Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Orthodox Catholic aint Roman Catholic

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$870.00
Goal
$1,038.00
Status
Not open for further replies.
stray bullet said:
Did Mary have pain in giving birth to Christ? Remember, the pain in childbirth is a consequence of original sin. Can you really see Jesus being brought into the world in pain?!

Jesus was a dispised and sickly man, one who was nothing to look at,.... I tell you what I see, I see God limiting Himself and becoming a lowly man.


Yeh, I know for sure Jesus was brought into the world in pain, cause the bible tells me so.


You gotta wonder.

In love,
cj
 
Thessalonian said:
[quote:biggrinfc53]As I just explained. For Mary to have been concieved in an "immaculate" manner her parents would nessassarily need to be "immaculately" conceieved also.

This of course is quite false and the Catholic Church does not teach it. God made a virgin concieve and bear a son. Why on earth he could not make his mother free of original sin is beyond me. Doesn't God have power over sin? Didn't he cleanse your soul in baptism? Your continued hostility toward Catholicism is duly noted Orthoman. It does little good on these boards. Now I am sure I will be attacked. That's fine. Have at it.

Orthoman? Is that a condesending drop dead 'rush limbo' pet name you have for me? Interesting.

For Mary to be free from the original sin of Adam her parents would need to also be free of this original sin and so on down to Adam. Does that make sense? If God just made Mary free of original sin then He could have done this to everyone without the aid of the cross and the resurrection. You are not suggesting God really did not need to send His Son because He could have erased original sin without Jesus Christ are you?

Mary was free from the original sin of Adam yet she died which paid the wages? Do you think Mary died or was she "caught up" without feeling the "tinge" of death?

I am not hostile to any specific roman catholic. I am adverse to a doctrine made up by the Roman Church that says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and changes the words of Jesus Christ in John 15:26. Until you give me a good reason why your church has authority to change the words of Jesus I will believe the Orthodox Church when they say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. John 15:26.

This is the issue. Divert it, ignore it, dance around it but this is the issue that divides you from me. You worship "another Jesus" than the one always taught and understood by the Church. Plain and simple fact. All the other error the roman church teaches stem from this initial heresy.

By the way it is not a teaching of the Catholic Church that Mary did not die.

Really? Is that the offical understanding or your opinion?

It is an allowed belief that she did not, but so is it that she did die.

Ahh, got ya. One of those fence sitting compromising positions again. I understand, your opinion.

I actually lean toward the latter.

Have your opinion your way. Is it any wonder the protestants protest? Rebellion is in the "peter blood line". Burgerkingism is rooted in the roman faith.

You deny the Ascention? I hope not. Christ definitely ascended in tho heaven.
[/quote:biggrinfc53]

Where did you see me deny the Ascention of Jesus Christ? No, I believe Jesus Christ ascended into heaven in Acts 1. Can I make that any more clear?

I believe Mary died and was bodily resurrected in her glorified body. A proto type of every christians hope. She is our hope in her example of bodily resurrection by her resurrected Son. By the Power of God in Jesus Christ Mary bodily was risen after her death. Do you understand the Orthodox position? Can I be any clearer?

Do not divert the issue. The issue at hand is the filioque because it is the demarkation point of the Roman Church from the Christian faith.

In Love,

Orthodoxy
 
I am not hostile to any specific roman catholic. I am adverse to a doctrine made up by the Roman Church that says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and changes the words of Jesus Christ in John 15:26.

Just like a Protestant, proof text and protest. I have little time for your rhetoric and flame Orthodoxy.

God bless
 
Thessalonian said:
I am not hostile to any specific roman catholic. I am adverse to a doctrine made up by the Roman Church that says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and changes the words of Jesus Christ in John 15:26.

Just like a Protestant, proof text and protest. I have little time for your rhetoric and flame Orthodoxy.

God bless

Proof texting? This is another diversionary tactic. Show me one scripture that says "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son" until you do you have nothing but "tall tales to tell" why this "doctrine" is truth.

This is the issue of division between the two churches. You choose to stick your head in the sand by accusing me of rhetoric and flame? This is why there will never be reconciliation, ever. Let us reason together and stop the childish games.

