Many Orthodox DO believe in the Immaculate Conception. The difference is, it is not dogmatized in the EO Church. I never said that Toll Houses were a literal substitute for Purgatory, but there are poetic and spiritual similiarities that have been noted by religious writers. Thanks.
So the Orthodox Church is responsible for the bible? But wernt both the Latin West and the Byzantine East responsible for the Bible. The Church was unified at this time.
In addition you do not do any credit to your argument because you do not even consider the persecutions Christians faced at the hands of not only the Romans, but also the Jews in Acts. Being that I have read from the preface to an Orthodox Bible and your Church, as well as Protestants, considers this very important history you should treat it as such.
Post-Christian Judaism did not happen after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., it happened much earlier when God had come to earth through Jesus. It was a continuation of Israel's stubborness towards their God, and happened in the lifetime of Jesus. The Orthodox Jews today are the descendents of the Pharisees that Jesus rebukes. Considering you defend your Church's stance on preserving the Bible I'm suprised you do not cite the history within it. Read John 8:58-59.
You also need to be careful when you accuse Protestants for just using the Masoretic Text. Sometimes you need to look at the footnotes of these Bibles because they "do" recognize what the Old Testament says in the Greek. This is not a denial that the Septuagint is not inspired, rather recognizing how the same story is translated in a different language.
You need to be cafeful when looking down on the Masoretic Text because most Biblical scholars will disagree with you. In the vast majority of instances the Septuagint agrees with the Masorectic text, if not word for word at least in basic thrust. In a "few cases" the Septuagint may even reflect the original Hebrew text better than the Masoretic. You also do not consider the Dead Sea Scrolls which are older than any known manuscript. These scrolls are very consistent with the Masoretic Text.
I do not think EO and Catholicism are very different; they are very similar except for the fact that the Orthodox have a stumbling block over the Papacy.
Your Reformed Bapist/Presbyterians would have their heads explode by entering an EO church as being idolatrous and blasphemous--ditto in most RC Churches.
@RPenta The Orthodox do not accept papal infallibility and universal authority, the filioque addition and other latin teachings such as purgatory, immaculate conception. There exists a big difference.
@trueorthodoxfaith I do not think the filioque is really much of a stumbling block any more-the issue was that in the "Roman" church that clause should not have been added to the creed as it was not approved by the ecumenical council-and after a while the Orthodox were seeking any brickbat they could throw at the Pope.
@RPenta The filioque is a major stumbling block. The latin church made a canonical error by the additions and went against the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox were against the changes Rome was making. that had nothing to do with the early church. Because of the Franks involvement and political ambitions, Rome was becoming more politicized.
@trueorthodoxfaith you cannot and never will find me one quote from a Church Father saying The Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from The Father, St.John 15:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. "Whom I will send" THIS PROVES THAT THE HOLY GHOST PROCEEDS FROM THE SON AS WELL AS THE FATHER, OTHERWISE HE COULD NOT BE SENT BY THE SON. Please stop avoiding this verse.
@trueorthodoxfaith Not a big difference. Seraphim Rose and the early Desert Fathers speak of Toll Houses, much like Purgatory. Orthodox believe in the Immaculate Conception but do NOT dogmatize it. Minor differences.
@MyBetty111 The theology on the Toll Houses is quite different in Orthodoxy as compared to the Latin church teachings. The Orthodox do not believe in the Immaculate Conception.
@trueorthodoxfaith: Well, we believe that SHE is ALL-IMMACULATE, ALL-BLAMELESS, ALL-HOLY, ALL-PURE, ALL-BLESSED etc.
We do not believe in the dogma of IC because we do not follow the Latin understanding of ORIGINAL Sin and STAIN but it is not because of the Holiness of the Theotokos
Because the Holy Fathers say that SHE is a NEW CREATION, She is without STAIN or any blame - She is All-spotless.
2.) Septuagint was the translation to greek before Christ and is the true interpretation to greek of ancient judaism - it refers explcitily to the "Virgin" while later judaic translations omit this word as an attempt to oppose christianity.
Excellent! I just want to make two points in addition to what you already said. 1.) The orthodox church is the continuation of the old testament templecult. Since the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem true judaism ceased to exist - they had no sacrifice and no ancient worship - why - because God established a new sacrificial worship of Him in the Eucharist. We are therefore the true continuation of Old Testament messianic judaism fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ. All glory to Him.
Very nice video...Assyrians were one of the early Christians and we are being massacred today in Iraq...notice we never convert to Islam...anyways God Bless you for this video...its all 100%true...we were divided by Rome.
Wow this truly blows my '90s mind away, because this all means, that protestants use the masoretic christ-rejecting (anti-christ?) OT in their bible...just for the purpose of protesting against septuaginta and vulgata and just in order distinguish themselves
@KaxiLaxi Brother, in light of Christ's love, please speak in a spirit of brotherly love. Generalizations lead to misunderstandings and alienation. Exposing false teaching is indeed important, but be careful not to discourage those who simply disagree on issues not dogmatic to the faith. As a law-abiding Jewish Christian who happens to be Protestant, I follow Scripture. Particular institutions and buildings are irrelevant. The Church is a body of people, brother.
