Everything that belongs to the Father has been given to the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father .....AND THERFORE also proceeds from the Son. To deny that is to be a heretic. The papal see is vacant, Benedict XVI and his 4 predecessors were in fact heretical antipopes, HOWEVER St. Peters LAWFUL successors have his same divinely ordained primacy and jurisdiction. Covert to the one true Catholic Faith outside of which nobody at all is saved. Visit vaticancatholicdotcom
Everything that belongs to the Father has been given to the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father .....AND THERFORE also proceeds from the Son. To deny that is to be a heretic. The papal see is vacant, Benedict XVI and his 4 predecessors were in fact heretical antipopes, HOWEVER St. Peters LAWFUL successors have his same divinely ordained primacy and jurisdiction. Covert to the one true Catholic Faith outside of which nobody at all is saved. Visit vaticancatholicdotcom
@florinu123 Your questions are a bit panicky and incoherent, but let us begins by saying that the OT is not inerrant. The sun does not rise or set, the earth is not stationery. One could not make the day longer by causing the sun to stand still, because it is not moving. If the chronology of the OT was correct, then Adam would have died while Narmar was king in Egypt, the flood would have occured while the pyramids were being built and during the first Chinese tribal states.
@florinu123 Intersting that you mention Mt.25. This chapter tells you as clear as day that you cannot enter Heaven without works. In the Hebrew OT, there is not a single word that can be translated as "hell," and the concept clearly did not exist. Of course there is a "hell", but not the neo-pagan hell of Roman Cath/Calvinism
@florinu123 Mt.25 and Eph.2:8 are clearly not in agreement with each other. Howbeit, the Orthodox Church teaches us that we are saved by Grace without the works of the Law, while not denying Mt.25. Also, the Scripture clearly teaches us that the doctrine of "Original Sin" is heretical (an invention of the heretic Augustine of Hippo). Self-love and egoism are the bases of sin. Accepting the counterfeits which Satan offers are also. But "sin" does not mean "breaking the law," rather missing
@florinu123 the mark or goal of union with God and everlasting life. The idea of Christ as a vicarious human sacrifice was not invented until after year 1000, and it is as blasphemous as it is demonic and heretical. No one in the Apostolic Church ever had such a pagan notion of redemption. The atonement heresy is the primary cause of atheism in the world. By the way, we know very well that Nineveh never accepted the Hebrew God or repented in "sacks and ashes." The history is very well known.
@florinu123 The "fetishes" are the creation of mentally unstable people like John Calvin (who murdered everyone in his part of Geneva who did not agree with him. He burned people who disagreed with him at the stake just like the Vatican did. He was homicidal lunatic.) The cruel, vindictive, unstable god of Calvin and the West is no better than Baal or Moloch or any other idolatry.
This appears to be saying that protestantism invented the literal reading of scripture. This is untrue there were pre-protestant ludicrously low estimates of the the age of the earth. And there were many many pre-protestant hell fire sermons. A recent liberal Catholic historian writing on Martin Luther noted how remarkably lacking he was in mentions of the torments of hell by the standards of the time.
PS. I am not a believer I am writing from the point of view of historical interest.
@commonberus1 I am sure that many in the Roman Catholic Church and enough in the Orthodox Church read the scripture literally, but it was not the "dogma" in the East. There have been horrendous abuses in ALL Christian bodies, and without any excuse except for superstition and politics. That is a reality that none of us should deny. The Protestant phenomenon in this regard is not "yesterday," but today, and that is why I address it the most.
I don't think I agree with your depiction of protestantism. Although it relies heavily on the bible, there were also protestant natural theologians (who acknowledged the 'second book' of God). Criticasters of natural theology like Barth also did not interpret the bible as a literal text about nature. Generally, what you call 'fundamentalism' is one kind of protestantism, perhaps an orthodox neo-calvinist view (not orthodox as you understand it, ofcourse). True fundamentalism is quite recent.
@Lingula77 The Evangelicals that I work together with are not at all Fundmentalist. We do agree on the Bible as the touchstone of faith (as St John Chrysostom called it) but focus primarily upon the Gospel, rather than the Old Testament Law and history.
Hello father, I come from an evangelical background, and I'm beginning to see the wisdom of the Orthodox Christian position (and Catholic and Protestant heresies). I don't understand the practice of praying to Mary and saints. I see the point of offering reverence and reading about the Saints to understand the faith. But given the Judaic context, and that all the writers of the New Testament were Jews minus one, would they have done this? Also what do you think of the Complete Jewish Bible?
@smithyjobs77 Perhaps "praying with" rather than "praying to" is a better description. However, if the saints have become, as promised, "temples of the Holy Spirit," and have the fulness of Christ dwelling in them, then perhaps the idea of addressing them in prayer really originated as a confession of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and of the reality of everlasting life.
We know that Christianity is true because the Gospel writers, inspired by God who can make no error, recorded the founding events. For example, on the first Easter morning, the visitors to the tomb were greeted by which of the following:
a) A young man (Mark 16:5)
b) No, no, it was no man, it was an angel (Matthew 28:2-5)
Interesting video....I use to believe the Bible was inerrant in every detail because it seemed that way on the surface, and I was raised to believe it in that sense. I am still a Christian. I have to ask you: do you think that everyone who believes the Bible is inerrant, in the sense that fundamentalists do, is committing idolatry? Is it possible that some people are just trying to defend the faith, and just haven't seen certain things?
