The Church NEVER apostatized

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Aug 18, 2011
392
0
0
#1
http://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/apostasia2.htm

Protestant assertions
One, huge contradiction
Objections with ‘evidential’ verses
The Church cannot apostatize!
An amazing admission by a Bible scholar
Is a political power’s favor, proof of apostasy?



Protestant assertions

We shall present some of the assertions of these religious groups: “The devil began to introduce dogmatic changes, as of Emperor Constantine’s time, deceiving quite a few of the bishops… So, they developed a different theology to that of the Bible, because they embraced too much of Plato’s philosophy…. Eventually, a complete deterioration set in… With the passing years and centuries, historical Christianity became a religion that had completely distanced itself from the apostolic simplicity and spirituality, so that today, it appears entirely mutated…. During the fifth century, Christianity appeared to have conquered idolatry, however, idolatry had already corrupted Christianity.” (Evangelical magazine RESEARCH AND FAITH, March-April 1992, page 8)

“However, after the demise of the Apostles, a gradual change came over the Church. During the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries, many in the Church distorted and even rejected the truths that Christ and the Apostles had taught. (Adventist magazine “HERALD”, July-September 2004, page 19)

“Because the Church, with its careless stance, altered its God-founded constitution, thus upsetting everything.” (The book “THE REVERSALS OF RELIGION” by S. Charalambakis, page 26) This same author asserts that the church that “the Disciples of the Divine Savior delivered to us, was preserved to the 3rd century”, hence, he proposes, “this is the Church that we must return to: the roots” (RETURN TO THE GENUINE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN ROOTS, page 9). In another of his texts, he maintains that the apostasy took place later on: “Based on biblical and historical facts, we know that the Church retained its Apostolic guidelines up to about 500 A.D.” (pamphlet “THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND ITS HISTORY”)

As we can see, there is no agreement as to when the Church apostatized; others place it in the 2nd century, others in the 3rd and others in the 4th or 5th. So, where is the truth? Did the Church of Christ really fall into apostasy? What does the Holy Bible teach on this matter? If apostasy did occur, when did it occur historically and which teachings did it affect?



One, huge contradiction

If however, the Ancient Church did not remain within the truth – as various protestant groups and heresies maintain – then they have a serious problem. They place themselves in the predicament of acknowledging the authority of an apostate Church that ruled on the Canon of the New Testament! How can they trust the Canon of the 27 books of the New Testament, if it was composed by alleged apostates of the truth? How can they be certain that those involved had made the correct choice as to which books are divinely inspired or not, if they had apostatized from the divine truth? If the Church had apostatized, how can they be sure that those people hadn’t chosen the books that were considered expedient and rejected those that weren’t to their advantage? If, on the other hand, they trust the Canon of the New Testament, then they –unwittingly- also trust the Church that created that Canon!

The oldest, complete catalogue of the 27 books of the New Testament did not exist until 367 A.D., when Athanasios the Great wrote his 39th commemorative epistle[1]!! The Canon that we have, was finalized in 397 A.D., in the Council (Synod) of Carthage. At least that Church – which gave us the Canon for the New Testament – was surely “a pillar and foundation of the truth” (Timothy I, 3:15). If the Church had indeed preserved apostolic tradition, then it certainly was capable of deciding on the Canon of valid books for the New Testament; if, however, it had become corrupt and apostate, it would obviously not have preserved apostolic tradition and subsequently any decision that it may have reached for this Canon would have been erroneous! To quote the Holy Bible: “Who can extract the clean from the unclean? No-one” (Job, 14:4 – Vamvas Translation). But, if we accept that apostolic tradition was properly preserved by that Church, qualifying it to decide on the Canon, then it could not have been in apostasy!

Consequently, those who maintain that the Church had apostatized, have only two choices:

Either to reject the Canon on the 27 books of the New Testament ruled by that “apostate” Church and commence their own councils (synods) and discussions in order to instate a new Canon for the New Testament, or:
Admit that they have made a mistake and that the Canon on the New Testament that they acknowledge could not have been created by an “apostate” Church.