I would say you make the historical error of Roman Catholics in assuming the Orthodox to be the only preserver of ancient Christianity. In this same thought process you assume a uniformed NT from the beginning and a textual version which is the only true version. This is simply not true to history. Various ancient canons exists through the 4th century differing slightly and the Hebrew Scriptures were held in high esteem along with the Greek. Your approach is a modern approach to the canon.
@ic2705 1. But you must prove that that is a "historical error" in order for it to be so; instead you simply assert it. 2. You seem to confuse the Old Testament and New Testament canons here. You say that I assume a uniform NT canon from the beginning (I don't) and then explain that statement with reference to "Hebrew Scriptures." That doesn't make sense.
I thought we were dialoguing and not in a courtroom. There is only enough room for assertions. You had nine minutes in your video and you made only assertions. "The faith of the ancient church is preserved only in the Orthodox Church." That's not an assertion? I think every Christian not in the Eastern church would dispute that. And my assertion is that this sounds exactly like Rome. This seems to be true on its face value.
@ic2705 The orthodox church holds the same faith held by the christian church in the first century. If there are others who hold that same faith, then why don't they return to the original organisation founded by Christ? The fact thay are not part of the orthodoxy, means that they do not hold the same faith as them. And since the orthodoxy holds the faith of the first century, others do not.
@RabMaksim 1 Corinthians 1:10-17. Sola Scriptura, brother. Just as many in the early Church, which was not an institution so much as the body of people that worshiped in many places with some slightly different yet acceptable practices, many divisions over petty things have arisen.
I appeal to you, dear brother, to consider your brothers and sisters those who proclaim the name of Christ Jesus. If false teaching exists, correct in a spirit of brotherly love and gentleness.
@Ooftyman The Apostle ask as all to speak and belive one thing, to be One Faith and One Community under God. As he commanded, people have done and have kept the global uniformity of the faith, but then came those who would defile that faith and broke away from this one community, but those who havn't now call themselves the Orthodox church. Sola scriptura has no bases. God bless.
@RabMaksim The Church is not some institutional framework, but a body of believers. If this was not the case, we would all be worshiping in a building much like a 1st century synagogue.
Many differences exist, but Paul warns against allowing trivial matters as tradition or non-dogmatic issues to come between us. The implication was that many different sects existed even then, but God bound them. Romans 14 explains differences among early believers. *Cont*
@Ooftyman Church is a body of believers, everyone enters it through baptism. It is a community of Bishops , priests and common people, and again it has been established by the Christ and the apostles, and it is an earthly continuum of a heavenly church and a Body of Christ. It is mentioned so many times in the Scriptures, and if the idea of every man being a church was true, why would God make a church and promised that it will never be destroyed?
@RabMaksim All who call on Christ and Him alone as God's Son and accept His atoning death are grafted in. If a brother eats only vegetables but another meat (literal and relatively universal), who is anyone to judge the brother? Read further in 1 Corinthians 1. Baptism is through Christ alone, not Churches by certain names like Orthodox or Catholic. John 14 expands on this, brother. All who love Jesus by obeying His commands are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This is not contingent on man.
@Ooftyman Saint Paul clearly states that these people have started to differentiate themselves between Paul, Peter and other apostles, while the teaching of all of them was the same. You're syaing that he said" It doesn't matter what you belive in, just be togheter. " Also, he never said that baptism was not optional, he just said that it was good that he hasn't baptised them as they were quick to corrupt the faith of Christ. Baptism is given to those who accept the faith in Christ ...
@Ooftyman ...and choose to spend their life living by the words of Christ. And Christ command is to obey the apostles, as who rejects them rejects Him, and who rejects Him rejects one who sent Him.
As for your second point I was addressing related assumptions which stem from your first assumption of the East being the only preserver of the ancient faith. Not only do you assume the uniformity of the usage of the Septuagint throughout the ancient world but also the uniformity of the canon which was not uniformed until after the fourth century. I said all this to say you have a Romantic vision of the Eastern church, like Rome did until they were challenged at the Reformation.
@ic2705 No, I don't assume such a uniformity. Have you watched my videos on the history of Scripture? I'm familiar. Please don't tell me what my vision is; I prefer facts not psychologizing.
@ic2705 No I think he is perfectly correct in saying that Orthodoxy is the only preserver of Ancient Christianity, I think the RC gave up Ancient Christianity or what they had left of it any during the middle ages and especially during and after Vatican II. The Modern Roman Church looks like a semi-liturgical protestant group with guitars and all.
@E3Harrison Then you wouldn't have liked the early church. They didn't have a high liturgy but often had to hide in caves where they were happy to hear the apostles doctrine, huddle over a small piece of Scripture, and share in the Bread and Wine. A high liturgy has nothing to do with preserving Ancient Christianity. As Cleenwreck says in "His Broken Body" ; "It is almost certain that Ignatius did not worship in a building that looks like a modern Eastern Orthodox Temple."
