Wednesday, April 27, 2011

The Orthodox Church: Branch of the Harlot



A picture showing the same elevation of the clergy and idolatry, that is present within the Roman Catholic church.

I have some familiarity with the Orthodox church, a close family member was raised in this church and converted over to the Roman Catholic church, to marry another relative. The Orthodox church is an interesting church to examine, be it the Russian, Greek or other ethnic based branch. They also are referred to as the Eastern Orthodox church as well. I don't want to make this too complex but these are Orthodox churches that do not follow the Pope and have their own what they call "Patriarchs" and "Metropolitans" but there are some branches who have remained under the Roman Catholic Pope following Orthodox traditions such as the Byzantine Catholic church.


The Orthodox churches over-all hold to most of Rome's errors, are a daughter, and this was the church that split off from the Roman Catholic church in 1054. I really do not want to get into chicken or egg arguments as to who is the original "church" or not [the answer is NEITHER], just be cognizant they are two big branches of Mystery Babylonianism "Christendom", keeping to the same mutual false early church "fathers', sacramentalism and more with a few alternative teachings and traditions. Read here to learn what some of those are and from some of the Orthodox themselves.

What I have always found interesting about the Orthodox church, is while Catholicism in America had to water itself down a bit to entice the Protestants into it's doors and for the ecumenical movement especially post Vatican II, and while both have an endless array of pagan and occult traditions in the Orthodox churches they are quite more blatant, there you can see the Eastern paganism in all it's shining non-stripped away false "glory", the Alexandrian cult fully married to a veneer of Christianity.

Just like Catholicism which has millions of deceived people within it, one prays that more Orthodox people would abandon false traditions, read the Bible and realize how they have been deceived and truly come to Jesus Christ.

I won't go into the ins and outs of every Orthodox teaching, that would take an entire book but will bring up a few traditions and others that bring up the falseness of this church that have come to my thoughts.....


WIDE BORDERS AND FALSE DRESS


The Orthodox clergy like the Roman clergy, do not listen to Jesus's commands about those who would "enlarge the border's of their garments": Matthew 23:5

Look below the picture of this elderly man: What is he dressed as and why? Some may think an actor dressed as a "wizard" for a Tolkien movie but look again...



No it's an older Orthodox priest, and the younger men do not dress much differently. In fact the 2 headed dragon/serpent staff is carried by many of the Orthodox leaders and teachers. Talk about carrying an out and out occult symbol around!



ROOD SCREENS


One very false tradition in the Orthodox church is the use of "Rood screens", they are named "rood" to illustrate a separation between clergy and the laity, who are not deemed "holy" enough to even witness the act of the priests "confecting" the Orthodox Eucharist. Actually while this tradition was prevalent across Europe and even in the Roman Catholic churches centuries ago, it has been kept in Orthodox churches today.




The rood screen was a physical and symbolic barrier, separating the chancel, the domain of the clergy, from the nave where lay people gathered to worship. It was also a means of seeing; often it was solid only to waist height and richly decorated with pictures of saints and angels. Concealment and revelation were part of the mediaeval Mass. When kneeling, the congregation could not see the priest, but might do so through the upper part of the screen, when he elevated the Host on Sundays. In some churches, 'squints' (holes in the screen) would ensure that everyone could see the elevation,[12] as seeing the bread made flesh was significant for the congregation.


Remember the Orthodox, like the Roman Catholics believe in a form of transubstantiation: From an Orthodox church website:

Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ's flesh, and Christ's flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one"

So the priests pray over the bread, behind this "rood" screen.

This is recreating the "temple", ignoring the fact the Jesus Christ rent the veil from top to bottom, there was to be no more temples, inner courts or laity vs clergy set-ups anymore.

Matthew 27: 50-51

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

These Orthodox priests have gone the way of the Nicholatians and set up their OWN VEIL.



SPOON FEEDING THE PARISHIONERS

Another odd tradition is that the priests feed the Eucharist bread to the parishioners, with a spoon, the parishioners cannot even feed themselves.
It seems demeaning in a way, with adult men being fed like young children, but that too is a false tradition, given that the apostles and others were handed bread by Jesus to eat!

Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,






During the Holy and divine Liturgy (our name for what the Latins call "Mass"), when the time comes for the distribution of the Most Holy Body and the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ (called "Holy Communion" by the Latins), do not be afraid to receive if you are Catholic or Orthodox and in the state of Grace. "Holy Communion" is given under both forms, bread and wine, using a golden spoon. The spoon simplifies things for us, since we use leavened bread, (baked with a special recipe and marked with special markings - and called prosphora) rather than the unleavened (flat wafer) bread used by the Latins. Communion "in the hand" is NOT an option.

To receive the Most Holy body and the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, just approach the Priest with your arms folded in the form of St. Andrew's Cross (X), tilt your head back slightly, and open your mouth. The priest says a prayer; you DO NOT answer "Amen." Be sure to chew the Sacred Species carefully. No one has ever choked on a "Particle" here; neither will you.


ICONS




Then there are the ICONs, these are painted representations often with gold and silver leaf and specialized artistic techniques of Orthodox saints, holy men and other "biblical" figures. The Orthodox tend to go with two-dimensional art rather then the statues of Roman Catholicism but it is essentially the same thing and often the focus is on "Mary". These are put in processions too, kissed and said like the statues of Rome, to weep and bleed at times.





THE SAME WORSHIP of "MARY".

The Orthodox churches follow their brothers and sisters in the RCC in the same worship of "Mary". Read here:




Christianity in the East venerates Mary with the same profound fervour as in the West. This is true of both Catholics of the Eastern rites and Christians not united with Rome, commonly called the Greek Orthodox. 'The Cult of Mary… has its strongest roots in the early church of the east. The great Marian feast days derive from the eastern liturgies. The Greek fathers produced the first literary documents of Marian devotion


THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES ARE FULLY INVOLVED IN THE ECUMENICAL ONE WORLD CHURCH WITH THE POPE LEADING THE WAY.

With a few exceptions to this rule, a few monks on Mount Athos perhaps?, the Orthodox churches, patriarchs and people are fully signed on to the Pope's one world religion, with their church leaders taking part in interfaith and interreligious dialogues held by the Vatican. Pope John Paul II and Benedict have spoken of having the "two lungs" of "Christianity" join together, meaning the Orthodox churches and Roman Catholicism.

An Orthodox leader here, happily responds to Pope John Paul II here:

"As Your Holiness has aptly put it some years ago, East and West are the two lungs by which the Church breaths; their unity is essential to the healthy life of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."




228 comments:

1 – 200 of 228   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

And they also shed the blood of the saints. Anon. #1

Bible Believer said...

Agreed.

They oppress Christians now just like the RCC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/world/europe/24church.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"Just as the government has tightened control over political life, so, too, has it intruded in matters of faith. The Kremlin’s surrogates in many areas have turned the Russian Orthodox Church into a de facto official religion, warding off other Christian denominations that seem to offer the most significant competition for worshipers. They have all but banned proselytizing by Protestants and discouraged Protestant worship through a variety of harassing measures, according to dozens of interviews with government officials and religious leaders across Russia"

Estase said...

Are you folks married to your own sisters? Do you have shoes?

Jon Marc said...

You do know where the Bible comes from, right?

Anonymous said...

Please! By Christ's Mercy stop perpetuating these false statements!

Nikolaus

Anonymous said...

Christ is risen!

I'd encourage your readers to research early Church history and the specifics of the Orthodox Church. Many people who have been brought up in fundamentalist settings are rediscovering ancient Christianity - many Orthodox Churches in the US are made up largely of converts these days: you will not find a more Christ centered, Christ focused worship or teaching anywhere - that I can promise. Everyone is welcome to "come and see" for themselves. I've never met an Orthodox pastor who wasn't happy to talk about the Christian faith, even with a skeptical audience.

In any case, I'm not going to engage in arguments that are obviously not going to go anywhere. However, many of statements are about facets of Church life are not correct: the "rood screen" is not what one will find in an Orthodox Church (the super majority use an eastern rite). What you show is an iconostasis. The point is not so much separation as pointing to union between heaven and earth. The people are annointed into the royal priesthood of Christ and in no way excluded from the mystery of worship in the nave.

Technically, the Orthodox Church does not teach transubstantiation. The Orthodox follow the Biblical teachings on the mystery of the Eucharist - this is also consistent with all the extant writings on the topic in the early Church form the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries (and beyond).

The propriety of icons (indeed their necessity) was resolved at the Second Council of Nicaea: they are affirmations of the Incarnate God and bear witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Orthodox Christians don't worship Mary. The Church is very clear that those who have run the race and received the prize are honored, but God alone is worthy of worship (latria).

Also, I'm afraid you will find that very few Orthodox (perhaps none?) will agree with what you say about alignment with the Pope.

May the Lord Jesus Christ pour out his blessing upon you and yours richly in this Paschal season!

Anonymous said...

Notice how they came from everywhere in defense of dead religion and a false gospel of works that cannot save (these things being the hallmarks of orthodox religion)

Bible Believer said...

"Are you folks married to your own sisters? Do you have shoes?"

Many see Bible Christians as uneducated and the whole "hillybilly" myth is used as a stereotype. I was born into a Roman Catholic family :)

Bible Believer said...

I have researched early 'church" history, and the Bible warns of those who would bring grievous teachings and deception even within the book of Acts and at the time of the apostles, this includes the deceivers otherwise called the "early church fathers" via Rome. It is interesting to even notice who is linked to Origen--oddly once rejected as pagan but now becoming more acceptable and Eusebius as well--the whole Constantine line.

I was raised Roman Catholic, please read my different Roman Catholic posts, and why I left that church after being born again, and discerning their role as harlot and the formation of the antichrist one world church. I will pray that readers who are in false churches, are born again, and shown by the Holy Spirit the truth. I still remember the day, when God showed me, what the RCC was [and in relation the Orthodox church], for some time, things had been building up where I had read the Bible and realized the false doctrines of Rome.

Here are two, to help show you where I am coming from.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/04/one-world-religion-beast-gets-ready-for.html

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/05/hinduism-and-roman-catholicism.html

So I was not brought up in fundamentalist setting whatsoever. My relatives were Catholic and some were Orthodox. Many people sadly are being led into these churches via spiritually dead evangelical churches and other deceptions of the world.

Why are priests needed if you consider the laity to be anointed into the royal priesthood of Christ? it just does not add up.

Yes technically there are some small differences between both churches understanding of the Eucharist or communion.

The icons break the second commandment.

Exodus 20:4

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:"

Well I will be praying for you and your friends.

Bible Believer said...

Outside of a few small groups {I suspect the Orthodox have their version of Sedevancantists and Traditionals too, how can you claim that most Orthodox churches are not involved in the one world religion. Many even belong to the WCC which is essentially ruled [influenced] by Rome.

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/member-churches/church-families/orthodox-churches-oriental.html

WCC member churches in this family
Armenian Apostolic Church (Holy See of Cilicia)
Armenian Apostolic Church (Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin)
Coptic Orthodox Church
Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/member-churches/church-families/orthodox-churches-eastern.html

WCC member churches in this family
Church of Cyprus
Church of Greece
Ecumenical Patriarchate
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem
Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania
Orthodox Church in America
Orthodox Church in Japan
Orthodox Church in the Czech Lands and Slovakia
Orthodox Church of Finland
Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Poland
Romanian Orthodox Church
Russian Orthodox Church
Serbian Orthodox Church

The Vatican also has many interfaith and other meeetings, where representatives and leaders of the Orthodox churches are always present.

Bible Believer said...

One of the latest Vatican meetings...

http://www.radiovaticana.org/in2/articolo.asp?c=473683

There's far more then that over the last years...

Bible Believer said...

One point I want to make, the few who even reject the Vatican interfaith meetings, such as the Sedes, and Trads are still in "Mystery Babylon" via false teachings and beliefs.

Bible Believer said...

Yes, I know people come to defend false religions, I put up more information but do not wish to argue with them, will pray that their eyes are opened via the Holy Spirit, and they repent and trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior and are led like I was out of false religious system, and out of bondage.

Judge373 said...

That man is Patriarch Pavle, who fell asleep in the Lord not too long ago.

He was incredibly humble and loved by his faithful in Serbia. He walked everywhere and never owned a car. He wore older clothes and hemmed what he had. He was very well-loved and respected for his simplicity, humility and love.

The bishop's crozier has serpents on it to remind us of Moses's serpent staff which he erected in the wilderness. This staff itself is a type of the cross, so it's a very appropriate symbol for a bishop to use.

The Orthodox do not use a "rood screen". They use an iconostasis, and this is not to keep the eyes off the clergy, but to ensure that the faithful don't have too much to distract them while they pray. The clergy aren't performing a show, in other words.

Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!

Anonymous said...

You realize that "graven images" are statues, right? Icons are not engraved, and as such are not "graven images." Thus, even if one uses your rigid hermeneutic, your rejection of icons is baseless.

Anonymous said...

Christ is risen!

I'm very familiar with fundamentalism, but bear in mind that this is a uniquely modern and in most cases very American religion. But can recently developed religions really reflect the fullness of truth revealed in the risen Christ, especially when they are so sharply at odds with the belief, worship and practice of the Christians of the New Testament era?

Far from dead, the ancient Christian faith on a percentage basis is consistently the fastest growing religion in America. In eastern Europe, after the fall of communism, the rate of growth of ancient Christianity is unprecedented and truly a miracle.

The Orthodox Church does not in any way, shape or form teach a gospel of works - this would indeed be a false gospel. The Orthodox Church teaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. It is only in Christ that we have Salvation and the Church is indeed His Body, the fullness of He that fills all in all. The Roman Catholic idea of "merits" received through works is foreign to the ancient faith and rejected by all Orthodox Christians.

Presbyters are ordained for for specific functions in the life of Christ as they have been since the New Testament era. Nonetheless, all Christians who have been anointed in Chrismation receive the spirit and are expected to fulfill their priestly vocation. The life of Christ in the Church is unchanged since the time of the Apostles.

I am sure that any Orthodox Church will welcome you as a visitor and questioner, even as a skeptic, to learn more. Many, many fundamentalists are finding the fullness of Christ is alive in the Orthodox Church on a daily basis.

May the blessings of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ be with you.

Anonymous said...

Just a note - Origen was not rejected as a pagan. Later he was criticized (it is unclear how accurate this was) for teachings that were not *Orthodox*, most notably a form of apokatastasis. However, there can be no doubt that his Scriptural exegesis was impressive and influential.

To dismiss the early Church Fathers means to reject the Scriptures themselves (they ultimately framed the "canon") as well as the most basic of Christian doctrines - the divinity of Christ, the teachings on the Holy Trinity, the insistence on the full humanity of Christ, etc. Also, I don't any serious scholar familiar with the early Church fathers, the persecution they suffered at the hands of pagans, and their complete and total opposition to paganism as a fundamental principal will support your claim that these were somehow crypto-pagans. It's simply not true.

May God bless you.

Bible Believer said...

I am glad you are familiar with fundamentalism, as you will read through my blog, I am a Christian first, and put God's Word first and there are things in fundamentalism--well evangelicalism really, that are not of God, such as Dominionism, which I've posted against many times.

My answer to folks like yourself is to pray and study God's Word and ask God to show you the truth.

As for Christians in the book of Acts, I compared the rituals of Rome, to what was done by the apostles, and many were contradictory. I was reading the Bible even before I was born again and "came out of her". Please examine your own traditions in the light of God's Word.

I am sure your church would welcome newcomers, but for me that would be a step backwards. Praying for you too and that God blesses you as well and that you are shown the truth via the Holy Spirit.

Bible Believer said...

as for Origen, have you studied his links to the Alexandrian school? This is where the babylonianism and the pollution of false philosophy came through.

"The popularity of the Alexandrian school grew to the point that it was necessary to share the burden of teaching. Around the year 212, Origen chose his pupil Heraclas, the brother of Plutarch and future bishop of Alexandria, as his colleague. Heraclas took over the elementary teaching of catechumens, freeing Origen to focus on instruction of more advanced students. In the Alexandrian tradition, Origen's curriculum covered not only the Christian faith, but the ideas of several schools of Greek philosophy."

Anonymous said...

I have never in my life seen a larger collection of misleading, false, and hateful statements, the best of which is usually still taken out of context. The only thing you got right was maybe the name. The small-minded spin put on even the simplest of items is breathtaking, and I don't know whether to be appalled at the sheer ignorance presented or laugh at the astounding arrogance of tossing out 2000 years of Christianity (and the Christians that lived that Christianity) because historically very recently you and yours decide we were all doing it wrong. What gall! Like Joseph Smith who just makes it up for himself, you just say 'I'll take this, this and this, but I think this means that and I don't want this other thing at all anymore.' Welcome to Burger King, may I take your order?

Anonymous said...

Written by poster: "I'm very familiar with fundamentalism, but bear in mind that this is a uniquely modern and in most cases very American religion."

That is a silly statement. The first Christians in Acts were fundamentalists. They believed the fundamentals of the Bible (which for them was the OT and the developing NT).

Also posted: "The Orthodox Church does not in any way, shape or form teach a gospel of works"

Untrue statement here as well. Every orthodox group insists on "acts of love" as part of salvation. So every orthodox group has a false gospel that cannot save.

Bible Believer said...

Thank you last Anon. One question to think about, did the apostles participate in the endless rituals like the Orthodox church, or did they go preaching the gospel and witnessing the gospel and praying for each other? I really hope some people in these false churches would really examine how much their churches "match" what is done in the book of Acts. With the liturgicals, there is basically no match. Agree about the false gospel.

Serlio_78 said...

The "one world religion" IS going to get you and put your shallow and ignorant faith in the gutter where it belongs.

Bible Believer said...

I am curious Serlio, what do you think of the Orthodox leaders who join with the Pope and leaders of other false religions?

Anonymous said...

Christ is Risen!

The book of Acts makes it very clear that the Apostles participated in the liturgy of the synagogue (of which, the book of Hebrews makes clear, Christ is the fulfillment and chief Liturgist of the New Covenant). Similarly the Jewish Feasts, which are recapitulated in Christ as the chief Feasts of the Christian Church. In fact, almost all the manifestations of the Spirit as set around Liturgical acts in the Apostles. Honestly, what exactly do you believe, for example, the prayers of the hours were?

The pastoral letters of Paul - addressed to the Eucharist gatherings - also show the centrality of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the life of the Church. As do the extant writings of Christians - the Didache, the epistles of Ignatius, etc., reveal exactly the same reality.

Why would should this be opposed to "preaching the gospel and witnessing the gospel and praying for each other"? They are all part and parcel of the life of the Church!

We are of course to be co-workers with God and our conformance to Christ is indeed through cooperation with him. The idea of merits through works, however, is foreign to Orthodox Christianity. The Gospel of Christ it the same in the Church as it was in AD 60.

It is untrue that the early Christians were "fundamentalists" in the sense implied by the modern American movements - though of course Scripture was and is at the center of the life and teaching of the Church. Start reading some of the early Christian literature, you'll find a vibrant, Scriptural, prayerful, and liturgical community centered on Christ.

Anonymous said...

In looking at the Scriptural and historical record, it is clear that the Church qua Church fully realized its identity in worship. This time, we'll consider how the earliest Christians worshiped and more importantly what that meant to them. We'll start with a very brief historical perspective on the "form" of worship, primarily because that worship is so categorically different from what goes on in American churches that an encounter is often a surprising, even disturbing, experience.

1) From the start, Christian worship was exclusively "liturgical". There is no controversy about this statement among scholars that I am aware of. This is how Christ worshiped, how the Apostles worshiped, and how almost every Christian after them worshiped. This is because it is the Biblical commandment for how Jews should worship in prescribed patterns, times, and places. Christian worship was a living continuity between the Temple, the Synagogue and the first Church gatherings - in fact, the earliest Christians worshiped together with the Jews until after the destruction of the second Temple - at that point active persecution of Christians was pursued by the Jewish authorities.

Acts shows the Apostles continuing to keep the prayers of the hours (Acts 3:1: "Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour": the prayers of the ninth hour are still kept on the Christian liturgical cycle, if not in practice by many at least in monastic settings. We had a special blessing of attending a monastic celebration a few weeks back as a family and one can only describe it as being graced with the peace of the Lord). The Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles in the liturgical prayer: in Acts 13, "...as they were 'liturgizing' before the Lord and fasting" the Holy Spirit speaks to them.

What is doubly surprising to many is that the Scriptural record shows that Holy Spirit acted more or less exclusively in liturgical movements in the New Testament. Indeed, Pentecost itself occurs during the Jewish liturgical ritual of Shavout,a High Holy Day on the Jewish liturgical calendar (which continues to be one of the holiest feasts for the Christian liturgical calendar - this is the birthday of the Church in fact). In fact, the entire life of Christ revolves around the liturgical traditions of Judaism, from His presentation at the Temple to His Transfiguration on the Feast of Tabernacles to His final Pascha as the antitype of the lamb in the Passover Feast.

The same was true for the very Mysteries established by Christ. Baptism itself is a liturgical act in Judaism, which Christ associated with the Holy Spirit's saving action, In the New Testament, Baptism is described as the entry to salvation: "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also" (1 Peter 3:21). This was fulfilled by the laying on of hands of the Apostles and later their successor Bishops (Chrismation) as the normative, New Testament mode of receiving the Holy Spirit - this was also a liturgical action.

Anonymous said...

cont'd:

he Oxford scholar and protestant JND Kelly notes in his Early Christian Doctrines ""Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood". In fact, I am not aware of *any* Christian in the first 700 years of Christianity who taught that the Eucharist was not a participation in the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

The only groups we know of that taught something along the lines of a "symbolic Eucharist" were docetists - who taught that Jesus was an illusion and that God could not have taken flesh. As we have noted, Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John and the successor-Bishop of Peter in Antioch. Here is what he was taught by John the Evangelist: "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). Ignatius also calls the Eucharist "the medicine of immortality".

In no way was this "spiritual" or "mental"- greek word "amnesis" that is often translated as "rememberance" actually means to "make present". Irenaeus of Lyons was a disciple of Polycarp, the martyred disciple of John the Evangelist, described this in detail in his fundamental work "Against Heresies", which I quote at length:

Anonymous said...

"2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire
dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and
treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not
capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation,
then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of
the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break
the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and
flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the
Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as
also His apostle declares, "In whom we have redemption through His
blood, even the remission of sins." And as we are His members, we are
also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the
creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He
wills). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation)
as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also
a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which
He gives increase to our bodies.

3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread
receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body
of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is
increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is
incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which
[flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a
member of Him? even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the
Ephesians, that "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His
bones." He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible
man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that
dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of
flesh, and nerves, and bones, that [flesh] which is nourished by the
cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is
His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground
fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth
and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of
God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God,
serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God,
becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also
our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and
suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the
Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the
Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this
corruptible incorruption, because the strength of God is made perfect
in weakness, in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had
life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming
ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal
duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own
nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He
is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God
can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from
the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with
regard to God and with regard to man. (Against Heresies, Book V)"

Anonymous said...

