Evangelical/Protestant Hypocrisy

[eternally-gratefull]

The Sacrament of Holy Communion is the true body and blood of Christ, you have no idea what you are missing without the Orthodox Church. The Divine Grace that is dispenced through the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist is immense and marvelous. Jesus gives Himself to us as food.


Joh 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Joh 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Joh 6:56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
Joh 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
Joh 6:59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
Joh 6:60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
Joh 6:61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
Joh 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
Joh 6:66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
Joh 6:67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?"
Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,
Joh 6:69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

1. Funny how you did not deny any of what I said.
2. As for john 6. Instead of misinterpreting what it said in one verse. read the whole thing and get context!
3. It is sad that you are missing out on a true relationship with Christ. You can have your eucharist. I will take the true flesh and blood which gave me eternal life. For this reason I never hunger, never thirst, Know I will never die (spiritually) again, Know I will be resurrected on the last day. And know all that God promised me, he will fulfill You can't be assured of any of this. Thus you do not eat the flesh of John 6!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

John 6: 26 - 27 Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”

we see a few things.
1. The people did not come to Jesus because they wanted to hear what he had to say, they wanted fed ( literal food )
2. Jesus tells them not to search for food which dies, but search for the food that gives eternal life.
3. Jesus is able to give them that food, Because God the father has given him the seal ( the holy spirit remember back when John Baptised him and the holy spirit entered him )

Continuing...

vs 28 - 29 : Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

1. they asked jesus what works they had to do to recieve this eternal life ( or the food that provided it )
2. jesus gave the one answer - BELIEVE IN HIM WHO SENT ME. ( this is the bread. )

continuing...

vs 30. 30 Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

amazing, they saw jesus take 5 loaves of bread and two fish, and fed 5000, yet that was not sign enough? they wanted more proof? This shows the worlds thinking and the hardness of their hearts, that even though we may see a miracle, the miracle is not enough. The pharisees saw jesus raise lazarus, yet they still where hard hearted.

Jesus answer...

vs 32 - 33 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

1. Jesus said Moses did not do the work, God did it.
2. God is the one who sent manna, Just Like God is the one who sent Christ.
3. All the israelites had to do was eat the manna to stay alive,, be fed for the day.
4. all we have to do to live spiritually or have eternal life is eat the true bread sent from heaven, which is Christ

the peoples reply...

vs 34 - Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”

they wanted that bread of life, or were they still looking for physical bread?

Jesus Reply...

vs 35 - 40 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

Notice, it does not say eat bread at the eucharist.. it says come TO HIM, and BELIEVE or have faith in HIM

36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”



1. Jesus says, " I am the bread of life " I am the one who gives eternal life.
2. He who comes shall never hunger. this is he who hears the words of God and takes them in ( eats them )
3. he who believes will never thirst ( this is he who hears the words and believes. For they are given spiritual water, or the holy spirit )
4. All who the father has promised the son, from adam till the last man living, Will come to jesus, And jesus will save them, He will resurect them at the last day.
5. This is the bread of life. and the will of the father, " everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

peoples response...

vs 41 - 42 - The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

1. the people were trying to take jesus literaly, and not figuratively or spiritually,
2. because they could not understand, they rejected his words as foolishness.

Jesus reply...

vs 44 - 51 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

1. remember before jesus said eternal life was given if they trusted the god of heaven who sent jesus, He also said eternal life came from those who came to him and believed in him
2, now he confuses them even more,which hardens their hearts even more, and the ones who will be left will be the ones who truly believe.
3. the people who come to christ are taught by God the father, it is he who gives them understanding.
4. again he reiterates, he who believes in christ ( whether them who have seen him, or us who have not ) will have eternal life.
5. He again says, " I am the bread of life " and states a fact, the people who ate the manna are physically dead, the people who eat the spiritual life, will live eternally in spiritual terms,, they will still die, so jesus is not talking in physical, but spiritual terms.
6. Jesus tells exactly what the bread is. His death on the cross, For it is his death burial and ressurection that has paid the price god demands from us, he took the penalty for us, and paid the debt we owe god..Again, he is talking spiritually not physically..

peoples response...

vs 52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

1. Again the people are confused, they are trying to understand what jesus saying as physical not spiritual. just like when they tried to take jesus physical body when he said he is the bread from heaven, ( speaking spiritually)

Jesus reply.

vs 53 - 58 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed,and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

1. Again speaking spiritually here, jesus comes back at them saying unless we eat of his body and drink his blood, we shall not see life ( eternaly or spiritually )
2. Again the people, thinking literally and not spiritually, were offended, thinking Jesus meant to literally eat his Physical flesh and drink his Physical blood.