[1] The Emergence of the New Testament Canon- Daniel Lieuwen- (Home :: Orthodox Christian Information Center).



Objections with ‘evidential’ verses

Various Protestants invoke certain passages, in order to support the alleged apostasy of the Church. They assert that what the Apostle Paul prophesied in his Epistle I to Timothy has been fulfilled, i.e., ‘in later times, some will apostatize from the Faith, paying attention to spirits of deception and to demonic teachings etc.’.[2]. But this passage of Timothy I, 4:1 doesn’t imply that the entire Church was supposedly going to apostatize. The verse clearly says that ‘…….. some will apostatize from the Faith….’, not the entire Church! The Holy Bible speaks of those who will apostatize, in other verses also: “…. With faith and an innocent conscience, which some – after discarding it – became shipwrecked in their faith” (Timothy I, 1:19); “which some, in professing it, strayed from the faith” (Timothy I, 6:21). Furthermore, in Acts 20:28-30, there is no inference that the entire Church is going to apostatize; it only says that “some men will appear, who will teach the truth falsified” (Evangelic translation “Logos”).

The Holy Bible says: “They came forth from among you, but they weren’t one of your kind; for if they were one of your kind, they would have stayed with you. But they came forth so that it might be revealed, that not all of them are one of your kind.” (John I, 2:19). It is obvious that this verse proves that those individuals who apostatize from the true faith DO NOT remain in the Church, but move out of it, thus allowing the Church to preserve its dogmatic teaching unadulterated!


[2] From letter of some reader of Researcher



The Church cannot apostatize!

According to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Church cannot apostatize: “… the portals of the underworld shall not overpower her (the Church)” (Matthew, 16:18). The Holy Bible also clearly states that the truth shall remain in the Church forever: “...for the truth, which resides in you, and shall be with you for all time” (John II, 2); just as Jesus Christ Himself likewise promises that He shall continuously be with the Church, from the 1st century to the end of time, unfailingly: “I am with you, for all days, until the end of time” (Matthew, 28:80). The Holy Spirit also eternally resides in the Church, continuously, from the 1st century: “And I shall ask the Father, and He shall send you another Paraclete, to remain with you to the end of time” (John 14:16).

Therefore, the Church cannot ever apostatize, because Christ – the head of the Church – remains forever joined to His Body, just as the Holy Spirit remains continuously within it, to guide it throughout the truth (John 14:26), hence the truth must also perpetually reside within the Church! If the Church had indeed apostatized, as various teachers of deception claim, it would mean that Christ had given false promises, which He didn’t keep! But, isn’t that a blasphemous conjecture?

However, some protestants maintain that those promises do apply, but not to the visible Church, only the invisible one! But the Holy Bible doesn’t say that the Church founded by Christ was an invisible one! Quite the opposite, it very clearly talks about a visible Church: “ ….and if someone disobeys them, tell this to the Church; but, if he disobeys the Church also, then you should treat him as a gentile and a tax-collector” (Matthew 18:17). If the Church is invisible, then how does someone speak to the Church, and how does an…. invisible Church reprimand the one who has sinned?

“For I am the least of the apostles, who is unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God” (Corinthians I, 15:9). If the Church were invisible, then how did Paul manage to persecute it?

“For if one does not know how to govern his own home, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (Timothy I, 3:5). How does a bishop take care of an ….. invisible Church?”

These are just a few of the verses that prove that the Church founded by Christ is definitely visible, and not invisible. Consequently, in this visible Church, the promises that it cannot apostatize hold true, and the truth, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit will remain inside it eternally!