Facts are facts. Facts are also the enemy of truth as you see it. Stick to the issue and stop the personal back handed insinuations and slaps. Be a man.

Now can you give me one good reason why I should believe the dual procession heresy of the Roman Catholic and Protestant christian faiths other than your bishop says so?

Let me ask you:

If your bishop today said the Roman Catholic Church is now Orthodox and will practice christianity the "Orthodox way" would you then convert?

Orthodoxy
 
The Papacy is a truth of the Church. It is sacred oral tradition, held for 2000 years. If the Church said tommorrow that it was not true then Christ is a liar and the gates of hell have prevailed. Then it's all a lie and there is no God. I'm not to concerned about that however because Christ is true and so is his Church. If your Bishop said, we're in step with the Pope tommorrow, what would you do? Follow your Bishop? I find it much more likely that will be the outcome. There really is nothing you have to deny in doing so.
 
Thessalonian said:
The Papacy is a truth of the Church. It is sacred oral tradition, held for 2000 years. If the Church said tommorrow that it was not true then Christ is a liar and the gates of hell have prevailed. Then it's all a lie and there is no God. I'm not to concerned about that however because Christ is true and so is his Church.

Then yes you would follow your bishop into the Holy Orthodox Church.

If Jesus Christ is truth and He stated in John 15:26 plainly that He would send the Holy Spirit who comes from the Father. The same Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father that testifies of Jesus Christ then the holy spirit that proceeds from the Father "and the Son" testifies of another Jesus Christ.

Can I make it any more clear? To testify of the Roman Jesus would mean I have a different Holy Spirit than Jesus sent. I would need to deny Jesus Christ Himself.

Why do you insist on hold to error? Because of your bishop alone? Why wont you reasonably and logically discuss the alteration taken place to the words of Jesus Christ by the Roman Church?

[quote:a2eae]If your Bishop said, we're in step with the Pope tommorrow, what would you do?

I would follow the Church. If the entire Church in an ecumenical council sat down and decided that "and the Son" is a reasonable and scriptural understanding I would be with the Church. I cannot however follow one man who declares full authority without the other members of the body, which is what the roman bishop has done.

Follow your Bishop?

I follow the Church. My bishop answers to the Church and would not go out on his own and make things up to gain power like the Roman bishop.

I find it much more likely that will be the outcome. There really is nothing you have to deny in doing so.
[/quote:a2eae]

I follow the Church and its 381 ad Confession of Faith. Until the entire Church, Rome included, decides the 381 ad confession is wrong and the Roman catholic confession of 1054 ad is correct I must side with the older and more historic version agreed upon by the entire Church including Roman faith for 700 years.

This is alot like America and its Constitution. You expect me to follow a document of "belief" that has been altered by one man without the full consent of the US Congress and the States. It is tantamount to a man saying "Slavery is Legal" then being told if I did not have a slave I was not American!

Why was the Church always found in one accord and agreement in all things in the book of Acts but now one man in in charge of the entire christian world?

In the Council of Nicena 325 ad. the 6th Canon plainly states "The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved."

Why is it the Bishop of Rome is said to rule entire Church with an infallible fist when plainly he is only in charge of those areas designated to him?

Was not the Roman Diosese only the southern half of Rome in the beginning? Surely the Jerusalem See was Automomous from Rome.

How do you explain this violation of Canonical Procedure by the infallible Roman Bishop?

In Christ,

Orthodoxy
 
Thessalonian said:
God bless you Orthodoxy.

Unfortunate I cannot post your PM's to me in the forum and these people would see your true colors.

Thessalonian, if you cannot address the issue then keep your petty personal attacks against my intellegence and person to yourself.

Do not PM me again.

Thanks

Orthodoxy
 
Orthodoxy said:
Thessalonian said:
God bless you Orthodoxy.

Unfortunate I cannot post your PM's to me in the forum and these people would see your true colors.

Thessalonian, if you cannot address the issue then keep your petty personal attacks against my intellegence and person to yourself.

Do not PM me again.

Thanks

Orthodoxy

You deserved the rebuke for you flame and attitude toward others. I will not post your replies to show your hypocrysy in your replies. But then your flame is available online for all to see. Tell me, how many converts have you won with your attacking style?
 
stray bullet said:
cj said:
[quote="stray bullet":809b0]
cj said:
Yeh, I know for sure Jesus was brought into the world in pain, cause the bible tells me so.

