would not, the imposition of papal authority in the Uniate churches and countries, etc, etc), it is quite remarkable how much the East and Rome agree on both facts and interpretations.

 

[repentant]

To all those who ONLY believe what the Bible says, and ignore everything else...

Do you say that St. Evodos, the Disciple of the Apostle Peter, whose writings were quoted by OrthodoxyUSA, is not a reliable source?

 

[repentant]

he is right, in the fact that the Majority of Christians are a combination of Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox.

However, appealling to Majority doesn't make it so, I'm afraid.

There is good evidence that MANY Christians through the ages rejected PV.

Please name one of them many you claim rejected PV prior to..oh say 500 years ago..even the early reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc) believed she was ever virgin..

 

[repentant]

except that in Greek there IS a word for cousin.

It's spurious to believe they would not use it.

Then why was Lot called Abrahams brother in the Greek AND Hebrew? There is also a word for nephew and uncle..

 

[repentant]

that is true..cause God is NOT stagnant. He is always moving, always revealing things. Thank GOD it isn't the same church as back then...things have moved and progressed in 2000 years!

Thank God that people have progressed to flushing His Church down the toilet..scrutinizing it, claiming it is not trustworthy?

The Church did not/should not "progress". Progression would mean that it got better. Are you saying that what Christ and His Apostles originally established was not good enough, and needed to progress and change?

Last time I checked, Christ was the same yesterday, today and tommorrow....He didn't and won't progress, why should His Body?

 

[IamAdopted]

To all those who ONLY believe what the Bible says, and ignore everything else...

Do you say that St. Evodos, the Disciple of the Apostle Peter, whose writings were quoted by OrthodoxyUSA, is not a reliable source?

Are they Part of the scripture that God wanted for us to hear and see and adhere to? If not then yes I do question this. Does this line up with the rest of scripture? Does it back what has already been said through those whom were an eyewittness to Christ? The History that we need to believe and be saved is all written in the Holy Scriptures.. We have from creation to the end written in scripture.. What else do we need? I can look at History and not just of the church and see Gods hand in everything that has every happened.. For His purpose and For His glory..I don't need tradition to speak to me what I am to believe.. I have Gods written and infallable word to bring me into subjection of Christ..

 

[Benedicta00]

what you don't realize is that the church today is not the same as the church then.

The church TODAY is untrustworthy.

So that means Jesus was full of it when he said the gates of hell would not prevail?

Catholics and Orthodox believe history, UphHill, we do not discredit it nor do we ignore it.

We believe scripture, which basically is a inspired history book, UpHill and based on history both inspired and other, we see that Jesus did indeed established a Church, he did not established just a lose body of believers who basically do their own thing.

So for you to tell us, that the Church that Jesus laid down went arye, contradicts what Jesus said in the bible and it contradicts what history teaches us.

And it also contradicts you- Your claim that the church is merely this lose body of believers all going off in different direction doing their own thing and it's all good because "Jesus is enough." Blah, Blah, Blah.

Well, if that is true, then Jesus is a liar, because A) He prayed, may all be one, not a scatted body of believers doing their own thing and

B) he said the gates of hell would not prevail. So if you have two Christian faiths arguing with one another over doctrine who has no visibile authority that teaches infallibly, then that would mean the gates prevailed.

So in light of how I judge history and Christ's recorded words, "May they all be one....the gates will not prevail" if what you say is true, then oh my, Christianity is sham because guess what? We aren't all one, now are we?

 

[IamAdopted]

So that means Jesus was full of it when he said the gates of hell would not prevail?

Catholics and Orthodox believe history, UphHill, we do not discredit it nor do we ignore it.

We believe scripture, which basically is a inspired history book, UpHill and based on history both inspired and other, we see that Jesus did indeed established a Church, he did not established just a lose body of believers who basically do their own thing.

So for you to tell us, that the Church that Jesus laid down went arye, contradicts what Jesus said in the bible and it contradicts what history teaches us.

And it also contradicts you- Your claim that the church is merely this lose body of believers all going off in different direction doing their own thing and it's all good because "Jesus is enough." Blah, Blah, Blah.

Well, if that is true, then Jesus is a liar, because A) He prayed, may all be one, not a scatted body of believers doing their own thing and

B) he said the gates of hell would not prevail. So if you have two Christian faiths arguing with one another over doctrine who has no visibile authority that teaches infallibly, then that would mean the gates prevailed.

So in light of how I judge history and Christ's recorded words, "May they all be one....the gates will not prevail" if what you say is true, then oh my, Christianity is sham because guess what? We aren't all one, now are we?