An amazing admission by a Bible scholar

The biblical theologian Rick Wade mentions in his article “Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church” (Page Not Found -- So Sorry! - Probe Ministries) that occasionally, someone will find references to the idea of a “decline” of the Church after the conversion of the emperor Constantine during the 4th century. Some believe that under Constantine, the Church began to slip, into a state religion that became corrupted by power and riches…. This threw a heavy cloak over the whole of ecclesiastic history, up to the era of Reform. Tradition was considered to be an element of a corrupt and institutionalized church. While it is true that the newly-acquired freedom that the Church enjoyed under Constantine had its negative points, it doesn’t mean that the Church “declined” as some say. During all of its history, the Church may have made mistakes in its dealings with secular society and its during its discovering how to appropriately handle the freedom and power that it had acquired, but, the idea that the Church rapidly became corrupt and that the councils (synods) that were convened during his reign were merely the emperor’s pawns, is too naïve a notion. The Church continued to be faithful to its duty of clarifying and spreading the apostolic tradition. “The faith that was confessed and practiced by the ancient churches was not defined by the political intrigues of emperors and the hierarchies of the prelates” Williams said.[3].

“The essential form and structure of the Christian identity was something that the fourth century inherited and continued to expand, through biblical explanation and the liturgical life as expressed in the tradition of the Symbols of the Faith.”

Let’s take a look at what ensued after Constantine’s reign. Williams says: “…The theology that developed after Constantine did not reflect a radically subversive shift in the Holy Bible and apostolic tradition. On the contrary, the most important Symbols of the Faith (Creed) and official dogmatic discussions were the conscious expansion of a precedent Tradition and teaching of the New Testament, in an attempt to formulate the Christian understanding of God and salvation in the light of new challenges. The reason this is important for our study, is that some have allowed this idea (of the Church’s decline towards the end of the Patristic period) to influence them to the point of rejecting the whole of that period. This is wrong. There was good and there was bad for the Church under Constantine’s reign. Nevertheless, the Church continued to develop itself in its understanding of the apostolic Tradition. We should not ignore the ancient church because of unfortunate setbacks.”


[3] D.H.Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Eerdmans, 1999).



Is a political power’s favor, proof of apostasy?

Most Greek (*) Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons etc. believe that the Church apostatized because Constantine the Great ended the persecutions and swayed the Empire’s favor towards Christians. But does the Holy Bible agree with this?

Let’s take a look at the Persian Emperor Cyrus as an example. The Holy Bible says that God spurred Cyrus’ heart (an idolatrous king!) into rebuilding the destroyed temple of God in Jerusalem, and to even return the sacred vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had stolen from it (Ezra, chapter 1). Was the favor of the idolatrous king towards the Judeans (especially his initiative to rebuild the Temple of God) proof that Israel had apostatized from the truth at the time? The Holy Bible replies with a resounding NO, because God stated the following about the idolatrous king Cyrus: “He is my shepherd, and he will perform all my errands; and I say unto Jerusalem: “You shall be rebuilt” and to the temple: “your foundations shall be planted” (Isaiah 44:28, Translation “PERGAMOS”). So, the Holy Bible clearly indicates that God can use even worldly potentates in order for His will to be done (Proverbs 21:1). The same happened with Constantine the Great: God swayed the favor of the idolatrous Emperor to the benefit of the Christians, using him as His instrument in order to terminate the state’s persecutions of the Church and allow the unhindered spreading of the Gospel throughout the Empire.

Consequently, the assertion of many contemporary movements that the Church apostatized opposes the Holy Bible as well as common logic, because if their assertion is accepted, then the Canon of the New Testament that they hold in their hands loses its validity! In closing, we submit something that the familiar Protestant Hank Hanegraaf said to the Mormons (although the same applies to every religious group that stresses the same argument: “In reply to this teaching (of the church’s apostasy), we should ask the Mormons exactly how would the Church be able to praise God ‘in every generation, for ever and ever’, if – as the Apostle Paul clearly wrote in Ephesians 3:21- it had declined into complete apostasy?” (www.equip.org/free/CP0306.htm)."




(*). The original article was written in Greek.



Text: Manolis Kalomiris

Magazine: “Explorer of the Truth” Edition Νο. 30.

Translation by A.N.
 