Worship has nothing to do with a concert and a lecture. It is most definitely not about what "appeals" to a person. It is about offering one self and the works of one's hand to God as a pure and blameless offering and receiving back His very Body and Blood as the "medicine of immortality." It is about union with Christ and communion with his Body gathered together to receive Him, as St. Paul says over and over again. This is the foundation of salvation.

Not only does the Orthodox Church maintain the teachings of Apostles, and continue to act with the authority given to them by Christ, it also uniquely preserves the worship described in the New Testament. James Bernstein, a Jewish convert, one of the early founding members of Jews for Jesus and Campus Crusade for Christ recounts that he became Orthodox because as a Jew he could see that Christian worship was a continuation and fulfillment of the Jewish Liturgy he knew and experienced and that the worship of the Apostles was maintained uniquely in the Orthodox Church. Come and see.

Anonymous said...

Christ is risen!

Hebrews is incredibly important in this discussion - two references to Liturgy that you should be aware of:

Hebrews 8:1 "We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of majesty in heaven, a Liturgist in the sanctuary and true tabernacle which is set up not by man but by the Lord."

Hebrews 8:6 "now Jesus has been given a Liturgy which is superior to theirs, just as the covenant which He arranged between God and His people is a better one..."

Also, quoting a commentator on Revelation discussing the reality of Christian worship:

"St. John received the Revelation on "The Lord's Day," that is, on Sunday. One must surmise that on that day, as was the Apostles' custom, he performed "the breaking of bread," i.e., the Divine Liturgy, received Communion and therefore "was in a state of Grace," meaning he was in a special state of inspiration (Rev. 1:10). And so, the first thing that is revealed to him is the continuation of the Liturgy just performed by him, the Heavenly Divine Liturgy. It is this Heavenly Divine Liturgy that St. John describes in the fourth and fifth chapters of the Apocalypse. An Orthodox Christian recognizes here the familiar traits of the Sunday Liturgy and the most important attributes of the altar: the Holy of Holies, the seven-branched candelabrum, the censer with smoking incense, the golden chalice, etc. (These items were shown to Moses on Mount Sinai and were also used in the temple of the Old Testament.) The Sacrificial Lamb of God, as seen by the Apostle, reminds the faithful of Communion in the form of bread laid on the altar. The souls of those martyred for the Word of God, under the heavenly altar evoke the antimins, the special cloth placed in the middle of the altar and into which are sewn relics of the holy martyrs. The elders clad in white garments with golden crowns upon their heads are like an assembly of the clergy con-celebrating the Divine Liturgy. It should be noted that the very proclamations and prayers heard by the Apostle in Heaven express the quintessence of the exclamations and prayers which the clergy and the choir recite during the main part of the Liturgy - the Eucharistic Canon. The whitening of the garments of the pious by the "blood of the Lamb" (Ch. 7) alludes to the consecration of the souls of the faithful through the Sacrament of Communion. In this manner the Apostle begins the revelation of the fate of mankind with the description of the Heavenly Divine Liturgy by which he stresses the spiritual meaning of this Liturgy and the necessity of the saints' prayers for us."

Bible Believer said...

For the Orthodox who posted in response here, I will pick different points to comment on, because of space, and time...[do not want to debate, but just want to present a few things for you to ponder]

***********************
"The book of Acts makes it very clear that the Apostles participated in the liturgy of the synagogue (of which, the book of Hebrews makes clear,
**********************

The temple was not to be rebuilt, the temple was to be the Body of Christ, and returning to the OT rituals was not what was desired by Jesus Christ. in the book of Galatians we read from the chapter this blog is named after we read:

Galatians 4: 1Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

2But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

3Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

****************
Why would the liturgy of the Synagogue be returned to?

Jesus is to be our priest not, a religious system of priests is not to be returned to. It renounces the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Hbr 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Bible Believer said...

" This time, we'll consider how the earliest Christians worshiped and more importantly what that meant to them. We'll start with a very brief historical perspective on the "form" of worship, primarily because that worship is so categorically different from what goes on in American churches that an encounter is often a surprising, even disturbing, experience."


Avoid that word MYSTERIES. Nothing true is a mystery from Jesus Christ. In fact there is negative connotation to the word mystery within the scripture. Any churches who uses that is going against the words of Jesus Christ Himself.


**************************************

Where in the book of Acts do we see icons, sacraments, rood screens, special dress for clergy, prayers and rituals where the exact words have to be adhered to? False traditions abound in liturgical churches that have no biblical foundations whatsoever. This includes the Catholic church of course, these parallels.
You forget I was a member of the Catholic church for years, raised in it. I know myself personally the outcome of dead rituals, that are more about a "performance" rather then true prayer and worship in Jesus Christ.
There is no evidence that what the apostles did in the book of Acts even had the smallest resemblance of what goes on in liturgical churches.

****************************************
" This is because it is the Biblical commandment for how Jews should worship in prescribed patterns, times, and places. Christian worship was a living continuity between the Temple, the Synagogue and the first Church gatherings - in fact, the earliest Christians worshiped together with the Jews until after the destruction of the second Temple"

************************************

I do find it interesting you do bring up how the Jews worshipped, please read the Trad Catholic blog entry and comments as it applies here. Returning to temple rituals of any kind be they false Talmudic ones--such as the evangelicals who desire the Jewish temple to be rebuilt, or Mormon temples or the cathedrals and rituals of Rome or the Orthodox is going against what Jesus Christ came to do, as our High priest, ending the need for rituals and sacrifices for good, by what He accomplished on the cross. Even the fact you refer to Orthodox worship as a "continuation of the synagogue" by many biblical precepts is utterly disturbing. I know you have been deceived by a false church, as I MYSELF was in one, but please pray and ask God to show you the truth about these things.

Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.

Bible Believer said...

The Judaism of Jesus's time was completely different as for them being in the synagogues to witness to the Jews, and they preached Jesus Christ NOT continuing sacrifices. Praying in the temple does not mean they were part of any sacrifices or special liturgical hours, in fact in the chapter of Acts 3, they heal a man and preach Jesus Christ, to those there, saying...

Act 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Act 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

The book of Hebrews makes that there was to be no more sacrifices, the verse I posted above.

And yes there were Jews who pursued them and sought to oppress them but there were also many who converted including the apostles themselves.

One thing be careful of being deceived by religous exercises not based in truth. They will use music, nice scenery, songs to sooth you and bring you a "holy" feeling [I've been there myself] but it is not based in truth]

As for liturgical calendars, there is to be freedom in what [true Jewish] holidays one can adhere too, but Paul preached this for a reason..

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

Gal 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Jhn 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

Reread that one again, Jesus states "IN SECRET HAVE I SAID NOTHING".

Baptism is to be an ordinance, to show others, the change inside of one having been born again. Baptism does not save itself. In fact if it did, the Orthodox or Catholic priests could go to the local swimming pools and start baptizing. I was baptized in the Catholic church, before I became a UU, and it was a useless ceremony that denoted no spiritual change whatsoever.

In fact here, the liturgical churches have twisted the original purpose of baptism and the idea of baby baptism is something I could do a whole blog entry on all together.

Anonymous said...

In all frankness, you don't seem to have any grasp on early Christian history or of first century Judaism, both of which form the context of Scripture. Making blind assertions doesn't establish anything.

The Bible doesn't talk about ordinances: it is not a Scriptural term and not a part of the theology of the New Testament. This is an idea that was invented some 1500+ years after Christ, in the context of medieval Roman Catholicism. The Lord speaks of Baptism as having saving effect - this is what the Church has believed since the start, this is what the Scriptures say through the Apostles.

Liturgy is a part of the context of Scripture - the texts themselves refer to it (and to Christs role in the Liturgy) and of course the whole notion of the canon was devised around what was proper to read within the Liturgy. The Pauline epistles for example became Scripture to the Christians over time precisely for this reason.

By the way, the use of the term Mystery is unavoidable for Christians: "I have become its (Church) servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." Mysterion was always the term applied in Greek to "Sacraments."

And of course, the Scriptures are full of Sacraments - anointing with oil, the Eucharist, Baptism, laying on of hands. You can declare the Church doesn't understand what they really are I suppose, but you can't claim they aren't there.

Icons of course were present in the Temple - please read Exodus. As Hebrews shows, they were pointers to the heavenly realities. In Christ, these pointers have been fulfilled and again as the writer of Hebrews points out, the Saints and Angels minister in the presence of God Himself - the icons now remind us that we are participants in this reality. We now have a wealth of archeological knowledge that shows the early Christian gathering places had iconography, including the catacomb gathering places and house churches. Early legends suggest that Luke painted icons - whether this is true or not, we do know from Eusebius that there early icons of the Apostles and Christ were well known.

As multiple readers have already pointed out, Orthodox Churches do not have "rood screens", so it's pointless to keep bringing this up.

In any case, I hope that readers who stumble on your blog will check things out for themselves. A starting point might be:

http://www.gettoknowtheoriginal.net

Blessings to all!

Bible Believer said...

You wrote...

*****************************************

"we do know from Eusebius that there early icons of the Apostles and Christ were well known.

********************************

Why trust that guy? I don't.

I probably will do an early church fathers, blog entry soon. The Christian gathering places with iconography? Well the mystery cults and other apostate groups were already in full sway. Do you see Eusebius as "one of the good guys"? The man who filled endless pages of sychophantic praises for the pagan named Constantine?

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vita-constantine.html

Do you believe Constantine was "one of the good guys"?

"He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS."

[total evil, because Jesus Christ, never preached conquer this world; though the Dominionists follow the updated modern version of this deceit]

The apostles themselves warned of these men...

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Eusebius and Constantine--who really got the RCC going marrying church and state, are some of those wolves.

What do you think of this?

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/const1-laws2.html

"Copy of another imperial decree which they issued, indicating that the grant [of free worship] was made to the Catholic Church alone."

This right here, shows the continuance of the pagan Roman system under a "Christian" guise":

As well as the joining and infiltration of Roman culture into "Christianity."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/edict-milan.html

"Among other arrangements which we are always accustomed to make for the prosperity and welfare of the republic, we had desired formerly to bring all things into harmony with the ancient laws and public order of the Romans, and to provide that even the Christians who had left the religion of their fathers should come back to reason ; since, indeed, the Christians themselves, for some reason, had followed such a caprice and had fallen into such a folly that they would not obey the institutes of antiquity[/u]which perchance their own ancestors had first established; but at their own will and pleasure"

Origen and the Alexandrian school of paganism, also enter into here as well...

"In Caesarea, where he was probably born around the year 260, Origen had earlier taken refuge, fleeing from Alexandria. There, Origen had founded a school and a huge library. It is precisely from those books that the young Eusebius would receive his formation some decades later. In the year 325, as bishop of Caesarea, he played a main role in the Council of Nicaea."

http://www.zenit.org/article-19870?l=english

Yes I know there is a quibble about the "rood screens" and "iconostasis" well the latter still serves as an altar screen covered in pictures [icons or not] ....

the second commandment cast down and ignored...




How does baby baptism save when the world is full of those who were baptized as infants and reject Christianity? The whole ritual is of absolutely no affect.

James Scott said...

There's something I don't understand
here. "Bible Believer," it is obvious you do not like the Orthodox Church. But why do you use the Bible against Orthodox Christians? Do you not know that the Bible comes from our holy Tradition? Furthermore, sense the Bible comes from our Tradition, why do you accept the Bible in the first place?
It just doesn't seem to make any sense.

Anonymous said...

So many beliefs to choose from ,how can one know which is the true belief that will get him to heaven...I hear so many saying this is the way...dont believe them believe me...Remember its my SOUL. I truly dont want to go to hell for not choosing the right way...Is believing that Jesus died for all my sins , past,present and my sins I commit next week wrong? Who's got the answer? DO I go with my feelings ,or the Bible? So many questions un-answered...HELP ME JESUS.

Bible Believer said...

anon, yes there are endless mazes out there, and endless ditches, but read God's Word to understand and know the truth. Do not go with "feelings" go with God's Word.

Hbr 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Anonymous said...

hmmm... okay, non-Catholics, let's see where this whole "protestant" heretical adventurism ends for you. :D I hope it doesn't end in making atheists out of all of you. Your pretension of being un-pagan is really easy to see through, because in Europe, thousands have begun to re-embrace paganism (the crude kind), mostly in Germany, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries, which were not Catholic. Oh, I forgot, Nazi Germany, where the majority of Protestants ended up proclaiming "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer" after Bishop Marahrens led Protestant bishops in declaring allegiance to Hitler because they were so scared of being disposessed. (Pastors Bonhoeffer and Niemoeller are very good counterexamples, but then they did not speak like you have toward Catholics/Orthodox. They spent their energies truly resisting evil, unlike you.) You are not the church of the martyrs, you have never been. Give it up already.

It is a known fact that after the Protestant Reformation, those who separated from the Roman church broke up ALMOST IMMEDIATELY into sects. So you have Calvinists, Mormons, new churches with fantastically weird doctrines (e.g. negative predestination). You call sects issuing from these true Christian sects? Oh, come on. The Lutheran and Anglican churches are better, since they express a willingness to sit down with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. If I may say it in the kindest way, you are horribly heretical in that you stir up unproductive concerns about the churches. You are even worse than Arius or Nestorius. It is because of your agitating spirit that people have chosen to become atheists.

The true Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, not a confederation of churches with different beliefs, who routinely split from each other and form devious "communions".

The Orthodox Church has remained One despite being physically divided into patriarchates. That is because of the Holy Spirit. It has survived so much for 2000 years. The same could be said of the Roman Church. The thing is, the Eastern Church and the Western Church are on the path to unification.

Could you say this of the "Jesus is Lord Church", the "Victory Church", the "Lord Jesus our Redeemer" church, etc. which have really sloganistic names? I come from the Philippines. "Christian" churches with those and other similar-sounding names are on every other street corner. Could you say that this polemical work is doing any good?

The paradoxical thing is: the very groups that speak against other denominations to downgrade them or to provide a platform for their theological adventurism, those groups ARE the offspring of the harlot, or at least act like so. No, we're not talking about specific groups; I don't care if there are n < 1000000 "Christian" (i.e. Western non-Catholic) churches all over the world.

I'm going to parody this. Thank goodness for this article, one of the few written/documented proofs of the great heresy/stupidity of which Sarah Palin, Wilde Almeda, and Apollo Quiboloy are shining examples. :D

Bible Believer said...

Just so you know, I am not a "Protestant"

The majority of Protestant churches have bowed to Rome and are fitting "daughter" status.

Mar 8:23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.


Mar 8:24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.


Mar 8:25 After that he put [his] hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.


I also am not a supporter of Sarah Palin [some of my readers may be] nor am I a Republican...

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/10/left-wing-and-right-wing-its-all-big.html

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2011/03/left-wing-and-right-wing-its-all-big.html

Why would we become atheists? That makes no sense.

How about being anti-pagan, when the Roman Catholic church and the rest do everything to excuse pagan and false religions. That includes most of the Orthies who know follow the Pope. Wait til you see what I have to post today, the Vatican and WCC joined together on "conversion rules".

Yes the Protestant churches followed Hitler, same with the Catholic, if you need pictures plenty of bishops and Cardinals heiling Hitler including the celebration of Hitler's birthdays in the churches.. And I havent had time to post on Benedict's recent praising of Stepinac which if anyone know's any history especially what happened in Croatia and some of YOUR religious brethern...they would recognize the diabolical EVIL

Bible Believer said...

The churches are joined with the FOURTH REICH today, on behalf of the "brotherhood", the police state, and global antichrist system. History repeats itself. Where is your church on that? Involved with unity talks with the Pope, interfaithism. There are a few off shoots who rebel but very few. Like the Trad Catholics you remain clinging to a false religious system.

The churches are joined with the FOURTH REICH today, on behalf of the "brotherhood", the police state, and global antichrist system. History repeats itself. Where is your church on that? Involved with unity talks with the Pope, interfaithism. There are a few off shoots who rebel but very few. Like the Trads you remain clinging to a false religious system.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2011/05/trad-catholics-and-sede.html

How many of you are resisting evil TODAY? I don't see it. I wrote on this page in the comments and article on the evil of interfaithism and not one Orthie wanted to touch that ten foot elephant in the room with a 100 foot pole. Where is the loyalty to Jesus Christ, as the Orthie partriarchs play footsie with the Antichrist Pope and praise interfaithism?

The fact is false religious systems, so many believe they follow Christ, which is why these betrayals come so easily. They do not know Him. Nominal Christians, and no I am not just pointing to Orthies or Catholics here, there are plenty of evangelical ones too.

What does sects mean? Jesus Christ's true church is not of THIS WORLD, so what building people are in, or the sects of man, really mean nothing. And all those religions and groups you mention I have warned about on this blog. Sadly most of the Lutherans [except for WELS] have joined with Rome: Luther who deemed the pope Antichrist would be spinning in his grave, and the Anglicans--well they are the experimental left wing of Rome already with Rowan Williams bowing before his true master, the Pope.

"Unproductive concerns" what a phrase to diminish the great falling away. Churches that now are joining with false pagan religions. Did you hear about the churches that plan to include prayers of Islam? Well the Pope already tells us that Allah of Islam equals God. Where did they get that from?

Bible Believer said...

Correction to the above, MOST of the churches...


It's funny you tell me that, people will become atheists because of this website, maybe they will because they will look to the institutilons of man and the things of this world, insteaad of trusting in Jesus Christ. They need sprititual eyes to see, and without those, they look to the world's organizations and religions instead of a relationship with the Living Savior.

No true church would be seeking unity with the Pope in the Vatican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balamand_declaration

Yes I know both your church and the Roman Catholic one, are planning unity.

Brought in under the antichrist umbrella, and now under the Pope's behest to join with othe religions. Remember that is "unity in diversity".

What is wrong with those church names? At least they name the church after Jesus Christ instead of their favorite saint or the "queen of heaven" Daughter of Chaldea. Of course some of those may preach false doctrine, charismatic or pentecostalism.

How are Bible Christians part of the harlot when they "come out" of false apostate churches.

Bible Believer said...

Perhaps you need to assess this bible verse and why you are trusting so heavily in these false religious institutions. Pray to God to show you the truth.

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

You really do need to read more of my blog if you are going to do an honest parody. I am not a supporter of the Middle Eastern wars over seas, for the Pope's latest crusades, I am not a Dominionist and I am not a Republican. No do I believe in Word of Faith or false Pentecostal preachers. The fact you list a false politician I do not support--who is definitely controlled by the elites--she has meant with Kissinger, [and no I do not support Bachmann either who has been said to belong to the CNP and signed onto the Patriot Act, an extreme Filipino "miracles" preacher and another "convenant partnership" TV preacher type from your country, tells me you need to read far more of this blog to give it a fair assesement. I will pray God opens your eyes regarding the Orthodox church and you are able to look past the false churches to see who Jesus Christ really is.

Bible Believer said...

Corrections to above...

"NOR do I believe in Word of Faith"

and "She has MET with Kissinger"

Serb said...

It is a fact, that Filioque (Holy Spirit comes out from God and Son), used in Catholic church, is very wrong! Even in New Testament, there clearly stands that there are GOD, SON and the HOLY SPIRIT! There is also written that Holy Spirit comes only from God himself! Also, there is no Holy Trinity, there is HOLY THREE!
They have same essence, but there are three PERSONALITIES! I have some friends, Catholic friars. They say that Filioque is very wrong teaching, but they cannot do something about it. Roman Patriarchate was slowly adopting the Filioque teaching in 5th century, so in 1054 they would fully quit the Church, and start Filioque teaching in full time.
What is the point:
-From the 1st century, church (East. Orth) saved the tradition of Christian teaching. Liturgy, Holy Communion, I mean EVERYTHING!
-Roman Cath. was just changing the traditions from 5th century till now.
-Why Rom. Cath. put salt in Holy Water??? So the water doesn't go rott.
-Orthodox don't need salt! We have HOLY GHOST on our side! We have Myrrh coming out from the icons. Doesn't it all says something???

William Sculley said...

wow, this got nearly everything wrong. Let us start from the top:

Firstly: You make it very clear that you have never actually attended a service in an Orthodox Church. This begs the question: "If you have never participated in the services of the Orthodox, how do you then have such knowledge?" In truth, you could be spouting off that which is your own opinion. In truth, this is the actuality. I am a member of an Orthodox parish, and as a person who has been to their services and heard our teachings on a regular basis, let us establish the likelihood that I will be more familiar with the services and teachings of the Orthodox than yourself.

Now, to begin:

1. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

This is the full passage of the verse you quote, and it gives the wholeness of the verse. The implication you make is that large garments are sinful, when the point is actually that when one embellishes one's garments for the sake of popularity, then he is sinning. A bishop, priest, deacon, or reader wear such resplendent clothing because they will be entering into the presence of God in a real, purposeful, and intentional way, bringing the worship which is in heaven down to earth.

The staves you see are not actual symbols with any meaning, but are actually a cultural thing in that area that comes from the story of St. George and the dragon.

William Sculley said...


2. "Rood screens"

This is a term which is unused in Orthodoxy, so I would have to say that you really don't know your stuff. In reality, the screens are not separations keeping the laity apart from the priests. I am a layman and have never been ordained, yet I have helped inside the ALTAR several times.

We have the division as a means to prevent the constant moving around in the altar from being a distraction to the people. We also have archaeological proof now that the Apostles did the same, for they have discovered Peter's house, in which was a church with a screened off altar area.

William Sculley said...


5. Icons

This is the biggie, which you did not give enough space for, so I will get straight to the point.

A. The two oldest Icons we have today are original paintings by the hand of St Luke, the Apostle and Physician to St. Paul. One is sitting in the Church of St. Thomas (Coptic Orthodox) in India, and one is sitting in the Monastery at Mt. Athos, Greece (Greek Orthodox). Therefore, the Icons are from the Apostles.

B. The Icons are not worshiped, and in fact, it is not the Icon itself which is venerated (respected). The image is only a window to the person or event depicted. It is for this reason that they are called "Windows into Heaven".

C. The Image of Christ is ALWAYS above the Icon of the Theotokos. It is ALWAYS the highest Icon which is placed in the Church, and the Icon on top is never the only Icon of Christ. There are four places where the Icon of Christ is placed:

i. In the dome or at the uppermost portion of the Church, above all other Icons in the Nave or Narthex of the Church. This symbolizes that Christ is at the top of the Church and all others are below Him.
ii. To the right of the Royal Doors at the center of the Altar screen. This symbolizes that Christ is at the right hand of the Father.
iii. On the confessional stand. This symbolizes that our sins are the reason for the crucifixion, and that through His death, the power of sin is defeated. By confessing to Christ, we allow the victory of Christ's Death to defeat our sins.
iv. In the center of the altar space, to symbolize that Christ is at the center of our worship and sacrifice of humility.

There are usually many other Icons of Christ around, in the Narthex or elsewhere in the Church. He is truly represented at the core of Orthodox worship.

William Sculley said...


6. worship of Mary?