I agree that people put too much focus on the first few chapters of Genesis in the wrong area. Why attack or defend the creation account? That's not the main focus. The main focus is man was created not to sin, but sinned anyway, and that's why we have more problems in the world than we should.
if you are still recording more, may i ask questions like ... for the question and answer parts please? :D:D There are some things Im really really curious :)
@TeesByTruthSurge I asked my grandfather, Archbishop Lazar to respond to this. I do know that this teaching does not occur in the Greek original of the Epistles of Paul.
@roddymark Or is that what you've been told? We don't KNOW what copy of Romans is the earliest and there is NO original version as all the originals of the NT are extinct. Until you can produce hard evidence that the earliest copies of Romans do not contain the essence of original sin, I remain unconvinced. Mere assertions don't hold much water with me.
@TeesByTruthSurge In fact, there is no such teaching in the Epistles of Paul. The Greek offeres no such indication at all. One does realise that the Latin Vulgate, which has severe mistranslations, perverts Rm. 5:12, but that verse most certainly does not teach and does not support the doctrine of hereditary guilt that Original Sin doctrines asserts.
@TeesByTruthSurge On that scale? Likely not, but in the Tell Al Armana archives, yes, there is evidence of the killing of the male children and the exodus. Of course, the scale is really a question.
I would agree almost completely though it seems you're talking about Augustinianism in regard to how protestants interpret, cherry pick and misrepresent him. Further, purgatory is not some vengeful act of God, but is the effect of Christ's sufficiency and mercy. The pain, suffering and so forth is the result not of God's vengeance being acted out but is due to man's fallen nature, his ego, clinging but ultimately giving way to the grace of Christ.
@commodianus The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver informs us that "Purgatory" is now considered an "optional belief," no longer required of the RC faithful. That is a hopeful development. The last Pope also returned to the Orthodox understanding of the nature of hell. Perhaps there is hope after all. If the Latins could just get rid of the myth of Original Sin, we would be closer to re-union.
@allsaintsmonastery The Orthodox no longer believe in "προπατορική αμαρτία"? Further I don't think an Archbishop has the authority to turn ancient tradition into "optional theology" any more than Luther had the authority to edit the Bible.
@commodianus The Ancestral Sin and the doctrine of Original Sin have nothing in common. It is impossible for anyone to inherit guilt (as the doctrine of Original Sin teaches). Perhaps you should read Romanides, "ON THE ANCESTRAL SIN" The doctrine of Original Sin is one of the foulest heresies ever to be conceived in the human mind, second only to the pagan idea of Atonement.
@allsaintsmonastery I'm not sure which Latin teaching you're attempting to address the substance of. "Original sin is called 'sin' only in an analogical sense: it is a sin 'contracted' and not 'committed' - a state and not an act. Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants" CCC 404-405 Are you sure you understand the Catholic position? I have studied the EO position and I do not find this disparity you do.
@commodianus The Latin doctrine of Original Sin, like that of Calvin, states that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. It is, ironically, the basis of the heresy of the "Immaculate Conception of Mary."
@allsaintsmonastery Ok but I've just given you the Catholic teaching in my quote above in plain English. Again, see CCC 404-405. There is not this "guilt" you seem to be implying.
And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the dung came out.
In fact, humans are made of dirt and seawater. More telling still is that female is the default gender and female "wiring" is the default wiring for the human braind. Maybe that is why men in so many cultures are afraid of women and keep them in such bondage?
Well a few tablespoons of minerals anyway, but still mostly seawater. I wonder if the stroy of Adam and Eve (i.e., the one version of it) was not a reflection of the struggle between the earlier fertility religions and the later more masculine religious development. Hard to demonstrate from so great a remove.
@allsaintsmonastery Well, yes, but I was referring to rational speech. :=) And don't forget Biblical "genetics." When Jacob wanted his goats to have striped offspring he had them mate in from of striped poles. For spotted offspring he used spotted poles. Worked every time! Hahahaha! So whatever you do, do NOT have sex while watching Edward Scissorhands!!
@Imaginefree69 Perhaps if he had a black male servant looking after the sheep, most of them would have been black????? Yes, I know what you mean about the "genetics" thing. It is not the only genetics problem found in the OT
Another example: when we say sunrise today, we know the sun doesn't rise but at ONE pt in time, people DID believe the sun rose on one side and set on the opposite. So, at any pt in time PRIOR to the discovery that the sun did NOT orbit the earth, this term (sunrise/sunset) would NOT have been metaphor or symbolism but a statement of fact. It would have been THEIR reality at the time, not them using a metaphor while knowing it didn't actually rise or set. Huge difference.
I think you missed the point. The scriptures are not about whether earth rests on pillars or the sun rises and sets or any of the other observations of nature. It's about relationship with God.
If someone you didn't know told you 5 untrue things and 5 true ones and 2 of the true ones were not really known to be true and involved supernatural events, and you find out that he told 5 things untrue, why on earth would you trust him on the 2 supernatural ones when he couldn't even relay the simple stuff correctly?
YOU miss the pt. It's a matter of reliability.
I'm looking for someone to debate on BlogTV. If you know anyone, have 'em msg me.
You've simplified it to much. One's model of reality can change without affecting the truth value of metaphysical principles. If we took what you said, we'd have to reject any and all knowledge ever attained prior to the heliocentric model of the universe.
And no, you miss the mark again. The observations of SCIENTISTS a few hundred years back are not equal to a HOLY BOOK professing to be the key to everyone's eternal salvation and if you don't buy them you roast for eternity. HUGE and FUNDAMENTAL different, my friend. So if a god AT ALL is behind the authoring, it makes no sense that this god couldn't get his OWN character laid out consistently. Or perhaps you have not read the Bible? :)
First, you misunderstand our stance on heaven and hell.
