Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[simonthezealot]

What you fail to realize is that the Holy Spirit is not the one that radifies people do.. with its guidance. Yes, people do fail in their assumptions and that is evident why "sola scriptura" fails...

What you fail to realize is that the Holy Spirit is not the one that interprets scripture people do.. with its guidance.

Maybe you can explain then why one is better than the other, at least in the SS camp the final authority we go back to is God's written word's...

Yes, councils do fail in their assumptions and that is evident why "Holy Tradition" fails

 

[Thekla]

What you fail to realize is that the Holy Spirit is not the one that interprets scripture people do.. with its guidance.

Maybe you can explain then why one is better than the other, at least in the SS camp the final authority we go back to is God's written word's...

Yes, councils do fail in their assumptions and that is evident why "Holy Tradition" fails

I do think we might start another thread for this discussion; what seemed to be a 'sideline for clarification' has now swallowed the thread

please understand, the Councils do refer back to scripture -- and not all councils are "accepted ...

further, what scripture did the Council of Jerusalem (re:circumcision) refer back to in order to settle the matter ?

I find your argument inadequately drawn to support any conclusion -- which is another reason why I think a new thread is in order. In this way, the issue can be explored fully, as we will not feel compelled to resort to too brief a discussion in order to get the thread back on track

 

[Gwendolyn]

So you agree with the Catholics on that "great city" in Revelation being pagan rome?

Yes.

 

[Rick Otto]

Does it (Acts 1710-11)not establish that in Paul's humble opinion, searching the scriptures to verify spiritual truths is more noble than not doing so?

quote=Philothei;No it does not as in the New Testament we do not see more examples.

If one example doesn't establish what it illustrates, how many examples establish what one example illustrates? Somehow, I don't think more examples would satisfy your standard of establishment.

"noble" is and adjective that could be atributed to other things...

Indeed it could, & yet in this scriptural example it was attributed to searching the scriptures to see if what was said & recieved in eagerness as being so(true).

Does not set any standards....or it would have said that that community was "exceptional" even so...

"Exceptional" would only establish the practice of searching scripture to verify truths as "different". The word used was "noble" which denotes" "better than", as in it is better than not to search the scriptures to verify truth.

I am sure if you look in the other churches they established they used similar epithets..

But what other churches used didn't get written down as scripture. "Noble" is scripture, and the Bereans searched other scriptures to verify scriptures, not what was said or even written in other churches. It wasn't described as more noble to search other churches to see if what Paul had said was "so"(true).

If you want to further inverstigate I will have more time later... It still is a very weak point Otto... or the Bible would have "classified" other communities as less..."noble" because they did not "read the scripture"

The Bible in the very verse I showed you did exactly that:
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica"

....It sounds to me like a wild goose chase....

You seem comfortable making negative charracterizations & calling me Otto, but how dare we shorten "your" name? hmmm...

 

[simonthezealot]

You seem comfortable making negative charracterizations & calling me Otto, but how dare we shorten "your" name? hmmm...

Yeah I figured zealot or simon or stz meant I could call her philo but naw just like montalban they are HIGH church and play EVERY part of it.
One might guess they were englishmen from the Anglican church no offense to BB or albion...Just speaking in general they play the snobbery part to the teeeeees

 

[simonthezealot]

further, what scripture did the Council of Jerusalem (re:circumcision) refer back to in order to settle the matter ?

Well thekla as you well know things given in divine revelation as this was, are a different matter...

 

[Philothei]

One could argue that your names Rick Otto and Simon the Zealot are two word names... Mine though is not!!! Philothei is a name of a person... Not to be confused for Philo of Alexandria... But since I do find this to be also an inconsistancy then I wil gladly re-edit my posts gentlemen....

 

[Philothei]

What you fail to realize is that the Holy Spirit is not the one that interprets scripture people do.. with its guidance.

Maybe you can explain then why one is better than the other, at least in the SS camp the final authority we go back to is God's written word's...

Yes, councils do fail in their assumptions and that is evident why "Holy Tradition" fails
__________________

I already did talk about the Pentecost... go back and read...

 

[Thekla]

Yeah I figured zealot or simon or stz meant I could call her philo but naw just like montalban they are HIGH church and play EVERY part of it.
One might guess they were englishmen from the Anglican church no offense to BB or albion...Just speaking in general they play the snobbery part to the teeeeees

no, Philothei has a different meaning than Philo , and the endings are not the same gender

so, if Simonia or Rickia is okay with you guys ...

