So do you burn incense literally?

I believe the author that wrote that book belongs to a messianic jewish denomination. So they are in fact trying to thread the needle between holding the whole torah and understanding Christ to be the messiah. That would follow they are not so keen that the whole world gets grafted in instead of the whole world becomes jewish. Just an fyi.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

So do you burn incense literally?

---

Every day we do at evening prayers. Family gathers in front of the icons of Christ and saints in our prayer corner, and we recite some prayers of thanksgiving from the orthodox prayer book and go down the list of people we are praying for. The morning we are technically supposed to do the same but I will admit its a bit more rushed with getting out the door and definitely as each family member gets up on their own.

My favorite is rose incense. Doesn't take much. Go buy coals from a smoke shop, monasteries and head shops alike carry Three Kings coals which are really good. Break it into fourths, put a bit of aluminum foil loosely across the cup of an censer, light the coal with a grill lighter, place a single piece of incense on it, close the lid and let it do its job.

Our house will smell like incense for bout an hour or so, but the smell never lingers long. Nobody's gonna open your front door at random times and think your house smells like incense like how you can smell curry even if nobodies cooking. No issues with smoke staining walls or anything.

https://store.ancientfaith.com/ is where we bought our censer, coals and incense from. If we go to a monastery we'll always stop and buy more incense to support them and know its been prayed over while being made.

I think that is a great way to bring the family together in prayer.

dermdoc said:

---

I think that is a great way to bring the family together in prayer.

---

Now, granted, I have young children. There are bribes of watching an episode of Bluey if they stand still, face the icon, don't bug their siblings, and recite the Lords prayer when we get to that part. Bedtime kicks off at an exact time every night so its easy to do so.

For those with teenagers you might as well tack this on right at the end of dinner before everyone scatters to work on 'homework' until 2 AM. If those with older kids who are interested in doing this. I would start with just yourself/spouse first, get in a groove, and then start bringing in the kids. Just so the first word out of your teenagers mouth aren't, 'dad what are you doing?' and your response isn't, 'I dont know.'

Place an icon of Christ facing east and get to it. If anyone's needing an intro to prayers, Antiochian.org has a great list of prayers per occasion. Here is the evening prayer list. https://www.antiochian.org/regulararticle/598

Just jump right in with the Trisagion and the list of those you are praying for and any specific prayers on top of that. Thats a good start for every morning and evening. The prayers will grow over time and across seasons.

Ok so help me understand the purpose of actually burning incense?

God has outlined how he wants to be worshipped. Incense as a part of prayers are a part of that. In general, you should look to replicating the prayers and practices of the church at home. Because as the father you are the priest of your house. So incorporate incense just like how the church does. You don't have to go overboard though. No need for four coals and a plume of smoke out the door. Beyond incense, replicating the church at home generally means no freewheeling prayers. Pray something that either a church father or saint has written that has been preserved by the church or bible passage like a psalm. You can freewheel specific prayers at the end, but prayers are for you and God knows what everyone needs so you only need to say someone's name. You'll realize there are depths to prayers that the freewheeling 6 or 7 one liners you keep reusing just don't begin to touch.

Our priest has a line he likes to repeat a lot during discussions like this. 'Pious rules are for the pious.' And its always brought up when people are pushing back against some form of perceived excess against prayer, fasting, or almsgiving. View things like this as aspirational. There is always room for us to do more for God and grow closer to God. This is the fullness of the faith.

And keeping the sabbath isn't a form of worship? Why do one and not the other?

So are prayers less effective without incense?

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

And keeping the sabbath isn't a form of worship? Why do one and not the other?

---

Worship is a very specific terminology. A lot of what a protestant (not saying you are one) considers worship is really just praise. Worship is specifically the act of communing with God. God has outlined how he wants to be worshipped, how he doesn't, and the Church has built upon the second temple practices to reflect the eucharist being available to all peoples.

The idea of 'keeping the sabbath' or keeping any commandments of God isn't worship per se. These are good things that are pious though.

And remember, you as a layperson have different obligations to God than the liturgical priesthood. You lighting incense and leading family prayers is more of an obligation out of being the priestly leader of your house, not so much an outlining of the 613 commandments that all Israelites were under.