Quite simply, whoever told you this was either lying or was lied to. We VENERATE, or respect the Theotokos (birthgiver of God). She is the proto-Christian, or "first Christian". She has not only given us the best example of surrender, but of true Christian worship, for her life is much more than Protestants will state. She spoke with motherly boldness to Christ every time she speaks to Christ. And she still can speak with such boldness.

To say we worship Mary? That's a lie created by none other than Satan. Isn't his job to make us believe divisive things? That is what such a statement is.

7. THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES ARE FULLY INVOLVED IN THE ECUMENICAL ONE WORLD CHURCH WITH THE POPE LEADING THE WAY.

This is a lie. It is untrue, and never will be true. It is a laughable, stupid, preposterous lie which is quite simply fear mongering.

And no, nothing you say will make it otherwise, dialogue with the Roman churches died in the 11th century when the Pope declared himself king of the Church, and the Church denied him.

To state that unity is essential is not to say that unity exists. Unity does not exist. It won't exist until the Romans forsake their heresies and return to the true Church.



Overall, this blog is a hateful commentary which lacks in evidence or truth. You think Eastern Catholics are the same are Orthodox, which they are not. You think the East split from the west, when it was actually the west that excommunicated the East at the Hagia Sophia. You think Christianity was a western religion, which it was not.

I will state very simply, Orthodoxy has been here since AD 33, when Christ sent the Holy Spirit, which proceeded from the Father, to imbue the Church with Power. I know this from Scripture, History, and from actual observation of Orthodox services.

Spend a year in an Orthodox Church, then make statements about them. And don't just watch passively. Start actually learning what we teach before you go off at the mouth.

Bible Believer said...

My father was Orthodox and converted to Catholicism [what I heard was not such a hard deal to do even in the 1960s, an easy lateral move, I have been in the church as a child, a few times that his family belonged to. So I am not unfamiliar with the Orthodox church even from the "inside". That said, do I have to visit a Mormon Temple and see all their rituals,to fully "understand" that it is a false religion? There is plenty of information out there about the Orthodox churches and what they believe. With Catholicism I grew up in that church.


Now, to begin:

1. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

You wrote:
implication you make is that large garments are sinful, when the point is actually that when one embellishes one's garments for the sake of popularity, then he is sinning. A bishop, priest, deacon, or reader wear such resplendent clothing because they will be entering into the presence of God in a real, purposeful, and intentional way, bringing the worship which is in heaven down to earth.


It's not me that outlaws the wide and fancy clothing, it's God. Your clergy disobey a direct verse in scripture as seen and quoted above, by BOTH of us.

Sure they tell you it is for a "reason":, why wouldn't they?

Even the idea that they have closer access to "God" is dependant on idolatrous teachings within your church.

One's religious beliefs should not be focused upon legends. They should be focused on truth.

Anyhow an elevated clergy class that wears fancy clothing to elevate itself from the laity, Jesus dealt with that too.

Rev 2;6 6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

Bible Believer said...

William, Rood screens or not, whatever they are called now [ Iconostases ] and I have seen the different names, altars themselves are a false concept, when it comes to being a true Biblical Christian as I wrote here...

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2012/02/daughters-protestant-churches-1-altars.html

Just like the daughter Protestants, the daughter Orthodox church sticks to false altars.

what need of an altar in a Christian church?

What additional sacrifices do you need?

Hebrews 13:10-16

King James Version (KJV)

10We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

11For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.

12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

13Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

Bible Believer said...



The two icons from the apostles?

Very doubtful, probably based on myth and legends. You have to be careful with those myths people will tell. We never read of the apostles painting icons in scripture.

Sure I am told Catholics do not worship statutes too as they bow and kneel before them, including ones of the Popes. Kissing an icon, and more kneeling on the part of the Orthies moves beyond respect and into idolatry and breaks the 2nd commandment.
So you put the picture of "jesus" above the other pictures? This means nothing as the pictures of "jesus" are false giving him long hair--=which the OT says is a shame unto men which means the real Jesus wouldn't have worn his hair that long and occult hand gestures in the figures displayed as well as other symbols that are NOT good including halos which are tied to sun worship etc. Even that odd divided "goats beard you see in some of the pictures is an occult marker. The Halos, well the Hindus used those too.

Bible Believer said...

#7 Sure you folks have your people like the Trad Catholics who reject some of the ecumenism, but still are deceived by the same sacraments and rest. They are few in number just like Catholic Trads compared to the rest.

As I said, while they are awake to a few things, they are still within the harlot.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2011/05/trad-catholics-and-sede.html

To be frank when I am doing research for this blog, I see many Orthodox church organizations listed on the World Council of Churches, Catholic ecumenical groups like Christians Churches Together and everything else ecumenical you can name. The Orthies are always there, along with say the Reformed churches and the Disciples of Christ, United Methodists etc along with the Catholics.

Lets take a look at the WCC.

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/who-are-we/self-understanding-vision/orthodox-participation.html

Hate to say it but involvement with the WCC means definitely being tied to Rome and in the harlot. No matter if your churches officially agree with a few teachings of Rome, so do the United Methodists who are there as well.


So how is this a lie?

Let's go to the Vatican ecumenical groups, there your churches are listed RIGHT THERE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_International_Commission_for_Theological_Dialogue_Between_the_Catholic_Church_and_the_Orthodox_Church

I know this is hard to hear but if anything the Orthodox are actually considered the churches with the closest ecumenical ties to Rome.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Pope:-Catholics-and-Orthodox-continue-the-path-towards-full-unity-25155.html

Pope: Catholics and Orthodox continue the path towards full unity
Benedict XVI receives the delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to Rome for the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Vatican II, which opened 50 years ago, opened the path that has led to the rediscovery of the "deep fraternity" between the two Churches."

*************************

So how can you tell me dialogue died in the 11th century when they are obviously dialoguing above. I do not know what your priests have told you but this is something that I hope you can seek the truth on and research for yourself.

Bible Believer said...

#7 Sure you folks have your people like the Trad Catholics who reject some of the ecumenism, but still are deceived by the same sacraments and rest. They are few in number just like Catholic Trads compared to the rest.

As I said, while they are awake to a few things, they are still within the harlot.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2011/05/trad-catholics-and-sede.html

To be frank when I am doing research for this blog, I see many Orthodox church organizations listed on the World Council of Churches, Catholic ecumenical groups like Christians Churches Together and everything else ecumenical you can name. The Orthies are always there, along with say the Reformed churches and the Disciples of Christ, United Methodists etc along with the Catholics.

Lets take a look at the WCC.

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/who-are-we/self-understanding-vision/orthodox-participation.html

Hate to say it but involvement with the WCC means definitely being tied to Rome and in the harlot. No matter if your churches officially agree with a few teachings of Rome, so do the United Methodists who are there as well.


So how is this a lie?

Let's go to the Vatican ecumenical groups, there your churches are listed RIGHT THERE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_International_Commission_for_Theological_Dialogue_Between_the_Catholic_Church_and_the_Orthodox_Church

I know this is hard to hear but if anything the Orthodox are actually considered the churches with the closest ecumenical ties to Rome.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Pope:-Catholics-and-Orthodox-continue-the-path-towards-full-unity-25155.html

Pope: Catholics and Orthodox continue the path towards full unity
Benedict XVI receives the delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to Rome for the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Vatican II, which opened 50 years ago, opened the path that has led to the rediscovery of the "deep fraternity" between the two Churches."

*************************

So how can you tell me dialogue died in the 11th century when they are obviously dialoguing above. I do not know what your priests have told you but this is something that I hope you can seek the truth on and research for yourself.

Bible Believer said...

I know Eastern Catholics are part of the Roman system, where did I say otherwise?

With the East-West thing that is debating on both sides who "left who".

I do not believe that the Orthodox church came about in 33rd ad except in that even in the Bible, early grievous wolves are warned of in the time of Acts. I do not listen to "history" in that history can be skewed and lied about, we know even recent "history" can be changed considering what side it is being told from. One should depend on scripture for truth. One of the greatest lies the Catholic and Orthodox and other churches like them have told is that truth can come from other sources.

I don't need to spend a year in an Orthodox church to know it is false. I reject sacraments, and all it has inherited from Rome, and the many many non-biblical attributes.

Bible Believer said...

I hope and pray you investigate the church you are in. Ask God to show you the truth. God Bless. I came out of Roman Catholicism and later out of the UU church. I praise God for His Word and showing me the truth.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Bible Believer said...

correction above while discussing ecumenical ties..

"no matter that your churches officially DISAGREE with Rome on a few teachings...

William Sculley said...

Wait, so God, who COMMANDED wide and fancy clothing (the Priest's garments in Leviticus would make our priestly vestments look simple and plain in comparison) is stating that His own command was sinful? That sounds like quite a stretch.

Finally, EVERY believer has a robe in the Orthodox Church, and is buried in that robe. It is our baptismal robe, in which we are personally vested at our Baptism and Chrismation.

The vestments used in the Orthodox church are actually simplified versions of the vestments used by the Priests in the Temple.

All of us receive robes at our Baptism because we are ALL considered priests. We simply have ordained priests who are set aside for very specific tasks, specifically the preaching, serving, and ministry of the Church.

And again, will you show me where in Scripture OR in history what the Nicolaitans taught? If you can't, please do everyone a favor and drop them. Nobody wants to hear someone say something that they cannot prove.

William Sculley said...

Wait, so God, who COMMANDED wide and fancy clothing (the Priest's garments in Leviticus would make our priestly vestments look simple and plain in comparison) is stating that His own command was sinful? That sounds like quite a stretch.

Finally, EVERY believer has a robe in the Orthodox Church, and is buried in that robe. It is our baptismal robe, in which we are personally vested at our Baptism and Chrismation.

The vestments used in the Orthodox church are actually simplified versions of the vestments used by the Priests in the Temple.

All of us receive robes at our Baptism because we are ALL considered priests. We simply have ordained priests who are set aside for very specific tasks, specifically the preaching, serving, and ministry of the Church.

And again, will you show me where in Scripture OR in history what the Nicolaitans taught? If you can't, please do everyone a favor and drop them. Nobody wants to hear someone say something that they cannot prove.

William Sculley said...

Altars are a concept from the Scripture, directly from Scripture, and from nowhere besides Scripture. They are in the Old Testament, they are in Revelation, we are bookended by Altars in the Bible and in the heavenly worship. Please explain why you demolish that which God set up.

Your own quote says "we have an altar"

Taking it literally, I will say that the we is the Church, as he is talking to the Church. Therefore, we (the Church and Paul) have (present tense) an altar.

Psalm 50: A sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, God will not despise.

William Sculley said...

Let me make it capitals for you.

WE DO NOT WORSHIP ICONS!

Big enough? or will you continue spreading lies?

William Sculley said...

Continuing on the Icon ideas, the hand gestures displayed in Icons are blessings with very specific meanings which are known to be from long before pagans stole them from the Church. You are trying to find occult things in Orthodoxy, but what you find is only stolen from Orthodoxy. There are cults who have used Christ as an occult symbol. Does that mean that Christ is Himself of the occult? no!

Finally, Christ was depicted with hair, possibly because he had hair. He was said to have been a rabbi. Well, he would have been a rabbi according to the Jewish beliefs, which included long, uncut, but trim, hair.

And beards? really? you're going to find the occult in BEARDS? I don't know what you are smoking, but please pass the pipe around to the rest of us. We want some of that stuff, too. The beards are not a symbol of the occult, unless later cults of which I am unaware decided to use that cut. Either way, beards and hairstyles are weird. To Greeks, long hair was anything past three inches. To Jews, long hair was anything past the shoulders. And to Russians, long hair was anything past the middle of your back. Long hair is a very subjective term. Judging an Icon based on the Western perception of long hair is honestly stupid.

William Sculley said...

The "harlot" is, in the opinion of the first Church, any group which splits itself off from the first Church. Well, Rome did that. And EVERY Protestant church is the child of Rome and Hellenism.

Your great "romophobia" is laughably unfounded. Your church is only probably around 50-60 years old, and the denomination you are in is probably only 1-200 years old. Orthodoxy has been around for 2000 years.

The fact that we maintain dialog with other churches is evidence that we desire for there to be doctrinal unity within the entirety of Christendom. If it is that which you are against, I give you the words of Paul:

"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

And now I paraphrase them:

"Now this I say, that every one of you who says 'I am Baptist; and I am Methodist', you are in the wrong. Is Christ divided? Was Roger Williams crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of John Wesley?"

No! The first Church had no name. The only reason the Church needs a name now is for the purpose of being identified as itself in the midst of every heresy. There is only one true Church. And that means that all other churches are only incomplete reflections of the true Church.

It is the prophecy of Scripture that the Church would remain in every generation unchanged and unblemished (Matthew 16). It is also the prophecy of Scripture that the Church will teach the same faith to every generation of the saints (Jude 3). There is only one Church which can claim that.

It is the command of the Church in the book of Corinthians that the Church be united together. Therefore, it is to be expected that the Orthodox Church would be active in discourse with schismatic Churches who desire to bring about the doctrinal unity of the Church.

One can discuss reuniting as long as one has strict requirements for the unity of the Church. We do. It is the canon of the Church that all who wish to come into the Church from schismatic and heretical churches must come in by way of Holy Baptism and Chrismation. They must profess the Orthodox faith in its entirety according to the Nicene Creed, without the heretical addition of the filioque. We require that they, in their public confession of the Faith, renounce all heretical beliefs to which they previously held.

You can say that our discussions are our willing participation and condoning of their heresies. But that does not make it true any more than Christ's conversing and dining with publicans and sinners made Him a sinner. It is truly yourself who is in the wrong, for you refuse to dialog with sinners, which is the opposite of what Christ did. If you claim to be of Christ, then do as He did and be in discourse.

The statement that dialogue died in the 11th century is also true because the western Church has, since then, refused to give up their heretical views. In fact, they have created even more heresies, such as the heresies of indulgences, pergatory, created grace, and papal infallibility.

Dialog with Rome is currently only an Academic endeavor because dialog can only live when Rome gives up their heretical views.

William Sculley said...

if you don't believe we were around, explain where your church was...

Oh wait, it didn't exist, and neither did your doctrinal beliefs. I can guarantee that we can trace ordination and teaching to the first century. can you?

Also, you claimed in your comments that Eastern Catholics were only a branch off of Orthodoxy. They are not.

William Sculley said...

Finally, I pray you investigate the "church" you are in and compare it with the faith of the people that composed the canon of Scripture. I would suggest the following:

the godson of the Apostle John: Ignatius of Antioch.

The man called holy by the Apostle Paul: Clement of Rome.

The writings of the apostle James, wherein he claims to be the step-brother of Christ, and is actually said to be the same age as the Theotokos.

The writings of Irenaeus, especially "Against Heresies", wherein he is the first man to identify the writers of the gospels for us.

The man who gave us our New Testament Canon, Athanasius of Alexandria, who was exiled 5 times from the empire because he preached Christ as fully God and fully man.

Also, in response to comment 2, made by you. The government murdered all but four of the bishops of the Russian Church. and they didn't murder those four because those four went into hiding. The Church in Russia was no longer in existence, and was only used as a tool of the Communists to beat on other people. Now that the Russian Church has been restored, Protestant churches have seen no persecution. Get a history book, instead of a propoganda book

Bible Believer said...

Regarding altars, altars are NO LONGER NECESSARY as JESUS CHRIST already has made the sacrifice. So what is there to sacrifice on altars anymore?

So do you swear by the altar or the temple or ...by Jesus Christ?

Mat 23:20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

Mat 23:21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

Mat 23:22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

The altars were used as a precursor, a foreshadowing of the sacrifice Jesus Christ would make.

Keeping the altar and doing sacrifices upon it IMO is BLASPHEMY agianst Jesus Christ.

I know enough about the Orthodox church to know your communion and rituals related to it are very close to Rome's.

[yes there are differences]

but read this article and you can find out the truth about those who believe in false sacraments when it comes to the Eucharist [a term used both in Rome and Orthodox church]

http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist

I believe the Mass is an absolute work of Satan and so is the Eucharist.

Read this article to understand why...and how..

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2012/01/satans-masterpiece-catholic-mass-is.html

Bible Believer said...

The hand gestures in your icons show up in Egyptian art, so how could they be of the Christian church?

Perhaps you saw discussion of the "V" symbol already here, is more...

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/codex_magica/codex_magica25.htm

{I don't agree with Texe Marrs on many things so this link is for information}

Funny how what shows up in your icons shows up other places...

http://www.tarotteachings.com/hierophant-tarot-card-meanings.html

http://www.thebabylonmatrix.com/index.php?title=File:Baphomet_2.gif

http://www.thebabylonmatrix.com/index.php?title=911:Occult_symbolism_XVI#Triad_sign

Your church will of course tell you these symbols were co-opted by the occultists after the fact but the thing is they have been used for CENTURIES and come even from false pagan religions. Infusion of that Mystery Babylonianism.

One can even find even

an all-seeing eye of Horus right there, at Mount Athos, scroll down.


http://www.sacredsites.com/europe/greece/images/AthosEye.jpg


The Catholic Pope loves those satanic hand gestures.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/popesatanichandsign23feb09.shtml

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/signs/signs_of_satan3.htm

Sad to say your patriarchs too borrow from the Pope...

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/images/satan.jpg

and that DOUBLE-HEADED EAGLE all over the place, not good, not at all..

GOOGLE DOUBLE-HEADED EAGLE and the ORTHODOX CHURCH

Do you realize what that is a symbol of?

http://www.whale.to/b/phoenix_s.html

More pictures here:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Russian_Orthodox/orthodox_idolatry.htm

Bible Believer said...

I don't believe in early church fathers.

The apostles warn of grievous wolves coming in early.

Have you ever heard of the errors of the Alexandrian School? That would be something for you research.

I have read early church fathers writings, and they go against scripture...

here is proof...

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2012/02/re-daughter-protestant-article.html

Most of what is said about them is based on legend and as I discovered many times posting ONE of those instances, these so called "early" "fathers" posted things that WENT AGAINST SCRIPTURE.

Rome has persecuted even members of the harlot for their own aims, such as the horrors done to Orthodox people in Croatia during the 40s. They had their agendas in Russia too, the NWO was centuries in the making and planning.

I am not a Protestant....

Bible Believer said...

With the ecumenical stuff.

I am curious, so what is your thoughts when the Popes get together with Hindus, Sufis, Buddhists and have them pray to their false "gods" [demons] at their behest such as at Assisi?

I do not look at the church the same way you do obviously. There is the ekklesia, all true born again believers, and then there is the organized world "church". I believe there is a remnant of true Christians, and most of the world will be seduced by a harlot church system as we are warned of in Revelation, and I talked about in one of my first posts on this blog.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/04/one-world-religion-beast-gets-ready-for.html

I do not care how old anything is. Hinduism is 5,000 years old....

Doctrinal unity? That is the same thing Rome says they desire. Not going to happen, and will only happen as the false church of Mystery Babylon. Those who push unity above truth, are deceivers. The way to heaven is NARROW as Jesus told us not filled with BILLIONS who think just showing up at church on a Sunday will get them in or being a "good person". "Ye must be born again".
The denominations themselves are deception. When they say they follow Luther, Minnos, Calvin, sure they got distracted.

Remember what I wrote about those men walking as "trees" in the article I showed you.

"People are still looking to men, Wesley, Luther, Calvin, Menno instead of to God. [MORE PRIESTS EXCEPT THIS TIME ONES WHO DO NOT CALL THEMSELVES FATHERS]

Looking to more earthly hierarchies instead of to Jesus Christ.

Let me ask you what do you think the blind man meant when he said in

"Mark 8:24


And he looked up, and said, "I see men as trees, walking."

To me this is a warning right there in the Bible...[think about the Mustard Tree here, and how it grew so big] Why is he seeing men walking as TREES?

Jesus put his hands on the blind man's eyes to heal him and he looked up...[looking up to God]

"22 And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.


23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.


24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.


25 After that he put [his] hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly."


So are you follow MEN {PRIESTS and false early church fathers} or God's Word?

The one true church is not OF THIS WORLD. Remember when Jesus said My Kingdom is not of this world. Well I heard all this "one true church" stuff when I was Roman Catholic and it's false.

Sadly the false church of this world tells people rituals, creeds etc, will save them when that is completely false.

Dialogue is how they are forming the one world church. Anyone who cavorts with the Antichrist Pope has joined with his evil agendas.

So when you see something like what I wrote about here, why should that surprise you.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/05/hinduism-and-roman-catholicism.html

Praying God shows you the truth and you come out of the false church.

http://libertytothecaptives.net/salvation_made_plain.html

William Sculley said...

We do not swear by the altar. The only real mention of an altar in the service at all is a quote from the Psalms referring to the altar in heaven. And no, we don't swear by it either. We only pray "That our loving God who has received them (our gifts and prayers) at his holy, heavenly, and noetic altar as a fragrant spiritual offering may in return send upon us divine grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit, let us pray to the Lord."

However, if the Altar is not necessary, the Scriptures were surprisingly devoid of any such statement. In fact, it says our worship and our churches should reflect heaven. Well, let's look at the Revelation of St. John:

6:9
And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

16:7
And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.

If your house of worship truly reflects the temple of Heaven, then it has an altar. Heaven has an Altar. God Himself placed an altar there in Heaven. Is your personal interpretation of Scripture of more authority than God Himself? Then why do you not put in your church something God deigns worthy of Heaven itself?

Words of wisdom: If God commands us to do His will on earth in the same manner as in heaven, then we should imitate heaven in our houses of worship in every way possible, including how we build them. Heaven has an altar, therefore we have an altar.

Apparently you have a different heaven than the heaven of the Bible. Why should I want to believe your false doctrine, which is proven false by the direct and purposeful contradiction of the entirety of Scripture?

William Sculley said...

WARNING: EXAGGERATIONS AHEAD!!!



The cross shows up in Roman art, so why use it as our symbol of life?

The figures of resurrected kings is in Egyptian mythology long before the resurrection of Christ. So why should we accept it as true in the Bible and not in the pyramids?

I just applied your standard of logic to all of doctrine. If you truly believe that whatever is used outside of the Church is not of the Church, then you are left with only one statement of uniqueness in the Bible: Jesus Wept.

EXAGGERATIONS FINISHED

You're going to need more than insubstantial coincidence to make an argument. Or are you one of those nutjobs that believe that the sign for "I love you" in American Sign Language is a devil's sign?

The point of the exaggeration is that culture is a huge context for what a symbol really means. In America, a person holds up his hand with the thumb and index finger touching and the other three fingers extended. This handshape means "A-Okay!" in America. In Brazil, that same handshape means "you are a prostitute".

In America, the outstretched middle finger is equivalent to the F-word. In Japan, it is the base handshape for their letter "Ta" in Shuwa (Sign Language in Japan).

In the early reigns of the pharaohs in Egypt, the handshape you are offended by might have been some sort of polytheistic symbol. But in Greece and Rome, that symbol stood for one thing: "The Lord bless you".