 

[Philothei]

Does it (Acts 1710-11)not establish that in Paul's humble opinion, searching the scriptures to verify spiritual truths is more noble than not doing so?

If one example doesn't establish what it illustrates, how many examples establish what one example illustrates? Somehow, I don't think more examples would satisfy your standard of establishment.

no they will not because no where in the Bible it says that one has to ONLY consult the scripture...by now I think that has been mentioned over a dozen times in this thread.... And also I explained that history does not support o f the wide use of scripture during the apostlic times...

Indeed it could, & yet in this scriptural example it was attributed to searching the scriptures to see if what was said & recieved in eagerness as being so(true).

So, it has been discussed before... One is "allowed" to search scripture no one here says one cannot... We say that one "does not have to" consult ONLY scripture and the Bible is moot at that too...

"Exceptional" would only establish the practice of searching scripture to verify truths as "different". The word used was "noble" which denotes" "better than", as in it is better than not to search the scriptures to verify truth.

"better than" what? It is how you interpret the passage and from the context ... it is obvious he talks about that particular synagoge at tha tparticular time...

But what other churches used didn't get written down as scripture. "Noble" is scripture, and the Bereans searched other scriptures to verify scriptures, not what was said or even written in other churches. It wasn't described as more noble to search other churches to see if what Paul had said was "so"(true).

The bible says not ALL things that took place were written down...so assuming what was hapenning from one example is a straw man...

The Bible in the very verse I showed you did exactly that:
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica"

excatly it compairs it to another specific one .... then is does not make it to a standard... only to that particular church...

You seem comfortable making negative charracterizations & calling me Otto, but how dare we shorten "your" name? hmmm..

I apologize ... and corrected your name Mr. Rick Otto... although I did say that your name got two names... regardless one needs to be consistant.

 

[Thekla]

Well thekla as you well know things given in divine revelation as this was, are a different matter...

and again, it does not negate the idea of ratification as exhibited in both circumstances, so I'm not certain what you are getting at ...

 

[Philothei]

no, Philothei has a different meaning than Philo , and the endings are not the same gender

so, if Simonia or Rickia is okay with you guys ...

Thekla do you like to be called The? if not you also belong to the High church....lol......

 

[Anglian]

Two quick observations:

using diminutives of people's names when they have already made it clear they don't like it seems an odd way of keeping the tone of the discussion even and friendly; there's enough tension at times without that sort of prodding; maybe those who do it find it is fine in their culture, but if people make it plain they don't like it, what's unChristian about respecting that?

On Tradition. There really is remarkably little point in saying that one Council contradicts part of another, or that one ECF contradicts another on a particular point; that's up there (or down there) with the standard anti-Christian argument about contradictions in Scripture. Holy Tradition must be read together, and where all parts of it concur, there we have orthodox teaching; resting on any one part alone is liable to produce distortions.

Those who have honed their skills arguing with Roman Catholics are just going to have to get used to the fact that the Orthodox are not hot on infallibility - conciliar, patristic or our very own hot line to the Spirit; all can err, and there is not one who is righteous. We seek to balance our own views by giving our ancestors a vote.

Beamishboy suggested some while ago that the personal stuff was dropped, and I have been hoping it would be; if anyone really needs to be right that much, then fine, they're right - can we move on from it and deal with issues arising out of why the ECFs are, or are not edifying.

No one here has claimed they are infallible or have the same place as Scripture, that is not the way the Orthodox see Holy Tradition. Those who have read many of them and have not found them edifying or useful, might like to share with us the reasons for their conclusion. Thus far, overtly, we have had those who have read them and find them edifying; those who have not read them and don't see why they should; and then a third group who may or may not have read them, but don't like them much; there may even be a hidden fourth group - who like them but haven't read them.

Anyone for getting back onto this one?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Philothei]

THE

<H5 class=rxbodyfield>FATHERS OF THE CHURCH

Another contributing source to the knowledge of the orthodox Faith are some outstanding Fathers of the Church who wrote discourses and homilies on subjects of faith, which the Ecumenical Synods accepted as canonical teachings. These prominent Fathers are: Athanasius the Great (c.295) for his letter enumerating the canonical books of the Bible; Basil the Great (330-379) for his discourse sent to Amphilochion, in which he enumerates the heresies (parts of this epistle were divided into 92 canons, with canons 1, 5, 47, 91 and 92 containing material of symbolic expression of faith); Gregory of Naziatizus (c.329-390) for writings concerning the Canonical Books of the Bible, and Bishop Amphilochios of Ikonion (340-395) for his listing of the Canonical Books of the Bible. Writings of these Fathers bear the seal of canonical ratification. Not included here are writings of other Fathers which became canons concerning order and discipline, for described here are only those sources dealing with the faith. These then are the prominent Fathers of the PostNicene period (through the fourth century) whose writings became canonical sources of the teachings of the Church, having been adopted by the Ecumenical Synods.