Even some disciples are offended..

vs 60 - 60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

Jesus reply...

vs 61 -63 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

1. Jesus reafirms that it is the spirit who gives life, Again trying to show them that it is spiritual in nature.
2. He says that the flesh profits nothing. the literal interpretation of Jesus being bread, and we have to literally eat him is no better than eating the spiritual manna, Listen to what he is saying spiritually. not taking it literally.

continuing...

vs 64 - But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

1, due to their lack of belief, or hard hearts, many walked away because of their misinterpretation.
2. One, who stays now, still does not believe but he will leave before it is over ( judas)

Jesus response to those who are left...

vs 67 - 71 - Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?” But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.

1. Peter responds that he knws what Christ meant by the bread, the flesh and the blood. "You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God
2. It is the words of Christ, and who he is and what he is going to do that is the bread of life. Not the physical body and blood.
3. Note also later after christs death, peter confirms this message, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" even after he denies christ.. Peter understands totaly that it is the words of Christ, and what he did in our place that is the bread of life, And is the bread which gives eternal life.
4. Jesus confirms here, That it was him who chose them ( drew them out ) and later, when Peter re-replyes these remarks remembering this day, jesus confirms by saying it is upon that belief, it is upon that bread of life, it is upon that rock that his church will be built on. Again speaking spiritually ( bread ) and not literally ( peter ) yet that is another subject so will stop here.

 

[lil_christian]

2) Well, the problem with *repeating* the *same* prayer over and over is that eventually it becomes a rote exercise, and as I understand it, prayer should come from the heart and existing circumstances. I think all my prayers to God are discussions of what is happening now, and I try not to use the same words over and over. I ad-lib prayers, as odd as that sounds. I'm not entirely sure you can have an entire church ad-lib a song. At the very least, it would confuse the musicians. And in any event, comparing a song to a prayer is apples and oranges.

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who thinks this >.<

9) I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

10) "Creeds of the Church"? Again, never heard of it so I can truthfully say I don't look down on it. I hope it isn't some kind of legalism though. You know what people think about THAT here.

*whew* I thought I was one of the few who didn't know what he was talking about there >.>

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

when are you going to get tired of insinuating but not quite saying flat out that non orthodoxist christians are not saved?

i have to say that one of the most irritating things about the eastern orthodox church is its dishonest evasiveness about that very issue...

Non-Orthodox can be saved. However, some non-Orthodox doubt that Eastern Orthodoxy is even Christian. They are the kind of people with problem. The Orthodox do not denigrate the non-Orthodox.
Morey, Robert A. (2007). Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian? Las Vegas, NV: Christian Scholars Press.
Non-Orthodox sometimes call Orthodox non-Christians, but the Orthodox do not call non-Orthodox non-Christian.

See: Barnes, Patrick. The Non-Orthodox: The Church's Teaching On Christians Outside of the Church. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press.
Some people are quick to take offense when someone disagrees with their doctrines.
Why is that?
Well, heresy is offense, ISTM. It's not right to say God is not the Holy Trinity, Christ is not God, the Orthodox Church is not the Church founded by Christ, the Virgin Mary is not Ever-Virgin, there are not seven sacraments, but only two, and icons are idols, and we should all believe in the five points of Calvinism, which are the Gospel.

 

[jimmydiggs]

This thread... it's a giant fail fest, and sadly it's not one-way.

 

[StMichaelTheArchangel]

1. Funny how you did not deny any of what I said.
2. As for john 6. Instead of misinterpreting what it said in one verse. read the whole thing and get context!
3. It is sad that you are missing out on a true relationship with Christ. You can have your eucharist. I will take the true flesh and blood which gave me eternal life. For this reason I never hunger, never thirst, Know I will never die (spiritually) again, Know I will be resurrected on the last day. And know all that God promised me, he will fulfill You can't be assured of any of this. Thus you do not eat the flesh of John 6!