It is in the statement that Peter spoke that Jesus said He would build His church on. That He was the Christ the annointed one.. This the gates of hell cannot prevail for this is the truth.. Christ is our messiah.. He is our rock and the Gates of hell cannot prevail against Christ for He has defeated it and rose up victorious..All of us that are in Christ are standing on the solid Ground.. He is our foundation. He is our rock.. The Gates of hell will never defeat the one whom came and shed His blood..

 

[Uphill Battle]

So that means Jesus was full of it when he said the gates of hell would not prevail?

Catholics and Orthodox believe history, UphHill, we do not discredit it nor do we ignore it.

We believe scripture, which basically is a inspired history book, UpHill and based on history both inspired and other, we see that Jesus did indeed established a Church, he did not established just a lose body of believers who basically do their own thing.

So for you to tell us, that the Church that Jesus laid down went arye, contradicts what Jesus said in the bible and it contradicts what history teaches us.

And it also contradicts you- Your claim that the church is merely this lose body of believers all going off in different direction doing their own thing and it's all good because "Jesus is enough." Blah, Blah, Blah.

Well, if that is true, then Jesus is a liar, because A) He prayed, may all be one, not a scatted body of believers doing their own thing and

B) he said the gates of hell would not prevail. So if you have two Christian faiths arguing with one another over doctrine who has no visibile authority that teaches infallibly, then that would mean the gates prevailed.

So in light of how I judge history and Christ's recorded words, "May they all be one....the gates will not prevail" if what you say is true, then oh my, Christianity is sham because guess what? We aren't all one, now are we?

yes, yes, I know the claim that "the gates of hell will not prevail" is the claim of perfect truth, within the organization of the RCC. Except the track record of the RCC dictates that this isn't so. So, even if that IS a promise that the "one true church" would be completely free of error, it sure isn't the RCC.

and beyond that, stating that RCC and Orthodox believe in history.... which history? We are presented seperate histories from both, they bicker over whom left who, who is the same as the 1st century Christians and who is not.... which history?

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

Thank God that people have progressed to flushing His Church down the toilet..scrutinizing it, claiming it is not trustworthy?

The Church did not/should not "progress". Progression would mean that it got better. Are you saying that what Christ and His Apostles originally established was not good enough, and needed to progress and change?

Last time I checked, Christ was the same yesterday, today and tommorrow....He didn't and won't progress, why should His Body?

I am not even going to comment on this, since this is NOT what I did. Yes, God is the same yesterday today and forever, but He isn't stagnant either. Repentant, I am putting you on ignore, because you take what I say and twist it to your own agenda. I am tired of it. Be blessed brother...

 

[Uphill Battle]

Thank God that people have progressed to flushing His Church down the toilet..scrutinizing it, claiming it is not trustworthy?

The Church did not/should not "progress". Progression would mean that it got better. Are you saying that what Christ and His Apostles originally established was not good enough, and needed to progress and change?

Last time I checked, Christ was the same yesterday, today and tommorrow....He didn't and won't progress, why should His Body?

careful when you say "did not" perhaps "should not" is accurate, but "did not" is completely untrue.

 

[Benedicta00]

The facts come down to this.

Some hold The Church in high regard, and some hold it as not trustworthy.

To those who hold that The Church as not trustworthy...

Who told you that The Holy Scriptures are the infallable word of God?

Forgive me...

...

 

[Benedicta00]

It is in the statement that Peter spoke that Jesus said He would build His church on. That He was the Christ the annointed one.. This the gates of hell cannot prevail for this is the truth.. Christ is our messiah.. He is our rock and the Gates of hell cannot prevail against Christ for He has defeated it and rose up victorious..All of us that are in Christ are standing on the solid Ground.. He is our foundation. He is our rock.. The Gates of hell will never defeat the one whom came and shed His blood..

Exegesis- I was not indoctrinated in the way you have been, to believe this is what Jesus was teaching us.

Again, I wil repeat- History does not confirm this exegesis, but contradicts it in great way.

For 1600 plus years, the Church was never this lose body of believer all doing their own thing, as long as it isn't "outside of Christ" it's all good.

Show me one sect before the fundamentalist/Anabaptist movement who thought along those lines?


No, no, IAA, history teaches us that Christendom was united in one faith, one baptism for the remission of sins.

It wasn't a "lose body" doing their own thing, all arguing over what the bible says and what it doesn't say.

In fact, the early reformed Church didn't even think that way at all. This "belief," this exegesis creeped in, not sure exactly when but all I know is this; since sola scripture hit the scene, we have had nothing but divisions and disagreements in the body of Christ.

So if THIS division and disagreement is what Christ was saying to Peter in Matthew- be this lose body, it's all good... , then he was full of it and Christianity is a sham... Thank God, he was not meaning any of that.