</H5>
Maybe this can explain further...

<H4 class=rxbodyfield>Accurate Sources of the Orthodox Church

What are the sources of the One Undivided Church, the Orthodox Church, from which emerge its teachings? Why is it imperative for the members of the Church to know these sources? The mainsources of Orthodox teaching are the Bible and Sacred Tradition. The third source is the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists. The fourth source is decisions of the canonical synods, local and ecumenical, and their utterances of faith, especially the Symbol of Faith (Nicene Creed) and some of their canons pertaining to faith. The fifth source is the discourses written at the time of disputes and schisms, especially the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western parts of the Undivided Church (1054). The sixth source is a variety of discourses written after the Protestant Reformation; these documents critique the various errors of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.
.

</H4>

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7064.asp


We do not base the Church consciousness on "one basket" it is not ONLY as you seem to think... It is based in all the Tradition of the Church and basically it is scriptural.

An example would be that a new canon would always be under scrutiny in the light of the scripture if it does not jive it will surely be questioned and if it is found to be contradictory it might even become defunct... Orthodox Tradition is not static but moving, remaining the same yet changing in areas that new issues brought forth demand it.. That is why the Holy Spirit is ever present guiding... not stiffled either from a magisterium or from "individuals" rather as a whole community the univrsal Mind of the Church.

This "guide" is the Church itself, and not the individual on his own, with limited ability and lack of the full knowledge of the sources of the teachings of the Church

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

In making reference to the Protoevangelion I was not allocating it the same significance as the canonical books, but trying to illustrate how, when the Bible does not give us a definitive answer, we look to the other parts of Holy Tradition for help; and even then we do not always get a definitive answer.

The Catholic tradition derives from St. Jerome, whereas the Orthodox one is more in the Epiphanian tradition; the former attributes virginity to St. Joseph too, where the latter sees him as the father of the other children. From pretty wide reading on this topic, my only conclusion is that there is no consensus, and that people tend to come down where their own tradition has been.

One of the problems in your discussion with Thekla is that we have no explained to you that there is not necessarily a single 'Orthodox position' on some matters. The Orthodox Church tends towards an apophatic approach to theological matters: defining things, as in the manner of the Creed, by what they are not, as much as by what they are; it is also happy to maintain a variety of positions on matters not concerning our salvation - of which it holds there are bound be to be great number.

The NT brings us news of our salvation through Christ; on other matters it touches where it touches. The Greek words used can mean that St. Joseph and St. Mary were married, or it can mean they were betrothed for life; common sense might suggest they got married; common sense might suggest that if the tradition that St. Mary was bound by a vow of perpetual virginity, they did not. The problem is that there is no definitive evidence for these things in Scripture itself.

This is one of those areas where one sees the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. The former, with their Magisterium has a definitive answer for most of the questions one comes up with; this is, to those used to the Orthodox way, another manifestation of the Western scholastic tradition which we also see in the Protestant tendency to seek precise definitions on a Sola Scriptura basis. The Eastern tradition has been not to seek to define too closely where it is felt the evidence does not allow; it has also been to allow Churches and individuals to hold their own views on such matters.

There is no Orthodox equivalent of the Pope and the Magisterium, neither is there an equivalent of Sola Scriptura. We see the Scriptures as part of Holy Tradition, and we use the various parts to ensure an orthodox position on those things which matter; on other things, every Church remains free to hold what it wishes. People being what they are (which is why we all stand in need of redemption) we will all take up positions defending either the position as we understand it that our Church takes up - or, if we have no Church, the one our study of these things leads us towards.

You will find Orthodox Christians taking up a variety of positions on the question of whether there was a marriage or not; you will find all Orthodox of one opinion on the question of St. Mary's virginity, even as you will find they all agree that she was the Theotokos; both theses last positions are based upon a reading of Scripture in the Fathers as confirmed through the Councils and represented in the Liturgy.