Second, if this is a matter or reliability, then the fact that those scientists were explaining their observations from an untrue scientific paradigm (i.e. geocentric model) makes all their observations unreliable by default because their explanations of their observations are rooted in an unreliable paradigm.
Nope. It means that science keeps what remains true, jettisons the rest, and moves forward. Religion has yet to jettison the false things. If they did, almost the entire Bible would go to the trash and it CAN go there because nothing NOTHING in it is original that we haven't heard from other sources b4. Even proverbs were lifted directly from Egyptian documents.
It means that science keeps what remains true, jettisons the rest, and moves forward. Religion has yet to jettison the false things
-Quite the contrary. It seems to me like you're upset because we can keep our model of reality current while holding fast to the metaphysical principles in the Bible that remain true without discarding any of the texts therein. In this situation, I don't see how what we are doing is any different that what you say science does.
Right. Not only that, but a very good book called "The Bible Unearthed" contains some solid archeological findings that make a mass exodus from Egypt pretty much fictional. But this is just a corroboration of what I believed long before I read the book (and I haven't read the entire book yet).;
There is a theme where the early Jews would invenmt fictional tales showing Yahweh getting the best of their enemies. The Exodus is just one such tale.
@TruthSurge Good sub ject for one of my broadcasts. Actually, there is sufficient evidence that the exodus did take place. Not being a Biblical literalists, I do search to see what is corroborated externally and what is not. Some of the things recorded in the Bible, I sincerely hope did not actually take place as recorded.
@gambleor@TruthSurge Good sub ject for one of my broadcasts. Actually, there is sufficient evidence that the exodus did take place. Not being a Biblical literalists, I do search to see what is corroborated externally and what is not. Some of the things recorded in the Bible, I sincerely hope did not actually take place as recorded.
"You've simplified it to much. One's model of reality can change without affecting the truth value of metaphysical principles. "
You still missed the fact that the Bible is not reliable concerning NOT ONLY scientific facts BUT about the VERY NATURE OF ITS AUTHOR! It can't get its own story straight! EG, does god tempt people?
To prove my point, please answer me, gambleor. Does god tempt people? Or has he ever tempted people?
So you believe the story of Abraham and Isaac is fabricated, then? Good for you! And the Adam and Eve story is made up too because God couldn't have allowed them to be tempted especially since they didn't know right from wrong yet? Good form!
So, when you're done throwing out most of the Bible due to contradictions or nonsense, um.... how can you be sure what you've kept is true?
The point of the story is of Abraham and Isaac is the rejection of human sacrifice. I would hope that the events in that story didn't actually take place. The story of Adam and Eve reveals a profound truth about the human condition even though the events of the story are true or not. Adam and Eve refused to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil until they were convinced it would make them gods themselves.
@TruthSurge Where would poetry be without sunrise and sunset, dusk and dawn? Of course, the expressions are simple statements of the reality that they saw, and we still use the expressions,because for us, sunrise and sunset are visible realities as we see them.
You say metaphor but it still is up to you, the reader, to determine what is metaphor and what is literal. Combine this with the fact that these writings have been edited constantly over time and stories rewritten by separate authors, you are left with a hodge-podge of fiction where you pick and choose what you want and simply discard what you don't want under the umbrella of metaphor or symbolism.
Was it symbolism to the mesopotamians when they said the earth rested on pillars? Nope.
Greetings Sir. I have two questions for you. 1)At what point does one accept that going down the 'it's all a metaphor' road eventually brings you to a 'it's simply a book written by ancient men but has no origin with a creator' Why? Well...2)I can't understand why the creator of the universe would find it necessary to beat around the bush with rules and regs (with metaphors) when it could simply state truth in a straight forward manner. Why the games? Why the waste of time? Cheers
Aside from a few Protestant groups, I know of no one who has "gone down the its all metaphor road." To ignore the fact that there is metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, however, is just ludicrous. To literalise every metaphor is insane To use the Bible to persecute other human beings is genuinely evil. Fundamentalists do both of the latter. Fundamentalism is essentially evil.
It was the middle of the night when I wrote so my question so I don't believe I clarified my question well enough. I'll rephrase as well...You had mentioned that the flood taken literally would put it smack dab in the middle of the (survived) Egyptian empire. You were forced to move you position from literalism to metaphorical. How far does one need to go with this line or reasoning before one accepts that it not a book from god but rather a book from men as we see at every turn. Honest question
The point being made is that the move was not made from literalism to metaphor, but from metaphor to literalism. The narrative of the flood has profound theological depth until it is made shallow by means of a literal interpretation.
The flood was most likely a local flood. The word used to describe "earth" in our Bibles is "erets". Erets can be translated to earth, land, or country. It makes much more sense that God flooded the land & that Noah collected all the animals from the land. Read the flood story & wherever you see the word earth, replace it with land and it will al make sense. It was simply mistranslated. There are many parts of the Bible where erets is translated to land. It was mistranslated in the flood story.
@robotwookie If one took the Chronology literally, then Adam would have died while King Narmar was fighting the Lybians, and the flood would have taken place during the era of pyramid building in Egype, and when Chinese culture was taking shape. these are simple realities. The OT as the NT make use of many metaphors also--as does every language, and moreso in oldeer languages.
May I ask, then, what is to be taken literally out of the Bible if it is full of metaphors? Also, about hell, what about what the New Testament says about hell, a place CREATED for satan and his angels? And in Revelation, about being cast into the lake of fire? Please, I really just want to hear what you have to say about that. Thank you and God bless.
