Denominations

[OneLight]

OneLight,

You are confusing a lot of things here. We were not given the Bible.

Well, I guess that ends my discussion with you. If you feel that the Bible was not given to us by God, then we have no more to talk about.

OneLight

[Thaddaeus]

Phil 2:12,

Reading your posts, Thaddaeus, is like playing dodgeball. You twist this way, then duck that way, every time someone throws an idea from Scripture at you that disproves what you are saying.

I have not yet read anything that someone stated from scripture that I needed to duck that even comes close to what scripture has stated. So, far, all I have read is a persons own interpretation of a Book which does not align with what has been understood regarding those same scriptures from the beginning.

Not only have you challenged all who stand up to you, often with twisted logic, but now you have gone so far as to exclude all of the New Testament outside of the Four Gospels as not being part and parcel of the Gospel ONCE delivered to the saints.

you better go back and read that again. I states just the opposite. It is the protestants view that it is not the Gospel once given. It is continually being given and added on to in time and drastically changing what was given to the early Church. Your view is of only a Book rather than that Truth that was given to the Apostles which they taught to the early Church long before any of the current canon was written and a much longer time before it was adopted as canon.

The belief that the Gospel (meaning the Four Gospels) have come down unchanged through 2,000 years of History demands a certain suspension of belief in its own right. The Gospels, as we have them today, came down through the Roman Catholic Church and only entered the Orthodox tradition when the Great Schism in 1054 occured, the split that was the begining of the Orthodox tradition.

You better check your history again. The RCC church began unofficially in 1054 when the Roman Bishop separated himself from the other 4 Sees. It was not really until the Council of Trent that the RCC was more or less formally established.

I might add that it seems it is your missinterpretation of the word Gospel. It is not refering to the Gospels, the written Books.

Before this date, the Orthodox tradition was simply the Eastern half of the Roman Catholic Tradition.

No, it was part of the Catholic Church.

It might interest you that the western, the RCC, has never been Roman. The western part of the Roman Empire fell back in 475, which is the start of the separation, but by the time the Roman Bishop split, it was a German Pope that instituted the RCC Church in the west. The church is neither Roman, nor is it catholic any longer. They have established a central organization with a Vicar, and earthly representative of Christ over an organization. Can you find that in Scripture? Was that found in the first 1000 years? Just some questions for you to follow in your study of history and the theology of the first millennium.

In 1054, it was the Western half of the RCC that became the RCC, while the Eastern Half of the RCC became the Orthodox Tradition.

the Catholic church divided, with the Eastern taking the name of Orthodox which tells a lot, and the single See, the Roman Bishop became the Roman Catholic Church. It became an Organization in its own right. The Eastern Churches still do not have an organization. They remained as the Early Church was established through the first 1000 years. Check up on your history. Check up on the theology that explains the unchanging faith of that early Church through time which is today embodied in what is known as Orthodoxy, or the Eastern Orthodox Church.

There is no direct link between the Orthodox tradition and the first century without going through the Roman Catholic Church, which has its own problems in preserving the Gospel. Your position requires much suspension of historical data in order to have as clear cut a view of the history of the Gospel as you propose.

It is the ONLY Church that has faithfully maintained the meaning of Apostolic Succession. Not just a linear succession but more importantly, the succession of that faith through that linear succession and the authority through the laying on of Hands. What your view needs is a revisit to the history books and the study of the theology of the first 1000 years.

So, please keep on writing, each post reveals more of your twisted beliefs to support a history that history itself does not support.

A large assertion which you and others have yet to show to be so. Also, I challenge you to show that history actually supports your understanding of the RCC and its development.

[Phil.2:12]

Phil 2:12,

Reading your posts, Thaddaeus, is like playing dodgeball. You twist this way, then duck that way, every time someone throws an idea from Scripture at you that disproves what you are saying.

I have not yet read anything that someone stated from scripture that I needed to duck that even comes close to what scripture has stated. So, far, all I have read is a persons own interpretation of a Book which does not align with what has been understood regarding those same scriptures from the beginning.