You will hunger and thirst because you are then worshiping a Gnostic Jesus without the Holy Eucharist. Without eating and drinking Christ's body and blood you have no life in you because it is only through our physical bodies can we have spirituality. The Apostle Paul testifies this frequently in his writings,"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1Co 6:19)

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Read this by one of our Metropolitans (head bishops) of the Church (his body is also incorrupt and he was recently canonized.

See his incorrupted relics, this was after he was unearthed from the ground, this is a sign of great sanctity.

Here he is, St Philaret (Voznesensky) of New York while in the body:

And here is his lesson titled "Will The Hetrodox Be Saved?"


Will the Heterodox Be Saved?

"The question: Can the heterodox (i.e. those who do not belong to Orthodoxy - the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church) be saved, has become particularly painful and acute in our days. In attempting to answer this question, it is necessary, first of all, to recall that in His Gospel the Lord Jesus Christ Himself mentions but one state of the human soul which unfailingly leads to perdition, i.e. blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:31-32). The Holy Spirit is, above all, the Spirit of Truth, as the Saviour loved to refer to Him. Accordingly, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is blasphemy against the Truth, conscious and persistent opposition to it. The same text makes it clear that even blasphemy against the Son of Man - i.e. the Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God Himself - may be forgiven men, as it may be uttered in error or in ignorance and, subsequently, may be covered by conversion and repentance (an example of such a converted and repentant blasphemer is the Apostle Paul. See Acts 26:ll and I Tim. 1:13).

If, however, a man opposes the Truth which he clearly apprehends by his reason and conscience, he becomes blind and commits spiritual suicide, for he thereby likens himself to the devil, who believes in God and dreads Him, yet hates, blasphemes, and opposes Him. Thus, man’s refusal to accept the Divine Truth and his opposition thereto makes him a son of damnation. Accordingly, in sending His disciples to preach, the Lord told them: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk.16:16), for the latter heard the Lord’s Truth and was called upon to accept it, yet refused, thereby inheriting the damnation of those who “believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (II Thes.2:12).

The Holy Orthodox Church is the repository of the divinely revealed Truth in all its fullness and fidelity to apostolic Tradition. Hence, he who leaves the Church, who intentionally and consciously falls away from it, joins the ranks of its opponents and becomes a renegade as regards apostolic Tradition. The Church dreadfully anathematizes such renegades, in accordance with the words of the Saviour Himself (Matt. 18:17) and of the Apostle Paul (Gal. 1:8-g), threatening them with eternal damnation and calling them to return to the Orthodox fold. It is self-evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics - i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth...* They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The Lord, “Who will have all men to be saved” (I Tim. 2:4) and “Who enlightens every man born into the
world” (Jn. 1:91, undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation in His own way..

With reference to the above question, it is particularly instructive to recall the answer once given to an ” inquirer” by the Blessed Theophan the Recluse. The blessed one replied more or less thus: “You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour, Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox, and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy and enter a different faith, you will lose you soul forever.”

We believe the foregoing answer by the saintly ascetic to be the best that can be given in this matter."

Archimandrite Philaret
(later Metropolitan Philaret of Blessed Memory)

* The Greek word for “heresy” is derived from the word for “choice” and hence inherently implies conscious, willful rejection or opposition to the Divine Truth manifest in the Orthodox Church.

Translated from the Russian by Stephen Karganovic.

if you call that 'incorruptibility' and a sign of great sanctity then king tutankhamun should be a saint too...

and basically what philaret is saying is that non orthodoxists can be saved as long as they were only raised that way and never once actually bothered to think about their beliefs...

so yes your church condemns most christians...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Non-Orthodox can be saved. However, some non-Orthodox doubt that Eastern Orthodoxy is even Christian. They are the kind of people with problem. The Orthodox do not denigrate the non-Orthodox.
Morey, Robert A. (2007). Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian? Las Vegas, NV: Christian Scholars Press.
Non-Orthodox sometimes call Orthodox non-Christians, but the Orthodox do not call non-Orthodox non-Christian.