@ic2705 The Divine Liturgy of St. James dates to 370AD according to most scholars and some go as far as 60AD. There has always been some form of Liturgy, not necessarily the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom but none the less a liturgy. And the Ancient Church and its form of worship is no excuse for the modern Roman Catholic Protestantization of their once beautiful liturgies.
@E3Harrison I can respect the Eastern churches where they obey the gospel, but they are in no way the only preservers of the ancient faith of the apostles, and they have much they can learn from the West and from the Reformation. Some of their developments have left them as stale as the Jews of first centuries, frozen in ethical categories, enchained to traditions and rituals, and adhering to the letter while forgetting the Spirit, which is life and peace. In Christ.
@ic2705 Your statements are somewhat misleading. The Orthodox are the only preservers of the ancient or early church. To state that the Orthodox are 'stale" is being ignorant. The Orthodox Church is Christ centered and guided by the Holy Spirit. For all those churches outside of Orthodoxy, who have departed from the early church, accepted societies ills, adjusted to be more accepted, and used the "pick and choose" method to fit in , have lost the true meaning of Christianity. Why all the sects?
@trueorthodoxfaith Eastern Orthodoxy does not have the creative energy of the early fathers. These fathers, which took the faith across the ancient world, knew how to adapt to the cultures without destroying the essence of the faith. They were not afraid. They did not believe in mere reiteration, but proclamation to each era and nation. They created local churches which manifested the unique regions. The stale Eastern churches are not creative enough to form the Creeds or to disciple nations.
David, I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian from the Antiochian Church and I must say thank you, my dear brother for your patient explanation. It was understandable and very educational for me. It has helped me in my walk with Christ. The late great Roman Catholic Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said there isn't even a hundred people in America alone who hate what the Catholic Church teaches, but there's millions who hate what they THINK the Catholic teaches! It applies more to Orthodoxy!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
How do you know the Church produced the text of the NT as we have today? It has been demonstarted that many of the writings of the said fathers have been forgeries, and many other aspects of the history of Christianity have been forged that I will not go into detail here.
First, I have to say that I'm rather shocked to see a Christian questioning the NT writings as being genuine Apostolic material; that's at least what you seem to be doing. Nonetheless, in answer:
1. There are numerous fragments, manuscripts, and quotations of the Scriptures from a very early date and they match with the NT as we have it today. Few serious scholars question the veracity of the NT manuscript traditions.
2. It's not difficult to sort the authentic from the inauthentic amongst the
Patristic and allegedly Patristic writings. In fact, we do so in much the same way that the early Christians sorted the Apostolic from the non-Apostolic in the early Church. For instance -- Ignatius' letters to the seven churches are accepted as genuine because they reflect exactly what we know of Christianity at that time -- and of the world at that time; also, there is a trail we can follow from very early of others quoting these texts as genuine Ignatian texts. On the other hand, we know
that, for example, the letter attributed to Ignatius supposedly written to the Virgin Mary is a forgery of a much later date -- as it specifically reflects Nestorianism, which came about due to later Aristotlean influence.
It's not difficult to sort the Patristic wheat from the forged chaff -- scholars today have pretty much done the bulk of the work for us on that part, and reached the sound conclusions.
@davidpwithun When Calvinists start playing the Dan Brown conspiracy card, it quickly becomes clear, that there really is no serious debate to be had.
This coming from a guy who had to have his stuff removed from Perry Robinson's blog because it was so "respectful" of those who disagreed with him? My post was nothing compared to the impudence you have publicly demonstrated. Physician, heal thyself.
David admitted a letter attributed to Ignatius supposedly written to the Virgin Mary. The Church knew what was real and what was fake, but you just use a broad brush to try and paint the Church fathers as an unreliable source. So, again, without proof, you have made a straw man argument and standing on the neck of a straw man doesn't make you a conquering hero.
David mentioned more than Mary, look at the comments for David's 3rd video and I quote "Ignatius has been known for a very long time to have had seven genuine letters and several forgeries in his name."
Yes, and the Church "knows" those forgeries. What is your point? It would be one thing if the Church presented them as authentic when in fact they were not. But the Church isn't doing that. So, again, what was your point if it wasn't an attempt to poison a well. Show letters from patristics that the Church hold to be authentic, when in fact, you know they are not.
It's very simple Drake. If we are to believe that calvinism or any protestant off shoot to be truth, then we must assume that God was a deist for some 1500+ years after Christ.
it's very simple TWYcross, If I am to become EO then I must assume that the religion that God has established on this Earth radically changed from a simple religion (study the synagague worship of the OT and you will find it basically identical to Puritan worship) that existed for thousands of years and changed into a hybrid of Aristotelianism, idol worship and eastern Mysticism that basically rejects the entirety of the OT as having any authority on the believer.