Finally, it is historic fact that occultists love to steal symbols from Christianity, because the job of the occult is to pervert that which is of Christ. An occultist could walk right into your church and not feel the slightest bit uncomfortable. But my Godfather, who came into the Orthodox Church from the Wiccan and occult lifestyle, was extremely convicted when he first stepped into an Orthodox Church. It's no surprise that there is no occult that perverts Protestant services. Protestant services are so watered down that perverting them would be too worthless to try. Kyprian walked into the Church and looked around. His only thought was, "I don't understand why God doesn't strike me dead here and now. I have perverted everything they are doing here."

When a person of the occult walks an Orthodox Church and is convicted of the perversion he has done, then there is power therein. The services we have have been given us by the Apostles. We know this because we have their service book:

The Liturgy of St. James the step-brother of Christ.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0717.htm

Copies of this liturgy exist dating back to before James was martyred. We have archaeological proof of Iconography dating back to before, during, and after the Apostles. In fact, we have the two Icons drawn by St. Luke, with his signature and everything.

You have no historical connection to the Apostles. You have no evidence of your doctrines or canons of Scripture without the Church Fathers. The people who gave you your Bible? The Orthodox Church. Specifically, your New Testament was compiled by St. Athanasius in 360 AD.

To call Clement unholy is to call Paul a liar, for he wrote:
Phil 4:3
And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Clement is the one who used the image of a Phoenix in his letters as a symbol of resurrection and transformation from death to life.

Now, will you call Paul a liar, or will you drop the Phoenix argument?

William Sculley said...

You ARE a Protestant. No matter what denomination you choose, you are either Roman, Orthodox, or Protestant.

Name the denomination and I will prove it.

Also, I looked at those passages you highlighted. You've made Scriptures do Olympian gymnastics. let us go one by one:

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man be not within the altar, he is deprived of the Bread of God."

Considering that the context is prayer within the Church, there is no contradiction. In fact, it is bolstered by Scripture:
Heb 10:25
Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

If a man is not approaching the Church and entering therein to pray as though before the altar of Heaven, then he is deprived of the Bread which sustains us through the daily life: The Daily Bread which we should pray for every day as is commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ.

"For if the prayer of one or two posesses such power, how much more that of the Bishop and the whole Church?"

Well, we know that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. So the prayer of two righteous men would be more effective. How much more when the whole Church, a gathering of all of the faithful, cries out in yearning for an act of God? Are you saying that God will not listen if the whole of His flock cries out to Him? Do you serve such a merciless, hateful, unforgiving God? Or do you serve the true God of mercy, love, and forgiveness? Do you serve a God who longs for our prayers and craves our worship? Take your pick. As for me and my house, We will serve the Lord.

"Do ye, brethren, be careful to be subject to the Bishop, and the presbyters [elders] and the Deacons. For he who is subject to these is obedient to Christ, Who has appointed them; but he who is disobedient to these is disobedient to Christ Jesus"

"For he that yields not obedience to his superiors is self-confident, quarrelsome and proud."

I Pet 5:5
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. 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.

In this passage, Peter equates submission to the presbyters (elders is the English of the Greek Presbyteros) to humility. He attaches the warning from the Proverbs that God resists the proud to this equation. The basic and simplest understanding is:

Submission to your elders is submission to the Christ Who has appointed them. In this is humility, and in humility, is Grace. But if you will not submit, then God will resist you and you will not receive Him.

"We should look upon the Bishop even as we would look upon Christ Himself"

Considering that the Bishop is to be an image of Christ, if the Bishop is properly attending to the office to which he is called, then the following verses apply:

to Bishops:
Not as lords of the flock, but as you would be excellent examples.

Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

To the Church:
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.



If the words of the Scripture command the Bishops to be images of Christ, and the Church still exists today, then the Bishops of that Church should be treated as such.

William Sculley said...

The Pope is wrong for doing that. Period. The canons of the Scripture and of the Church condemn it. You and the Orthodox stand in complete agreement concerning the heretical stature of the Pope. Let us put that behind us.

However, moving on to the harlot church, the harlot Church is said to arise in the later days or the last days of the world. In fact, the arising of the harlot church is directly connected in Scripture AND in the writings of the early Church to the last days. The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, arose in the times of the Apostles, was established by the Apostles, and stands in direct succession to the Apostles by way of the laying on of hands.

We are not only ready to make such a statement, we are able to prove it. We are able to prove that the Orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures is, in fact, the orthodox interpretation. This is, of course, taking the true meaning of the word "orthodox". Orthodox comes from the Greek words "Orthros", or first, and "Doxia", or teachings/glory.

We call ourselves the Orthodox Church because we are the FIRST of all Churches. To quote the beautiful explanation given by a podcast called "Our Life in Christ":

"The Orthodox Church is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is orthodox, but not Jewish. It is catholic, but not Roman. It isn't non-denominational - it is pre-denominational. It has believed, taught, preserved, defended and died for the Faith of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost 2000 years ago."

I will take this apart:

"The Orthodox Church is evangelical, but not Protestant."

It is the mission of the Orthodox Church to evangelize the world with the Gospel. In the gospels, Christ's last words to us are a commission to preach and teach the gospel, make disciples (not just converts. We make disciples), and baptize those disciples in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox Church has not faltered in maintaining this commission as the center of our mission. However, the method by which we evangelize is different. Our methods are by way of one-on-one discipleship and teaching. We focus more on the heart, instead of on solely doctrinal teaching. We teach the morality of the Church, and the peace that comes from godly living, as the most essential portion of our faith. It was said by St. Seraphim: "Acquire the peace of the Holy Spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." It is this, then, that we keep as our motto. One cannot lead to the saving of Christ until one has allowed the saving of Christ to bring him true inner peace, joy, and contentment.

William Sculley said...

"The Orthodox Church is Catholic, but not Roman."

When the Roman churches chose to follow heresy, the Eastern Churches withdrew from Rome. However, it has always been the call of the Orthodox Churches for the Romans to return to the original fold, and to give up their heresy. This is why there is dialogue. We call for them to repent of heresy, and to accept the true doctrines of God.

"The Orthodox Church is Orthodox, but not Jewish"

Many of the portions of the services you will see mirror the worship in the temple. This is true. However, there is ample evidence in Scripture and history that the Apostles and Christians in Scripture continued to participate in the Jewish worship. On Saturdays, Christians would gather at the Temple and Synagogues. It only makes sense that the constant contact with the Temple by the Apostles gave the Apostles reason to bring the vestments into the Church. In fact, the liturgy we have from St. James the Apostle includes prayers and instructions for many things that came from Jewish worship.

"It isn't non-denominational - it is pre-denominational."

The Orthodox Church, plain and simply, outdates EVERY doctrine that contradicts it, and outdates every Church that exists. Plain historical fact. Your church and your doctrine are new. Since Scripture says that there is no NEW truth, we must discard all new teachings which contradict the original teachings as false. Therefore I discard all Protestant teachings.

"It has believed, taught, preserved, defended and died for the Faith of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost 2000 years ago."

Yep, you heard me right. Your Bible came from us. Your church came from us. Everything you have that is holy, that came from us. Without us you don't even know who wrote the gospels and what the canon of Scripture is. Without the Church Fathers, you are a boat with a rudder, but no navigator and no Captains. how can you pretend to know where you are going when your church is new and untested? Why not climb on board the boat that has lasted through the trials and has conquered every heresy to bring the Faith unchanged and unharmed through all the ages, according to the prophecy of Christ and the Apostle Jude?

Your insistence on following the new is a direct spit in the face of Christ, for it tells Christ that you do not trust Him to bring the truth to all generations. You tell Christ that the gates of hell prevailed by saying that your church, a new church, is the true church. If your church is the true church, there was never a remnant. There was no place to find your church. We know the teachings of every non-orthodox church that ever existed. All of them teach plain heresy.

And yes, I will say quite plainly, Trail of Blood is a lie from the pit of hell, and if you even try to use it, I will bury it under so much historical truth that you will never find it again. The Trail of Blood is why I left the Baptist church.

William Sculley said...

The one true Church is a physical, recognizable establishment. It is a gathering. Therefore there is organization and leadership. Anything less is heresy, for it contradicts Scripture. God is not a god of disorder. Satan is the god of disorder and chaos. And he is no god at all, but merely a created being whose fate is assured in the pits of the lake of fire.

God is a God of order. He did not create a nebulous disorganized church. He created a Church. Look at the writings of Paul. How many times does he exhort the Churches to be in unity? How many times did he command them to not be divided? Your proposal of a disorganized church is saying that Christ is divided. That is heresy and I will not accept it as true. I will, however, call it anathema.

Don't like it, take it up with God. He's the one Who created an orderly Church and established it with Bishops, Elders and Deacons. If you have a problem with it, your problem is not with the Orthodox. Your problem is with the Almighty God, with Whom is no turning nor shifting. Are you truly willing to challenge Him?

And yes, I am forcing the issue on heresy. Heresy is heresy. And if you will proclaim it, then I will call you out on it. In this comment, you have proclaimed heresy. Therefore, I will call you out on it.

William Sculley said...

Finally, when a dialogue consists of phrases like "Repent and give up your heresy", your dialogue is not exactly amenable to a "one world church".

If a one world church is their goal, then they are going about it the wrong way. It's more like the Three Stooges than an attempt at a one world church. Your claims have no evidence. Now, drop them. Or are you insistent on making yourself look ignorant?

Bible Believer said...

Question #1 Who said we are to build churches to be like heaven?

Who said we were to even build BUILDINGS AT ALL?

Where did the apostles do this?

What altar is this verse talking about?

Hbr 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

Bible Believer said...

"The Pope is wrong for doing that. Period. The canons of the Scripture and of the Church condemn it. You and the Orthodox stand in complete agreement concerning the heretical stature of the Pope. Let us put that behind us."

Why should any Christian pair themselves with a man that outwardly breaks the first commandment over and over? You know I have proven the majority of your patriarches are in dialogue, etc with him.

Doesn't that ignore scripture edicts like this?

Romans 16:7

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

I don't care how much a church claims it is the one true church, etc etc, if they can't even get the first commandment right, it's game over.

I have found the Orthodox response to the reality of the one world religion, interfaithism and false pluralism to be wholly lacking.

To those whose first loyalty is to a false religious system instead of to Jesus Christ, I suppose these things matter little.

The majority of Orthodox churches maintain ties with the Pope. As you can see in this blog, I refuse any ties to a church that is linked to the Pope and his one world harlot religion.

I haven't had the time to research patriarches who may follow their Catholic brethern in lighting lamps to hindu gods, etc, but I suppose it would be of interest.

Found this

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8089

Too much dependence on false church fathers, and ignoring what scripture says about false religions and false "gods" [demons]

Ah this lie, that I have seen expressed in Catholicism that false pagan religions held TRUTH...

"The prominent Orthodox Christian apologist, Gregorios Papamichael, University of Athens. espouses the view that humanity was gradually prepared for the revelation of the fullness of Truth in Christ This is witnessed in the Old Testament and in the "spermatikos logos" of natural revelation. "Seeds" existed in antiquity but the natural revelation of Truth was incomplete"

The rest all contains the same deceptions preached from Rome.

{I am not against living in peace with all men but talking about the deceptions regarding false religions, the push for "dialogue" and interfaithism}

Bible Believer said...

"If a one world church is their goal, then they are going about it the wrong way. It's more like the Three Stooges than an attempt at a one world church. Your claims have no evidence. Now, drop them. Or are you insistent on making yourself look ignorant?"

You really believe the one world religion does not exist.

It has been set up via this, UNITY IN DIVERSITY.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-age-code-phrase-2-unity-in.html

The ties with the United Nation ARE THERE.

http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/2009-prayer-service

Guess the Orthodox patriarches do not care about things like this....

http://www.unesco.org/dialogue/delhi/values.html


"“It was also suggested that inter-religious dialogue should be preceded by intra-religious dialogue, and the dialogue should aim at the discovery of universal sources of consciousness. It was further suggested that all religions can come together in joint service to man. It was then pointed out that this joint service to man will be manifest in the promotion of human rights, justice and development that is sustainable and development that creates constant movements of harmony and good will.

A suggestion was made that peace will come when we can accept in our own temple the divine presence celebrated in the temples of other religions. In a remarkable poetic expression, it was declared that as one advances in age, one learns more and more how to smile and wait. It was also felt that a truly spiritual being wishes sincerely that a Christian should become a better Christian, that a Muslim should become a better Muslim, that a Buddhist should become a better Buddhist, instead of wishing that one should be converted from one religion to the other. True conversion, it was underlined, is the inner conversion from egoism to universality, to the realization of the divinity of man , and to the program of action of developing good individuals and enlightened citizens."

All those warnings in Revelation are to be taken seriously.

Bible Believer said...

The Bible came from God and God preserved it. When a Christian is born again they can recognize the Word of God which is why I parted ways from even the changed Bibles from the Vaticanus stream used with the Roman Catholic church.

Have you ever heard this verse read in your churches? I never heard it in the Roman Catholic church

Hbr 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Listening to the words of Jesus Christ is why I have rejected false traditions, false churches, the one world religion and the world system of delusion, that this blog warns about.

If your patriarchs cannot even discern that false religions came from Satan, see the link above where they claim the same Catholic lie that pagan religions held early "seeds" of truth, and cannot even discern the evil the Pope spreads, and the wicked organization the United Nations with it's room overtly honoring Satan "the UN Meditation Room" then they are false teachers.

I wrote in this link

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/09/vatican-wants-world-government-1.html

"Here is what we are warned of in the book of Daniel:Dan 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify [himself] in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. So do not the let sweet sounding platitudes and words for peace fool you. There is no true peace away from Jesus Christ.

The Popes are setting up for the Beast/Antichrist system. World government and one world religion combined, and to be frank, most of the global elites are in their service. There is a reason most top leaders and politicians follow so many of Rome's agendas and you see them kneeling/bowing before the Pope or giving him gifts on the nightly news and have a "lot in common". This week, we see the Pope making his tour through Britain and Scotland, with visits with the queen, a once Protestant nation that refused Popes any entrance. Bush of course too visited the Vatican and had many meetings with the Pope:"

The true church of Jesus Christ, the ekkelsia as it were, does not need buildings, or fancily dressed men to prove it's existence.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1577&t=KJV

My faith is not dependent on contesting histories. History being from human beings is flawed and changed often to reflect agendas and historical biases. That is a waste of time. It is based on God's Word.

1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Praying for you that you can be broken free from this false religious system as I was broken free of the Roman Catholic system.





Anonymous said...

So wait... You're a Protestant, right? A non-denominational? A member of a non-denominational denomination, a denomination that refers to itself in the pejorative "non"? A very Protestant-sounding "non"? I wouldn't take it personally that everyone keeps calling you a Protestant. Just remember: Everyone has a tradition. Sometimes it's the tradition of non-tradition, to which you seem to venerate with your whole heart. Tradition isn't a bad word. Rather, it's the accumulation of what you believe. Sometimes a person's tradition is based off of one percent of history, or twelve, or sixty-seven, or one-hundred. Alright, I'm ready for a cigarette.

Bible Believer said...

The problem is when people love their traditions more then God, and put them over His Word. I know every human being is in a "culture" per se but culture doesn't trump truth. History only goes so far too since it is written by men and often skewed to favor the "winners" who end up writing it. Some of what cultures do is wrong. I am not a Protestant.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2012/02/re-daughter-protestant-article.html

William Sculley said...

Unfortunately, all of what you have said about Orthodoxy comes from a false understanding of history written by the winners of the western hemisphere: The Roman Catholics.

Also, from what I have gathered, you are a congregationalist, non-denominational Christian that is the equivalent of the Hyper-Baptist movement known as Independent Fundamentalism. You follow the teachings of:

Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
and Sola Grazia

These three doctrines are the three pillars of Protestantism. Therefore, you are a Protestant.

Bible Believer said...

I noticed the new Pope is already making nice with the Orthodox patriarchs, neither party doesn't seem too bent out of shape regarding "Eastern" vs. Western" history. Both sides seem quite okay with the ecumenism.

I suppose people will have their labels for me. The RCC considers me a "heretic" etc. What matters is what God thinks of me.

And you should really be concerned about a church that says dependence on God's Word is a BAD thing.

Bible Believer said...

Oh did you see my Gnosticism article?

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2013/03/who-are-gnostics.html

I meant it when I said that seeking for "hidden truths" among all religions was very Gnostic.

So that makes ecumenical churches GNOSTIC.

and you are in one.

William Sculley said...

1. The disagreements between the Patriarchs and the Pope do not mean that our Patriarchs should not treat the Pope with the respect due any normal human being. Mistaking friendliness with ecumenism is a mark of paranoia.

2. This isn't a label that we have put on you. This is a label that belongs with your doctrines. You are every bit as much a Protestant as a Baptist, Pentecostal, or Presbyterian. Claiming to be non-denominational is a trademark of the Protestant movement.

3. The main problem is that Scripture does not claim that you should use ONLY Scripture. The Scriptures claim the Scriptures are profitable, but it reserves the title of pillar and ground of the Truth for the Church. This distinction is important to recognize and honor. We cannot claim to be following Scripture alone, anyways, because Scripture is NOT for private interpretation. Peter declared that rather forcefully. Scripture was never meant for private interpretation. It was meant to be interpreted within the Community to which it was given: The Church.

4. You haven't proven our Church is part of the ecumenical movement. You have only proven that our people have talked with leaders of other Churches. We have not said we will change our doctrines. We will not change our doctrines. That is something which will not happen. Our doctrines stay the same. If Rome wanted to become part of the Orthodox Church again, they would have to give up the following doctrines:

purgatory
Created Grace
Transubstantiation (there are church laws in the Council of Chalcedon which state that if the bread and wine physically change form, you are not to distribute.
the Filioque

There are others, but these are the biggest that I can think of. These are doctrines which the Orthodox Church cannot, will not accept as truth.

We will, however, openly state that the Devil has taken truths in Scripture and twisted them around in other churches, surrounding them with lie after lie. There is truth in there, because the Scripture holds truth. But that truth is buried under the lies of Satan. It is our job, as members of the Church, to peel away the lies and uncover the truth. Doing that is not ecumenism, that is Restoration. And Restoration of all members of the Church to one TRUTH is the necessary task of all Christians.

Bible Believer said...

1. one can be friendly and not have endless ecumenical meetings. Did you see this recent article.

Many Orthodox patriarchs were there in supporting the new Pope's message that religions should unite.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2013/03/pope-francis-calls-for-all-religions-to.html

Someone probably has to be born again to be offended at what is blatant disloyalty to Jesus Christ. I have had many of these discussions before, where Catholics and Orthodoxs wave away the one world religion stuff with a wave of the hand, saying it does not matter and is mere friendliness.

2. I have written articles against Protestantism and have an entire series of three articles--actually 4 that put the whole Protestant church to question.

Actually doctrinally while I am closest to some independent baptists I am moving off their ranch, with rejecting the one man show-pastor, not being Pre-Trib and rejecting Dominionism. I care most if someone is born again and a fellow believer of course.

I am not in a church, so how can I be non-denominational. Why would a denomination matter at this point :p?

3. Provide scripture that says that. All of these arguments revolve around a false definition of church, you believe it is a human organization of buildings, clergy etc, to me it is every born again believer in the Body of Jesus Christ.

John 5:39

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

4. Yes I have. There are pictures of Orthodox patriarchs right there, joined with the Pope in the unify religions message. My eyes are not lying to me.
http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/pope-forges-closer-ties-with-orthodox-after-meeting-patriarch-21908

There will be no changing of doctrine necessary in the one world religion. Read this article where I explain WHY...

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-age-code-phrase-2-unity-in.html

William Sculley said...

"1. one can be friendly and not have endless ecumenical meetings. Did you see this recent article.

Many Orthodox patriarchs were there in supporting the new Pope's message that religions should unite.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2013/03/pope-francis-calls-for-all-religions-to.html

Someone probably has to be born again to be offended at what is blatant disloyalty to Jesus Christ. I have had many of these discussions before, where Catholics and Orthodoxs wave away the one world religion stuff with a wave of the hand, saying it does not matter and is mere friendliness."

Of course, removing a phrase from the context is a wonderful way to push forward your agenda. It is also a way to make yourself look foolish. However, showing that the Orthodox patriarchs responded to the invitation to Pope Francis's inaugural event does not mean they support it. The Orthodox have stated many times that the way to come into the Church is by way of accepting the same dogmatic declarations as we make. Ecumenism, on the other hand, states that we should forsake our dogmatic beliefs in the "interests of unity". The Orthodox Church held a Council in 1983, which declares, to this day, the belief of the Orthodox Church in relation to the Ecumenical Movement:

"'Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!"

In other words, the Orthodox Church considers anyone who defends this heresy, or participates in the "sacraments" served by such heretics, to be members and partakers of heresy. Patriarch Kyril never supported the Roman Catholic Church's movements in the Ecumenical Movement. In fact, nobody knew he was going to make any statements about the Ecumenical Movement. Other than their presence, do you have any other evidence to implicate Patriarch Kyril of supporting the Ecumenical movement? This means I want direct quotes with links to something outside of this website, preferably something he or one of the other Patriarchs wrote.

I will make a note that, though our councils are called ecumenical, we are not using the term in the same way as the Ecumenical Movement. Ecumenical, in the Orthodox Church, refers to a council of representative Bishops from Antioch, Russia, Greece, and other branches of Orthodoxy. IT does not mean a "cross-denominational meeting".

William Sculley said...


"2. I have written articles against Protestantism and have an entire series of three articles--actually 4 that put the whole Protestant church to question.

Actually doctrinally while I am closest to some independent baptists I am moving off their ranch, with rejecting the one man show-pastor, not being Pre-Trib and rejecting Dominionism. I care most if someone is born again and a fellow believer of course.

I am not in a church, so how can I be non-denominational. Why would a denomination matter at this point :p?"

By not being in a church, you have created your own personal denomination. And whether you like it or not, yelling at mainline Protestants doesn't negate your status as a Protestant. You follow the five Solas, therefore you are a Protestant. You claiming to not be a Protestant is like a Platypus claiming it isn't a mammal because it lays eggs. Sure, you have your own collection of unique beliefs that other Protestants don't have, but you are still, ultimately, a Protestant.


"3. Provide scripture that says that. All of these arguments revolve around a false definition of church, you believe it is a human organization of buildings, clergy etc, to me it is every born again believer in the Body of Jesus Christ.

John 5:39

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Scripture did not come by Private Interpretation
II Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Since it didn't come by private interpretation, why should it be privately interpreted?

Scripture is not described as the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth, the Church is:
I Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

This tells us the place wherein we ought to interpret Scripture, the Church.

Now, you are wrong in saying that I believe that the Church is a human built organization. However, the Church IS a Divine organization of humans. God is a God of ORDER, not of chaos.

"4. Yes I have. There are pictures of Orthodox patriarchs right there, joined with the Pope in the unify religions message. My eyes are not lying to me.
http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/pope-forges-closer-ties-with-orthodox-after-meeting-patriarch-21908

There will be no changing of doctrine necessary in the one world religion. Read this article where I explain WHY...

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-age-code-phrase-2-unity-in.html"

I would rather have the words of the Patriarchs, because their words mean a heck of a lot more than your words. You want me to believe that the Patriarchs support Ecumenism, then get me their words.