Again, if you want to take Saturdays off to rest and worship and praise the Lord - great! Go for it. But its not equivalent to come in from the fields, watch football all day, chalk it up to rest, and say you were doing something pious. There are plenty of services throughout the week and weekend to participate in that culminate in the divine liturgy on Sunday mornings.

Are prayers less effective without incense?

You gotta flip this line of thinking in your head. It was the biggest switch from nondenominationalism to orthodoxy for me. This is business person/evangelical talk. How to achieve X (prayer, salvation, service) through the minimum form of action. Cut cut cut until only the 'essentials' are left. But orthodoxy says its all essential. Its all for your salvation and your theosis. This is the fullness of the faith. To cut something is to not understand the purpose before you.

Can you pray without incense? Sure. But praying with incense is just one of a thousand ways to improve the fullness of your faith. And trust me, once you get through the thousand ways, there is a thousand more. Its truly infinite. You can spend your whole life just in prayer and worship of God, and some do. They're called monks and nuns. And if your denomination doesn't have a formal capacity for those who want to spend their time in unceasing devotion to God you gotta ask yourself why.

IMHO, Yukon Cornelius has raised good points that no one has directly or adequately answered. As I understand his question, all Christians believe that they should obey the 10 commandments, except for the one about the Sabbath. Why do we except that one only?

Did the ancient Jews burn incense outside of the Tabernacle or Temple, i.e., in the various synagogues? What historical evidence exists one way or the other?

What obligation do I have for lighting incense? If I'm ignorant of such a command please enlighten me. And to what purpose does it serve?

My understanding the incense is a physical parable of our prayers. All of the rituals were physical/earthly parables of heavenly truths. So I'm not opposed obviously to incense burning but it being some obligations seems incorrect.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

What obligation do I have for lighting incense? If I'm ignorant of such a command please enlighten me. And to what purpose does it serve?

My understanding the incense is a physical parable of our prayers. All of the rituals were physical/earthly parables of heavenly truths. So I'm not opposed obviously to incense burning but it being some obligations seems incorrect.

---

In general, if we're getting into 'pious obligations' lets take a step back and start with becoming an inquirer at church. At its core, we light incense because this is how God said He wants us to worship Him. So the most full expression of prayer includes incense. Again, you are not bound by the 613 commandments of the Torah as a layperson grafted in. But as a priest to your family, replicating what whatever liturgical practices you can at home - you light incense because the church does and because its part of the fullness of the faith.

Don't look where to cut, look where to add.

Where does God say that is how He wants us to worship Him? Which verses?

ETA. Emoji was not intended

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Jabin said:

---

IMHO, Yukon Cornelius has raised good points that no one has directly or adequately answered. As I understand his question, all Christians believe that they should obey the 10 commandments, except for the one about the Sabbath. Why do we except that one only?

Did the ancient Jews burn incense outside of the Tabernacle or Temple, i.e., in the various synagogues? What historical evidence exists one way or the other?

---

What part of the 10 commandments or 613 truly given is not fully wrapped up by the two commandments Jesus quotes as the greatest? 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Leviticus 19:18 and 'Love the Lord God fully with all your heart, soul, and mind' Deuteronomy 6:5.?

I think Zobel did do a good job wrapping up why the ten commandments is A) a shortening of the 613 commandments in the Torah and you can't subdivide. And B) the fullness of Christ overflows the whole commandments of the Torah as Christ shows that Torah can only truly be fulfilled when you interpret it inspirationally. No more eye for an eye allowed.

---

I don't understand your point in the first paragraph. Of course the entire law is wrapped up in the two great commands. But that doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that the 10 commandments are irrelevant.

And I disagree with your opinion on Zobel's effort of dismissing the 10 commandments. They didn't shorten the 613. As Yukon has repeatedly stated, the 10 commandments preceded the 613. And B) comes across as nice sounding words without any meaning or support. Additionally, he and you keep referencing the Torah when Christ seemed to have meant the Levitical law.

Regardless, everyone keeps dodging Yukons central point, which is that we all agree that we should try to keep the 9 of the 10 commandments, not as a necessity for salvation, but out of love. Why only 9?

Jabin said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Jabin said:

---

IMHO, Yukon Cornelius has raised good points that no one has directly or adequately answered. As I understand his question, all Christians believe that they should obey the 10 commandments, except for the one about the Sabbath. Why do we except that one only?

Did the ancient Jews burn incense outside of the Tabernacle or Temple, i.e., in the various synagogues? What historical evidence exists one way or the other?