I watched an orthodox priest stand a couple of feet away from an icon and pray liturgiuclly to it with some chant like prayer for like 5 minutes and then walk over to the other side of this threshold thing and do the same thing to another icon. I have witnessed it.
So because you looked at this with your eyes you knew exactly what he was saying and what he believed in his heart and you could tell he was "worshiping" the icon? Let's not be arrogant here.
Uh-huh; I witness everyday. The difference is in understanding. Did you understand what he was doing? Did you ask him? Did you research it? Did you read the text of the prayers he was saying? Or did you let your own prejudices and ignorance guide you?
Then why did a David supporter and david himself I think at least by implication accuse me of judaizing for applying a passage from Duet 7, and Exo 23 to David's involvement with the military? The command to not marry with an unbeliever is carried over in the NT, we see no reason to believe the command against military covenants being abrogated in the NT. You guys are dispensatinalists.
I don't accept the premise that your chaplain is presbyterian. The American "Presbyterians" do not hold to the 1646 confession and for the most part reject the regulative principle(puritan worship) and practice holy days. They are more a hybrid with anglican/lutheran.
@drakeshelton Guess you forgot about the Scottish Covenanters that exist in America. They DO hold to the 1646 WCF. Also, you appear to not know much about churches in America. There are more than a few, including Reformed, that do not celebrate Holy Days and hold strictly to the Regulative Principle. Hybrid with Anglican and Lutheran...that's funny.
Mat 5 17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
You simply make the mistake of not looking back far enough. You can only see 2000 years of history, we look to the begining.
I had to post this before finishing the video. At 2:00 in vid and wife is cheering you on. Already you raised a couple of points that EO has to deal with all the time....1. we NOT RCC period. We may look SIMILAR on the outside but that doesn't mean were the same. 2. Having to defend anything a EO or RCC ever says or does. Ok will probably have a lot more to say by the end.
Many Orthodox DO believe in the Immaculate Conception. The difference is, it is not dogmatized in the EO Church. I never said that Toll Houses were a literal substitute for Purgatory, but there are poetic and spiritual similiarities that have been noted by religious writers. Thanks.
nickelsT 1 week ago
@nickelsT: Well, we Orthodox do not believe in the Catholic Dogma of IC because we do not follow the Catholic Dogma of ORIGINAL SIN and STAIN,
But the Most Holy Theotokos is ALL-IMMACULATE. The difference is not the HOLINESS of the THEOTOKOS but ORIGINAL SIN.
The toll houses are not similar to Purgatory but they are THE PERSONAL JUDGEMENT AFTER DEATH - through testing of sins.
adamantis4657 4 days ago
What are you hiding behind that hair?
MyBetty111 1 week ago in playlist Eastern Orthodox
You talk too fast. Take a breath.
MyBetty111 1 week ago in playlist Eastern Orthodox
What's with the hair?
MyBetty111 1 week ago in playlist Eastern Orthodox
Thank you. Please see my Orthodox video promotions on youtube under 'marykfilms.'
marykfilms 2 weeks ago
So the Orthodox Church is responsible for the bible? But wernt both the Latin West and the Byzantine East responsible for the Bible. The Church was unified at this time.
Tyler1990W 1 month ago
In addition you do not do any credit to your argument because you do not even consider the persecutions Christians faced at the hands of not only the Romans, but also the Jews in Acts. Being that I have read from the preface to an Orthodox Bible and your Church, as well as Protestants, considers this very important history you should treat it as such.
vlambert100 1 month ago
Post-Christian Judaism did not happen after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., it happened much earlier when God had come to earth through Jesus. It was a continuation of Israel's stubborness towards their God, and happened in the lifetime of Jesus. The Orthodox Jews today are the descendents of the Pharisees that Jesus rebukes. Considering you defend your Church's stance on preserving the Bible I'm suprised you do not cite the history within it. Read John 8:58-59.
vlambert100 1 month ago
You also need to be careful when you accuse Protestants for just using the Masoretic Text. Sometimes you need to look at the footnotes of these Bibles because they "do" recognize what the Old Testament says in the Greek. This is not a denial that the Septuagint is not inspired, rather recognizing how the same story is translated in a different language.
vlambert100 1 month ago
You need to be cafeful when looking down on the Masoretic Text because most Biblical scholars will disagree with you. In the vast majority of instances the Septuagint agrees with the Masorectic text, if not word for word at least in basic thrust. In a "few cases" the Septuagint may even reflect the original Hebrew text better than the Masoretic. You also do not consider the Dead Sea Scrolls which are older than any known manuscript. These scrolls are very consistent with the Masoretic Text.
vlambert100 1 month ago
I do not think EO and Catholicism are very different; they are very similar except for the fact that the Orthodox have a stumbling block over the Papacy.
Your Reformed Bapist/Presbyterians would have their heads explode by entering an EO church as being idolatrous and blasphemous--ditto in most RC Churches.