S

Scotth1960

Guest
#2

Dear NiceneChristian. Okay. So, no apostasy in the Eastern Orthodox Church. So then, what is the truth regarding the schism between the Old Believers and the Moscow Patriarchate in the 17th Century?
Which side told the truth about liturgical practices? Or were they both right, and the matter is a theologoumenon or an adiaphora?
God bless us. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington


Óýíôïìåò ÌåëÝôåò

Protestant assertions
One, huge contradiction
Objections with ‘evidential’ verses
The Church cannot apostatize!
An amazing admission by a Bible scholar
Is a political power’s favor, proof of apostasy?



Protestant assertions

We shall present some of the assertions of these religious groups: “The devil began to introduce dogmatic changes, as of Emperor Constantine’s time, deceiving quite a few of the bishops… So, they developed a different theology to that of the Bible, because they embraced too much of Plato’s philosophy…. Eventually, a complete deterioration set in… With the passing years and centuries, historical Christianity became a religion that had completely distanced itself from the apostolic simplicity and spirituality, so that today, it appears entirely mutated…. During the fifth century, Christianity appeared to have conquered idolatry, however, idolatry had already corrupted Christianity.” (Evangelical magazine RESEARCH AND FAITH, March-April 1992, page 8)

“However, after the demise of the Apostles, a gradual change came over the Church. During the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries, many in the Church distorted and even rejected the truths that Christ and the Apostles had taught. (Adventist magazine “HERALD”, July-September 2004, page 19)

“Because the Church, with its careless stance, altered its God-founded constitution, thus upsetting everything.” (The book “THE REVERSALS OF RELIGION” by S. Charalambakis, page 26) This same author asserts that the church that “the Disciples of the Divine Savior delivered to us, was preserved to the 3rd century”, hence, he proposes, “this is the Church that we must return to: the roots” (RETURN TO THE GENUINE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN ROOTS, page 9). In another of his texts, he maintains that the apostasy took place later on: “Based on biblical and historical facts, we know that the Church retained its Apostolic guidelines up to about 500 A.D.” (pamphlet “THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND ITS HISTORY”)

As we can see, there is no agreement as to when the Church apostatized; others place it in the 2nd century, others in the 3rd and others in the 4th or 5th. So, where is the truth? Did the Church of Christ really fall into apostasy? What does the Holy Bible teach on this matter? If apostasy did occur, when did it occur historically and which teachings did it affect?



One, huge contradiction

If however, the Ancient Church did not remain within the truth – as various protestant groups and heresies maintain – then they have a serious problem. They place themselves in the predicament of acknowledging the authority of an apostate Church that ruled on the Canon of the New Testament! How can they trust the Canon of the 27 books of the New Testament, if it was composed by alleged apostates of the truth? How can they be certain that those involved had made the correct choice as to which books are divinely inspired or not, if they had apostatized from the divine truth? If the Church had apostatized, how can they be sure that those people hadn’t chosen the books that were considered expedient and rejected those that weren’t to their advantage? If, on the other hand, they trust the Canon of the New Testament, then they –unwittingly- also trust the Church that created that Canon!

The oldest, complete catalogue of the 27 books of the New Testament did not exist until 367 A.D., when Athanasios the Great wrote his 39th commemorative epistle[1]!! The Canon that we have, was finalized in 397 A.D., in the Council (Synod) of Carthage. At least that Church – which gave us the Canon for the New Testament – was surely “a pillar and foundation of the truth” (Timothy I, 3:15). If the Church had indeed preserved apostolic tradition, then it certainly was capable of deciding on the Canon of valid books for the New Testament; if, however, it had become corrupt and apostate, it would obviously not have preserved apostolic tradition and subsequently any decision that it may have reached for this Canon would have been erroneous! To quote the Holy Bible: “Who can extract the clean from the unclean? No-one” (Job, 14:4 – Vamvas Translation). But, if we accept that apostolic tradition was properly preserved by that Church, qualifying it to decide on the Canon, then it could not have been in apostasy!