No, it does not.

Yes it does.

In love,
cj

Show me scriptural proof.[/quote:809b0]

Jesus suffered all things human in His humanity, if He didn't He would not have been human.

Your original statement was such ignorance and so absolutely unscriptural that I reall have no need to continue this. Ther is nothing in scripture that would support your silly thought that Mary did not have any pain while giving birth to Jesus.

As for your other statement about Jesus not letting His mother suffer,.... really, He has no problem letting His brothers suffer, but His mother gets off.

Where do you guys come up with this crap?


In love,
cj
 
Is that an admission this statement is totally false?

"Yeh, I know for sure Jesus was brought into the world in pain, cause the bible tells me so."
 
Thessalonian said:
Orthodoxy said:
Thessalonian said:
God bless you Orthodoxy.

Unfortunate I cannot post your PM's to me in the forum and these people would see your true colors.

Thessalonian, if you cannot address the issue then keep your petty personal attacks against my intellegence and person to yourself.

Do not PM me again.

Thanks

Orthodoxy

You deserved the rebuke for you flame and attitude toward others. I will not post your replies to show your hypocrysy in your replies. But then your flame is available online for all to see. Tell me, how many converts have you won with your attacking style?

I most certainly will allow the readers to judge what is truth about the Roman Catholic filioque heresy and what is truth about the Orthodox Church and its confession of faith.

Thank you for your non answer questions and diversions. :roll:

Orthodoxy
 
The Development of Doctrine in the Roman Catholic faith vs the Orthodox faith.

The Orthodox Church does not endorse the view that the teachings of Christ have changed from time to time; rather that Christianity has remained unaltered from the moment that the Lord delivered the Faith to the Apostles (Matt. 28: 18-20). She affirms that "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) is now what it was in the beginning. Orthodox of the twentieth century believe precisely what was believed by Orthodox of the first, the fifth, the tenth, the fifteenth centuries.

To be sure, Orthodoxy recognizes external changes (e.g., vestments of clergy, monastic habits, new feasts, canons of ecumenical and regional councils, etc.), but nothing has been added or subtracted from her Faith. The external changes have a single purpose: To express that Faith under new circumstances. For example, the Bible and divine Services were translated from Hebrew and Greek into the language of new lands; or new religious customs arose to express the ethnic sensibilities of the converted peoples, etc.; nevertheless, their has always been "one faith, one Lord, one baptism" (Eph. 4: 4).

The fundamental witness to the Christian Tradition is the holy Scriptures; and the supreme expositors of the Scriptures are the divinely inspired Fathers of the Church, whether the Greek Fathers or Latin Fathers, Syriac Fathers or Slavic Fathers. Their place in the Orthodox religion cannot be challenged. Their authority cannot be superseded, altered or ignored.

On the other hand, Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."

Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs.

Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II.

All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer.

On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation.

In any case, the truth of these dogmas have always belonged to the Christian Tradition. They have been present from the beginning of that Tradition as "hints," seeds that only waited for the right time to bloom.

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

Orthodoxy
 
Heresy?

"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29). - Augustine

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]). - Cyril of Alexandria

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.)." - Cyril of Alexandria

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]). " - Epiphanius of Salamis

"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten" (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]). - Maximus the Confessor
 
stray bullet said:
Heresy?

"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29). - Augustine

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]). - Cyril of Alexandria

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.)." - Cyril of Alexandria

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]). " - Epiphanius of Salamis

"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten" (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]). - Maximus the Confessor

Yes. Heresy. If your quote are truely what these men meant then why in 381 ad did the Church in full ecumenical council say the "Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father"?

The only one I see rejecting the 381 ad creed is Augustine and even he qualifies it in that . "The one from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father". Augustine appears double minded and wishy washy to me. A fence sitter. I would ask Augustine if God exists in more than one paradigm.

Cyril qualifies procession from the Son to "when he is in us" not His eternal procession from the Father. The Holy Spirit's eternal procession from the Father is not dependant on man. Cyril also agrees with Scripture in that the "Holy Spirit flows from the Father" being all good gifts "flow" from the Father.