RPenta 7 months ago
@RPenta The Orthodox do not accept papal infallibility and universal authority, the filioque addition and other latin teachings such as purgatory, immaculate conception. There exists a big difference.
trueorthodoxfaith 6 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith I do not think the filioque is really much of a stumbling block any more-the issue was that in the "Roman" church that clause should not have been added to the creed as it was not approved by the ecumenical council-and after a while the Orthodox were seeking any brickbat they could throw at the Pope.
RPenta 6 months ago
@RPenta The filioque is a major stumbling block. The latin church made a canonical error by the additions and went against the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox were against the changes Rome was making. that had nothing to do with the early church. Because of the Franks involvement and political ambitions, Rome was becoming more politicized.
trueorthodoxfaith 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trueorthodoxfaith you cannot and never will find me one quote from a Church Father saying The Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from The Father, St.John 15:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. "Whom I will send" THIS PROVES THAT THE HOLY GHOST PROCEEDS FROM THE SON AS WELL AS THE FATHER, OTHERWISE HE COULD NOT BE SENT BY THE SON. Please stop avoiding this verse.
MysticalCity 6 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Not a big difference. Seraphim Rose and the early Desert Fathers speak of Toll Houses, much like Purgatory. Orthodox believe in the Immaculate Conception but do NOT dogmatize it. Minor differences.
MyBetty111 1 week ago in playlist Eastern Orthodox
@MyBetty111 The theology on the Toll Houses is quite different in Orthodoxy as compared to the Latin church teachings. The Orthodox do not believe in the Immaculate Conception.
trueorthodoxfaith 1 week ago
@trueorthodoxfaith: Well, we believe that SHE is ALL-IMMACULATE, ALL-BLAMELESS, ALL-HOLY, ALL-PURE, ALL-BLESSED etc.
We do not believe in the dogma of IC because we do not follow the Latin understanding of ORIGINAL Sin and STAIN but it is not because of the Holiness of the Theotokos
Because the Holy Fathers say that SHE is a NEW CREATION, She is without STAIN or any blame - She is All-spotless.
adamantis4657 4 days ago
2.) Septuagint was the translation to greek before Christ and is the true interpretation to greek of ancient judaism - it refers explcitily to the "Virgin" while later judaic translations omit this word as an attempt to oppose christianity.
OrthodoxiaThanatos 7 months ago
Excellent! I just want to make two points in addition to what you already said. 1.) The orthodox church is the continuation of the old testament templecult. Since the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem true judaism ceased to exist - they had no sacrifice and no ancient worship - why - because God established a new sacrificial worship of Him in the Eucharist. We are therefore the true continuation of Old Testament messianic judaism fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ. All glory to Him.
OrthodoxiaThanatos 7 months ago
i hate to say it because all the hypocrity say it all the day. but: god bless you david :D
BakinKoljac 10 months ago
It's hard to find someone who knows what their talking about now a days. Great job David. Greetings from a Coptic Orthodox.
Hany323 11 months ago
I noticed that Drakeshelton makes sure no comments are allowed that he doesn't approve... Interesting.
MsSSnow 11 months ago
Very nice video...Assyrians were one of the early Christians and we are being massacred today in Iraq...notice we never convert to Islam...anyways God Bless you for this video...its all 100%true...we were divided by Rome.
ashthebartender1 1 year ago
Nice presentation of the Orthodox biblical history. Good Job.
6972741595 1 year ago
Wow this truly blows my '90s mind away, because this all means, that protestants use the masoretic christ-rejecting (anti-christ?) OT in their bible...just for the purpose of protesting against septuaginta and vulgata and just in order distinguish themselves
from RC and OC...
that's bad, how come i didnt know that...
BringBackMy9Os 1 year ago
The orhodox church is the only true church all others are heretics.
KaxiLaxi 1 year ago
@KaxiLaxi Brother, in light of Christ's love, please speak in a spirit of brotherly love. Generalizations lead to misunderstandings and alienation. Exposing false teaching is indeed important, but be careful not to discourage those who simply disagree on issues not dogmatic to the faith. As a law-abiding Jewish Christian who happens to be Protestant, I follow Scripture. Particular institutions and buildings are irrelevant. The Church is a body of people, brother.
Shalom, HaMashiach!
Ooftyman 1 year ago
Borther David, I'm an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian (though living in the Netherlands), and I just want to say: God Bless You & Thank you.
TonyWilkesAyalew 1 year ago
Gah protestants are so so soooo annoying.
TheCarydal 1 year ago
I would say you make the historical error of Roman Catholics in assuming the Orthodox to be the only preserver of ancient Christianity. In this same thought process you assume a uniformed NT from the beginning and a textual version which is the only true version. This is simply not true to history. Various ancient canons exists through the 4th century differing slightly and the Hebrew Scriptures were held in high esteem along with the Greek. Your approach is a modern approach to the canon.
ic2705 1 year ago
@ic2705 1. But you must prove that that is a "historical error" in order for it to be so; instead you simply assert it. 2. You seem to confuse the Old Testament and New Testament canons here. You say that I assume a uniform NT canon from the beginning (I don't) and then explain that statement with reference to "Hebrew Scriptures." That doesn't make sense.