Consequently, those who maintain that the Church had apostatized, have only two choices:

Either to reject the Canon on the 27 books of the New Testament ruled by that “apostate” Church and commence their own councils (synods) and discussions in order to instate a new Canon for the New Testament, or:
Admit that they have made a mistake and that the Canon on the New Testament that they acknowledge could not have been created by an “apostate” Church.

[1] The Emergence of the New Testament Canon- Daniel Lieuwen- (Home :: Orthodox Christian Information Center).



Objections with ‘evidential’ verses

Various Protestants invoke certain passages, in order to support the alleged apostasy of the Church. They assert that what the Apostle Paul prophesied in his Epistle I to Timothy has been fulfilled, i.e., ‘in later times, some will apostatize from the Faith, paying attention to spirits of deception and to demonic teachings etc.’.[2]. But this passage of Timothy I, 4:1 doesn’t imply that the entire Church was supposedly going to apostatize. The verse clearly says that ‘…….. some will apostatize from the Faith….’, not the entire Church! The Holy Bible speaks of those who will apostatize, in other verses also: “…. With faith and an innocent conscience, which some – after discarding it – became shipwrecked in their faith” (Timothy I, 1:19); “which some, in professing it, strayed from the faith” (Timothy I, 6:21). Furthermore, in Acts 20:28-30, there is no inference that the entire Church is going to apostatize; it only says that “some men will appear, who will teach the truth falsified” (Evangelic translation “Logos”).

The Holy Bible says: “They came forth from among you, but they weren’t one of your kind; for if they were one of your kind, they would have stayed with you. But they came forth so that it might be revealed, that not all of them are one of your kind.” (John I, 2:19). It is obvious that this verse proves that those individuals who apostatize from the true faith DO NOT remain in the Church, but move out of it, thus allowing the Church to preserve its dogmatic teaching unadulterated!


[2] From letter of some reader of Researcher



The Church cannot apostatize!

According to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Church cannot apostatize: “… the portals of the underworld shall not overpower her (the Church)” (Matthew, 16:18). The Holy Bible also clearly states that the truth shall remain in the Church forever: “...for the truth, which resides in you, and shall be with you for all time” (John II, 2); just as Jesus Christ Himself likewise promises that He shall continuously be with the Church, from the 1st century to the end of time, unfailingly: “I am with you, for all days, until the end of time” (Matthew, 28:80). The Holy Spirit also eternally resides in the Church, continuously, from the 1st century: “And I shall ask the Father, and He shall send you another Paraclete, to remain with you to the end of time” (John 14:16).

Therefore, the Church cannot ever apostatize, because Christ – the head of the Church – remains forever joined to His Body, just as the Holy Spirit remains continuously within it, to guide it throughout the truth (John 14:26), hence the truth must also perpetually reside within the Church! If the Church had indeed apostatized, as various teachers of deception claim, it would mean that Christ had given false promises, which He didn’t keep! But, isn’t that a blasphemous conjecture?

However, some protestants maintain that those promises do apply, but not to the visible Church, only the invisible one! But the Holy Bible doesn’t say that the Church founded by Christ was an invisible one! Quite the opposite, it very clearly talks about a visible Church: “ ….and if someone disobeys them, tell this to the Church; but, if he disobeys the Church also, then you should treat him as a gentile and a tax-collector” (Matthew 18:17). If the Church is invisible, then how does someone speak to the Church, and how does an…. invisible Church reprimand the one who has sinned?

“For I am the least of the apostles, who is unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God” (Corinthians I, 15:9). If the Church were invisible, then how did Paul manage to persecute it?

“For if one does not know how to govern his own home, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (Timothy I, 3:5). How does a bishop take care of an ….. invisible Church?”

These are just a few of the verses that prove that the Church founded by Christ is definitely visible, and not invisible. Consequently, in this visible Church, the promises that it cannot apostatize hold true, and the truth, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit will remain inside it eternally!