William Sculley said...

I just realized that I did not answer one part of your post:

"There will be no changing of doctrine necessary in the one world religion."

This is VERY wrong and is actually the main deception used by the Ecumenical Movement. They tell you that your church will not need to change its doctrines to be part of its movement. This is, essentially, wrong, especially for the Orthodox Christian. There are huge disagreements between the Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church and the so-called "ecumenical movement". The very fact that they would abscond with a term which we use is why we have changed our terminology to replace the phrase "Ecumenical Council" with the phrase "Conciliar Meeting" or the other phrase "Pan-Orthodox Council".

The Orthodox Church teaches that there is only one True Doctrine of the Church. This is an excerpt from an article on the Orthodox Church of America website:

The Church struggles to preserve the “fullness of Truth.” As such, there is no room for “relativism” in the sense of “all Christians being grafted to the same trunk.” Clearly, there are those who’s branches have completely fallen from the trunk, who have severed any and all connection from historical Christianity. Are you aware that there are those who literally believe that from the time of the apostles until the first stirrings of reformation, the “true” Church simply did not exist—for some 1400 years! It is patently ridiculous to imply that Orthodox Christianity should acknowledge as “branches” those who reject the “trunk” from which they supposedly sprout, or who deny that the “trunk” even exists in the first place.

While the Church preserves the “fullness of Truth,” it does not imply that everyone else is completely and utterly devoid of all truth. As Fr. Georges Florovsky once said, nothing is 100% wrong. Wherever life exists and love is experienced, God’s presence is found, even if those who live and love reject His presence. Even if a tradition preserves but one percent of truth, it is not totally devoid of truth. But one must not forget that one percent of the truth is certainly not “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” And to imply that traditions that believe in “truths” that are diametrically opposed to those held by the Church in all places and at all times are merely expressing the same faith but in different terms or from different perspectives is not a principle of Orthodox Christianity; it is the hallmark of relativism.

There is no “relativism” or “varying perspectives” or “nuances” in the truth as revealed by Christ. For example, He did not say, “This is My Body, but it is equally true that this could be My Body, or that this symbolizes My Body, or that this is My Body if you believe it is but not My Body if you don’t.” He said, “This IS My Body.” Not much room for discussion or alternative “expressions” here, or anywhere else in His words and actions.



As you can see here, the Ecumenical Movement is incompatible with the Orthodox Faith. It doesn't matter what your personal point of view is on a matter when that point of view is wrong. You can perceive all of the dragons you want, make up all of the accusations you wish. In the end, that does not change the fact that the Orthodox Church is never going to be an active participant as a whole in the Ecumenical Movement. Those priests who fall to such a temptation will be disciplined, stripped of their priestly duties and ranks, to finish out their lives in the Church as laity only.

Bible Believer said...

The Orthodox church is an active participant NOW in the ecumenical movement. [yes you may have some "Trad" outliners too like the Trad Catholics who refuse.

The Patriarchs even support the United Nations.

Honored by the United Nations...

http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarch/passion-for-peace

"The Patriarch has been honored also by the United Nations, the European Union and dozens of governments, universities and institutions for his bold efforts to promote peace and understanding, especially between East and West."

The "fullness of truth" is a Satanic lie. Something is either completely true or it is not.

You wrote:

As Fr. Georges Florovsky once said, nothing is 100% wrong. Wherever life exists and love is experienced, God’s presence is found, even if those who live and love reject His presence. Even if a tradition preserves but one percent of truth, it is not totally devoid of truth.

And this is the LIE, that supports religious pluralism, I have interfaith journals now, used for research where they focus on false satanic world religions being centered on "compassion".

The Bible tells us this instead.

Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Where are all the Orthodox priests who got removed for hanging out with the Catholic Popes at Assisi?

William Sculley said...

The Orthodox church is an active participant NOW in the ecumenical movement. [yes you may have some "Trad" outliners too like the Trad Catholics who refuse.

The Patriarchs even support the United Nations.

Honored by the United Nations...

http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarch/passion-for-peace

"The Patriarch has been honored also by the United Nations, the European Union and dozens of governments, universities and institutions for his bold efforts to promote peace and understanding, especially between East and West."

The leaders of the Orthodox Church have NOT participated directly in the Ecumenical Movement. The Ecumenical Patriarchate is not the Ecumenical movement.

The definition of Ecumenical which we use is this:

"of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches"

The body of Churches which we represent in the Ecumenical Councils and Patriarchates is the Orthodox Church. We don't represent any church outside of the Orthodox Church. Period. Your statements are either misunderstandings of what we teach, or they are malicious fabrications about my Church. Your statements and accusations are about as true as the statement that the moon is made of cheese. You have only two choices. You can continue making the statements and become a liar yourself, or you can drop the accusations, because THIS is the effect of Orthodoxy in Turkey:

"He has seen the extent of that suffering over many decades. In September of 1955, when Bartholomew was studying in Istanbul, he witnessed a massive pogrom against the city’s Greek neighborhoods that left them looking “like the bombed parts of London during the Second World War,” as one British journalist reported. While the police “stood idly by or cheered on the mob,” according to a report of the U.S. consul, 4,000 Greek shops and 2,000 homes were sacked and plundered, 38 churches were burned to the ground and 35 more desecrated, and 52 schools were destroyed. More than a dozen people were killed and scores were injured during the riots, beginning a cycle of violence and intimidation that has seen Istanbul’s Greek population reduced from 200,000 when the riots erupted to less than 2,000 today. (The riots were reportedly in response to the bombing of the Turkish consulate in Thessaloniki, but a Turkish inquiry later found that it had been ordered and carried out by agents of the Turkish prime minister to incite and justify anti-Greek riots in Turkey.)"

Apparently, the Muslims, who you tell us we are secretly being buddy buddy with are being the exact opposite to us.

Get off your high horse and accept that your humanity can lead you into the wrong conclusions.

William Sculley said...


"The "fullness of truth" is a Satanic lie. Something is either completely true or it is not."

So, any church that teaches that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior must necessarily teach everything else true, by your own narrow-minded and hateful logic. Sorry, they quite obviously do not. Most churches use the same Scriptures, and because they have Scripture, they have part of the truth. Or are you going to dare to say that scripture isn't true?

"Where are all the Orthodox priests who got removed for hanging out with the Catholic Popes at Assisi?"

Let us use the Scriptural counterpart to that.
Matthew 9:11
And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

To you, I say the same response as Christ to the Pharisees:

"They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

You glory in your "knowledge" of Scripture, but you have not knowledge which brings humility, but knowledge which puffs up and fills you with pride. Instead of building others up, you take joy in tearing others down. You post article after article about how everyone else is wrong, but you never sit down and write about what is right! Christ spent most of His time teaching the right, the true, and the beautiful to His Disciples. He only rebuked others in maybe 5% of His recorded words. You, on the other hand, talk less than 5% about what you teach is truth. As you don't currently attend a gathering of Christians, then we must assume that this is all of your teaching. In the heart of the issue, you need to realize that your rebukes carry only as much weight as the knowledge of the rebuked about your teaching. Unfortunately, the only articles I can find on here are hateful articles about everyone who is OTHER than yourself. And that is certainly not loving your neighbor as yourself. If you perceive that your neighbor is down, then you help him mend his wounds. You don't rub salt in the wounds or make wounds of your own.

Bible Believer said...

"The leaders of the Orthodox Church have NOT participated directly in the Ecumenical Movement."

Proof they have:

http://www.antiochian.org/interfaith

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/28/assisi-interfaith-summit-2011_n_1062649.html

"Benedict traveled the 100 miles from Rome by train, bringing with him delegates representing faiths from Anglicanism to Zoroastrianism.

There were reminders of the color and variety that distinguished the 1986 landmark gathering. Bald Buddhist monks in saffron robes mingled with turbaned Sikhs and Orthodox prelates in black veils. Wande Abimbola, a Nigerian scholar representing indigenous African religions, invoked the Yoruba deity Olokun and chanted to the accompaniment of a rattle.

But the ceremonies were far more generic than at the 1986 event, whose photogenic highlights included Zoroastrians tending a sacred fire and an American Indian medicine man in traditional headdress smoking a peace pipe."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=174600796

Bible Believer said...

" Most churches use the same Scriptures, and because they have Scripture, they have part of the truth. Or are you going to dare to say that scripture isn't true?"

Are you going to tell me that Jehovah Witnesses that deny Jesus Christ is God are Christians?

How about Mormons?

They have "scripture" too{adulterated}

"
Matthew 9:11
And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

To you, I say the same response as Christ to the Pharisees:"

There is a difference between eating dinner with an non-believer or talking to one, and inviting one to pray to their false gods and sponsoring this false worship.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2011/10/pope-at-new-assisi-may-every-religion.html

Loving a neighbor is telling them the truth.

I already admit this is not a devotional blog which has one focus.

It does deal with "what's wrong".

This is one POSITIVE thing posted all over this blog.

That Jesus is the only way.

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

William Sculley said...

yeah, and that one positive thing is buried under misinformation and lies about anyone who doesn't interpret the Bible exactly the same way that you do. By your own rules, because there is one untrue statement in what you teach, an untruth which you refuse to give up after it has been revealed, then everything you say is to be considered part of the harlot.

Your estimation is that since the patriarchs attended the inaugural speech of the Pope, they must therefore agree with him. But what of the dissenters who were present at the inaugural speech of Obama? Perhaps they are truly in support of Obama, because they were there. Why would they come to his State of the Union speech if they disagreed with him?

By your logic, the simple presence of our bishops damns them to be part of his movement. But we did not receive of his communion table. The pope knows that if he offered the bread and wine he supposedly consecrates to our bishops, our bishops would refuse his offer. Perhaps the only reason for their presence is much simpler. Perhaps the Pope is a large part of European politics, and even worldwide politics. As a politician, many things which the Pope says have an effect on people outside of Italy.

You are making mountains out of oceans. There isn't a molehill. There isn't even landmass. You look at an ocean and say "there is a mountain." That is how foolish you are acting. You have no evidence other than the fact that they were present. Of course, in your imaginary world, if it isn't 100% in agreement with your private interpretation of Scripture, it must be 100% against it.

William Sculley said...

Also, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses altered Scripture in many cases beyond recognition. They aren't churches, any more than Zoroastrians are churches.

They do, however, recognize things which are true.

Examples: Jehovah's Witnesses realize that serving God involves evangelizing. And in fact, JW's are kicking our butts in that department. You can hardly get Christians to talk about their faith in this world, but JW's will be knocking on your door at 6 in the morning. They do recognize that there is importance to the Great Commission.

Mormons recognize that the final kingdom of God on earth will be a Kingdom without end.

These two things are true. You can't deny the truthfulness of these statements, because they are both based on Scripture.

Our job, as Christians, is to peel away the false, without destroying the truth.

Bible Believer said...

Seeking after "partial" truths is nonsense.

There are those who embrace Buddhism and Hinduism because supposedly aspects of the religion teach compassion.

Don't you realize that is one of the foundations of religious pluralism?

Bible Believer said...

So what is the excuse for their involvement with Assisi and other interfaith gatherings? Assisi 2002 even involved Vooduns pouring out liquor to their demons, and yes there is a picture of this.

Picture here

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2011/12/popes-and-voodoo-in-africa.html

The patriarchs offered supportive statements towards the Pope.

This is not like your patriarchs walked down a street and bumped into anyone or went to go "witness" to the Pope. They didn't. They praised him as a leader and thus held him up to others. Why wouldn't they being part of the harlot?

So you are saying people should submit to the Pope or be around him or support him because of politics?

Politics is an excuse they give a lot of evils in America with the Dominionists too.

I always find it funny, how some deny the interfaith movement/ecumenism exists. I've heard it's not relevant, it doesn't exist, it's a molehill, etc.

For some reason it does not matter to you that your religious leaders have shared even shared religious programs with Hindus, native religions and other false religions.

I've heard these defenses before, for all the religious pluralism and one world religion stuff. It is nothing new. So many that have to simply deny what is happening in front of their eyes. I've had Catholics defend their religious leaders even lighting lamps to Hindu deities, photographs and all.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/05/hinduism-and-roman-catholicism.html

I suspect that one who has not been born again, has no inkling of the falseness of other religions, they believe they "contain truths" and are other paths ways to God even if deficient. The Christian knows they are products of Satan and demonic, and that the poor people lost in them need the truth.

William Sculley said...

"Seeking after "partial" truths is nonsense.

There are those who embrace Buddhism and Hinduism because supposedly aspects of the religion teach compassion.

Don't you realize that is one of the foundations of religious pluralism?"

No. I realize it is foundational to evangelization. Look at Paul, who came to the Areopagus and said "this God, that you worship in ignorance, Him I proclaim to you." He even acknowledged that they worshiped God in their ignorance. The "Unknown god" of the Athenians, at the time, was not a catch all for deities whose names they didn't know. Rather, the unknown god was considered to be the god who was above all of the other gods they worshiped.

In seeing their zeal, Paul exhorted them based on the truth which they believed, that there was a God above all other gods. He then expounded on that, declaring that he was proclaiming that unknown God to them. As a result of Paul's acknowledging the partial truth, Dionysius and Damaris, as well as others, were brought into the Church.

If finding the truth buried in the falseness is good enough for Paul, then I'll trust his judgment. I doubt that I could be a better evangelist than Paul.

William Sculley said...

I fail to see the relevance of something the Pope did of his own volition to the presence of our patriarchs at the establishment of a new political player in the European courts. I searched through your whole article. There was nothing about patriarchs or the Orthodox in it.

Your argument is flawed, because it isn't based in fact. The more likely alternative is that which has the least variables. To put it simply, the simplest answer is more likely to be true. The fact remains that the Pope's inaugural speech was more of a political event than it was religious.

Perhaps it's your failure to realize that your fear is speaking louder than the reality. You're so poisoned with Catholophobia (fear of catholicism) that you're being irrational in response to them.

Bible Believer said...

They do not witness at these harlot interfaith events like Paul did at Mars Hill. Paul told them who God really is. The Pope tells the Muslims that Allah of Islam equals God.

Bible Believer said...

I know the Orthdox support Catholicism.

They both are of the harlot.

One should be *afraid* of false religions that will take millions to hell and the author of them.

Matt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Tom Plant said...

You are incredibly ignorant. Without the Church there would be no Bible for you to believe in, and the Church which gave us the Bible is the one and only Church that Jesus Himself instituted. Do you really suppose that they simply got it wrong for the 1500 years before the Reformation? If you want to see what a church that Jesus would recognise might look like, try the one that speaks his own language (Aramaic) - the Syriac Orthodox Church.
It's frankly bizarre to suppose that a 500 year old western tradition, especially in its more extreme and even more modern forms, could be closer to the teaching and practice of the early Church than the ancient churches which have continued in unbroken tradition for 200 years!

Bible Believer said...

God promised to preserve His Word. I do not believe that the Catholic or Orthodox church "gave us the bible" if they did, why would there be so many verses in the Bible that bring so many of their false traditions into question. I am an ex-Catholic and have read both Catholic bibles and the KJV, and know the differences, many word for word.

Yes they got it wrong.

Why because Babylon existed even at the time of the apostles and the grievous wolves they warned about.

I do not see anything of the book of Acts in the Catholic or Orthodox church.

I read a Catholic Bible while still Catholic and "came out of her".

I have posted multitudes of articles on the Roman Catholic church especially and their false gospel, false Mass and false traditions. The Anglicans have retained most of those false things.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/search?q=Catholic


Are you a priest?

I went to your blog,

So you are in the church of England?




William Sculley said...

Actually, you do see the Churches, as they existed. The Church in Antioch, the first of Peter's churches, still exists, unchanged in doctrine, today. The Church established in Rome, by Linus, under the command of Peter from Antioch, existed without change until 1054, when they decided that the Pope is boss.

On the other hand, fundamentalism, as defined by the doctrines apparent in your posts, has only been around for 100 years, and that is certainly not without change.

Also, God did not need to do much preserving to preserve His Word, since His Word is Christ, and not a book. Yes, the KJV is different from other Bibles. This tends to happen when bribery, anti-Catholic bias, and pro-monarchy traditions are the supporting foundation of your book.

Bible Believer said...

When I read the book of Acts, it has nothing of modern Masses and false Orthodox and Catholic traditions. I believe those early church leaders were false and the apostles themselves warned of DECEIVERS in their time. Alexandrian school, married to paganism types who came in with endless deceptions.

Why would God promise to preserve His Word? You do not think the Bible is important by that statement. Don't you realize that Jesus Christ and God's Word is the same thing? And His Word is in the Bible--[the KJV true BIble--Textus Receptus, yes there are ones of other languages from the correct stream, not the Vaticanus and corrupted Bibles]

There are Christians who were Bible believers however they were silenced and killed by Rome. what do you think the Inquisitions did to them.

Bible Believer said...

I was raised Catholic and their teachings were adverse to scripture.

I have noticed in Catholicism and Orthodoxism, there is always this focus on dismantling scripture or giving it less importance.

If one loves Jesus Christ, they love His Word in the Bible.

This means you have a false jesus one that decries scripture.

As for fundamentalism, haven't you figured out by now if you read this blog regularly, while there are aspects of my beliefs some could call fundamentalist, I am not blindly following the Christian Zionist and Dominionist set?

What matters to me is if someone is born again in Jesus Christ. Not following a false jesus.

Jesus himself told us to be born again, not some 19th century fundamentalists or would be freemasonic deceivers pretending to be Christians.


John 3:7

King James Version (KJV)


7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


I think this one is even in the false Catholic Bibles.

let me look

John 3:7 (New American Standard Bible)

John 3:7

New American Standard Bible (NASB)


7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born [a]again.’


Footnotes:
a.John 3:7 Or from above




John 3:7

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)


7 Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again.

I pray one day you are born again, so you can see the truth of GOd's Word and love the Bible He has given us.

William Sculley said...

When I read the book of Acts, it has nothing of modern Masses and false Orthodox and Catholic traditions. I believe those early church leaders were false and the apostles themselves warned of DECEIVERS in their time. Alexandrian school, married to paganism types who came in with endless deceptions.

Yeah, if the book of Acts were the only book in the Bible, you wouldn't believe in Tradition. Luckily, there's II Thessalonians, which commands Tradition.

Yes there were people who weren't following the Apostles. The Orthodox Tradition, however, we not what they followed. The Orthodox call things Tradition because they trace back to the Apostles.

The early Church, under the Apostles, was organized, and universal. Every Church taught the same doctrine. Any place that did not teach that doctrine was determined to not be a Church. Your brand of Christianity never existed before these past two centuries.

Because Christianity is true whether or not you want it to be, and Christianity is what has been taught since the Apostles came, we can reliably determine that EVERY denomination which did not exist from the first century until today is NOT the Church. This excludes every "church" EXCEPT Orthodoxy.

Why would God promise to preserve His Word? You do not think the Bible is important by that statement. Don't you realize that Jesus Christ and God's Word is the same thing? And His Word is in the Bible--[the KJV true BIble--Textus Receptus, yes there are ones of other languages from the correct stream, not the Vaticanus and corrupted Bibles]

Jesus isn't a book. A book wasn't crucified on Calvary. A book didn't save me. Jesus is saving me. The Bible is a text. Without proper interpretation, it will not lead to God. Apart from the Church in which the Bible was given, the Bible is only a text. joined to the Body in which it was given, the Bible, NO MATTER THE VERSION, is powerful. The KJV is a fault-filled, error-prone version of the Bible, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER VERSION. It is no better, nor worse, than any other version.

There are Christians who were Bible believers however they were silenced and killed by Rome. what do you think the Inquisitions did to them.

Yeah, the Roman Church, whilst being hunted down by the Roman government, also hunted down other "Christians". Yeah, and I'm a bouncing elephant who learned to fly. Your history needs more history.

Rome didn't start killing people until the 1300s. That leaves 1200 years for you to account for in which they didn't go out killing heretics.

William Sculley said...

Also, saying that Scripture is limited is saying that NOTHING, not even Scripture itself, is equal to God. God is not contained in a book. He is uncontainable.

You can go on serving a God Who is contained in a book. I'll choose rather to worship a God Who is beyond the scope of any book.

Anonymous said...

"It seems demeaning in a way, with adult men being fed like young children"

Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Bible Believer said...

The "god" who is not in scripture or the Word is the false god of all religions, Lucifer himself. You sound just like the pluralists who say "God" is contained in the Koran, Baghadavita, and other religious writings.

Bible Believer said...

Priestcraft, they have to keep the other men demeaned in this case, treating them just like babies.

LAStreetPreacher said...

There's not one local church I've found that is perfect and if you were to join it, it would thereby become imperfect. 90% of all churches are 501c3 incorporated entities meaning they are in effect state churches. They've been muzzled and have lost their ecclesiastical jurisdiction. These churches whether the Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant have entered into a third party contract with the state and have agreed to not speak out on public policy matters such as the New World Order, abortion, same sex marriage, endorsing political candidates, doubting the official 911 story etc. This attempt to muzzle the churches began back in 1954 under the reprobate Lyndon Johnson. While it is required for believers to contend for the faith let us not forget to evangelize the lost per Christ's command and not be part of the ecumenical movement, One World Anti-Christ spirit pervading our political and religious institutions. See www.HushMoney.org for the excellent information regarding 501c3 churches and the mis-information many churches are promoting with tax exempt benefits in exchange for religious rights.

LAStreetPreacher said...

There's not one local church I've found that is perfect and if you were to join it, it would thereby become imperfect. 90% of all churches are 501c3 incorporated entities meaning they are in effect state churches. They've been muzzled and have lost their ecclesiastical jurisdiction. These churches whether the Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant have entered into a third party contract with the state and have agreed to not speak out on public policy matters such as the New World Order, abortion, same sex marriage, endorsing political candidates, doubting the official 911 story etc. This attempt to muzzle the churches began back in 1954 under the reprobate Lyndon Johnson. While it is required for believers to contend for the faith let us not forget to evangelize the lost per Christ's command and not be part of the ecumenical movement, One World Anti-Christ spirit pervading our political and religious institutions. See www.HushMoney.org for the excellent information regarding 501c3 churches and the mis-information many churches are promoting with tax exempt benefits in exchange for religious rights.

Bible Believer said...

Some don't care about perfection but just trying to find one with sincere folks who are truly born again. I suppose I have had my fill of the used car salesmen and deceivers in the pulpits.

I do not agree with "state" churches and believe when they sign on to 501 3 C, they sign everything away. So this is the real reason none of them ever warn about the NWO or anything else?
Some of the evangelicals though still push Republican politics though with the "rules" they have to be a bit subtle.

The Catholic churches and Orthies can't whine about 501c3, the Catholic church especially has always pushed Dominionism, marriage of church and state.

William Sculley said...

"Priestcraft, they have to keep the other men demeaned in this case, treating them just like babies."

Would you care to elaborate? Or will you simply make an unbased and unexplained accusation without giving credence?

William Sculley said...

BB, 501C3 is actually a barrier. Without it, churches would be taxed on their tithes, and forced to pay the state the money which I give for use in the ministry of God. By law, however, there is no requirement for churches to remain silent about moral matters, whether or not they are used as parts of political pandering.