See: Barnes, Patrick. The Non-Orthodox: The Church's Teaching On Christians Outside of the Church. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press.
Some people are quick to take offense when someone disagrees with their doctrines.
Why is that?
Well, heresy is offense, ISTM. It's not right to say God is not the Holy Trinity, Christ is not God, the Orthodox Church is not the Church founded by Christ, the Virgin Mary is not Ever-Virgin, there are not seven sacraments, but only two, and icons are idols, and we should all believe in the five points of Calvinism, which are the Gospel.

you insinuated in your post that non orthodoxists were not saved...let's break it down...

you said there is salvation in true churches...and you defined 'true church' as a church founded by christ...we all know what church you believe is the one founded by christ...

so you may attempt to avoid the logical conclusion of your beliefs...but you were insinuating that non orthodoxist churches are false churches...and that there is no salvation in false churches...so that non orthodoxist christians are not saved...

you can deny it all you want...but to define 'the church' in terms of apostolic succession always results in the conclusion that protestants are not saved

 

[superdave5221]

What I see as the basic difference (broadly speaking) between mainstream Protestantism and Eastern Orthodox, is the source of authority for determining doctrine and God's will for us.

For Protestants, the Church is defined by the Holy Scriptures, whereas for Eastern Orthodox, the Holy Scriptures is defined by the Church.

Your point is somewhat valid, for even those who are the most insistent on Sola Scriptura, will admit that the bible must be interpreted. The problem is that the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have gone beyond biblical interpretation and added manmade liturgy and placed their manmade tradition above the authority of the Scriptures.

Certainly, we can agree on the first four ecumenical council&#8217;s findings. I personally can agree that, at least in the first five centuries that the Church, and its ecumenical agreements, articulated and defined the Gospel and Biblical canon as well as the relationship within the Trinity. My belief however, is that this definition was made possible through the power of Holy Spirit, working through the Church infrastructure, (Church leadership) but the power itself remained in Holy Spirit, and the authority in Scriptures, and not in the church as a corporate entity. I say corporate entity to describe the system of popes and bishops that were manmade and not representative of the temple of God which is made up of all of the individual members of Christ's church, i.e. those who have been sealed with Holy Spirit as having been adopted as children of God, (2 Cor. 6:16). This Church of Christ is defined by the direct relationship of the saints to Christ as our High Priest, and is NOT defined by any manmade church infrastructure of priests or bishops and whose system of sacraments and liturgy is not needed for justification. Justification is by faith in Jesus Christ our Savior, and is not by works.

Beginning in the sixth century, the Greek Orthodox church began to break with the gospel tradition (God's Authority as revealed in Scriptures) and develop elaborate systems of sacraments and other liturgy, as well as a hierarchical church structure which is nowhere defined in Scripture.

Even if one were to agree that in Matthew 16 that Christ is speaking of Peter as the base of His Church, there is no authority given for the elaborate system of sacraments, liturgy, and hierarchical structure that has been constructed from that interpretation.

All churches set up by Paul and Barnabus in the first century were self autonomous, and were ruled by a plurality of elders. Later on, chairmanships were set up among some of the elders to settle disputes between the elders, (to have the final say). This eventually developed into the bishop positions. This development was a manmade development and was not authored by Christ. Even as late as the sixth century, there were five major churches that were equal in authority, (Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria). If not for the Islamic invasions, this would likely have continued. In my opinion, the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, have interpreted doctrine, and developed a tradition, which is not based on the authority granted to it by Christ as head of the Church as revealed through Holy Scriptures.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You will hunger and thirst because you are then worshiping a Gnostic Jesus without the Holy Eucharist. Without eating and drinking Christ's body and blood you have no life in you because it is only through our physical bodies can we have spirituality. The Apostle Paul testifies this frequently in his writings,"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1Co 6:19)

well. Again funny how you did not even start to go over what I posted about John 6. But just made a comment based on your belief.

I am not thirsting. because I HAVE eternal life. I KNOW Christ will raise me on the last day, Instead of having me delivered to him for judgment). I KNOW I will never die (spiritually), I know I will live forever (Not die spiritually or suffer the second death.