 

[IamAdopted]

Exegesis- I was not indoctrinated in the way you have been, to believe this is what Jesus was teaching us.

Again, I wil repeat- History does not confirm this exegesis, but contradicts it in great way.

For 1600 plus years, the Church was never this lose body of believer all doing their own thing, as long as it isn't "outside of Christ" it's all good.

Show me one sect before the fundamentalist/Anabaptist movement who thought along those lines?


No, no, IAA, history teaches us that Christendom was united in one faith, one baptism for the remission of sins.

It wasn't a "lose body" doing their own thing, all arguing over what the bible says and what it doesn't say.

In fact, the early reformed Church didn't even think that way at all. This "belief," this exegesis creeped in, not sure exactly when but all I know is this; since sola scripture hit the scene, we have had nothing but divisions and disagreements in the body of Christ.

So if THIS division and disagreement is what Christ was saying to Peter in Matthew- be this lose body, it's all good... , then he was full of it and Christianity is a sham... Thank God, he was not meaning any of that.

How so.. Those whom still stand in Christ and on This rock still have their solid foundation.. Peter failed.. The gates of hell did prevail upon Peter. He denied the only one whom could save Him not once but three times..But the statement that Peter made has stood the History of time.. Before Christ came to earth and during and after and in all eternity.. For the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Son of God. For God even created it..

 

[Benedicta00]

How so.. Those whom still stand in Christ and on This rock still have their solid foundation.. Peter failed.. The gates of hell did prevail upon Peter. He denied the only one whom could save Him not once but three times..But the statement that Peter made has stood the History of time.. Before Christ came to earth and during and after and in all eternity.. For the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Son of God. For God even created it..

Because Jesus prayed for unity, not a lose body all believing what they want waving a bible as if that makes their opinion divine truth.

Jesus never said to Peter- I will build this lose body of believers who are at each other throats, who all wave a bible screaming sola scripture.

Tell me, IAA, when in the body of Christ has there been anything but disunity and division and strife since sola scripture became a reality in the 16th century?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Because Jesus prayed for unity, not a lose body all believing what they want waving a bible as if that makes their opinion divine truth.

Jesus never said to Peter- I will build this lose body of believers who are at each other throats, who all wave a bible screaming sola scripture.

Tell me, IAA, when in the body of Christ has there been anything but disunity and division and strife since sola scripture became a reality in the 16th century?

are you under the impression that everything that Jesus prayed for came true?

nor did Jesus say to Peter "I will build a top heavy self justifying organization, who views all others who profess Christ as Lord as something less than them." We can both play the ad hominem game, if you wish.

are you forgetting the EO RCC Shism? that came well before the 16th century.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

... strange things are afoot at the Circle K....

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Uphill Battle,

I am troubled by what you seem to think we believe about ourselves. I am wondering who taught you about Orthodoxy.

We do not believe that we are perfect, we believe that we hold the fullest amount of truth to be found in this life about Christianity. We also believe that whatever mistakes we make in ignorance will be forgiven, that is why we have no problem with believing wholehartedly what The Church teaches. IOW ~ If we are wrong... will Christ hold us accountable for the mistakes that we were taught?

We do not believe that others outside the Orthodox Church will be held accountable for not being Orthodox... why then would we believe that we ourselves would be less forgiven?

If The Church is wrong, so be it. I'll still follow her. She is what Christ God left for us. Imperfect as we may be.

I would rather take the chance on being taught something incorrectly than to attempt to understand on my own... been there, done that.... led nowhere.

Forgive me...

 

[IamAdopted]

Because Jesus prayed for unity, not a lose body all believing what they want waving a bible as if that makes their opinion divine truth.

Jesus never said to Peter- I will build this lose body of believers who are at each other throats, who all wave a bible screaming sola scripture.

Tell me, IAA, when in the body of Christ has there been anything but disunity and division and strife since sola scripture became a reality in the 16th century?

Jesus prayed that we would all become one as He and His father were one. Doing the Fathers will and taking Him at His word. Being united to Christ through the Holy Spirit. It isn't the sola scriptura that has the strife coming in. For those of us whom believe in the sola scriptura, question the added traditions that don't line up with the scripture. Adding to the scriptures tradtions of men such as Mary being co redemtix and the saints hearing and answering prayers.. These are not in sola scriptura. Neither is purgatory or sacraments.. This is where the strife comes in.. To be unified we have to have something to be unified in..That would be Gods word.. For it hasn't changed. It will not change. For God breathed the scripture and He does not change. Tradition on down the line has changed.. Therefore making us question these traditions. Some of these traditions not even brought to light until after 300 Ad but yet scripture was before Christ even came.. The Apostles penned the scriptures after the Death of Christ..