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@davidpwithun
I thought we were dialoguing and not in a courtroom. There is only enough room for assertions. You had nine minutes in your video and you made only assertions. "The faith of the ancient church is preserved only in the Orthodox Church." That's not an assertion? I think every Christian not in the Eastern church would dispute that. And my assertion is that this sounds exactly like Rome. This seems to be true on its face value.
ic2705 1 year ago
@ic2705 The orthodox church holds the same faith held by the christian church in the first century. If there are others who hold that same faith, then why don't they return to the original organisation founded by Christ? The fact thay are not part of the orthodoxy, means that they do not hold the same faith as them. And since the orthodoxy holds the faith of the first century, others do not.
RabMaksim 1 year ago
@RabMaksim 1 Corinthians 1:10-17. Sola Scriptura, brother. Just as many in the early Church, which was not an institution so much as the body of people that worshiped in many places with some slightly different yet acceptable practices, many divisions over petty things have arisen.
I appeal to you, dear brother, to consider your brothers and sisters those who proclaim the name of Christ Jesus. If false teaching exists, correct in a spirit of brotherly love and gentleness.
Shalom HaMashiach!
Ooftyman 1 year ago
@Ooftyman The Apostle ask as all to speak and belive one thing, to be One Faith and One Community under God. As he commanded, people have done and have kept the global uniformity of the faith, but then came those who would defile that faith and broke away from this one community, but those who havn't now call themselves the Orthodox church. Sola scriptura has no bases. God bless.
RabMaksim 1 year ago
@RabMaksim The Church is not some institutional framework, but a body of believers. If this was not the case, we would all be worshiping in a building much like a 1st century synagogue.
Many differences exist, but Paul warns against allowing trivial matters as tradition or non-dogmatic issues to come between us. The implication was that many different sects existed even then, but God bound them. Romans 14 explains differences among early believers. *Cont*
Ooftyman 1 year ago
@Ooftyman Church is a body of believers, everyone enters it through baptism. It is a community of Bishops , priests and common people, and again it has been established by the Christ and the apostles, and it is an earthly continuum of a heavenly church and a Body of Christ. It is mentioned so many times in the Scriptures, and if the idea of every man being a church was true, why would God make a church and promised that it will never be destroyed?
RabMaksim 1 year ago
@RabMaksim All who call on Christ and Him alone as God's Son and accept His atoning death are grafted in. If a brother eats only vegetables but another meat (literal and relatively universal), who is anyone to judge the brother? Read further in 1 Corinthians 1. Baptism is through Christ alone, not Churches by certain names like Orthodox or Catholic. John 14 expands on this, brother. All who love Jesus by obeying His commands are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This is not contingent on man.
Shalom!
Ooftyman 1 year ago
@Ooftyman Saint Paul clearly states that these people have started to differentiate themselves between Paul, Peter and other apostles, while the teaching of all of them was the same. You're syaing that he said" It doesn't matter what you belive in, just be togheter. " Also, he never said that baptism was not optional, he just said that it was good that he hasn't baptised them as they were quick to corrupt the faith of Christ. Baptism is given to those who accept the faith in Christ ...
RabMaksim 1 year ago
@Ooftyman ...and choose to spend their life living by the words of Christ. And Christ command is to obey the apostles, as who rejects them rejects Him, and who rejects Him rejects one who sent Him.
RabMaksim 1 year ago
@davidpwithun
As for your second point I was addressing related assumptions which stem from your first assumption of the East being the only preserver of the ancient faith. Not only do you assume the uniformity of the usage of the Septuagint throughout the ancient world but also the uniformity of the canon which was not uniformed until after the fourth century. I said all this to say you have a Romantic vision of the Eastern church, like Rome did until they were challenged at the Reformation.
ic2705 1 year ago
@ic2705 No, I don't assume such a uniformity. Have you watched my videos on the history of Scripture? I'm familiar. Please don't tell me what my vision is; I prefer facts not psychologizing.
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@ic2705 No I think he is perfectly correct in saying that Orthodoxy is the only preserver of Ancient Christianity, I think the RC gave up Ancient Christianity or what they had left of it any during the middle ages and especially during and after Vatican II. The Modern Roman Church looks like a semi-liturgical protestant group with guitars and all.
E3Harrison 9 months ago
@E3Harrison Then you wouldn't have liked the early church. They didn't have a high liturgy but often had to hide in caves where they were happy to hear the apostles doctrine, huddle over a small piece of Scripture, and share in the Bread and Wine. A high liturgy has nothing to do with preserving Ancient Christianity. As Cleenwreck says in "His Broken Body" ; "It is almost certain that Ignatius did not worship in a building that looks like a modern Eastern Orthodox Temple."
ic2705 9 months ago
@ic2705 The Divine Liturgy of St. James dates to 370AD according to most scholars and some go as far as 60AD. There has always been some form of Liturgy, not necessarily the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom but none the less a liturgy. And the Ancient Church and its form of worship is no excuse for the modern Roman Catholic Protestantization of their once beautiful liturgies.