There are people out there TRYING to make it illegal, but as yet, it is not illegal. The requirements of a 501C3 organization is that all "profits" are used for charitable work. This means that everything left after the bills are paid is given out to missionaries.

Granted, there are churches that have buckled under peer pressure and lawsuits, but if worse came to worse and an Orthodox Church were forced to choose between paying taxes and changing its message, it wouldn't change its message. This has been proven over 2000 years where the Orthodox have refused to change, despite the constantly changing stances of Rome, and all of Western Protestantism.

And BB, if you try to say you aren't Protestant, you're a Neo-Protestant, which means you sprang out of the Protestant movement as a Protestant against the Protestants. That's just fancy speak for a new Protestant. Like it or not, you're just a new belief who claims, without proof, that you are teaching exactly what the apostles taught.

Carlton said...

Are you a Christian from the Reformed persuasion? I believe the most consistent expression of Christianity is found in the Reformed faith. Dominionism as found in the Christian Reconstruction movement as I understand it tries to bring all areas of life into subjection to Jesus Christ but they tend to model their philosophy after much of the Old Testament. I believe the gospel under the New Covenant gives us a picture of the Kingdom of God as a spiritual kingdom which exists under any political form of government. Personally, I do not like a police state or big government. This is not the form of government our founding fathers advocated. They believed in limited Constitutional government which is currently being attacked by Obama, Bush and much of Washington D. C. Most churches today are more afraid of the Federal government than Jesus Christ. They mis-interpret Romans 13 for example and elevate the state to a god that can not and should not be questioned. To question or disobey the state according to many pastors and churches is to disobey God. This is false. The state is subject to to the laws of Christ Civil disobedience is a right of all Christians because as the apostles said: "We must obey God rather than men." God has established government on all levels family, state, church etc and we must speak the word of God as Christ commanded when He gave us the Great Commission. Both church and State are separate and sovereign in their own sphere. I think this is the Biblical position. Incidentally you can find my work at https://www.youtube.com/user/LAStreetPreacher/videos

William Sculley said...

I am not of the Reformed persuasion. The idea of the reformation was to "return to the roots" of Christianity. It was an admirable desire. In fact, it is one to which the Church has always called.

However, in their desire to return to the roots, Reformers determined that ALL traditions were evil and wrong, notwithstanding what they were. This is where the Reformation went horribly wrong. The invention of the idea of "Sola Scriptura" led to a denial of three very important statements in Scripture itself, and an additional raising of the Scripture to levels on par with God Himself.

The three Scriptures all refer to Tradition, or the Greek word "Paradosis", as:

1. Divinely commanded in both written and oral form (II Thessalonians 2:15)
2. A basis for excommunication of those who do not follow it (II Thessalonians 3:6)
3. A praiseworthy way in which to live (I Corinthians 11:2)

Do not use your KJV (or many other translations), because the word is not translated as "Tradition". Instead, the translators decided to translate "Paradosis" as "Ordinances" this one time out of 11 total appearances. That's right, 10 times, they translate it as "Tradition", and once as "ordinances". This is quite confusing, considering that no Greek scholar, whether secular or Christian, would ever say it fits to the term "ordinances". Ordinances would mean a list of rules or laws. Paradosis literally means "teachings which are handed down". The translation of the KJV here was a slip-shod attempt to mask the praise of Traditional Christianity in the Scriptures.

This leads us to the Reformed movement, which split from Calvinism in the late 1800's. While it is a step closer to Orthodoxy in comparison to Calvinism and Roman Catholicism, there is still a wide gap. I can explain by way of a diagram here:

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/388857749047085829/

Eastern Orthodoxy has remained doctrinally unchanged for 2000 years, a statement not only grand in its implications, but easily demonstrable in a careful reading of the Early Church's vast library of writings. If you were to compile all the doctrinal views on soteriology, Christology, Pneumatology, Theology Proper, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology, you would find that they line up most closely to the Eastern Orthodox Faith.

Prior to the Schism of 1054, there was no such thing as Denominations. There were only Christians and heathen. There was a branch of heathens called heretics, who were once Christians, but left Christianity. Do note that this means that a true Orthodox Christian CANNOT declare someone a heretic unless they were once an Orthodox Christian.

So, that was a very long answer to your first question, I would say no. This is why: That which was here first and unchanged to the now is that which Christ has called us to follow.


The Church was born in structure, it has always lived in structure. It will remain in a structured form until Christ returns. The whole movement against a structured Church which is pioneered by modern Protestants like Bible Believer here is the inevitable result of Sola Scriptura. Now it's just Bible Believer and his trusty Bible. Nothing else is necessary. God just gave us the Church as a temporary crutch, because we, as humans, have somehow come to the ability to understand the trademark work of the most complex being known to mankind: the Bible.

Yeah...And I'm able to run faster than a cheetah, too.

William Sculley said...

As to Dominionism, the Orthodox Church learned the problem with Dominionism the hard way, with the whole Byzantine Debacle followed by the Russian debacle (you remember the events that compiled in bringing about the wonderful Bolshevic Revolution and eventually Communism? That's the result of Dominionism. Learned the hard way. Why do you think you don't see Orthodox bishops protesting gay marriage, which the Orthodox Church teaches is not a true marriage? It has become a non-issue. Every time the Church has tried its hand at politics, insanity ensues. And it doesn't matter WHICH church denomination, either. Example: slavery under the mostly Calvinistic American government and the oppression under the Anglican British government. Both of these eventually led to some very bloody wars. In fact, nearly every "Christian" government has instigated wars based on religious reasoning. Need proof it's a bad idea? There you go.

Bible Believer said...

Jesus Christ is our high priest, no other need for priests. Men do not need a go between between then and God. Jesus is our mediator.

The church tax thing is interesting since Jesus said render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's which to me seems to denote pay your taxes. The special tax breaks churches have gotten puts them more under government rules. I know this is controversial even with the evangelical world.

I see the Orthodox church as "changing" just out of its unity with Rome's ecumenical movement. I certainly have not seen any mainstream Orthodox patriarchs remind the Pope that "Allah of Islam is not God"

I am not a Protestant. I do not define my beliefs by Romanish "church history" or their definitions of heretics or who is a Christian or not. I do not consider it a Christian religion. Certainly you have seen enough of my articles denoting the daughters of Rome and my rejection of their false traditions, sacraments and more they inherited from Rome. William you need to get in the mind set that God's way is not man's, and however man defines things, what God thinks comes first. Let's look at the book of Acts speaking whose closer to the apostles, the guys in special outfits and ritualistic ceremonies, or those who preach the Word and say "ye must be born again"?




Bible Believer said...

I am not Reformed and reject Christian Reconstructionism and Domionism. I believe Calvinism is a daughter church as well. Most reformed churches today are also part of the ecumenical movement, the WCC and World Christian movement. I have articles dealing with these matters, look at the index. I am curious why do you see systems of human government godly or as doing God's will? Satan runs the governments of this world, all one has to do is check out the luciferian/freemasonic networks. Don't let a misunderstanding of Romans 13 let you believe that every government is here on earth to do God's will. Church and state married together is always a bad idea, and one Rome really perfect before Calvin glommed onto it and decided to burn Servetus as the stake. If anything the governments of the world today are united together for the beast system. This is one horrid deception in the Reformed system where I often denoted that love for Dominionism as well.

Bible Believer said...

If you truly believe too, I read more of your post Carleton that church and state should be separate, Calvinism or the Reformed position is adverse to this.

Bible Believer said...

William, the Orthodox must not have learned much from the Bolsheviks or the Communists. Since today the majority are just as united with the United Nations and other agencies of world government as the Vatican is.

Some of these discrepancies you need to think long and hard about.

http://www.antiochian.org/news/Release20030519_SCOBA_SCOOCH.htm

William Sculley said...

Yes, because a person can't be a politician AND a Christian. Most likely, the lame duck of a UN is not going to be what becomes the world-wide government. It just lacks the power. Likely, whoever antichrist turns out to be, will overthrow the UN in his regime.

However, saying that you are going to hold a prayer service and invite the politicians to make a short statement after the service proper is not uniting with the politicians. By that same logic, you have united with me by allowing me to post on here. You have logically united with every person you have disagreed with by allowing their opinions to be posted on here.

And your "perception" of change is a false perception. There hasn't been any DOCTRINAL change. There are always PRACTICAL change, which is obvious. We no longer do services in Koine Greek, but in modern languages. We have several rites according to which we do our services, including a western rite. Many of our practical changes are to keep the truth presented in such a way that a modern person can understand it.

You are hard-pressed to find real doctrinal change for many reasons:

1. The key doctrines of the Church, which we declare in our creeds, haven't changed in 2000 years.
2. The doctrines you claim are changing are doctrines which aren't dogmatic to the Church, and there has never been a consensus on them.
3. You create a false image of doctrinal change by claiming that being present for the discussion of false doctrine is the same as agreeing with it.

On the first, you have absolutely no ground. Christ has always been declared as God, by every true Orthodox from the time of Ignatius and Clement until the time of today. It will continue to be our stance until Christ returns in glory and power to bring His judgment. It will never change.

On the second, there are many doctrines, such as eschatology, with no real dogmatic application. There is no importance in discussing eschatology in relation to salvation. Aside from saying that those who die in Christ are present with Him, there is nothing really solidly agreed on, and that has been true since the time the Apostles were around. Thessalonians was written as a result of it, but it didn't really make any solid declarations!

On the third, well, if the Patriarchs are in agreement and approval with the Pope simply by virtue of their being present where he is, then you are in agreement and approval of the Orthodox Church by virtue of discussing things with me.

Finally, if you are going to sell yourself as a non-Protestant, then you must prove the following:

1. There was a separate, unbroken lineage of Christianity.
2. This lineage is still around today.
3. You were ordained by a member of this lineage.

Unless you can prove that, you MUST accept that you are either Protestant, Orthodox (Coptic or Eastern), or Roman Catholic (Eastern or Western, or Pious).

This is not some question of categorization and forcing you into a box. It is a statement of fact. You came from a movement of the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, you are a product of the Reformation.

Don't like it, either leave Christianity altogether or choose one of the other two.

You saying you aren't a Protestant is like a raven saying it isn't a bird.

William Sculley said...

Also, taxes are already paid on tithes. Literally. The government receives a tax of your donation when you receive it in your paycheck. By collecting taxes on it AGAIN, it would mean you would have to donate 12% in tithes in order that your 10% tithe would be paid. This is double taxation. We have already rendered unto Caesar what is due to him. We will not pay him again what is not due him, but to God.

charles allan said...

PETER 2
Falsely interpreted - Peter means here that scripture does not come from men's thoughts but from God - so can be relied upon. He does not mean you are not allowed to read scripture on your own but quite the opposite - if you read it clearly and to the quotes finish.

charles allan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
charles allan said...

THE BIBLE - GOD EXALTS HIS WORD ABOVE HIS NAME.
“For You have magnified Your word above all Your name” (Ps. 138:2).

Jesus is the WORD made flesh.

William Sculley said...

Ok, even here, this quote lacks the context of what you were responding to. When you respond to something that was written aeons ago, you don't just respond, you quote it.

In Peter's epistle, Peter was responding to a form of Gnosticism that arose from personal interpretation of the Scripture. No, I did not say that it means we don't have personal READING, but that we do not read and make our own assumptions about the text. Rather, we read it, and then we say, is the way we understood it in our personal reading meaning the same as what the Apostle or Prophet intended. That knowledge is found only in being the same as the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth: the Church. Not some building, and not a manmade organization. It is a divinely organized group of men, appointed by God to teach the same truth in EVERY generation.

charles allan said...

THE SEVEN CHURCHES
In the first 5 hundred years these seemingly local churches had some different practices some which Jesus praised and others which He rebuked.
Jesus wrote seven letters to these churches. If these churches had all been under control of Rome then would one letter only have been written to the Pope.
So they seem to have local independence evidenced by the points Jesus brings to their works.
Many theologians think that they represent a timeline as well as a type of church.
Eg Thyatira is usually interpreted as the catholic church : Sardis as the early protestant and Philadelphia as the evangelical 18th 19th century church (the most commended - with no faults)
We are now in the Laodicean age as we can all see.
But you can have a philadelphian type church in the Laodicean age.

charles allan said...

PETER 2
Peter is saying that the Word comes not from men but from God - that is what he is saying. Just in case the listeners thought the NT writings came from their own or Peter's personal thoughts and interpretations. By not reading the whole verse a false meaning is given especially by catholic bloggers (I have noticed this often)

William Sculley said...

1. Those seven churches were written to by the Bishop of Rome: Clement. Clement's letters weren't included as part of Scripture because he simply wasn't an Apostle, and what he wrote didn't add anything substantial to the message, but were simply the same doctrines restated by a different mouth, as most Christian literature was. For that fact, the Bishops of Ephesus (John, the Apostle, and his godson Ignatius) both wrote letters to these churches. The 7 letters were included in the beginning of Revelations.

2. The New Testament was an example itself of the multiple sources of authority the Church had, and was also an example of the Apostolic Tradition. Though its parts were written in the first century, the new Testament was not put together as a unit until 364 AD, when St. Athanasius first listed the 26 books we currently call the New Testament.

3. There was no difference in dogma between the early Church. There were heretics, but the Church TOGETHER always declared them to be heresy. The Church of Philadelphia is not a divided movement of people who can't agree on central dogmas. That is what the 18th and 19th century Protestant Reformation was. About 50 different doctrinal sets at those times. They could not be true. Philadelphia is a Church joined in dogma and practice that are true.

4. I never said those churches were under Rome. There were only two Churches founded by Peter: Antioch and Rome. Rome was founded by Peter by virtue of his sending the Centurion Linus to Rome as a missionary. Linus founded it, but Peter gave his authority to the project.

5. The seven letters were written by John. Though he claimed to have divine guidance, so did many other letter writers. Because of this, the authority came from the signature, which was that of John, who was an Apostle. Being a known authority allowed the Churches to recognize the source as credible.

William Sculley said...

Also, Charles, The Bible is a book. The Bible specifically said that even all the books in the world, a compendium of books which would be able to fill every building in Jacksonville Florida, could possibly contain everything which Christ did.

Therefore, the Word which is the Bible is not Christ. The Word of Scripture is not Christ in written form. Christ is Christ. The Bible is the Bible. They are not the same. I was not saved by the Bible. I was saved, am being saved, and will be saved by Christ, and none other.

charles allan said...

PETER 2
Peter is saying that the Word comes not from men but from God - that is what he is saying. Just in case the listeners thought the NT writings came from their own or Peter's personal thoughts and interpretations. By not reading the whole verse a false meaning is given especially by catholic bloggers (I have noticed this often)

William Sculley said...

If you're going to ignore everything for one point that you want to say I'm believing, this conversation is going to go nowhere. I already said that.

1. Protestantism doesn't have a teaching that was the intended meaning of the Apostles.

2. The intended meaning never passed from this earth (Jude 3/Matthew 16:18)

charles allan said...

BIBLE COMPLETED BEFORE 70 AD
Paul's and Peter's letters would have been read out and circulated at the time they were written - so would the gospels - so the NT letters would be well known. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 ad as Jesus prophesied - if the gospels were written after this event it would take away from the prophecy. John finished his letter before 70 ad (there was a mistake in the writings about the name of an emperor - giving an an ad 90 date).
No mention is made of this cataclysmic event in all NT as having already happened.
Although the bible was canonised after 300 ad the NT letters etc were known from the time they were written.
The church of Philadelphia (brotherly love) must have had different practices from the other six since Jesus had different things to say about each church.
I read some of clements letters and they are good teaching. If you agree on the timeline idea and I do (although the eras are difficult to date) I tend to think that the philadelphian era was the 18th 19th century revival period with wesley spurgeon edwards etc.
The seven letters are worth a "google" study to see the different viewpoints.
These 7 churches led me to believe that the elect can be in different types of churches as long as they are not in heresy with the bible.

William Sculley said...

The problem with the dating on john's letters and gospel is that most of them were written in Ephesus or Patmos. John did not come to Ephesus until after Timothy was martyred in 80 AD. John did not mention the prophecy of the temple's destruction.

The book of revelation was written from Patmos, where John was exiled in 90-95 AD. Also, clement makes references to all of the gospels, except for John. We can assume that Clement, the second "Pope" (using the loose meaning, and not the roman meaning), would have known of John's gospel had it been written, since he was ordained by Paul as Bishop of Rome. This is the reason for the late dating of John's letters and gospels. His gospel is referenced by his godson (Ignatius of Antioch) in 90 AD, however. That is the furthest back we can date his writings.

Bible Believer said...

I don't buy the dating of the gospels. In the Catholic church they quibble about when they were written and even deny who wrote them. Whose the authority telling you the timing and why do you trust them?

Bible Believer said...

William, I read the book of Acts and I don't see fancy ceremonies with a wafer and priest.

Bible Believer said...

or in your case a hunk of bread and a spoon.

Bible Believer said...

Early church fathers, I reject all of them. The Alexandrian school clan? The ones who were the early grievous wolves, why do you trust these men and their false history?

Bible Believer said...

So the UN is a lame duck but globalism is a reality and all the politicians who push the globalism have a relationship with the UN. They may replace it with something stronger later but why are your church leaders celebrating the UN. Didn't they read Revelation? Oops sorry it supposedly already "happened" hmm that's confusing.

No I'm not united with you. I have taken down some of your posts. if I was united with you the same way you religious leaders are with the UN, I'd be having you write articles for the blog and posting them.

Doctrinal change, The Catholics used to claim to me too that because the "paperwork" remained the same even as their Cardinals bowed before HIndu idols that nothing any of their religious leaders or church members did mattered as long as the "official paperwork" was in order. God says judge by the fruits, aka look at the actions not the official prouncements.

I have written about creeds before, they are nonsense. They will not saved you. Even Satan himself admits that God, heaven and hell are REAL.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2012/09/answering-eric-barger-whats-wrong-with.html

2. What matters official doctrines, if your leaders and church members can't even get the first commandment right?

4.Do they have the right Jesus Christ or do they worship the cosmic christ [antichrist] and the "bread" idol?
You are right eschatological beliefs do not determine salvation, but those who have no relationship with the Holy Spirit will follow false leaders that lead them into a 2 Peter 3:15 scenario of scoffing.
Nonsense. the Pope is meeting in agreement. I am telling you that you are wrong and in a harlot church right on the path to hell. But there is hope. Read Gods word, throw their false history in the trash and pray to God for the truth, He can show you as He did me to get me out of the clutches of the harlot RCC.


Who determines lineage. Even the Bible says to avoid genealogies in Titus 3:9-15. This is one warning that Rome's and the Orthodox claim to a line is FALSE.



How can I be a Protestant when I reject altars, sacraments, and things inherited from Rome? I follow no Protestant man of note from the Reformation. I reject Lutheranism, Mennonite, Calvinist. teachings. Men walking as trees, and all wrong.

You seriously trying to tell me I have to be a Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox or nothing at all?

Kind of funny.

Problem is I came out of her.

Her being the false harlot church system.

Just so you know Protestants or the majority of them subscribe to Rome and Orthodox version of "church history". I do not.

Bible Believer said...

Thanks for your posts Charles Allen, I agree with most of what you write but do not consider Clement a true teacher. I do not consider any of those early "bishops" or others to be true. I explain more here about others, but I have Clement on that list. Yes I read their writings, I consider them all false...

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2012/02/re-daughter-protestant-article.html

Clement was just another Catholic phony...

"Chap. XXV. - THE PHOENIX AN EMBLEM OF OUR RESURRECTION.

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed. (The Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. I, p12)"

Bible Believer said...

William the Catholic/Orthodox system abounds with legends and false lineages to mislead you about Gods Word

William Sculley said...

Bible Believer, how about you prove it. Go back to the history. Find the ORIGINAL SOURCES.

You have no evidence. If you're going to spout off random arguments without giving evidence, just shut up. I'm done putting up with you and your lack of evidence and taking out of context. Clement was making a point. He was writing to people who were familiar with the Phoenix, and was using it as an illustration, much like Paul used the Olympics as an illustration. The Olympics, if you will recall, were possibly the most pagan sporting event ever invented, and classically were performed in the complete nude. And worse yet, men wrestled in such fashion in the sight of children during these events. It is actually from descriptions of these events that we know what Paul wrote, because "we wrestle not against flesh and blood" was using terms that were only used in the Olympics.

If Paul can use a nude wrestling contest as an illustration, then why can't Clement use the Phoenix as an illustration? Because you hate that the Orthodox were here roughly 2000 years before you were a twinkle in your mom's eyes?

Clement was declared by Paul to be holy. You don't like Clement, but Paul certainly did. Or was the Holy Spirit lying when He led Paul to write praises for Clement in his letter to Philippi?

William Sculley said...

bible Believer. I believe the names of the authors because of the fact that they are identified by the Early Church Fathers. Specifically:

Matthew
Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these. ..... Matthew proclaims his human birth, saying, 'The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham,' and, 'The birth of Jesus Christ was in this manner' . for this Gospel is manlike, and so through the whole Gospel [Christ] appears as a man of a humble mind, and gentle. (Against Heresies 3.11.8)

Mark:
But Mark takes his beginning from the prophetic Spirit who comes on men from on high saying, 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet,' showing a winged image of the gospel. Therefore he made his message compendious and summary, for such is the prophetic character. (3.11.8)

Luke:
That according to Luke, as having a priestly character, began with the priest Zacharias offering incense to God. For the fatted calf was already being prepared which was to be sacrificed for the finding of the younger son. (3.11.8) [c.f. Luke 15:23]

John:
For that according to John expounds his princely and mighty and glorious birth from the Father, saying, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,' and, 'All things were made by him, and without him nothing was nothing made' . Therefore this Gospel is deserving of all confidence, for such indeed is his person. (3.11.8)


And all this from one of those you call a heretic. This is the guy you can thank for telling us who wrote the gospels. He is the reason we know which gospel was written by which Apostle. Without the Early Church Fathers, you would be saying "the first Gospel, chapter 2, verse 5", instead of "Matthew 2:5".

Maybe you should learn some humility. You come off as the most proud, self-filled person I've ever known, because nobody is right unless they agree with you.

Unfortunately, at the judgement, you'll be pitting that statement against the One Who will tell you: "You are not always right. I Am."

William Sculley said...

As to the complicated services. Try and read the book of Leviticus through. There is a ton of complicated services.

Also, look for the Greek word "Leitorgia" in the Bible. It appears 6 times.

It literally means liturgy, for a reason.

William Sculley said...

Also, believing what is stated in a Creed will save you, if that creed speaks the truth. Let's see:

"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and of earth, and of all things visible and invisible."

Yes, I believe that. You should too. It's what the Bible teaches.

"And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God..."

Again, you ought to believe it, because it's true.

"Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made..."

Again, Jesus is God. That's the Truth. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God.

"Who for us men and our salvation, came down from the heavens and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man"

Christ came from heaven and was born of Mary by the action of the Spirit. This is true.