Of course, every language and every writing uses metaphor. Scripture is no exception. The two trees in the garden, for example, are metaphorical. One cannot eat and apple and live forever. The idea of the sun standing still for Joshua is an obvious example, since relative to the earth, the sun is not moving at all. Sunrise and sunset are metaphores since the sun does neither of those things. The sun does not "also ariseth," nor does it "knoweth its going down." (more later, out of space here)
Idolatry of Fundamentalism... Oh datz a good one 'dika... I gotta remember dat one! Just da t'ing ta use on doze Protestanti Hairy Ticki so ya can get a woid in edgewise...
I'm interested to know what some of the most crucial metaphorical elements of the NT might be. Are there any texts you could recommend? Are there elements of this understanding that require initiation and vows before they can be imparted?
I am aware that, among Evangelicals, many do not like the way the Scripture is manipulated and used by the ultra-right. There are many sincere Protestants who do not agree with such travesties.
But hasn't Christianity more or less always involved itself in politics? Even in Orthodox Russia there was the famous 1/10th tax that every peasant had to give to the church, this was comparable or even more than what a peasant had to give to his land owner. In the West this was even more well known since the work of Alexander Dumas "The Three Muskateers" . Clearly mainstream Christianity has ,until recently, been a very strong political force.
Would you explain how an Orthodox mind understands OT events such as: Sodom and Gomorrah; the flood of Noah; the extirpation of the Amalekites and Canaanites; or even the bears mauling the children who mocked Elisha.
These examples are often invoked either as evidence that God is malevolent or that God righteously sanctions genocide and other deleterious acts.
There are many differing thoughts on these by Orthodox people. Having differing views or understandings of them is permissible, in fact. It is well to remember that, in the story of Sodom and Gom. the would be rapist were heterosexual men, not gay men. The shocking thing is that it was considered OK to put the two daughters out to be raped to death, as was the slave girl in the case of the Levite in Ephraim. There, too, the men who wanted to rape him were heterosexual men. (continued)
Additionally, may one hold that when the OT authors ascribe to God a quality which is contrary to what is revealed in Christ in the NT, that the author is mistaken on account of the limited revelation of God he is working under? For example, in the case of 2 Kings 2:23-24, would it be impertinent to say that the author is mistaken about how God acts?
Would one be within the pale of Orthodoxy to hold that the historicity and literality of the OT is qualified by the discoveries of archeology, astronomy, phsyics, and other sciences? For example, when we learn from astronomy that the solar system is heliocentric, we disqualify accounts of geocentricity as being literal.
If you are constantly revising revelation to fit with current scientific models, you will end up with a purely metaphorical religion. Keep in mind that modern science operates on dualist or materialist presuppositions- moreover, the Creation has been distorted since the Fall. Both of these factors contribute to a warped understanding of nature. The truths of revelation are deeper than any scientific theory, so it really does not matter if they are "literal" or not.
i want to grow a beard as cool as yours :3
Kitsushika 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everything that belongs to the Father has been given to the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father .....AND THERFORE also proceeds from the Son. To deny that is to be a heretic. The papal see is vacant, Benedict XVI and his 4 predecessors were in fact heretical antipopes, HOWEVER St. Peters LAWFUL successors have his same divinely ordained primacy and jurisdiction. Covert to the one true Catholic Faith outside of which nobody at all is saved. Visit vaticancatholicdotcom
truelightwitness 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everything that belongs to the Father has been given to the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father .....AND THERFORE also proceeds from the Son. To deny that is to be a heretic. The papal see is vacant, Benedict XVI and his 4 predecessors were in fact heretical antipopes, HOWEVER St. Peters LAWFUL successors have his same divinely ordained primacy and jurisdiction. Covert to the one true Catholic Faith outside of which nobody at all is saved. Visit vaticancatholicdotcom
truelightwitness 5 months ago
as a former orthodox, currently calvinist, I have to ask the following questions:
1.do you believe in the existence of hell ?(4:24)
2.pls give examples of these so-called "fetishes" apart from the concept of hell.
3.if the OT is man's battle against idolatry, then why do we worship God incarnate in the form of Yeshua?
4.Do these fetishes include the holiness of God?
5.is self-love the entirety of sin, or is there more?
6.Please explain Ephesians 2:8.
7.Pls explain Matthew 25:46.
florinu123 8 months ago
@florinu123 Your questions are a bit panicky and incoherent, but let us begins by saying that the OT is not inerrant. The sun does not rise or set, the earth is not stationery. One could not make the day longer by causing the sun to stand still, because it is not moving. If the chronology of the OT was correct, then Adam would have died while Narmar was king in Egypt, the flood would have occured while the pyramids were being built and during the first Chinese tribal states.
allsaintsmonastery 7 months ago 2
@florinu123 Intersting that you mention Mt.25. This chapter tells you as clear as day that you cannot enter Heaven without works. In the Hebrew OT, there is not a single word that can be translated as "hell," and the concept clearly did not exist. Of course there is a "hell", but not the neo-pagan hell of Roman Cath/Calvinism
allsaintsmonastery 7 months ago 2
@florinu123 Mt.25 and Eph.2:8 are clearly not in agreement with each other. Howbeit, the Orthodox Church teaches us that we are saved by Grace without the works of the Law, while not denying Mt.25. Also, the Scripture clearly teaches us that the doctrine of "Original Sin" is heretical (an invention of the heretic Augustine of Hippo). Self-love and egoism are the bases of sin. Accepting the counterfeits which Satan offers are also. But "sin" does not mean "breaking the law," rather missing
allsaintsmonastery 7 months ago 2
@florinu123 the mark or goal of union with God and everlasting life. The idea of Christ as a vicarious human sacrifice was not invented until after year 1000, and it is as blasphemous as it is demonic and heretical. No one in the Apostolic Church ever had such a pagan notion of redemption. The atonement heresy is the primary cause of atheism in the world. By the way, we know very well that Nineveh never accepted the Hebrew God or repented in "sacks and ashes." The history is very well known.