---

What part of the 10 commandments or 613 truly given is not fully wrapped up by the two commandments Jesus quotes as the greatest? 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Leviticus 19:18 and 'Love the Lord God fully with all your heart, soul, and mind' Deuteronomy 6:5.?

I think Zobel did do a good job wrapping up why the ten commandments is A) a shortening of the 613 commandments in the Torah and you can't subdivide. And B) the fullness of Christ overflows the whole commandments of the Torah as Christ shows that Torah can only truly be fulfilled when you interpret it inspirationally. No more eye for an eye allowed.

---

I don't understand your point in the first paragraph. Of course the entire law is wrapped up in the two great commands. But that doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that the 10 commandments are irrelevant.

And I disagree with your opinion on Zobel's effort of dismissing the 10 commandments. They didn't shorten the 613. As Yukon has repeatedly stated, the 10 commandments preceded the 613. And B) comes across as nice sounding words without any meaning or support. Additionally, he and you keep referencing the Torah when Christ seemed to have meant the Levitical law.

Regardless, everyone keeps dodging Yukons central point, which is that we all agree that we should try to keep the 9 of the 10 commandments, not as a necessity for salvation, but out of love. Why only 9?

---

The 10 Commandments were given to the Israelites. Not the Gentiles. To my knowledge, Christ never really stated to keep any commandments except love God and love your neighbor.

Gentiles have a new covenant of grace and changed hearts where a regenerate believer will naturally not break any of the 10 commandments due to the presence of the Holy Spirit.

The council of Jerusalem specified what was required of Gentiles and except for avoiding sexual morality, idol worship, and eating blood or strangled animals, no mention of the 10 commandments. And I believe that would have been presented as well as the 613 other laws.

As Paul stated in Romans, this does not mean we will sin more as a means of increasing grace but Gentlle believers are not under the law. Jews are.

So it is now okay to worship false idols and to dishonor one's mother and father?

Where did I dismiss the ten commandments?

Who said you shouldn't remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?

2) Do not make idols (1 John 5:21)

5) Honor your father and your mother (Ephesians 6:12)

Jabin said:

---

So it is now okay to worship false idols and to dishonor one's mother and father?

---

Of course not. Paul talked specifically about that. We are under the covenant of grace and have been quickened or born again. We do not think like that anymore.

And I specifically mentioned that the Council of Jerusalem forbid idols for Gentiles. Do you really think the Judiaizers did not bring up the 10 commandments? Or circumcision? Or the 613 other commandments? Paul preached against the law over and over again.

This does mean not to obey the 10 commandments. It means we obey due to our changed hearts.

Zobel said:

---

Where did I dismiss the ten commandments?

Who said you shouldn't remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?

---

Nobody. I never said that either. In fact, I stated how I kept the Sabbath.

Is it ok to have multiple wives? Why or why not?

Zobel said:

---

Is it ok to have multiple wives? Why or why not?

---

As far as I know, the Bible is not explicit on that issue. However, I'm open to being educated and my lack of knowledge corrected.

Zobel said:

---

The answer is "No". Polygamy is not right.

---

Why? Where is the scriptural prohibition? Why did you ask the question?

Or are you now the Supreme Pontiff with the authority to simply declare right and wrong?

Quote:

---

But the point is right and wrong precede the Torah and even go beyond it. You can keep the Torah and still be unrighteous! And you can NOT keep the Torah and be righteous! Both of these are in the scripture.

So no, worshipping demons is wrong, and dishonoring your father is wrong. But so is incest or bestiality, which isn't in the Ten Commandments but IS in Leviticus as sexual immorality. And they were wrong before the Torah was given to Moses.

---

Nice mini-sermon, but those aren't the issues raised. No one is arguing that one must keep the Torah in order to be righteous.

And you seem to be contradicting yourself. At one point, you were apparently conflating the 10 commandments and the Torah in rejection of Yukon's point that they're not the same, that the 10 Commandments preceded the Torah. Now, you seem to be arguing Yukon's very point.

Because Christ says reiterates one man one wife in His teaching. And because I can read, and I see that every single case of polygamy in the OT results in chaos, favoritism, sin, disorder, and problems. And because that is the consistent teaching of every single Christian denomination. Pretty solid footing here, no papal infallibility required.