"And was crucified under Pontius Pilate, Suffered and was buried"

Not exactly like you can disagree with that. It's in all four gospels!

"And arose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures"

Again, it's in all four gospels!

"And ascended into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again to judge both the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end."

Again, nothing you can disagree with.

"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, Who spake by the prophets."

Again, you can't disagree without falling into some hot theological heresy.

"And in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church"

Well here is where you get difficulty, but let's ask:

Should the church be holy? Yes!
Should the Church spread to the whole world to be universal? YES!
Should the Church be that of Christ and His Apostles? YES!

If that is what you believe, then you shouldn't have a problem.

"I confess one baptism for the remission of sins"

Do you believe that what Peter said was true? If so, then move on.

"I look for the Resurrection of the Dead, and the life of the age to come, Amen."

Well, do you look for that Resurrection? Do you look forward to the Life with Christ?

If so, you believe in everything taught in the Creed. It isn't that you have a problem with what the creed teaches. It's that you have a problem with the idea of creeds. And that's your personal problem. You have a creed you live by. Whether you take one on, or make it up yourself, you live by a creed.

William Sculley said...

You don't subscribe to the version of history that actually happened. You know, the one with all the historical evidence you can touch with your hands and smell? The one that was written by the actual people who lived it?

You don't accept reality. That's not my fault. History happened. Get over it. You Came from protestantism. You are just another protestant. You simply protest the protesters. You're as much a protestant as every other group, because you came out of it.

You are a protestant because you are a branch from the branch of protestantism.

Bible Believer said...

Historical evidence? Well I can go read the Catholic lies of the early church fathers some hold so dear.....

You know be careful of that red/blue team thinking. You know the same that deludes the world with the false Republican vs. Democrat charade. I suppose the Catholic vs Protestant charade would fit here. You are trapped in defining things by man's system not looking to how God defines it.

Bible Believer said...

So you trust these early church fathers? Why?

When so much of what they taught is contradictory to God's Word?

I find it interesting how Bible Christians refer to God's Word, and Catholics and Orthodox always go to these "early church fathers'. Remember for years I was discussing these things with people on a variety of message boards.

So many lies came out of Alexandria. One thing I noted with all these early church fathers is how many were connected the pagan Origen [like the origin of lies] as either students or teachers or Eusebius and Constantine. [later on]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria

This was one that was totally Gnostic who the Orthodox and Catholics praise today.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/clement.html

I can randomly go look up the writings of one of these guys, and find BIBLICAL ERRORS up the WHAZOO.

I did it with Clement just now writing you...

He says ALL CAN SEE?

The Bible says otherwise.

"7. "And for birth there is no written law (for otherwise it would have been transcribed). All beings beget and give birth alike, having received by God's righteousness an innate equality. The Creator and Father of all with his own righteousness appointed this, just as he gave equally the eye to all to enable them to see. He did not make a distinction between female and male, rational and irrational, nor between anything and anything else at all; rather he shared out sight equally and universally. It was given to all alike by a single command."


How do I tell you this bluntly but if you know scripture, religious goobley-gook doesn't fool as easily.

Jeremiah 5:21

King James Version (KJV)


21 Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:

Bible Believer said...

So he wrote a few truths? What does that matter? The foundation of your faith is these early church fathers, because you trust them as the foundation of truth of scriptures instead of the scriptures themselves. Of course this is what is taught in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic church.

I didn't need early church fathers who told me who wrote the gospels.


2 Timothy 3:16

King James Version (KJV)


16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Why do you need them to tell you who wrote which gospels?

Defending the Orthodox church as following Old Testament rituals, is not a good thing considering what the Bible preaches remaining under the LAW.

What does a creed do but say something is true.

These creeds amount basically to saying God, heaven, hell, are REAL.

That does not mean someone has been born again.

Naming the facts of Jesus's life, also means nothing.

It does not mean biblical salvation.

We of course define church different, you look to human organizations while I define church as the ekklesia. All born again believers.

One can recite a creed and be totally on the way to hell. Not born again, just stating God is REAL, spiritually it is meaningless. It doesn't make you a child of God.

William Sculley said...

"Historical evidence? Well I can go read the Catholic lies of the early church fathers some hold so dear.....

You know be careful of that red/blue team thinking. You know the same that deludes the world with the false Republican vs. Democrat charade. I suppose the Catholic vs Protestant charade would fit here. You are trapped in defining things by man's system not looking to how God defines it."

Well, you could submit some actual evidence. Your statement is: "All the evidence says I am wrong. But evidence doesn't matter in history. Only my belief matters."

The reality is that history couldn't give two craps what you think happened. If you say the holocaust never happened, it doesn't change that millions of Jews died at the hands of the Nazi regime. If you say that Hiroshima wasn't murder-bombed, it doesn't change that the city was leveled by a nuclear explosion.

Just because you don't believe that Clement wasn't a real Bishop who was ordained by Paul himself, doesn't change that it happened.

Of course, you wouldn't be very happy if the Apostles were to talk to you. After 10 minutes of watching the service as led by St. James the brother of Christ, you would be screaming that he was a heretic, since the service started something like this:

"I O Sovereign Lord our God, contemn me not, defiled with a multitude of sins: for, behold, I have come to this Your divine and heavenly mystery, not as being worthy; but looking only to Your goodness, I direct my voice to You: God be merciful to me, a sinner; I have sinned against Heaven, and before You, and am unworthy to come into the presence of this Your holy and spiritual table, upon which Your only-begotten Son, and our Lord Jesus Christ, is mystically set forth as a sacrifice for me, a sinner, and stained with every spot. Wherefore I present to You this supplication and thanksgiving, that Your Spirit the Comforter may be sent down upon me, strengthening and fitting me for this service; and count me worthy to make known without condemnation the word, delivered from You by me to the people, in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom You are blessed, together with Your all-holy, and good, and quickening, and consubstantial Spirit, now and ever, and to all eternity. Amen."

William Sculley said...

"So you trust these early church fathers? Why?"

Mostly, because they are the tools God used to carry the Church through the ages. The Bible wouldn't be here without God using people to protect it. Meet the men who protected it:

Irenaeus of Lyons, identified the authors of the gospels
Athanasius of Alexandria, gave us the 27 book canon we all use of the New Testament.

Whatever you say, without God using these people, there might have been no Bible at all.

"When so much of what they taught is contradictory to [my interpretation of] God's Word?"

Correction in brackets above. It is only contradictory to your personal interpretation of Scripture. Irenaeus quotes from the gospels 683 times.

"I find it interesting how Bible Christians refer to God's Word, and Catholics and Orthodox always go to these "early church fathers'. Remember for years I was discussing these things with people on a variety of message boards."

I go to them equally. The Scripture is a text. We must know what was originally meant by the writers God used to write it. They didn't KNOW they were writing Scripture. Even Paul said "I think I have the Spirit's guidance". Scripture was recognized and canonized by the Early Church Fathers. Without their information, you would have 25 different canons of Scripture, instead of one. Imagine the chaos that would cause.

"So many lies came out of Alexandria. One thing I noted with all these early church fathers is how many were connected the pagan Origen [like the origin of lies] as either students or teachers or Eusebius and Constantine. [later on]"

Eusebius and Constantine didn't live until hundreds of years after the period of the Early Church Fathers. The Ante-Nicene Saints knew of Origen and Eusebius, but in every writing that speaks of his teachings, they all declare him a heretic. Also, there were two people named Eusebius at the time of Constantine. One was the historian and one was the heretic. But the specific period of the Early Church Fathers is from 70 AD to 180 AD. Then from then until 300 AD is the Post-Apostolic Fathers, and then the ante-Nicene Fathers. Please, if you are going to argue history, get acquainted with terms.

William Sculley said...

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria

This was one that was totally Gnostic who the Orthodox and Catholics praise today."

And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life. (Philippians 4:3)

Do you care to argue that with Paul? Go ahead. Call Paul a lover of Gnostics. Clement's name is in the Book of Life, according to Scripture itself. Call him a gnostic? Call God one too.

"http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/clement.html

I can randomly go look up the writings of one of these guys, and find BIBLICAL ERRORS up the WHAZOO.

I did it with Clement just now writing you...

He says ALL CAN SEE?

The Bible says otherwise.

"7. "And for birth there is no written law (for otherwise it would have been transcribed). All beings beget and give birth alike, having received by God's righteousness an innate equality. The Creator and Father of all with his own righteousness appointed this, just as he gave equally the eye to all to enable them to see. He did not make a distinction between female and male, rational and irrational, nor between anything and anything else at all; rather he shared out sight equally and universally. It was given to all alike by a single command."


How do I tell you this bluntly but if you know scripture, religious goobley-gook doesn't fool as easily.

Jeremiah 5:21

King James Version (KJV)


21 Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:

November 19, 2013 at 5:09 AM"

One problem, Bible Believer. He wasn't speaking of seeing in the same way. He was saying that all people were given the ability to see with their eyes. That physically, man and woman are equal, yet separate, beings. Each with rationality and irrationality. In other words, being a sinner falls upon all men and women equally.

William Sculley said...

"So he wrote a few truths? What does that matter? The foundation of your faith is these early church fathers, because you trust them as the foundation of truth of scriptures instead of the scriptures themselves. Of course this is what is taught in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic church."

Actually, the foundation of my Faith is as follows:

"My hope is the Father, my refuge is the Son, my protection is the Holy Spirit. Holy Trinity, glory to you."

I need not your personal interpretation. I gain this belief from the Apostolic Tradition, which is both the teaching of the Church for the last 2000 years, AND the Scripture, from which those teachings gain their power. That is true Orthodoxy. Scripture being part of Tradition, as the hand is in the glove.

"I didn't need early church fathers who told me who wrote the gospels.

2 Timothy 3:16

King James Version (KJV)


16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Nice. But no Scripture is given by private interpretation. If it isn't given by private interpretation, why would you think it is understood by it? Where is your pillar and foundation of the Truth? Where is your Church?

"Why do you need them to tell you who wrote which gospels?"

Possibly because the gospels don't tell me? This might surprise you, but the gospels don't say "I, John, am writing. In the beginning was the Word..." They just tell the gospel. There are literally dozens of false gospels. The gospels we have are gospels because they came from the Apostles. We know they did because Irenaeus, who would have known those who knew the writers, told us who. Without that, we would have no confidence in their source.

"Defending the Orthodox church as following Old Testament rituals, is not a good thing considering what the Bible preaches remaining under the LAW."

Did Christ come to destroy the Law, or to fulfill the Law? If to fulfill, then the Law is still relevant, even if a letter following isn't.

"What does a creed do but say something is true.

These creeds amount basically to saying God, heaven, hell, are REAL."

Yes, and believing in these things is necessary. Reciting certain creeds and prayers was so common that Jesus' last words before dying were the words of a Psalm.

"That does not mean someone has been born again."

Believing them does.

"Naming the facts of Jesus's life, also means nothing."

So reading the gospel to someone means nothing? Hmmm. Why do it, then?

"It does not mean biblical salvation."

biblical salvation depends on knowing Who God is. Because one cannot be saved based on false knowledge of God. Creeds help us remember Who God is, so that we never forget.

"We of course define church different, you look to human organizations while I define church as the ekklesia. All born again believers."

Except that you are wrong. Ekklesia means "a gathering in one accord". Not isolated believers with differing beliefs.

"One can recite a creed and be totally on the way to hell. Not born again, just stating God is REAL, spiritually it is meaningless. It doesn't make you a child of God."

As can a person who doesn't recite a creed. But it's a lot harder to recite a creed over and over without believing it.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with many of the comments on here that you are very uneducated in the Orthodox faith. I just have to say that you need to take up your problems with God then since he guided the early Church which canonized your Bible, protected Jesus' divinity with the Nicene Creed, gave up martyrs who refused to denounce Jesus and labeled heresies such as that of Marcion. What does modern Protestantism have to support their unbiblical views aside from up to 44,000 denominations that can not agree and Bible version upon Bible version suited to specific doctrines plus commentary upon commentary, all created in the last 500 years. As for "mystery Babylon" I would look more closer to the physical nation of Israel and the Jews or Muslims. Anyway, you need to research your history.

Anonymous said...

Christ is Risen !

I was raised in the pentacostal "church", then I attended many evangelical "biblical" churches which are separeted one from another like "true body of Christ" should be, should't ? And a few years later I started to read letters and church history from yers 90 to 200. I was surprised that many Church fathers knew biblical apostles themselves and then were writing about bishops and eucharist. How these "biblical" free churches are ignorant and how little they know of the Bible that they love to read. As apostle Paul said :

" which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. "

There are many thing in the New Testament wchih require knowlage and understanding, and you will find very fast, that for example in Corinthians, Paul is speaking about christian altar.

Paul also said, that one day Church will be "like grown man" but you don't see the difference between growing and going astray. So you went astray, it's a pity indeed.

Now Im on my way to the Orthodox Church and I encourage You to watch this evangelical tv station episode :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gdB24gyu_M

Anonymous said...

Hello Bible Believer,

Here's a link to some photos. Just click on link after link on the main google search for even more orthodox idolatry photos...

Link: https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=orthodox&btnG=Go&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jesus-is-savior.com&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jesus-is-savior.com

This is full of insight into the orthodox "faith". Let them tell on themselves. You'll find the same in all the orthodox and coptic ways.

Very informative from their own mouths - Documentary on Coptic Orthodox Parishes in Jerusalem - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo_MYmA-O0M

Romanian Orthodox Church 5 part video. You have the option for subtitles in English also on the viewing box on Youtube - The Wealth of the Church (Averea bisericii) 1/5

Orthodox monasteries - "Mt. Athos: A visit to the Holy Mountain - CBS News" - below

https://www.google.com/search?q=60+minutes+orthodox+monastaries&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

They are all deceived and are deceiving others. Reflections on Orthodox Christian Monasticism - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooZiPrSm8sI

I believe this is enough. For we know that there is only one Body of Christ and Jesus Christ is building it perfectly. I pray for the darkness of sorcery to be removed from the hearts and minds of these people for they have inherited lies and still being preyed upon by Satan's ministers. The Lord has many of His true children watching these things. Those of us who have access to this type of information. We pray they all be brought out of this conspiracy of Spiritual blindness.

GOD Bless and Keep us All!

In Jesus Name,

Roy

William Sculley said...

Roy,

Jesus Christ finished building the Church on Pentecost, when He sent His Spirit onto His disciples in the upper room. The major problem with your post is that you say that there is still change needed to perfect what Christ completed in His Apostles. He is no longer building the Church. He is bringing people to the Church. The Church no longer changes, but the people change within the Church.

The next problem is that you make the assertion that the information at http://www.jesus-is-savior.com is from our own mouths. Sure, in the same way that Jesus Christ commanding us to hate our parents is what HE meant. That is not our own words. That is the words of an independent "fundamentalist" who hates anything that doesn't follow the fundamentals of a church that only started to exist 100-150 years ago. Considering that Orthodoxy has been about a little less than 2000 years, we are the fundamentalists from before fundamentalists were even a thing.

2. Idolatry requires that we worship the objects displayed. We do not WORSHIP them. The second half of the second commandment is just as important as the first, because if only the first, then God Himself broke the commandment when He commanded graven images to be placed in every area of the temple, including two angels fashioned from gold! So, when it comes down to judging who's wrong, I'm going to say that you are wrong, and God is not.



Roy, I advise you, in your desire to actually know the truth, to look at history, read the earliest Christians, and tell me how similar, or different they were when compared to Orthodoxy. As I believe that Paul's recommendation surpasses my own, I will point you to the writings of a man that the Apostle Paul declared holy and worthy of following (Philippians 2): Clement of Rome

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/2clement-lightfoot.html

Bible Believer said...

Thank you anon, good links. All one has to do is look at the pictures to see the obvious paganism of the Orthodox church. There is nothing fundamental about the Orthodox church, it is on the antichrist one religion highway along with Rome and the rest of the apostates. Clement was false. I have written and warned about those early grievous wolves.

I skimmed one of your links, more of the same Alexandrian cult nonsense from these phony early church fathers

"1Clem 25:1
Let us consider the marvelous sign which is seen in the regions of
the east, that is, in the parts about Arabia.

1Clem 25:2
There is a bird, which is named the phoenix. This, being the only
one of its kind, liveth for five hundred years; and when it hath now
reached the time of its dissolution that it should die, it maketh for
itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh and the other spices, into
the which in the fullness of time it entereth, and so it dieth.
1Clem 25:3
But, as the flesh rotteth, a certain worm is engendered, which is
nurtured from the moisture of the dead creature and putteth forth
wings. Then, when it is grown lusty, it taketh up that coffin where
are the bones of its parent, and carrying them journeyeth from the
country of Arabia even unto Egypt, to the place called the City of
the Sun;

1Clem 25:4
and in the daytime in the sight of all, flying to the altar of the
Sun, it layeth them thereupon; and this done, it setteth forth to
return.
1Clem 25:4
and in the daytime in the sight of all, flying to the altar of the
Sun, it layeth them thereupon; and this done, it setteth forth to
return.

1Clem 25:5
So the priests examine the registers of the times, and they find that
it hath come when the five hundredth year is completed.

1Clem 26:1
Do we then think it to be a great and marvelous thing, if the
Creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection of them
that have served Him with holiness in the assurance of a good faith,
seeing that He showeth to us even by a bird the magnificence of His
promise?"




Come out of that pagan hellbound church.

Bible Believer said...

The one world religion teachings...same as Rome's,

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8089

The Holy Spirit does not operate via false religions. Those who reject the Son do not have the FATHER.

One of the biggest delusions in the below is this sentence..

"Orthodoxy recognizes and accepts the mandate to seek Truth and to follow the Holy Spirit wherever He leads, including in other religions or philosophies when his Truth is to be found there.[37]"


Orthodox Christianity sees dialogue not only as proper, but also necessary, in the inevitable interactions with other religions, Interfaith dialogueis best cultivated in an atmosphere of peace and with preparations which emphasize mutual in-depth understanding as the desirable way. There are risks in dialogue, particularly if preparation is inadequate or if there is overemphasis on accommodation. However, the risks of no dialogue are greater.[36]

It is basic Christian doctrine that the Holy Spirit may act wherever and whenever. Presuming to constrain the activity of the Holy Spirit - to limit God Himself- is not the way. Orthodoxy recognizes and accepts the mandate to seek Truth and to follow the Holy Spirit wherever He leads, including in other religions or philosophies when his Truth is to be found there.[37]

The way of Orthodoxy is to converge on the golden mean, carefully avoiding extremes and the pitfalls that can lead to destruction. The Tradition of the Church fosters the understanding of Truth in all the experience of the human person. As the sun shines and gives life and energy to the physical world, the Son of God, the Logos, illuminates every human person who "comes in the world" (Orthodox prayer to the Holy Spirit). The Holy Spirit and the Logos offer Life to all. However, the centrality of Christ, the "Savior of the world", the Logos, is not to be dismissed. He was incarnate for universal salvation and is "the same forever".

The salvation of all people, including non-Christians, depends on the great goodness and mercy of the Omniscient and Omnipotent God who desires the salvation of all people. Those who live in faith and virtue, though outside the Church, receive God's loving grace and salvation. Saint Paul reminds us, "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!" (Rom. 11: 33).

William Sculley said...

I guess Paul was wrong for referencing pagan beliefs too. Clement wrote that before being called holy by Paul. Was Paul wrong or are you wrong?

William Sculley said...

Of course, the Holy Spirit is so finite that He can fit inside your precious little box of independent "fundamentalism."

You see, the Trinity doesn't have an open job position, so you have no authority to tell the Holy Spirit where He can and cannot work. No matter how little or how much truth, all truth believed by a person comes from the Spirit. So when a Muslim says there is only one God, we say he is right. There is only one God, in three persons of the Trinity. They are right that God is one, but they are wrong when they say there is no trinity. The truth that there is one God comes from the Spirit. The lie that there is no Trinity comes from Satan.

As Christians, we are calledto rejoice in all truth, wherever we find it.

Bible Believer said...

If you believe the Holy Spirit works through false religions you are not following the God of the Bible. Your harlot church has led you to the Antichrist. This idea that false religions can hold truths is from the pits of hell. With that one you might as well sign up for the Unitarian Universalists tomorrow. I assume you believe Allah of Islam is the same "god" you worship? [just like the Pope states?]

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2011/03/anonymous-christian-via-universal.html

"Saving elements in Hinduism and Buddhism?

That's crazy. Jesus Christ does not save through false religions!

Think about this, that is what they are selling to the world. They want people to believe that all religions lead up to one mountaintop and to the same "god". This is why Christian [Protestant in this case] churches are allowing the services of other religions to be held in their facilities: "Churches Open Doors to Muslim Worship"

Remember Rome presents "another christ". We are warned about those who would bring another gospel, false christs in Matthew 24 and who would preach another "gospel":


Gal 1:6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:


Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.


Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. "


Believing in Truth in false religions basically makes you a universalist, hey the harlot churches are leading all into the one world religion.

Why even try and claim you are a Christian to us when you believe that truth lies in Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc?

Stop believing Jesuit lies and go read a KJV Bible.

William Sculley said...

Because Hinduism teaches that there is sin in the world. Is that true or false?

I don't say where the Spirit is not. That is God's business. Not my authority to say. Which is why I don't have license to say you aren't saved. And neither do you have license to judge my salvation, as you have. You are man. I am man. God is THE ONLY JUDGE of salvation. Not you or me. There is salvation wherever God deigns to save people. And since He found it possie to save a serial killer and turn him into the most influential missionary of the world.

What I know to be the truth is this:


I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;

And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the age to come.

Amen.

After that, salvation is for all. Salvation is based on how we live and respond to God, however He reveals Himself. He is not limited to our puny little boxes. He is not limited to our puny little books, no matter how sacred we think them to be.

William Sculley said...

10 Things Orthodox Christians Would Like You to Know
1) We don’t worship Mary. We hold her in a place of esteem because of her singularly unique role as the birthgiver of Jesus Christ. Orthodox Christians state and affirm over and over again throughout the worship services that God alone is the only One to Whom worship is due.
2) We don’t worship icons. Icons are like a family photo album. Just as in our own families, where we keep the pictures of our loved ones who have departed this life on shelves and hanging on walls, we also keep the pictures of the members of our larger Christian family around, particularly those members of our Christian family who have led exempliary lives. The word icon only means “image” or “picture”.
3) When we talk about tradition, we don’t mean the traditions of men, we mean Holy Tradition. The traditions that the Church has taught have always been those that have been led by the Spirit. It was the tradition of the Church that gave us the New Testament and, the New Testament also continues to inform that traditon. It is cyclical and not mutually exclusive.
4) Orthodox Christianity is not “works” based. It always takes the grace and will of God to bring about our salvation. We do good works because it is the outpouring of the joy that we experience through living Christ-centered lives and because it is an expression of righteous living and of love for God and neighbor. There are no “points” earned by doing good works.
5) There’s no such thing as the Byzantine Empire. This was a term invented by French scholars retroactively during the rennaisance. Constantine moved the capital of the empire to the east and Constantinople became known as New Rome. Though portions of the Western half of the Roman Empire fell, the Eastern half continued for over a thousand years after the Goths sacked Rome. Those living in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire did not think of themselves as “Byzantines” or even Greeks. They were Romans. Even today, the Turks still refer to Orthodox Christians living in Turkey as “Roman”.