An amazing admission by a Bible scholar

The biblical theologian Rick Wade mentions in his article “Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church” (Page Not Found -- So Sorry! - Probe Ministries) that occasionally, someone will find references to the idea of a “decline” of the Church after the conversion of the emperor Constantine during the 4th century. Some believe that under Constantine, the Church began to slip, into a state religion that became corrupted by power and riches…. This threw a heavy cloak over the whole of ecclesiastic history, up to the era of Reform. Tradition was considered to be an element of a corrupt and institutionalized church. While it is true that the newly-acquired freedom that the Church enjoyed under Constantine had its negative points, it doesn’t mean that the Church “declined” as some say. During all of its history, the Church may have made mistakes in its dealings with secular society and its during its discovering how to appropriately handle the freedom and power that it had acquired, but, the idea that the Church rapidly became corrupt and that the councils (synods) that were convened during his reign were merely the emperor’s pawns, is too naïve a notion. The Church continued to be faithful to its duty of clarifying and spreading the apostolic tradition. “The faith that was confessed and practiced by the ancient churches was not defined by the political intrigues of emperors and the hierarchies of the prelates” Williams said.[3].

“The essential form and structure of the Christian identity was something that the fourth century inherited and continued to expand, through biblical explanation and the liturgical life as expressed in the tradition of the Symbols of the Faith.”

Let’s take a look at what ensued after Constantine’s reign. Williams says: “…The theology that developed after Constantine did not reflect a radically subversive shift in the Holy Bible and apostolic tradition. On the contrary, the most important Symbols of the Faith (Creed) and official dogmatic discussions were the conscious expansion of a precedent Tradition and teaching of the New Testament, in an attempt to formulate the Christian understanding of God and salvation in the light of new challenges. The reason this is important for our study, is that some have allowed this idea (of the Church’s decline towards the end of the Patristic period) to influence them to the point of rejecting the whole of that period. This is wrong. There was good and there was bad for the Church under Constantine’s reign. Nevertheless, the Church continued to develop itself in its understanding of the apostolic Tradition. We should not ignore the ancient church because of unfortunate setbacks.”


[3] D.H.Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Eerdmans, 1999).



Is a political power’s favor, proof of apostasy?

Most Greek (*) Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons etc. believe that the Church apostatized because Constantine the Great ended the persecutions and swayed the Empire’s favor towards Christians. But does the Holy Bible agree with this?

Let’s take a look at the Persian Emperor Cyrus as an example. The Holy Bible says that God spurred Cyrus’ heart (an idolatrous king!) into rebuilding the destroyed temple of God in Jerusalem, and to even return the sacred vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had stolen from it (Ezra, chapter 1). Was the favor of the idolatrous king towards the Judeans (especially his initiative to rebuild the Temple of God) proof that Israel had apostatized from the truth at the time? The Holy Bible replies with a resounding NO, because God stated the following about the idolatrous king Cyrus: “He is my shepherd, and he will perform all my errands; and I say unto Jerusalem: “You shall be rebuilt” and to the temple: “your foundations shall be planted” (Isaiah 44:28, Translation “PERGAMOS”). So, the Holy Bible clearly indicates that God can use even worldly potentates in order for His will to be done (Proverbs 21:1). The same happened with Constantine the Great: God swayed the favor of the idolatrous Emperor to the benefit of the Christians, using him as His instrument in order to terminate the state’s persecutions of the Church and allow the unhindered spreading of the Gospel throughout the Empire.

Consequently, the assertion of many contemporary movements that the Church apostatized opposes the Holy Bible as well as common logic, because if their assertion is accepted, then the Canon of the New Testament that they hold in their hands loses its validity! In closing, we submit something that the familiar Protestant Hank Hanegraaf said to the Mormons (although the same applies to every religious group that stresses the same argument: “In reply to this teaching (of the church’s apostasy), we should ask the Mormons exactly how would the Church be able to praise God ‘in every generation, for ever and ever’, if – as the Apostle Paul clearly wrote in Ephesians 3:21- it had declined into complete apostasy?” (www.equip.org/free/CP0306.htm)."




(*). The original article was written in Greek.



Text: Manolis Kalomiris

Magazine: “Explorer of the Truth” Edition Νο. 30.