allsaintsmonastery 7 months ago 2
@florinu123 The "fetishes" are the creation of mentally unstable people like John Calvin (who murdered everyone in his part of Geneva who did not agree with him. He burned people who disagreed with him at the stake just like the Vatican did. He was homicidal lunatic.) The cruel, vindictive, unstable god of Calvin and the West is no better than Baal or Moloch or any other idolatry.
allsaintsmonastery 7 months ago 2
This appears to be saying that protestantism invented the literal reading of scripture. This is untrue there were pre-protestant ludicrously low estimates of the the age of the earth. And there were many many pre-protestant hell fire sermons. A recent liberal Catholic historian writing on Martin Luther noted how remarkably lacking he was in mentions of the torments of hell by the standards of the time.
PS. I am not a believer I am writing from the point of view of historical interest.
commonberus1 9 months ago
@commonberus1 I am sure that many in the Roman Catholic Church and enough in the Orthodox Church read the scripture literally, but it was not the "dogma" in the East. There have been horrendous abuses in ALL Christian bodies, and without any excuse except for superstition and politics. That is a reality that none of us should deny. The Protestant phenomenon in this regard is not "yesterday," but today, and that is why I address it the most.
allsaintsmonastery 9 months ago
I don't think I agree with your depiction of protestantism. Although it relies heavily on the bible, there were also protestant natural theologians (who acknowledged the 'second book' of God). Criticasters of natural theology like Barth also did not interpret the bible as a literal text about nature. Generally, what you call 'fundamentalism' is one kind of protestantism, perhaps an orthodox neo-calvinist view (not orthodox as you understand it, ofcourse). True fundamentalism is quite recent.
Lingula77 1 year ago
@Lingula77 The Evangelicals that I work together with are not at all Fundmentalist. We do agree on the Bible as the touchstone of faith (as St John Chrysostom called it) but focus primarily upon the Gospel, rather than the Old Testament Law and history.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
Hello father, I come from an evangelical background, and I'm beginning to see the wisdom of the Orthodox Christian position (and Catholic and Protestant heresies). I don't understand the practice of praying to Mary and saints. I see the point of offering reverence and reading about the Saints to understand the faith. But given the Judaic context, and that all the writers of the New Testament were Jews minus one, would they have done this? Also what do you think of the Complete Jewish Bible?
smithyjobs77 1 year ago
@smithyjobs77 Perhaps "praying with" rather than "praying to" is a better description. However, if the saints have become, as promised, "temples of the Holy Spirit," and have the fulness of Christ dwelling in them, then perhaps the idea of addressing them in prayer really originated as a confession of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and of the reality of everlasting life.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We know that Christianity is true because the Gospel writers, inspired by God who can make no error, recorded the founding events. For example, on the first Easter morning, the visitors to the tomb were greeted by which of the following:
a) A young man (Mark 16:5)
b) No, no, it was no man, it was an angel (Matthew 28:2-5)
c) You're both wrong, it was two men (Luke 24:4)
d) Damn it, there was nobody there (John 20:1-2)
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
Interesting video....I use to believe the Bible was inerrant in every detail because it seemed that way on the surface, and I was raised to believe it in that sense. I am still a Christian. I have to ask you: do you think that everyone who believes the Bible is inerrant, in the sense that fundamentalists do, is committing idolatry? Is it possible that some people are just trying to defend the faith, and just haven't seen certain things?
DStanTheMc 1 year ago
I agree that people put too much focus on the first few chapters of Genesis in the wrong area. Why attack or defend the creation account? That's not the main focus. The main focus is man was created not to sin, but sinned anyway, and that's why we have more problems in the world than we should.
theboombody 1 year ago
I love these videos you've recorded!!!
if you are still recording more, may i ask questions like ... for the question and answer parts please? :D:D There are some things Im really really curious :)
thank u very much!! Christ is Risen!
JushinEmpire 1 year ago
@JushinEmpire Of course.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@TeesByTruthSurge I asked my grandfather, Archbishop Lazar to respond to this. I do know that this teaching does not occur in the Greek original of the Epistles of Paul.
roddymark 1 year ago
@roddymark Or is that what you've been told? We don't KNOW what copy of Romans is the earliest and there is NO original version as all the originals of the NT are extinct. Until you can produce hard evidence that the earliest copies of Romans do not contain the essence of original sin, I remain unconvinced. Mere assertions don't hold much water with me.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@roddymark I just made a 2 part reply to this. You might find it interesting.
/watch?v=TlTK2ikWTv0&
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TeesByTruthSurge In fact, there is no such teaching in the Epistles of Paul. The Greek offeres no such indication at all. One does realise that the Latin Vulgate, which has severe mistranslations, perverts Rm. 5:12, but that verse most certainly does not teach and does not support the doctrine of hereditary guilt that Original Sin doctrines asserts.
roddymark 1 year ago
@roddymark just in case you miss the other reply I made I'm putting another here.
/watch?v=TlTK2ikWTv0&
Would love to know what you are calling "original Greek".