Not only have you challenged all who stand up to you, often with twisted logic, but now you have gone so far as to exclude all of the New Testament outside of the Four Gospels as not being part and parcel of the Gospel ONCE delivered to the saints.

you better go back and read that again. I states just the opposite. It is the protestants view that it is not the Gospel once given. It is continually being given and added on to in time and drastically changing what was given to the early Church. Your view is of only a Book rather than that Truth that was given to the Apostles which they taught to the early Church long before any of the current canon was written and a much longer time before it was adopted as canon.

The belief that the Gospel (meaning the Four Gospels) have come down unchanged through 2,000 years of History demands a certain suspension of belief in its own right. The Gospels, as we have them today, came down through the Roman Catholic Church and only entered the Orthodox tradition when the Great Schism in 1054 occured, the split that was the begining of the Orthodox tradition.

You better check your history again. The RCC church began unofficially in 1054 when the Roman Bishop separated himself from the other 4 Sees. It was not really until the Council of Trent that the RCC was more or less formally established.

I might add that it seems it is your missinterpretation of the word Gospel. It is not refering to the Gospels, the written Books.

Before this date, the Orthodox tradition was simply the Eastern half of the Roman Catholic Tradition.

No, it was part of the Catholic Church.

It might interest you that the western, the RCC, has never been Roman. The western part of the Roman Empire fell back in 475, which is the start of the separation, but by the time the Roman Bishop split, it was a German Pope that instituted the RCC Church in the west. The church is neither Roman, nor is it catholic any longer. They have established a central organization with a Vicar, and earthly representative of Christ over an organization. Can you find that in Scripture? Was that found in the first 1000 years? Just some questions for you to follow in your study of history and the theology of the first millennium.

In 1054, it was the Western half of the RCC that became the RCC, while the Eastern Half of the RCC became the Orthodox Tradition.

the Catholic church divided, with the Eastern taking the name of Orthodox which tells a lot, and the single See, the Roman Bishop became the Roman Catholic Church. It became an Organization in its own right. The Eastern Churches still do not have an organization. They remained as the Early Church was established through the first 1000 years. Check up on your history. Check up on the theology that explains the unchanging faith of that early Church through time which is today embodied in what is known as Orthodoxy, or the Eastern Orthodox Church.

There is no direct link between the Orthodox tradition and the first century without going through the Roman Catholic Church, which has its own problems in preserving the Gospel. Your position requires much suspension of historical data in order to have as clear cut a view of the history of the Gospel as you propose.

It is the ONLY Church that has faithfully maintained the meaning of Apostolic Succession. Not just a linear succession but more importantly, the succession of that faith through that linear succession and the authority through the laying on of Hands. What your view needs is a revisit to the history books and the study of the theology of the first 1000 years.

So, please keep on writing, each post reveals more of your twisted beliefs to support a history that history itself does not support.

A large assertion which you and others have yet to show to be so. Also, I challenge you to show that history actually supports your understanding of the RCC and its development.

Like OneLight, I have nothing further to say to you either.

[Thaddaeus]

Phil 2:12,

Like OneLight, I have nothing further to say to you either.

I can well understand. You make broad and inaccurate assertions for which you cannot show any evidence. I'd probably do the same thing.

It is most unfortunate that you cannot answer the questions I posed in the last two posts. They would have been interesting, I'm sure.

[Thaddaeus]

OneLight,

Well, I guess that ends my discussion with you. If you feel that the Bible was not given to us by God, then we have no more to talk about.

It is really amazing just how well some of you can proof text. Why not understand a few things in context rather than is isolated sentences.

You do the same with the Bible. You extract it as a stand-alone book then ascribe your own meanings to various texts supporting presuppositions.

We were not given the Bible. We were given the Gospel. It was an oral presentation that the Apostles gave. It was handed down orally. That is why it is called Tradition. Paul even exhorts Timothy not to depart from that oral teaching which he received at the feet of Paul. Hardly any mention of a Bible here. The Scriptures to which he refers is the OT. Maybe you can twist history to your liking as well. They did not write down everything that they taught or practice established.

Since you believe that we were given the Bible, can you actually document that Bible existed in the Early Church. Did the Bible exist in 50 AD? How about 70 AD? 100 AD? How about 200 AD?

I bet you believe it came out with the printing press along about the time of Luther.

That Bible does not even support such a view.

[Matthitjah]

Closed,

Worthies focus is not the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Please refrain from starting another thread on this subject.

Peace,

Dave