You know none of these things, even though you take the Eucharist on probably a weekly basis. (even though Jesus said do not search for food which dies, thus you have to continue eating, but food which endures forever, meaning you only eat once, and are completely filled for eternity)

face it my friend. If the Eucharist does not grant whoever eats ALL that Jesus said in John 6 would be given the person who eats and drinks (Which it does not), It is not the true flesh. Just some religious ceremony!

jesus made it clear, Whoever eats;

1. Has (Not might have) Eternal life
2. Will never hunger or thirst (not have to continue eating)
3. Will never die (Spiritually)
4. Will live forever (with him, vs suffering eternal death)
5. Will be raised by him (vs delivered to him for judgment)

So you keep eating that stuff which promises none of this. and tell me I still hunger. When it is you who hunger still, proven by the fact you continue to eat over and over that which Jesus promised would make you never hunger or thirst again.

 

[StMichaelTheArchangel]

well. Again funny how you did not even start to go over what I posted about John 6. But just made a comment based on your belief.

I am not thirsting. because I HAVE eternal life. I KNOW Christ will raise me on the last day, Instead of having me delivered to him for judgment). I KNOW I will never die (spiritually), I know I will live forever (Not die spiritually or suffer the second death.

You know none of these things, even though you take the Eucharist on probably a weekly basis. (even though Jesus said do not search for food which dies, thus you have to continue eating, but food which endures forever, meaning you only eat once, and are completely filled for eternity)

face it my friend. If the Eucharist does not grant whoever eats ALL that Jesus said in John 6 would be given the person who eats and drinks (Which it does not), It is not the true flesh. Just some religious ceremony!

jesus made it clear, Whoever eats;

1. Has (Not might have) Eternal life
2. Will never hunger or thirst (not have to continue eating)
3. Will never die (Spiritually)
4. Will live forever (with him, vs suffering eternal death)
5. Will be raised by him (vs delivered to him for judgment)

So you keep eating that stuff which promises none of this. and tell me I still hunger. When it is you who hunger still, proven by the fact you continue to eat over and over that which Jesus promised would make you never hunger or thirst again.

The verb used in the 6:54 is "EATS" which signifies a continual eating of his flesh and blood. This is not a one time thing.

You can't "eat" anything because like I said, without the correct doctrine and interpretation of the Holy Eucharist you worship and believe in a gnostic Jesus. Gnosticism is the belief that Jesus did not really come in the flesh because they believed that matter is evil but the spirit is good. You are interpreting John 6 in a totally gnostic fashion. Gnosticism is really is what some Protestants believe in whenever they talk about how the "Flesh" is "evil", and how, we must "fight the flesh", but the flesh is good because St Paul said that out body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. But since we are in a Fallen world, our bodies can become either full of the Holy Spirit or full of the evil spirits.

You worship Spirit and think that only the spirit is good, while the followers of the True Church of Christ believe in the holiness and the sacredness of matter... Its a huge difference when you consider the fact that we live in a material world and that we have NO SPIRITUALITY without our bodies.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

What I see as the basic difference (broadly speaking) between mainstream Protestantism and Eastern Orthodox, is the source of authority for determining doctrine and God's will for us.

For Protestants, the Church is defined by the Holy Scriptures, whereas for Eastern Orthodox, the Holy Scriptures is defined by the Church.

Your point is somewhat valid, for even those who are the most insistent on Sola Scriptura, will admit that the bible must be interpreted. The problem is that the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have gone beyond biblical interpretation and added manmade liturgy and placed their manmade tradition above the authority of the Scriptures.

Certainly, we can agree on the first four ecumenical council’s findings. I personally can agree that, at least in the first five centuries that the Church, and its ecumenical agreements, articulated and defined the Gospel and Biblical canon as well as the relationship within the Trinity. My belief however, is that this definition was made possible through the power of Holy Spirit, working through the Church infrastructure, (Church leadership) but the power itself remained in Holy Spirit, and the authority in Scriptures, and not in the church as a corporate entity. I say corporate entity to describe the system of popes and bishops that were manmade and not representative of the temple of God which is made up of all of the individual members of Christ's church, i.e. those who have been sealed with Holy Spirit as having been adopted as children of God, (2 Cor. 6:16). This Church of Christ is defined by the direct relationship of the saints to Christ as our High Priest, and is NOT defined by any manmade church infrastructure of priests or bishops and whose system of sacraments and liturgy is not needed for justification. Justification is by faith in Jesus Christ our Savior, and is not by works.