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TeesByTruthSurge On that scale? Likely not, but in the Tell Al Armana archives, yes, there is evidence of the killing of the male children and the exodus. Of course, the scale is really a question.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
I would agree almost completely though it seems you're talking about Augustinianism in regard to how protestants interpret, cherry pick and misrepresent him. Further, purgatory is not some vengeful act of God, but is the effect of Christ's sufficiency and mercy. The pain, suffering and so forth is the result not of God's vengeance being acted out but is due to man's fallen nature, his ego, clinging but ultimately giving way to the grace of Christ.
commodianus 1 year ago
@commodianus The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver informs us that "Purgatory" is now considered an "optional belief," no longer required of the RC faithful. That is a hopeful development. The last Pope also returned to the Orthodox understanding of the nature of hell. Perhaps there is hope after all. If the Latins could just get rid of the myth of Original Sin, we would be closer to re-union.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery The Orthodox no longer believe in "προπατορική αμαρτία"? Further I don't think an Archbishop has the authority to turn ancient tradition into "optional theology" any more than Luther had the authority to edit the Bible.
commodianus 1 year ago
@commodianus The Ancestral Sin and the doctrine of Original Sin have nothing in common. It is impossible for anyone to inherit guilt (as the doctrine of Original Sin teaches). Perhaps you should read Romanides, "ON THE ANCESTRAL SIN" The doctrine of Original Sin is one of the foulest heresies ever to be conceived in the human mind, second only to the pagan idea of Atonement.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery I'm not sure which Latin teaching you're attempting to address the substance of. "Original sin is called 'sin' only in an analogical sense: it is a sin 'contracted' and not 'committed' - a state and not an act. Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants" CCC 404-405 Are you sure you understand the Catholic position? I have studied the EO position and I do not find this disparity you do.
commodianus 1 year ago
@commodianus The Latin doctrine of Original Sin, like that of Calvin, states that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. It is, ironically, the basis of the heresy of the "Immaculate Conception of Mary."
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery Ok but I've just given you the Catholic teaching in my quote above in plain English. Again, see CCC 404-405. There is not this "guilt" you seem to be implying.
commodianus 1 year ago
Hum.. is this a serbian flag? o.O
Terneyah 1 year ago
@Terneyah Indeed it is.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery
So you're a member of the serbian-orthodox church? As everyone else in your community? (serbian diaspora in canada?)
By the way: Good video -- good opinion
Terneyah 1 year ago
@Terneyah No, we are in the OCA , but my family are all still in Serbia.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
Dumbledore lives!
urloony 1 year ago
@urloony One more comment and I will turn you into a toad.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw
snakefootak 1 year ago
Judges 3:19-25 ESV
And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the dung came out.
lizazoon 1 year ago
A bit messy of nothing else.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
I'm so glad I found the Orthodox Church, now looking back, I understand how heretical Protestantism really is.
tyrantslayer999 2 years ago 6
@tyrantslayer999 Couldn't agree more, my brother.
ryanmshepard92 1 year ago
The Bible says that humans are made of dirt.
And that snakes and donkeys talk.
And that insects have 4 legs.
And that bats are birds.
And that the earth is flat.
And that the sun revolves around the earth.
And that animals appeared AFTER man but BEFORE woman.
Which effectively refutes any claims to inerrancy.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
In fact, humans are made of dirt and seawater. More telling still is that female is the default gender and female "wiring" is the default wiring for the human braind. Maybe that is why men in so many cultures are afraid of women and keep them in such bondage?
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
"humans are made of dirt and seawater"
Well, actually, sea water is water plus minerals.
That's what humans are made of, just sea water.
As evolution says, of course.
You're right, mammals are female by default,
which makes the tale of Eve being made from Adam
all the more evidently inaccurate.
Sadly, the religion invented by ignorant bronze-age nomads
made the bondage of women to be the "will of God."
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Well a few tablespoons of minerals anyway, but still mostly seawater. I wonder if the stroy of Adam and Eve (i.e., the one version of it) was not a reflection of the struggle between the earlier fertility religions and the later more masculine religious development. Hard to demonstrate from so great a remove.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
@Imaginefree69 Good point. However, anyone who has ever sat in the visitors gallery in Parliament can tell you that snakes and donkeys talk.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 Perhaps if he had a black male servant looking after the sheep, most of them would have been black????? Yes, I know what you mean about the "genetics" thing. It is not the only genetics problem found in the OT
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
The Bible is inerrant:
You can't go to church if your testicles are damaged or your penis has been cut off. (Read Deuteronomy 23:1
Why don`t they put up check points ?
lizazoon 2 years ago
"Why don`t they put up check points ?"
Haha!
Excellent idea!
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
@lizazoon You could not go into the temple, but you are still welcome in the Orthodox Church. No Red Heifer required.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
Another example: when we say sunrise today, we know the sun doesn't rise but at ONE pt in time, people DID believe the sun rose on one side and set on the opposite. So, at any pt in time PRIOR to the discovery that the sun did NOT orbit the earth, this term (sunrise/sunset) would NOT have been metaphor or symbolism but a statement of fact. It would have been THEIR reality at the time, not them using a metaphor while knowing it didn't actually rise or set. Huge difference.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
I think you missed the point. The scriptures are not about whether earth rests on pillars or the sun rises and sets or any of the other observations of nature. It's about relationship with God.
gambleor 2 years ago
If someone you didn't know told you 5 untrue things and 5 true ones and 2 of the true ones were not really known to be true and involved supernatural events, and you find out that he told 5 things untrue, why on earth would you trust him on the 2 supernatural ones when he couldn't even relay the simple stuff correctly?
YOU miss the pt. It's a matter of reliability.