E3Harrison 9 months ago
@E3Harrison I can respect the Eastern churches where they obey the gospel, but they are in no way the only preservers of the ancient faith of the apostles, and they have much they can learn from the West and from the Reformation. Some of their developments have left them as stale as the Jews of first centuries, frozen in ethical categories, enchained to traditions and rituals, and adhering to the letter while forgetting the Spirit, which is life and peace. In Christ.
ic2705 9 months ago
@ic2705 The only thing that came about from the Reformation was more heresy! Seems your knowledge of Orthodox Theology is not quite right.
E3Harrison 9 months ago
@ic2705 Your statements are somewhat misleading. The Orthodox are the only preservers of the ancient or early church. To state that the Orthodox are 'stale" is being ignorant. The Orthodox Church is Christ centered and guided by the Holy Spirit. For all those churches outside of Orthodoxy, who have departed from the early church, accepted societies ills, adjusted to be more accepted, and used the "pick and choose" method to fit in , have lost the true meaning of Christianity. Why all the sects?
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Eastern Orthodoxy does not have the creative energy of the early fathers. These fathers, which took the faith across the ancient world, knew how to adapt to the cultures without destroying the essence of the faith. They were not afraid. They did not believe in mere reiteration, but proclamation to each era and nation. They created local churches which manifested the unique regions. The stale Eastern churches are not creative enough to form the Creeds or to disciple nations.
ic2705 8 months ago
David, I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian from the Antiochian Church and I must say thank you, my dear brother for your patient explanation. It was understandable and very educational for me. It has helped me in my walk with Christ. The late great Roman Catholic Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said there isn't even a hundred people in America alone who hate what the Catholic Church teaches, but there's millions who hate what they THINK the Catholic teaches! It applies more to Orthodoxy!
BoricuaManhood 1 year ago
AMEN
MrHajj1 1 year ago
The Free Church of Scotland? Sounds like a secular organization, not a real Church.
MyBetty111 1 year ago
So David, what about our debate?
drakeshelton 1 year ago
you should have them, give him to read
Bible Acts 11:26-27,
1 Timothy 3:15,
Ephesians 3:10
VyckRo 1 year ago
People are confused about Orthodoxy
VyckRo 1 year ago 2
Drakeshelton has a problem with the Catholic Church. He does not understand ORTHODOXY if he did he would not disagree with David.
Colts4ever123 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How do you know the Church produced the text of the NT as we have today? It has been demonstarted that many of the writings of the said fathers have been forgeries, and many other aspects of the history of Christianity have been forged that I will not go into detail here.
drakeshelton 1 year ago
Please do go into detail. If you have evidence show it so that we can all learn. Which writings of the Fathers are forgeries?
Paul020253 1 year ago 6
First, I have to say that I'm rather shocked to see a Christian questioning the NT writings as being genuine Apostolic material; that's at least what you seem to be doing. Nonetheless, in answer:
1. There are numerous fragments, manuscripts, and quotations of the Scriptures from a very early date and they match with the NT as we have it today. Few serious scholars question the veracity of the NT manuscript traditions.
2. It's not difficult to sort the authentic from the inauthentic amongst the
davidpwithun 1 year ago
Patristic and allegedly Patristic writings. In fact, we do so in much the same way that the early Christians sorted the Apostolic from the non-Apostolic in the early Church. For instance -- Ignatius' letters to the seven churches are accepted as genuine because they reflect exactly what we know of Christianity at that time -- and of the world at that time; also, there is a trail we can follow from very early of others quoting these texts as genuine Ignatian texts. On the other hand, we know
davidpwithun 1 year ago
that, for example, the letter attributed to Ignatius supposedly written to the Virgin Mary is a forgery of a much later date -- as it specifically reflects Nestorianism, which came about due to later Aristotlean influence.
It's not difficult to sort the Patristic wheat from the forged chaff -- scholars today have pretty much done the bulk of the work for us on that part, and reached the sound conclusions.
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@davidpwithun When Calvinists start playing the Dan Brown conspiracy card, it quickly becomes clear, that there really is no serious debate to be had.
OrthodoxRobert 1 year ago 3
I"m slowly beginning to realize that... I think I'm going to cut this conversation off soon...
davidpwithun 1 year ago
Don't, Drake is giving a good example of how bankrupt his arguments really are. Please, let him continue.
OrthodoxRobert 1 year ago 3
Way to act lie a impudent child OR! My bankrupt arguments are better than an off the cuff assertion any day of the week.
drakeshelton 1 year ago
This coming from a guy who had to have his stuff removed from Perry Robinson's blog because it was so "respectful" of those who disagreed with him? My post was nothing compared to the impudence you have publicly demonstrated. Physician, heal thyself.