William Sculley said...

6) “True” Christianity did not disappear when the Church received legal recognition from the Roman Government. Faithful, pious and righteous Christians continued to live in faith and suffer martyrdom and persecution. The Church thatwas founded by Jesus Christ, and its theology, remained intact. Those who became frustrated with government intervention in Church life struggled to maintain the purity of the church’sdoctrine and life. However, since the Church continued to adhere to its basic teachings without dilution, it was necessary for pious believers to continue their struggle within the church. It was believed that no person had the right to create or invent his or her own church. It is also significant to mention that the Orthodox Church continues to bear much fruit. If losing one’s life, or martyrdom, is the ultimate expression of one’s devotion to Christ, there has never been a more fruitful time within the Church. There were more Christian martyrs in the 20th century than all previous centuries of Christian history combined. Most of these martyrs were Orthodox Christians who refused to renounce their faith.
7) The Orthodox Church is not a denomination nor is it “non-denominational”. It is pre-denominational. The Church was without break or separation for more than 1,000 years. The Orthodox Church did not break away from any other group. The Orthodox Church continued right along up to this day. In fact,groups that refer to themselves as “non-denominational” because they are free standing churches, not connected with any larger mainline protestant confessions, are, in fact, denominations. Since a denomination means a breaking down of the whole or a separation, they are simply denominationsconsisting of one parish.
8) Yes, the Orthodox are “Bible believing” Christians. Almost everything within Orthodox worship comes directly from the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. There is probably more Bible read on a single Sunday Morning in Orthodox Worship than in an entire year in most other churches.
9) Orthodox Christianity is not an exotic form of Roman Catholicism. While both Churches have organized worship, the life, practice and doctrine of the Roman Catholics and The Orthodox are quite different. The Orthodox view the Pope as the bishop of Rome, not a supreme leader of the entire Church. And, because, in the eyes of the Orthodox, the Pope has stated that his authority is over the entire Church, The Orthodox arenot currently in communion with Rome. Roman Catholic doctrinal principles such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Papal Infallibility, Transubstantiation of Holy Communion, and Original Sin are absent from the Orthodox Church. These perspectives took root in the Roman Catholic Church after East and West went their separate ways.
10) Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, is the head of the Orthodox Church: not Luther, not Calvin, not Wesley. The Orthodox Church can trace the lineage of the ordinations of its clergy all the way back to Christ Himself with unbroken continuity. Orthodox Christianity has remained faithful to Christ not only doctrinally but also historically.

Throwback Christianity said...

The EOC is not the true church. They are full of divisions and controversy just like any other church. The EOC was not even created until after Constantine just like the Roman Catholic Church. The EOC is highly poltical, nationalistic and controlling as well. As for John Wesley, he got much closer in theology to the Early Church than Rome or the EOC has.

Anonymous said...

dear bible believer
in your post you say that wels
the wisconsin evangelical lutheran synod is the only lutheran church which does not have relations with the church of rome that is not true the lutheran church missouri synod does not partake in any talks with rome or have any membership in the wcc or ncc

William Sculley said...

@Throwback Christianity

Constantine created no church. In fact, the Council of Nicaea was not even the first Council of its size. The first such council was held in Corinth (mid 2nd century) and had over 500 Bishops in attendance in response to the use of the Greek word "Homoousios" (of one essence/consubstantial) in Christian discourse regarding the nature of Christ. The issue was brought back up again in Nicaea by the Deacon (at the time) Athanasius, and was used as a defense against Arius (as recorded in the histories recorded by Erasmus).

Arius was a presbyter (elder) from the city of Alexandria, who had been deposed from the Church because he taught that Christ was just a man. Despite the Council of Alexandria deposing Arius, Arius left the city and spread his heresy across the empire, creating a major divide in the empire that threatened to tear the empire apart. Emperor Constantine, a nominal (though not yet Baptized) Christian, sent out a decree that the issue of Arianism should be dealt with in a Church-wide council, else the country fall into civil war over this debate.

The Council was held in the city of Nicaea, a city near enough to Constantinople that Constantine could visit as he wished, but far enough away that any civil strife would not have great effect on the capitol. This Council was held for 8 months, with 318 Bishops, and countless laypeople, deacons, and elders (some reports say thousands of people traveled to the city, and all of the inns were packed out for the duration). This council was not being held to draw up new doctrine, and they did not choose a new Bible or create a new Church. This was a Council of the Church as it already existed, according to the pattern held in Acts 15.

The Roman Catholic Church was born in the 11th century, with the decision to split from the rest of the Church to give the Pope absolute power. And every Christian in the West, including Bible Believer, is irrevocably descended from Rome, either in agreement, or by nature of rebellion from one's mother.

By contrast, the Eastern Orthodox Church has existed, without change in dogmatic declaration, for 2000 years.

You, who claim to have "discovered the original Christianity" (a declaration based on your name of "throwback Christianity") wouldn't find a single Church that looked like your church in the time of the Apostles. Because they were JEWS! Jews had Liturgy, so Christians had liturgy. Jews had feasts, so Christians had feasts.

You have 4 bare walls, a concert and a lecture. I can go get that ANYWHERE. They have that at the local convention center every weekend! The only difference is your literature, which you twist to say whatever you want because you ripped a thread out of the tapestry and then claim to have the whole tapestry.

That is Protestantism. A kingdom built on ripping and twisting Scripture to say things that are so foreign to the Apostles that Paul himself would run screaming with his hands over his ears, then write 5 letters declaring in detail why what you teach is false.

And yes, if you are not Roman Catholic, or Orthodox, you are by definition Protestant, which is characterized by your constant PROTESTING against whatever you declare is false.

William Sculley said...

Now, going to the portion on Rood Screens.

You are using the absolute wrong term. That is an Iconostasis, or Icon wall. It is there for the purpose of showing that, while God is different and unique from man, the door is open. During portions of the service, it is closed to signify the three days in the tomb, and then reopened, bringing the Communion out to signify the Resurrection.

William Sculley said...

The theology of the Early Church, by Ignatius of Antioch:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Anonymous said...

Catholic have their substitute/alternative to obedience (endless dead ritual works), and Protestants have theirs: an imaginary magic cloak for their past, present and future/ongoing sins ("Imputed Righteousness Of Christ"). It's all error. It's all the Mystery of Lawlessness, Mystery Babylon and her daughters. Narrow is the Way, few will find it.

Tony

William Sculley said...

And this is about neither of those, Tony. Roman Catholics are not the same as Orthodox. And this article gets everything wrong about Orthodoxy because this man decides to see Orthodox Christians through his tinted glasses, making himself the filter instead of Christ.

Anonymous said...

I am a Greel Orthodox and whoever wrote this article is wrong in all he/she says.

First get your facts right, ORTHODOX is the TRUE CHURCH!!!!

Please do your homework before writing this rubbish!

Anonymous said...

the eastern orthodox church is a lie cut from the same cloth as her harlot sister church in rome

William Sculley said...

@anonymous:
Have you ever known any Orthodox? If you haven't, then you will not know. You know nothing about Orthodoxy, if you have never spoken to Orthodox people or have bought your knowledge of Orthodoxy from people who hate Orthodoxy.

Bible Believer said...

Yes both harlot sisters.

I have known orthodox people, just as lost as Roman Catholics, same deal thinking church membership, sacraments and rest will "save them" instead of being born again in Jesus Christ.

William Sculley said...

@Bible Believer
You obviously aren't very conversant with them, or else you don't know Orthodox dogma well enough to know that, to quote my Presbyter: "coming to church and following your routine won't get you into heaven. Just because I lead the funeral service for your uncle doesn't mean he is in heaven right now. My blessing isn't enough to get you into heaven. At the end, what truly matters is 'do you believe?'"

See, that is the teaching of actual Orthodox leaders.

I will quote from an article on Pravoslie.ru:

“In the preaching of the Apostles, especially worthy of attention is the fact that they precisely teach us to distinguish between the truth of the salvation of mankind as a whole, which has already been accomplished, and another truth – the necessity for a personal reception and assimilation of the gift of salvation on the part of each of the faithful, and the fact that this latter salvation depends upon each one himself. Ye are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, writes the Apostle Paul (Eph. 2:8); but he also teaches, Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12).[Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition (Platina, CA: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1984), Pg 197]

“Our objective salvation is realized only in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, whereas our personal or subjective salvation, which in the language of the New Testament is called “righteousness”, “holiness”, or “salvation” (in the narrow sense), is realized as a continuance of this objective salvation, with our personal energy or activity acting in co-operation with Divine Energy or Grace.”[Elder Cleopa of Romania, The Truth of Our Faith (Thessalonica, Greece & London, Ontario: Uncut Mountain Press, 2000), 154.]

You see, BB, there is your opinion of what Orthodoxy teaches, and there is actual Orthodox dogma. Your opinion is of no weight when it doesn't know what it speaks of.

Bible Believer said...



If you are not born again, and not regenerated you are lost.

Just the fact that the members of your church can not see the false "jesus" you are led to worship in the Eucharist, and can't discern what all the ecumenical lies means, means you are in serious spiritual danger.

Even in the Roman Catholic church they twisted and turned the gospel to make it applicable to themselves. I remember even the term "evangelical Catholics"

Where are the fruits of salvation if you believe in the one world religion and practice idolatry with no inner grief from the Holy Spirit?

The above would still say sacraments are necessary for heaven as well, they add to the said "salvation" they claim to believe in.

William Sculley said...

@Bible Believer

Responding in quotes:

"If you are not born again, and not regenerated you are lost."

If you do not know the Father as the Father knows the Son, then you do not have eternal life yet. I doubt you or I or anyone else on earth has that kind of knowledge of the Father.

"Just the fact that the members of your church can not see the false "jesus" you are led to worship in the Eucharist, and can't discern what all the ecumenical lies means, means you are in serious spiritual danger."

Just because you cannot discern the false "jesus" invented by the Protestants that you worship in denial of the very fact that your version of Jesus is exactly the same as the Indie Fundie Baptist church's version of Jesus means that you are in serious danger.

The jesus you describe in your posts is not the Jesus known to the Apostles and their disciples. If Jesus is as YOU describe Him, then we have no hope in Him.


"Even in the Roman Catholic church they twisted and turned the gospel to make it applicable to themselves. I remember even the term "evangelical Catholics""

THis doesn't apply to me because, as said before, Catholics and Orthodox are not the same, haven't been the same since Rome decided to follow heresy in the 11th century, and will not be the same until all Roman Catholics have given up their heresies and accepted the one Truth which is in Orthodoxy and nowhere else.

"Where are the fruits of salvation if you believe in the one world religion and practice idolatry with no inner grief from the Holy Spirit?"

We don't believe in a one world religion. We believe in one Faith for the entire world, in Christ. There is a difference.

"The above would still say sacraments are necessary for heaven as well, they add to the said "salvation" they claim to believe in."

Actually, we teach that the Sacraments are avenues of grace. Not salvation. Get it right.

minas said...

"Rood" is the old Anglo-Saxon word for "Cross"...the Cross was/is at the top, center of the screen before the altar in western churches. From your comments one can only gather that you have zero understanding of Ecclesiastical History, Christian Liturgics, Sacred Tradition, etc.

Pax vobiscum.

Anonymous said...

As I read the comments going back and forth and all the arguing as to who is right and who is wrong, the first thought that came to me was, "Satan, you've succeeded again." Satan loves nothing more than to cause division and, yes I will say it, "hatred," between believers. The other thought that came to me was from the lips of Jesus, when He said, Matthew 11:25 ~ "I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and have revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will." I believe it's very telling what Jesus was getting at.
Gentlemen, the plain things are the main things, and the main things are the plain things. How can all of these extra biblical rules and regulations have anything whatsoever, to do with salvation? This would exclude 6.5 billion people from the Kingdom of Heaven.
My comments and arguments are simple, but so were the apostle Paul's. 1 Corinthians 2:1 "And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."
With all of the rituals and even the body motions that are required of you during the services of the Orthodox religion, make sure that your heart is at every moment fully engaged, because we know from Scripture that God abhors when we flatter Him with our lips (and hands) when our hearts are far from Him. I have witnessed many, many times in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches that people are so concerned with all the different times when they should kneel, kiss, cross themselves, bow, respond with repetitive answers and in general ~ just try to look much holier than their hearts are at that moment.....another Scripture from both the Old and New Testament comes to mind. Isaiah 29:13 and Matthew 15:8 ~ " This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."
I have found personally, that the human heart is very susceptible to a strong religious spirit when we carry out these traditions that do not come from God. Then we're truly in danger of being "religious" but of having no true relationship with the living God.
Matthew 11:30 ~ Jesus said, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." I believe that He meant that in many ways. Jesus isn't complicated. He's pure and simple and wonderfully accepting and for ALL men. All of these external rituals that go hand in hand with Orthodoxy seem to be burdensome, but I guess if that's what you're focused on and find comfort in....then it's not just Jesus ~ and Him crucified. You make it much much more.

Seraphim Sings said...

Bible "believer" sounds like a Bible worshiper. But Jesus said "You search the scriptures because in them you THINK you have eternal life." but the Bible is not GOD. And the Bible is not Jesus, the Word.

Sometimes Protestants get that fact confused.

But what else do you have when you reject the historical ancient CHURCH?

Well, you get a church invented by men. Lots and lots of them. A new denomination every few years. New believers, new beliefs.

Sad to have such a closed up mind. I challenge you to investigate the Eastern Orthodox Church. And don't "believe" the misinformed false info posted here.

Anonymous said...

The context in which "You search the scriptures because in them you THINK you have eternal life" should clearly be understood before misrepresenting the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus was admonishing the pharisees for not believing that he was the Son of God sent to redeem the world and not that the bible is God (John 5:19-47).

Jesus Christ did not set up a church as an institution to have a system of beliefs, do's and don'ts. So how do we know?

John 4:19-24 "The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

So it does not matter to God which church one belongs to and how many rituals one does in a day.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."

So all out there who believe that you are in the "traditional" or "original church", check yourselves. On judgement day God will only require that which he has spelled out for us in his word and not church beliefs.

Acts 16:31 "... Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

Amen!

Bible Believer said...

Thank you last anon

Rituals are dead to God.

The Catholic and Orthodox church always must seek to diminish the truth and standing of scripture to their believers so the clergy and false rituals will rule.

William Sculley said...

The diminishment of the truth of Scripture is in the refusal of people to obey the Scripture's call to Tradition in II Thessalonians.

Bible Believer said...

How on earth did you miss Jesus Christ's DIRECT WARNINGS regarding tradition?



Mark Chapter 7

3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash [their] hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

4 And [when they come] from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, [as] the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.


William Sculley said...

How did you miss this:

II Thessalonians 2:15 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

That is a direct order from the Apostle Paul. Now either Paul is wrong, or Matthew is wrong, or you are wrong.

Bible Believer said...

The book of Acts and the world of the Orthodox and Catholic church do not match AT ALL. You forget you are talking to an ex-Catholic. What apostle taught purgatory?

William Sculley said...

They match Orthodox much more than you. Where is your liturgy? That Greek word is in Acts 5 times.

What about your fasting and feasting periods? When was the last time you celebrated Pentecost or Passover? Mine was on Pentecost of this year.

Your brand of church is nothing like Christianity in Acts. You don't live and share everything you have with everyone. You don't allow strangers to live in your house as the early church did. That is the book of Acts. That is also Orthodoxy in its purest form.

You reject the direct command of Paul and emplace your own manmade Protestant command of Sola Scriptura.

Seraphim Sings said...

William Sculley, I appreciate your comments here. From them it is evident you are intelligent, articulate, and have an open mind.

By the same token, I appreciate Bible Believer's posts and can see his disappointment at being what he has found as lies from the RCC. Bad thing is he associates the EOC with the RCC and thinks we are just the same. But I can say, I've studied long and hard as a Protestant and now as an Orthodox Christian and can tell you those two theologies are as far from one another as the east as from the west. If you'll pardon the pun.

On the surface they may appear similar is many respects, but under that surface is where you'll find vast differences.

And the funny thing about two ships that start off from the exact same harbor. If each only have a "few degrees of difference" at the beginning, the longer the journey leads, those few degrees can take the ships to vastly different destinations in the end.

Protestantism has it's source in the Roman Catholic Church. They came from her. Luther was a Roman Catholic. Not Eastern Orthodox.

Look at the continued fracturing in the Protestant side of Christianity. A new denomination every four or five years. Still, to this very day! The RCC changes it's teachings almost as often. One minute you can't do this, then you can. One minute this is a super sin, next it's okay.

The essential teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church has not changed from the very earliest of times. These are the teachings of Christ and the Apostles and the fathers of the early church. They worked out the essential elements of our theology long ago. We haven't changed those teachings. Not even the basic Nicene Creed. Still the same 2000 years later and counting. Minor things have changed, but not the essential teachings.

Paul said to keep the traditions as handed down to you, not change them. We are not here to change the Church.

The Church is here to change us!

Seraphim Sings said...

Anony and BB, the context was correct. I was talking about exactly what Jesus was talking about. Bibliolatry.

Thinking the scriptures can give eternal life, but it is Jesus and it is that of whom the scriptures testify of. The Bible is not God, but you could get that idea from how the Protestants idolize the Bible.

What is our pillar and ground of the truth?

I'll give you a hint.

It ain't the Bible.

This should come as a shock to Bible Believer. Who strangely said "Rituals are dead to God."

Is that why God created the universe and the world around us absolutely filled with a endless dance of repeating rituals? All cycles are merely repetitious ritual and a cosmic dance of polarities and changing images.

Is that why Jesus celebrated the very most important CENTRAL Christian ritual of them all, way back there in the Upper Room where He said, "Take, eat, this is my body,...etc"???

And He also was found in the Jewish Synagogues DAILY participating in all sort of traditions and rituals. (By the way, in the Upper Room Jesus was participating in a ritual celebration called PASSOVER.)

He did after all, come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. And He did! Each and every part of it.

All glory to God!

Let us partake in the ritual of His grace and love as often as we will. Every Sunday is a great start!

As it once was, let us make it ever so, until He comes for us again.

Lamps trimmed, lights shining brightly.

Bible Believer said...

Hmm God may be having me have people live with me. I believe God sometimes does lead us to help others. I believe the book of Acts was better, where did I write that Christians are not to share with one another. Obviously you know from my blog I am not some gung-ho republican. LOL There should be that cohesion among Christians. Outside of your monks who participate in much that is unbiblical, I do not see Orthodox households living different from the world. My father was Eastern Orthodox by the way.

Bible Believer said...

Seraphim what do you consider as lies from the RCC? Do you believe in unity with the RCC? What is your take on the interfaith movement?

Why am I wrong to associate the EOC with the RCC when it comes out of the same root? Sure there are some differing beliefs but the Catholic Pope considers your church close enough for shared communion among both members.

What kind of "Protestant" were you?

I am not a Protestant. I do not follow the teachings of Luther.

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2012/02/daughters-protestant-churches-1-altars.html

You are right the RCC is busy morphing into the one world religion, maybe you should rethink why your church leaders are so enamored with the Pope.

Doesn't that disturb you?

They seem busy meeting with him even now as he praises homosexuality, tells atheists they are going to heaven, and advances one world government.

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/103248/who-are-the-10-religious-leaders-to-hold-an-ecumenical-meeting-with-pope-francis

In every interfaith meeting there is always an Orthie patriarch on the list.

One can't find many of your traditions in scripture, this is why both the Orthodox and Catholic church has to reduce the standing of scripture.

How does an Orthodox or Catholic church change a person? Another man cannot change you. A person needs to be born again and changed via the Holy Spirit.

That is Who changes you then.

Titus 3:5

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

William Sculley said...

Some of the things Orthodox reject:

1. Pergatory. Though eschatology is not directly spoken to in the Orthodox Church with the exception of the Sunday of the Last Judgment, pergatory is rejected offhand as ridiculous, as if the power of the Cross were not strong enough to cope with our sins.

2. The Immaculate Conception of Mary. We reject this because, according to Orthodox Anthropology, man was created in God's image and is, in that nature, good (from Genesis 1). Therefore Mary had no need to be conceived immaculately.

3. Papal doctrines. The Pope is not supreme, nor infallible in any respect, including those instances when he speaks "ex cathedra" (As taught by the heretical council of Vatican 2).

4. Juridical views of sin. This is something you have in common with the Roman Catholic Church. Both you and Rome teach that sin is a crime that God must punish, and that Christ's sacrifice was necessary for satisfying the wrath of God. Orthodox dogma teaches that sin is an illness that has plagued humanity, and that Christ's sacrifice provided us the medicine of immortality (Ignatius of Antioch) to cure our ailing spirits.

5. Indulgences. Since indulgences are based on the view of Purgatory, we reject all such teachings offhand. There is no "buying" your way out of punishment, since sin is a sickness and hell is a choice we make in life.

6. Since I touches on it: Hell. Romans and Protestants teach that hell is the result of God's wrath against sin. Orthodox teach that hell is the result of man's choice to reject God's love. Since God is everywhere, His love is everywhere. Loving your enemy is like heaping coals of fire upon his head, and so much more is the perfect love of God a torment to the man who hates God.

7. The worship of Mary common in some Roman Catholic traditions is rejected offhand, as Mary is not worthy of our Latreia, or uninhibited worship of God. We worship Christ because of Mary's example, and her leadership, and her submission to God. But she needed a Savior just as much as we did. She is revered as the first Christian and the mother of our God, Jesus Christ. Hence her title: Theotokos, or "Bearer of God".

William Sculley said...

Also, Bible Believer, there are three categories of Christians: Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant. If you have ever, at any time, been a part of a Protestant Church, or if the person who brought you into your church ever went to a Protestant Church, you are an offshoot of that Protestant Church. If you accept any of the following teachings, you are a Protestant:

1. The Bible is the Sole authority of the Church under Christ, and is the measure of truth for all Christians.

2. Salvation is by grace and faith alone, without any works, whether of the law, or of ministry, or of service.

You have come out in defense of these central teachings of Protestantism, and therefore are, by definition, a Protestant. You deceive yourself more than anyone else. Nobody else is fooled.

You've spoken of Orthodoxy in a crooked way, telling half-baked lies about it, showing that you were never taught anything about what we believe. I have used, in response, officially accepted Orthodox sources as evidence to the contrary.

Orthodoxy has MAJOR dogmatic differences with Rome that make unity with them impossible, not the least of which is their heretical views of the Pope.

Your having a nominally Orthodox father is irrelevant use of the authority fallacy. It is obvious that he didn't care about the Church too much, since you know as much about what we teach as a 5 year old Baptist and that he married a woman from a heretical gathering and made no attempt to show her or his children the truth that is Orthodoxy.

Here's a challenge for you. Go to the website I'll link below, and listen to all of the podcasts on it. Then you may have an inkling of what we teach:

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 228   Newer› Newest»