I'm looking for someone to debate on BlogTV. If you know anyone, have 'em msg me.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
You've simplified it to much. One's model of reality can change without affecting the truth value of metaphysical principles. If we took what you said, we'd have to reject any and all knowledge ever attained prior to the heliocentric model of the universe.
gambleor 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I meant heliocentric model of the solar system
gambleor 2 years ago
And no, you miss the mark again. The observations of SCIENTISTS a few hundred years back are not equal to a HOLY BOOK professing to be the key to everyone's eternal salvation and if you don't buy them you roast for eternity. HUGE and FUNDAMENTAL different, my friend. So if a god AT ALL is behind the authoring, it makes no sense that this god couldn't get his OWN character laid out consistently. Or perhaps you have not read the Bible? :)
TruthSurge 2 years ago
First, you misunderstand our stance on heaven and hell.
Second, if this is a matter or reliability, then the fact that those scientists were explaining their observations from an untrue scientific paradigm (i.e. geocentric model) makes all their observations unreliable by default because their explanations of their observations are rooted in an unreliable paradigm.
gambleor 2 years ago
Nope. It means that science keeps what remains true, jettisons the rest, and moves forward. Religion has yet to jettison the false things. If they did, almost the entire Bible would go to the trash and it CAN go there because nothing NOTHING in it is original that we haven't heard from other sources b4. Even proverbs were lifted directly from Egyptian documents.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
It means that science keeps what remains true, jettisons the rest, and moves forward. Religion has yet to jettison the false things
-Quite the contrary. It seems to me like you're upset because we can keep our model of reality current while holding fast to the metaphysical principles in the Bible that remain true without discarding any of the texts therein. In this situation, I don't see how what we are doing is any different that what you say science does.
gambleor 2 years ago
Do you believe that the story in the Exodus happened?
gambleor 2 years ago
No, I don't. See? Answering with a simple yes or no IS possible but I think mostly only possible for non-Christians.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
I was just curious because you made mention of the writers lifting proverbs directly from Egyptian documents.
gambleor 2 years ago
Right. Not only that, but a very good book called "The Bible Unearthed" contains some solid archeological findings that make a mass exodus from Egypt pretty much fictional. But this is just a corroboration of what I believed long before I read the book (and I haven't read the entire book yet).;
There is a theme where the early Jews would invenmt fictional tales showing Yahweh getting the best of their enemies. The Exodus is just one such tale.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
@TruthSurge Good sub ject for one of my broadcasts. Actually, there is sufficient evidence that the exodus did take place. Not being a Biblical literalists, I do search to see what is corroborated externally and what is not. Some of the things recorded in the Bible, I sincerely hope did not actually take place as recorded.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@gambleor @TruthSurge Good sub ject for one of my broadcasts. Actually, there is sufficient evidence that the exodus did take place. Not being a Biblical literalists, I do search to see what is corroborated externally and what is not. Some of the things recorded in the Bible, I sincerely hope did not actually take place as recorded.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
"You've simplified it to much. One's model of reality can change without affecting the truth value of metaphysical principles. "
You still missed the fact that the Bible is not reliable concerning NOT ONLY scientific facts BUT about the VERY NATURE OF ITS AUTHOR! It can't get its own story straight! EG, does god tempt people?
To prove my point, please answer me, gambleor. Does god tempt people? Or has he ever tempted people?
TruthSurge 2 years ago
God is not the author of the Bible. I think you need to listen to the videos Archbishop Lazar has made regarding the authorship of the Bible.
In answer to your question, I don't believe that God has ever tempted anyone nor does He tempt people.
gambleor 2 years ago
So you believe the story of Abraham and Isaac is fabricated, then? Good for you! And the Adam and Eve story is made up too because God couldn't have allowed them to be tempted especially since they didn't know right from wrong yet? Good form!
So, when you're done throwing out most of the Bible due to contradictions or nonsense, um.... how can you be sure what you've kept is true?
TruthSurge 2 years ago
The point of the story is of Abraham and Isaac is the rejection of human sacrifice. I would hope that the events in that story didn't actually take place. The story of Adam and Eve reveals a profound truth about the human condition even though the events of the story are true or not. Adam and Eve refused to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil until they were convinced it would make them gods themselves.
gambleor 2 years ago
I meant "even though the events of the story are not true."
gambleor 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Okay. Thanks. Talk to you later.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
@TruthSurge By the way, if you find someone willing to debate the issue on Blogsville, let me know. I would like to watch it.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@TruthSurge Where would poetry be without sunrise and sunset, dusk and dawn? Of course, the expressions are simple statements of the reality that they saw, and we still use the expressions,because for us, sunrise and sunset are visible realities as we see them.
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
You say metaphor but it still is up to you, the reader, to determine what is metaphor and what is literal. Combine this with the fact that these writings have been edited constantly over time and stories rewritten by separate authors, you are left with a hodge-podge of fiction where you pick and choose what you want and simply discard what you don't want under the umbrella of metaphor or symbolism.