Epiphanius of Salamis is not one I have read but his appears to imply the Holy Spirit did not always exist or if He did He is not a person but a "force" of some sort, an "expiration" of a "breath". However he maybe in line with Cyril in that "when he is in us" the "Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son". This I can agree but eternal procession from the Son is not implied nor expressed.

"Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father" Maximus the Confessor

Again they all confess that all good gifts come from the Father.

It is easier to just use biblical terminology.

Jesus Christ said in John 15:26, But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

The Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father is then sent by the Son.

Jesus Christ sends the Holy Spirit who comes from the Father.

This Holy Spirit that is sent by Jesus Christ and testifies of Jesus Christ proceeds from the Father.

What could be more plain?

Orthodoxy
 
Yes. Heresy. If your quote are truely what these men meant then why in 381 ad did the Church in full ecumenical council say the "Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father"?

How is it a contradiction that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? Tell me, was their two angels or one in the tomb. Did Jesus cure one blind beggar or two? Your way of looking at things has Matt and Luke contradicting eachother. It is not a conctracition to have the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father vs. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son. Jesus breathed on the Apostles in John 20 and they recieved the power to forgive sins. Jesus is not a lesser God such that he is not in communion with the Holy Spirit the same way the Father is. They are a Trinity, which stands for Tri-Unity. Your view of this matter is not heretical but your rejectio of the legitimate authority that tells you that Jesus proceeds from the Father and the son is. I am sure this will not convince you of anything. But I tried.
 
Thessalonian,

How is it a contradiction that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?

All good gifts proceed from the Father.

In your version all good gifts proceed from the Father and the Son.

Tell me is the Holy Spirt begotten like the Son because the Son also proceeds from the Father eternally?


Tell me, was their two angels or one in the tomb. Did Jesus cure one blind beggar or two? Your way of looking at things has Matt and Luke contradicting eachother.

How so?

It is not a conctracition to have the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father vs. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son.

Of course it is. In your trinitarian model the Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

According to Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father. If Jesus Christ would have said "the Holy Spirit whom I will send from my Father and me" or "the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and I" but He did not gammerically say that no, Jesus Christ said "the Holy Spirit who I will SEND from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, testifies of me.

You testify of a different Jesus if the Holy Spirit is eteranlly proceeding from the Son.

Jesus breathed on the Apostles in John 20 and they recieved the power to forgive sins.

Yes, so? Eternally the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father in turn He eternally sends the Holy Spirit in a breath. Your point is?

Jesus is not a lesser God such that he is not in communion with the Holy Spirit the same way the Father is.

ahh and such was the reasoning in the Council of Toledo. When did I ever imply Jesus is "a lesser god"? Jesus is fully God and I do not need to twist scripture to prove it. This spainish priest just had no knowledgeable way to fight the arian heretics so he tired to make Jesus "more God". Your implying I believe Jesus is a lesser god only proves this dual procession theology is baseless. Any intellegent godly man does not need to add things to the bible to prove Jesus Christ is fully God and Fully Man.

They are a Trinity, which stands for Tri-Unity.

Yes but each has His own personal traits. Begotteness defines the Son's divinity and procession defines the Holy Spirit's divinity. Is the Father "begotten"? Does the Father proceed from the Holy Spirit? Does the Father proceed from the Son? Is the Son begotten of the Holy Spirit? Is the Son proceeding from the Holy Spirit? Under your sabellian understanding these all must be true and a "Yes".

Your view of this matter is not heretical but your rejectio of the legitimate authority that tells you that Jesus proceeds from the Father and the son is.

and this brings us to the "infallible popes" through the ages. Which popes were infallible the ones agreeing with 381 ad statement of faith or the ones rejecting the 381 ad statement of faith?

Dont tell me, let me guess, BOTH camps!

The Church is the final authority not one man. Jesus made that abundantly clear in Matthew 18 when He said "tell it to the Church" not "tell it to Peter's representative". I answer to the Church not the Pope.

I am sure this will not convince you of anything. But I tried.

All you have succeeded in doing is not making any case for your position.

Be a man. Take a stand.

Orthodoxy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top