Beginning in the sixth century, the Greek Orthodox church began to break with the gospel tradition (God's Authority as revealed in Scriptures) and develop elaborate systems of sacraments and other liturgy, as well as a hierarchical church structure which is nowhere defined in Scripture.

Even if one were to agree that in Matthew 16 that Christ is speaking of Peter as the base of His Church, there is no authority given for the elaborate system of sacraments, liturgy, and hierarchical structure that has been constructed from that interpretation.

All churches set up by Paul and Barnabus in the first century were self autonomous, and were ruled by a plurality of elders. Later on, chairmanships were set up among some of the elders to settle disputes between the elders, (to have the final say). This eventually developed into the bishop positions. This development was a manmade development and was not authored by Christ. Even as late as the sixth century, there were five major churches that were equal in authority, (Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria). If not for the Islamic invasions, this would likely have continued. In my opinion, the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, have interpreted doctrine, and developed a tradition, which is not based on the authority granted to it by Christ as head of the Church as revealed through Holy Scriptures.

Not true at all! The Orthodox do not place manmade tradition above the Scriptures. That is what Protestants do. Their traditions are manmade. Made by Luther and the other Reformers. Scripture is a part of TRADITION, but is not ALL of TRADITION, according to SCRIPTURE (2 Thess. 2:5, 1 Cor. 11:2). Protestants place their private opinions ABOVE the Scriptures. Bishops are talked about in one of St. Paul's letters to Timothy, so your slander against bishops is a lie against Christ the Truth.
Your tradition is not based on Christ's Truth. You think of yourself as superdave. While the Truth is, ONLY CHRIST is super.

 

[superdave5221]

Not true at all! The Orthodox do not place manmade tradition above the Scriptures. That is what Protestants do. Their traditions are manmade. Made by Luther and the other Reformers. Scripture is a part of TRADITION, but is not ALL of TRADITION, according to SCRIPTURE (2 Thess. 2:5, 1 Cor. 11:2). Protestants place their private opinions ABOVE the Scriptures. Bishops are talked about in one of St. Paul's letters to Timothy, so your slander against bishops is a lie against Christ the Truth.
Your tradition is not based on Christ's Truth. You think of yourself as superdave. While the Truth is, ONLY CHRIST is super.

There is no indication of bishops in the verses you listed, other than that placed there in the imagination of man. Please list the one's in Timothy to support your opinion.


There is always the possibility of tradition being "manmade". However there is no chance of the Scriptures being "manmade". Thus we could argue about this all day. But in the end, the only thing that we are sure of is that God's word is Truth, and tradition, "might be".

As to what I think of myself, it is not germaine to this discussion, and as you do not know me, any opinion on that is only conjecture. If you wish to know what I think of myself, just ask.

Christ is "super". Your bishops are not.

 

[superdave5221]

By the way Scott, if you are so sure of tradition, why is it that you cannot agree with the Roman Catholics, who share the same tradition?

If you wish to argue that Sola Scriptura is not sufficient because of competing interpretations, then the same could be said of competing interpretations of tradition.

It would appear that apostolic succession is no more reliable as a determinant of Truth, then is Sola Scriptura.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

There is no indication of bishops in the verses you listed, other than that placed there in the imagination of man. Please list the one's in Timothy to support your opinion.


There is always the possibility of tradition being "manmade". However there is no chance of the Scriptures being "manmade". Thus we could argue about this all day. But in the end, the only thing that we are sure of is that God's word is Truth, and tradition, "might be".

As to what I think of myself, it is not germaine to this discussion, and as you do not know me, any opinion on that is only conjecture. If you wish to know what I think of myself, just ask.

Christ is "super". Your bishops are not.

The bishops are Christ's bishops. I don't own the Church. Protestants try to "own the Church" within themselves. Again, you ignored what I said about calling yourself "super". If the only thing we are sure of is that the Bible is true, we can not ever say any interpretation of the Bible is correct, as it only "might be", and we are left with a useless, impossible to correctly interpret, uninspiring book. With no man who can tell us what it means (in contradiction to Acts 8:30-31). If there is no indication of bishops when the Bible says bishops, why don't you say what it means? Why don't you tell us what bishops in Timothy really means? If there is no apostolic succession of bishops, what is there? Can there be generations of Christians who don't have any bishops? And thus falsify St. Paul's writing to St. Timothy?
If there are no bishops, how can Timothy be correct? The Bible says bishop, but you say there are no bishops. Illogical!
And I didn't cite any verses about bishops, I just said it's somewhere in one of St. Paul's letter to St. Timothy. I don't have to cite every Scripture for it to be considered true. My memory of it is correct enough, that I know it's in Timothy so and so about bishops.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

By the way Scott, if you are so sure of tradition, why is it that you cannot agree with the Roman Catholics, who share the same tradition?