Was it symbolism to the mesopotamians when they said the earth rested on pillars? Nope.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Greetings Sir. I have two questions for you. 1)At what point does one accept that going down the 'it's all a metaphor' road eventually brings you to a 'it's simply a book written by ancient men but has no origin with a creator' Why? Well...2)I can't understand why the creator of the universe would find it necessary to beat around the bush with rules and regs (with metaphors) when it could simply state truth in a straight forward manner. Why the games? Why the waste of time? Cheers
robotwookie 2 years ago
Aside from a few Protestant groups, I know of no one who has "gone down the its all metaphor road." To ignore the fact that there is metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, however, is just ludicrous. To literalise every metaphor is insane To use the Bible to persecute other human beings is genuinely evil. Fundamentalists do both of the latter. Fundamentalism is essentially evil.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
It was the middle of the night when I wrote so my question so I don't believe I clarified my question well enough. I'll rephrase as well...You had mentioned that the flood taken literally would put it smack dab in the middle of the (survived) Egyptian empire. You were forced to move you position from literalism to metaphorical. How far does one need to go with this line or reasoning before one accepts that it not a book from god but rather a book from men as we see at every turn. Honest question
robotwookie 2 years ago
The point being made is that the move was not made from literalism to metaphor, but from metaphor to literalism. The narrative of the flood has profound theological depth until it is made shallow by means of a literal interpretation.
gambleor 2 years ago
The flood was most likely a local flood. The word used to describe "earth" in our Bibles is "erets". Erets can be translated to earth, land, or country. It makes much more sense that God flooded the land & that Noah collected all the animals from the land. Read the flood story & wherever you see the word earth, replace it with land and it will al make sense. It was simply mistranslated. There are many parts of the Bible where erets is translated to land. It was mistranslated in the flood story.
theman77777777232 2 years ago
That's an interesting point. Thanks for bringing it up. I'll be sure to look into it further in my studies.
gambleor 2 years ago
@robotwookie If one took the Chronology literally, then Adam would have died while King Narmar was fighting the Lybians, and the flood would have taken place during the era of pyramid building in Egype, and when Chinese culture was taking shape. these are simple realities. The OT as the NT make use of many metaphors also--as does every language, and moreso in oldeer languages.
roddymark 1 year ago
May I ask, then, what is to be taken literally out of the Bible if it is full of metaphors? Also, about hell, what about what the New Testament says about hell, a place CREATED for satan and his angels? And in Revelation, about being cast into the lake of fire? Please, I really just want to hear what you have to say about that. Thank you and God bless.
stpaulphillip 2 years ago
Of course, every language and every writing uses metaphor. Scripture is no exception. The two trees in the garden, for example, are metaphorical. One cannot eat and apple and live forever. The idea of the sun standing still for Joshua is an obvious example, since relative to the earth, the sun is not moving at all. Sunrise and sunset are metaphores since the sun does neither of those things. The sun does not "also ariseth," nor does it "knoweth its going down." (more later, out of space here)
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
Comment removed
Magnulus76 2 years ago
Thank you.
meowfairydust 2 years ago
Idolatry of Fundamentalism... Oh datz a good one 'dika... I gotta remember dat one! Just da t'ing ta use on doze Protestanti Hairy Ticki so ya can get a woid in edgewise...
Razzputko 2 years ago
You look like Dumbledore! =D ...or Merlin. xD -shot-
BearGirl26 3 years ago
Watch it, or I might turn you into an Orc or a toad.
allsaintsmonastery 3 years ago
Yes, sir! =3
BearGirl26 3 years ago
Comment removed
kayaburning 2 years ago
I'm interested to know what some of the most crucial metaphorical elements of the NT might be. Are there any texts you could recommend? Are there elements of this understanding that require initiation and vows before they can be imparted?
c1arknova 3 years ago
Well said Archbishop. These are my beliefs largely speaking as well. Just in case there was any misunderstanding about my last post to you.
It should be noted that many Protestants are upset with Scripture being used for political and financial means.
sprtslvr1973 3 years ago
I am aware that, among Evangelicals, many do not like the way the Scripture is manipulated and used by the ultra-right. There are many sincere Protestants who do not agree with such travesties.
allsaintsmonastery 3 years ago
But hasn't Christianity more or less always involved itself in politics? Even in Orthodox Russia there was the famous 1/10th tax that every peasant had to give to the church, this was comparable or even more than what a peasant had to give to his land owner. In the West this was even more well known since the work of Alexander Dumas "The Three Muskateers" . Clearly mainstream Christianity has ,until recently, been a very strong political force.
psychologicalshock 2 years ago
Your Eminence,
Would you explain how an Orthodox mind understands OT events such as: Sodom and Gomorrah; the flood of Noah; the extirpation of the Amalekites and Canaanites; or even the bears mauling the children who mocked Elisha.
These examples are often invoked either as evidence that God is malevolent or that God righteously sanctions genocide and other deleterious acts.
Phil0kalia 3 years ago
There are many differing thoughts on these by Orthodox people. Having differing views or understandings of them is permissible, in fact. It is well to remember that, in the story of Sodom and Gom. the would be rapist were heterosexual men, not gay men. The shocking thing is that it was considered OK to put the two daughters out to be raped to death, as was the slave girl in the case of the Levite in Ephraim. There, too, the men who wanted to rape him were heterosexual men. (continued)
allsaintsmonastery 3 years ago
Additionally, may one hold that when the OT authors ascribe to God a quality which is contrary to what is revealed in Christ in the NT, that the author is mistaken on account of the limited revelation of God he is working under? For example, in the case of 2 Kings 2:23-24, would it be impertinent to say that the author is mistaken about how God acts?
Phil0kalia 3 years ago
Would one be within the pale of Orthodoxy to hold that the historicity and literality of the OT is qualified by the discoveries of archeology, astronomy, phsyics, and other sciences? For example, when we learn from astronomy that the solar system is heliocentric, we disqualify accounts of geocentricity as being literal.
Phil0kalia 3 years ago
If you are constantly revising revelation to fit with current scientific models, you will end up with a purely metaphorical religion. Keep in mind that modern science operates on dualist or materialist presuppositions- moreover, the Creation has been distorted since the Fall. Both of these factors contribute to a warped understanding of nature. The truths of revelation are deeper than any scientific theory, so it really does not matter if they are "literal" or not.
avantibarbari 2 years ago