In peace,

Anglian

Thanks Anglian for your explanation. You must forgive me for my ignorance on the Orthodox church because, frankly, before joining CF, I didn't know a thing about them except that their priests wore Santa Claus beards. If I associate Orthodoxy to you alone, I'm bound to have a very rosy picture of loving and kind Christians who are very patient with youngsters who might not be familiar with many things adults are.

Thanks again.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thanks Anglian for your explanation. You must forgive me for my ignorance on the Orthodox church because, frankly, before joining CF, I didn't know a thing about them except that their priests wore Santa Claus beards. If I associate Orthodoxy to you alone, I'm bound to have a very rosy picture of loving and kind Christians who are very patient with youngsters who might not be familiar with many things adults are.

Thanks again.

Here is an interesting article on beards and hair in the Orthodox Faith:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/clergy_hair.aspx

The question of the appropriateness of long hair and beards is frequently put to traditional Orthodox clergy. A comprehensive article appeared in Orthodox Life concerning clergy dress in the J./F. 1991 issue. At this time we would like to address the topic of clergy appearance, i.e. hair and beards.

 

[Montalban]

How is POSTING links NOT giving a full context?

Your quotes aren't 'full context'. I admit you link to the full context, but that's not what you post, you sound-bites which are thus out of context. They are out of context as I demonstrated how, for instance two are taken out of context, one regarding 'jests' and another regarding a Council ruling.

I fully appreciate the fact you link to the context, because one can then see how you've cherry-picked

I prefer to deal with a more advanced intellectual apologetics than what I get from you with your personal jabs,So excuse me if I am slow to respond but I answer those whom speak with respect first.

I'm sorry that you feel that I lack respect because I see you posting cherry-picked quotes.

Perhaps if I agree with you, you'll think I'm respecting you?

 

[Montalban]

Philothei I am just saying a person who takes to attacking others of different beliefs personally as opposed to debating the topic is NOT really worthy of a quick response...Read back at his posts, there is NO shortage of that.

It's very easy to take the moral highground as an excuse for not debating. You two have been more than happy to take liberties with my UserName, even after I let you know I didn't appreciate it. I'm glad you've stopped now, but for you to play victim about respect is a bit rich.

When you first posted those sound-bites and I dealt with one of them, you didn't respond then. You only asked where did I respond. I had to wait about a week for you to respond. I mentioned it took a long time. Now you are attributing a 'lack of respect' in retrospect to explain why you don't respond.

I think that's rather a poor excuse. Like Beamishboy who accuses others of avoiding particular debates, and yet he did that. I pointed this out to him and then, retrospectively he claimed that me pointing it out was being rude and that's why he hadn't responded.

Sure, I point these things out. But you DO IT, stop, and I'll have none of it to point out.

Sorry to have to point it out.

You've straw-manned the ECFs by taking them out of the context of the way of Holy Tradition. You've selectively made use of where one might mention the Bible, but ignored where others have mentioned definitions of the Trinity, etc. made at council

 

[Montalban]

They would want you to read Philothei, and the whole point I was making is that many fathers pre-canon put their full weight of teaching firmly based from scripture as well as the traditions FROM those scriptures.

But you say your church interprets scripture through tradition yet a council in 754 forbid images then in 787 a ecumenical councel reinstated it.
So tell me how much more accurate tradition is than each individual being led by the HS to all truth?

But that's the point you don't get; the fact that a church might say "I will take my readings from this letter we have from Paul" is not to give authority to the letter, but to the church, because it's the church choosing to ratify that letter as authentic and you then, after they've added that letter to the canon accept that ratification, and then somehow assume that the letter itself which has been authorised by the church somehow authorises the church.

You simply get things back-to-front.

For the early church had many 'letters', 'epistles', etc circulating around it. I've pointed this out before, there's a partial list of them here. It was the church that decided which of these is an 'authority', but that 'authority' rests only on the fact that the church recognised it as such.

Look at this another way. You and I both claim to own the same piece of land. A court rules you are the legal owner. Because you are the legal owner you have an authority over that land, however you only have that authority because the court ruled that you do.

 

[Montalban]

Christians have always had a written guide!

How did the OT guide people in the form of how the Trinity exists?

An argument often used is that Sola Scripture cannot be true because the early church only had oral tradition until it was written down, then canonized at a later date as the New Testament. God would not have left his church without something to follow.

That's circular logic. It's based on the assumption that God must have left something to follow, because the only thing one can follow must be written down, because it is the only thing one can follow.

It completely ignores the fact that 'good men' were chosen and Paul calls us to follow them.