If you wish to argue that Sola Scriptura is not sufficient because of competing interpretations, then the same could be said of competing interpretations of tradition.

It would appear that apostolic succession is no more reliable as a determinant of Truth, then is Sola Scriptura

.

Dear superdave: John 15:26 proves Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do NOT share the "same tradition". Catholics say "and the Son"; Orthodox Christians say "who proceedeth from the Father", in agreement with our Saviour Jesus Christ in John 15:26. Perhaps you should start reading the Bible more closely instead of falsely accusing Holy Orthodoxy as being exactly the same as Roman Catholicism. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[superdave5221]

Dear superdave: John 15:26 proves Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do NOT share the "same tradition". Catholics say "and the Son"; Orthodox Christians say "who proceedeth from the Father", in agreement with our Saviour Jesus Christ in John 15:26. Perhaps you should start reading the Bible more closely instead of falsely accusing Holy Orthodoxy as being exactly the same as Roman Catholicism. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

If I am not mistaken, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox shared the same traditions for more than 1000 years, until 1054 A.D. You quote one verse and attempt to wipe away a 1000 years of history! And you defintely share a methodology, which is, that tradition is just as important as the Holy Scriptures in determining God's Truth. And you both claim the same apostolic succession. So let us not be petulant about it.

Furthermore, did not the Roman Church, and Eastern Orthdox reconcile with one another on December 7, 1965? Did both churches at this time not remove the edicts of anathema against one another? Isn't that interesting? Two churches who shared the same tradition for 1000 years, shared the same belief in the damnation of the other for another 900 years.

And we are supposed to believe that you have all the answers and the keys to God's Truth?

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

If I am not mistaken, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox shared the same traditions for more than 1000 years, until 1054 A.D. You quote one verse and attempt to wipe away a 1000 years of history! And you defintely share a methodology, which is, that tradition is just as important as the Holy Scriptures in determining God's Truth. And you both claim the same apostolic succession. So let us not be petulant about it.

Furthermore, did not the Roman Church, and Eastern Orthdox reconcile with one another on December 7, 1965? Did both churches at this time not remove the edicts of anathema against one another? Isn't that interesting? Two churches who shared the same tradition for 1000 years, shared the same belief in the damnation of the other for another 900 years.

And we are supposed to believe that you have all the answers and the keys to God's Truth?

Friend: You don't understand how the EOC functions! There was not an Ecumenical Council on December 7, 1965. That lifting of anathemas is therefore null and void. You're assuming the Patriarch of Constantinople is assumed to be infallible. Like the pope is assumed to be the same. Only Ecumenical Councils and the Scriptures and the Traditions of the One Church are believed to be Infallible.
There has not been an Ecumenical Council since at least 787 AD. And only God says about condemnation. The EOC isn't in the judging business about the damnation of Roman Catholicism. God alone can do that. Too many people speak untruths about the EOC and other matters. They follow the example of Martin Luther and the Pope of Rome in private, personal, subjectivistic, inward-oriented individualistic feeling (human tradition/ rationalism regarding the Holy Scriptures). In Erie Scott R. Harrington
PS So, I don't have all the answers. But you seem to think you have all the answers about the EOC, which you think is wrong, and you are right.
No member of the EOC is infallible, but the Church is infallible (see 1 Tim. 3:15, Matt. 16:18).

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The verb used in the 6:54 is "EATS" which signifies a continual eating of his flesh and blood. This is not a one time thing.

Actually in the Greek the verb is "EAT" Which is a singular verb. Unfortunately in the English language you would not say, ""if anyone "EAT" this bread. As it would make no sense, nor fit with the laws of the English language. If one would study the original text. they would see this. But even then we do not need to because the context of the passage as a whole gives us the clue that it is not a continual eating. so all one would have to do is actually study the passage, not one or two verses.