Translation by A.N.
 
Aug 18, 2011
392
0
0
#3

Dear NiceneChristian. Okay. So, no apostasy in the Eastern Orthodox Church. So then, what is the truth regarding the schism between the Old Believers and the Moscow Patriarchate in the 17th Century?
Which side told the truth about liturgical practices? Or were they both right, and the matter is a theologoumenon or an adiaphora?
God bless us. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
The reforms were nothing evil or erroneous. The Orthodox Church has gone through many changes like those, but the changes themselves do not all deny that the Orthodox Church is the Church that Christ gave us. The Holy Spirit will inspire these changes when the time is needed, so they are not at all genuine "schisms" or apostasies from the Church. It was not until 787 AD that Holy Icons were officially free to use in the Church forever and so just looking at the History of the Church, many changes have indeed occured. But the truth always prevailed in the Church through the proceeding Councils, Saints and Martyrs.

(by the way Scott, you should learn how to quote using this forum)
 
Last edited:
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#4
I feel like I'm reading a trascript of a Christian version of the Deen Show.

Additionally,
 
7

777Yeshua777

Guest
#5
THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS NOT WRITTEN IN GREEK!!!!

Stop saying that! Greek Philosophy is EXACTLY what hijacked the true understanding of the Gospels.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
 
Aug 18, 2011
392
0
0
#6
THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS NOT WRITTEN IN GREEK!!!!

Stop saying that! Greek Philosophy is EXACTLY what hijacked the true understanding of the Gospels.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

This isn't the point of the article, it doesn't matter if they were written in Greek or not anyways. The point is the fact that it was the Church Fathers who gave us the New Testament canon and so therefore the Church of Holy Tradition itself is valid and never apostatized.
 
Aug 18, 2011
392
0
0
#7
I feel like I'm reading a trascript of a Christian version of the Deen Show.

Additionally,
Please, stop joking. for you to joke on a topic like this shows the lack of seriousness in your Christian walk. If you are someone seeking the truth you would not do this.
It seems that some Christians just don't care to know the truth and want to behave as though for the first 1500 years, the Church of Christ was not preaching the true Gospel of Christ until Martin Luther came along in 1517 with the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#8
Please, stop joking. for you to joke on a topic like this shows the lack of seriousness in your Christian walk. If you are someone seeking the truth you would not do this.
It seems that some Christians just don't care to know the truth and want to behave as though for the first 1500 years, the Church of Christ was not preaching the true Gospel of Christ until Martin Luther came along in 1517 with the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.










When you guys quit strummin' your one string banjo, and atleast look like you care more about people than getting them in your church, I will read all the copypasta you want me to read. That's another thing. Could you lay off the posting of walls of text? Hardly anyone reads them. You think you're doing a lot to help us out of our delusions, but you actually turn us away when you can't even communicate your own beliefs without copy pasta. It's pathetic. You want to be effective? Take the coldness out of it. Present it as if we're people you see on a daily basis, and not someone on the internet you can throw three pages of text at.


Thank you.
 
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#9
THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS NOT WRITTEN IN GREEK!!!!

Stop saying that! Greek Philosophy is EXACTLY what hijacked the true understanding of the Gospels.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Have you read what I told you on the last thread where you put this idea forward?
 
Aug 18, 2011
392
0
0
#10










When you guys quit strummin' your one string banjo, and atleast look like you care more about people than getting them in your church, I will read all the copypasta you want me to read. That's another thing. Could you lay off the posting of walls of text? Hardly anyone reads them. You think you're doing a lot to help us out of our delusions, but you actually turn us away when you can't even communicate your own beliefs without copy pasta. It's pathetic. You want to be effective? Take the coldness out of it. Present it as if we're people you see on a daily basis, and not someone on the internet you can throw three pages of text at.
I can understand you here. You see, us Christians - all of us, struggle with what is called "Prelest". Prelest is the Russian name for "spiritual delusion ," "spiritual deception," or "illusion," "accepting a delusion for reality in contrast to spiritual sobriety." What is “Prelest”?