OrthodoxRobert 1 year ago 3
@drakeshelton You acknowledge they are bankrupt. That is what we call making progress.
OrthodoxRobert 1 year ago 3
david admitted the forgeries, how is that a conspiracy theory?
drakeshelton 1 year ago
David admitted a letter attributed to Ignatius supposedly written to the Virgin Mary. The Church knew what was real and what was fake, but you just use a broad brush to try and paint the Church fathers as an unreliable source. So, again, without proof, you have made a straw man argument and standing on the neck of a straw man doesn't make you a conquering hero.
OrthodoxRobert 1 year ago 3
David mentioned more than Mary, look at the comments for David's 3rd video and I quote "Ignatius has been known for a very long time to have had seven genuine letters and several forgeries in his name."
Several forgeries
drakeshelton 1 year ago
Yes, and the Church "knows" those forgeries. What is your point? It would be one thing if the Church presented them as authentic when in fact they were not. But the Church isn't doing that. So, again, what was your point if it wasn't an attempt to poison a well. Show letters from patristics that the Church hold to be authentic, when in fact, you know they are not.
OrthodoxRobert 1 year ago 3
@drakeshelton
It's very simple Drake. If we are to believe that calvinism or any protestant off shoot to be truth, then we must assume that God was a deist for some 1500+ years after Christ.
Twycross 1 year ago 3
it's very simple TWYcross, If I am to become EO then I must assume that the religion that God has established on this Earth radically changed from a simple religion (study the synagague worship of the OT and you will find it basically identical to Puritan worship) that existed for thousands of years and changed into a hybrid of Aristotelianism, idol worship and eastern Mysticism that basically rejects the entirety of the OT as having any authority on the believer.
drakeshelton 1 year ago
@drakeshelton
Well first of all the EO Church still follow the OT. You follow the Masoretic text.
Also there's no idol worship. If you're talking about icons, we don't worship icons.
I think you are doing the typical protestant thing and placing papist criticisms over Orthodox.
Twycross 1 year ago 9
I watched an orthodox priest stand a couple of feet away from an icon and pray liturgiuclly to it with some chant like prayer for like 5 minutes and then walk over to the other side of this threshold thing and do the same thing to another icon. I have witnessed it.
drakeshelton 1 year ago
@drakeshelton
So because you looked at this with your eyes you knew exactly what he was saying and what he believed in his heart and you could tell he was "worshiping" the icon? Let's not be arrogant here.
Twycross 1 year ago 2
Uh-huh; I witness everyday. The difference is in understanding. Did you understand what he was doing? Did you ask him? Did you research it? Did you read the text of the prayers he was saying? Or did you let your own prejudices and ignorance guide you?
davidpwithun 1 year ago
Then why did a David supporter and david himself I think at least by implication accuse me of judaizing for applying a passage from Duet 7, and Exo 23 to David's involvement with the military? The command to not marry with an unbeliever is carried over in the NT, we see no reason to believe the command against military covenants being abrogated in the NT. You guys are dispensatinalists.
drakeshelton 1 year ago
@drakeshelton
Oh that's neat. Let's tack on isms and ists to people. Won't it be fun!
Twycross 1 year ago
My unit's chaplain is a Presbyterian. Should you have him excommunicated?
davidpwithun 1 year ago
I don't accept the premise that your chaplain is presbyterian. The American "Presbyterians" do not hold to the 1646 confession and for the most part reject the regulative principle(puritan worship) and practice holy days. They are more a hybrid with anglican/lutheran.
drakeshelton 1 year ago
Who exactly are you in communion with?
davidpwithun 1 year ago
The Free Church of Scotland
drakeshelton 1 year ago
Which one?
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@drakeshelton Guess you forgot about the Scottish Covenanters that exist in America. They DO hold to the 1646 WCF. Also, you appear to not know much about churches in America. There are more than a few, including Reformed, that do not celebrate Holy Days and hold strictly to the Regulative Principle. Hybrid with Anglican and Lutheran...that's funny.
EtsiKawoni 1 year ago
Mat 5 17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
You simply make the mistake of not looking back far enough. You can only see 2000 years of history, we look to the begining.
drakeshelton 1 year ago
Let the Theonomy debate begin!
OrthodoxRobert 1 year ago 3
I am not a theonomist
drakeshelton 1 year ago
I had to post this before finishing the video. At 2:00 in vid and wife is cheering you on. Already you raised a couple of points that EO has to deal with all the time....1. we NOT RCC period. We may look SIMILAR on the outside but that doesn't mean were the same. 2. Having to defend anything a EO or RCC ever says or does. Ok will probably have a lot more to say by the end.
Shirotora1979 1 year ago 2
Thaks for the points about OT here, brother! have a good Great Lent time!
USSRangel85 1 year ago
Thanks for posting on this USS so i could find hiim. I need to check out more vids you comment on :P
Shirotora1979 1 year ago
Thanks for the kind words Robert! Be my guest any time))) My most warm wishes to you and you wife.
USSRangel85 1 year ago