1. He compared this food with food we eat every day, and said it "endured forever. if it endures forever, it does not die, or lose its power. thus you do not have to keep eating it. Unlike the manna which God fed their fathers every day, this food would endure forever. meaning it could sustain the eater indefinitely.
2. Jesus said whoever eats will never hunger. why continue to eat food which Jesus said you can eat, and never be hungry again?
3. He said whoever eats it will never die, and they will live forever. If food can sustain us so that we will never die. again, what is the purpose of continual feeding on it.
4. He stated whoever eats has (present tense) eternal life. How could we HAVE eternal life, if we have to continue to eat this food which gives us eternal life. Jesus never stated they might have, HE SAID THEY HAVE. Huge difference.

Not to mention. All we have to do is look at the direct passage you quoted.

47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.&#8221;

so we see with context. he is comparing this flesh, with the food in the wilderness. Which they ate every day. Unlike that food, whoever eats this flesh will LIVE FOREVER. He also states what this term Lives forever: or "eternal life" realy comes from. Believe in him. so no matter how you look at it. You can not look at this passage and even think Jesus is speaking of eating continually. It does not fit the passage, the context or what Jesus is saying

You can't "eat" anything because like I said, without the correct doctrine and interpretation of the Holy Eucharist you worship and believe in a gnostic Jesus. Gnosticism is the belief that Jesus did not really come in the flesh because they believed that matter is evil but the spirit is good. You are interpreting John 6 in a totally gnostic fashion. Gnosticism is really is what some Protestants believe in whenever they talk about how the "Flesh" is "evil", and how, we must "fight the flesh", but the flesh is good because St Paul said that out body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. But since we are in a Fallen world, our bodies can become either full of the Holy Spirit or full of the evil spirits.

My friend. You need to get off what you have been taught, and actually learn to study for yourself.
1. Jesus did come in the flesh, I am not gnostic.
2. You did not even respond to anything I said. Thus you evidently do not understand what I am saying, your reverting to what most roman churches do and reading what other people say from a "pre-conceived, or learned" notion of what they are saying. thus can not see what they are really saying.
3. Again as I said. I HAVE everything Jesus promised he would give to all who eats. You are not assured of having any of it, even if you eat it once a week from now until the day you die. You say I need the correct interpretation. Yet your interpretation calls Jesus a liar!

You worship Spirit and think that only the spirit is good, while the followers of the True Church of Christ believe in the holiness and the sacredness of matter... Its a huge difference when you consider the fact that we live in a material world and that we have NO SPIRITUALITY without our bodies.

what does this have to do with what I said? Did Jesus say whoever eats will live forever, never hunger, never thirst, never die, has eternal life, and given Christ assurance he will RAISE them on the last day, or did he not. According to your tradition. Jesus lied. Because no one who eats the eucharist is assured any of these things.

 

[superdave5221]

Friend: You don't understand how the EOC functions! There was not an Ecumenical Council on December 7, 1965. That lifting of anathemas is therefore null and void. You're assuming the Patriarch of Constantinople is assumed to be infallible. Like the pope is assumed to be the same. Only Ecumenical Councils and the Scriptures and the Traditions of the One Church are believed to be Infallible.
There has not been an Ecumenical Council since at least 787 AD. And only God says about condemnation. The EOC isn't in the judging business about the damnation of Roman Catholicism. God alone can do that. Too many people speak untruths about the EOC and other matters. They follow the example of Martin Luther and the Pope of Rome in private, personal, subjectivistic, inward-oriented individualistic feeling (human tradition/ rationalism regarding the Holy Scriptures). In Erie Scott R. Harrington
PS So, I don't have all the answers. But you seem to think you have all the answers about the EOC, which you think is wrong, and you are right.
No member of the EOC is infallible, but the Church is infallible (see 1 Tim. 3:15, Matt. 16:18).

You still don't get it Scott. You claim that your methodology for determining Truth is the correct way, and yet the Roman Church used that same methodology and, according to you, got it wrong.

And then you follow church leaders who evidently don't believe their own methodology because, once again according to you, they abandon it to uphold a bull of excommunication against the Roman Church for 900 years, that, according to you, they had no authority to issue.

Is this all smoke and mirrors?