I think that the best guide for not falling into Spiritual Delusion is in the book of St James. St James chapter 3 gives an awesome rule for how not to fall into delusion and spiritual deception.

Listen to what he says (this applies to all Catholic and Orthodox as well as Protestants):

James 3:13 Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.
14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth.
15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.
16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.
17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.
18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.



 
Last edited:
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#11
I can understand you here. You see, us Christians - all of us, struggle with what is called "Prelest". Prelest is the Russian name for "spiritual delusion ," "spiritual deception," or "illusion," "accepting a delusion for reality in contrast to spiritual sobriety." What is “Prelest”?
I know you believe I am deluded about the true nature of the EOC, but could you atleast not be so cold about it? That's all I'm really asking for.. I can copy and paste three pages of text and throw them at you too, in fact, I will. Seeing ourselves in the mirror seems to make it easier to understand our own errors. Prepare.
 
A

AnandaHya

Guest
#12
Have you read what I told you on the last thread where you put this idea forward?
probably not, he might actually learn something if he had.

was it along these lines?

http://www.seekgod.ca/hr/hrfaqs9.htm#heb

Myth. The New Testament was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic, not Greek because it is from pagan influences and/or filled with translation errors, which they must eliminate or "correct".

Myth. Most of the Scriptures were originally written in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages
A. The Old Testament was written primarily from source manuscripts of Hebrew and Aramaic. The New Testament was written from manuscripts in Greek, the occasional Aramaic, and the occasional Hebrew.

Hebrew is a language that evolved historically from proto Canaanite (1400 bce) into Phoenician (1050 bce) then into paleo, middle, and late Hebrew, which finally ended up becoming the Biblical Hebrew (with vowels) that we find today in the Masoretic text upon which the Old Testament is based. From there modern words were added, and then once again it evolved into the modern Hebrew that is spoken in Israel today.

There are parts of various books in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) that are written partially in Aramaic (Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah, Genesis). Aramaic is a language that came out of Canaan, where the people worshipped idols, and was also spoken in pagan Babylon during the captivity. There are loan words which are transliterated from Greek to Aramaic in the book of Daniel (3:5,7,10,15). And of course, whether accepted or not, the LXX was written in Greek.

There are NO original Hebrew manuscripts for the New Testament. We do have 5,656 manuscripts in Greek, and we know that there are a few Aramaic words and specifically noted Hebrew words and Chaldee words in those [John 5:2; John 9:7, John 1:42, Acts 9:36, Heb 7:1-2] Jesus chose to speak Aramaic in Mark 15:34. It is written in Scripture, that when He addressed the Father from the Cross, He cried out “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani” which is clearly in the Aramaic language.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are one of the most valuable discoveries of our day. They have given us a look into the writings of the time before, during, and after Christ. There are literally thousands of scroll fragments. The number of different writings represented is quite large, and they are written in three different languages: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. There were none written in Latin. It is also important to note, that the Gospels in the New Testament portion of the Latin Bible are translated from the Koine Greek manuscripts.

The Greek Texts were and are translated into other languages so that "...the Gospel is published in all nations". It is absurd to think that God would be incapable of inspiring the translation of His Word into other languages. It is also unthinkable that He would be unable to protect the needed messages in those languages.


The Scriptures were written in Greek because it was the common language, of Jews and Gentiles. It was the language of commerce. It is not a language that defiles someone or makes them pagan. It is what is in them spiritually.

Matthew 15:16-20 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17. Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18. But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20. These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
;
 
Last edited:
Aug 18, 2011
392
0
0
#13
I know you believe I am deluded about the true nature of the EOC, but could you atleast not be so cold about it? That's all I'm really asking for.. I can copy and paste three pages of text and throw them at you too, in fact, I will. Seeing ourselves in the mirror seems to make it easier to understand our own errors. Prepare.
I wasn't talking about you I was talking about all of us. Me and all the rest; Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. Prelest is a delusion, a self -righteous thought and deed.