I mean, if you want to make the case that polygamy is good and pleasing in the eyes of God by all means go ahead.

The reason I asked the question was precisely to show the inadequacy of approaching the scriptures and saying "everything not explicitly precluded in here is 100% on the table".

Torturing animals for fun? Pretty sure no scriptural prohibition against that. Ok with you? How about abortion. There is no flat scriptural prohibition against voluntary abortion. All good, then?

Quote:

---

Nice mini-sermon, but those aren't the issues raised.

---

Brother, you said - "So it is now okay to worship false idols and to dishonor one's mother and father?" The answer is "no" and it never was, even before the Torah was given. To illustrate this point, I showed you that there is right and wrong before the Torah, and in addition to what is explicit in the Torah. To make an exhaustive list of evil would take more ink and electronics than exist in the world.


So... much like torturing animals and abortion, polygamy is not God-pleasing, and is unrighteous.

Quote:

---

No one is arguing that one must keep the Torah in order to be righteous.

---

no? What are we talking about then??

Quote:

---

he and you keep referencing the Torah when Christ seemed to have meant the Levitical law.

---

The word for "Law" comes from the Latin "Lex". In Greek it is "nomos". In the Greek OT everywhere the Hebrew word "Torah" is used the word "nomos" is used to translate it. When you see "Law" you need to read "Torah". The Torah is the first five books of the bible, as the Lord described it "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms" that is to say the whole of the scriptures.

Quote:

---

And you seem to be contradicting yourself. At one point, you were apparently conflating the 10 commandments and the Torah in rejection of Yukon's point that they're not the same, that the 10 Commandments preceded the Torah. Now, you seem to be arguing Yukon's very point.

---

Well, someone is confused then I suppose.

The Torah is a unit, you can't rip parts of it out of context. Keeping the Torah is a thing. That's why they use the shorthand "circumcision" for "Judaean" because the circumcised are those who keep the Torah. The Ten Commandments were given to Israel as part of the Torah. They are expanded on by the rest of the Torah, you can't separate the narrative in Leviticus from Exodus or Deuteronomy.

If we want to inquire as to what "keeping the sabbath" means, the place to go look is the Torah.

Similarly, as a Christian when we want to answer the question as to "what parts of the Torah apply to gentile Christians?" the place to go look is in the teaching of St Paul and the doctrinal statements given in Acts by the Council of Jerusalem.

Just an FYI, one of the more common Jewish interpretations of Lev 18:18 is as a broad prohibition against polygamy. Sister is interpreted in the universal sense and not necessarily the blood sibling sense. Taking any additional wives would make the the wives into sisters in this sense. We use the same terminology, for example the show "Sister Wives". So the prohibition against polygamy is plausibly explicit in the Torah. Not that the point is any less valid. The Torah is not in any way a fully comprehensive accounting of all possible sins

Jabin said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The answer is "No". Polygamy is not right.

---

Why? Where is the scriptural prohibition? Why did you ask the question?

This is the teaching of the church. You're begging the question about who has scriptural authority here. The orthodox church is the teaching and practice of the early church that emerged unexcommunicated from the counsels and remained in communion with one another after the bishop of Rome declared anathema. From Zobel and my perspective they are The Church and they have authority to look at the entirety of the commentary on polygamous marriage in the bible and say, 'this is not good, this doesn't bear fruit, it was one man and one woman in the beginning for a reason.'

Or are you now the Supreme Pontiff with the authority to simply declare right and wrong?

See above note. Zobel is just informed of the teachings of the Orthodox church and relaying them to you. You should thank him, reading his posts are worth a couple of sessions in catechesis class.

Quote:

---

But the point is right and wrong precede the Torah and even go beyond it. You can keep the Torah and still be unrighteous! And you can NOT keep the Torah and be righteous! Both of these are in the scripture.

So no, worshipping demons is wrong, and dishonoring your father is wrong. But so is incest or bestiality, which isn't in the Ten Commandments but IS in Leviticus as sexual immorality. And they were wrong before the Torah was given to Moses.

---

Nice mini-sermon, but those aren't the issues raised. No one is arguing that one must keep the Torah in order to be righteous.

Its all interconnected.

And you seem to be contradicting yourself. At one point, you were apparently conflating the 10 commandments and the Torah in rejection of Yukon's point that they're not the same, that the 10 Commandments preceded the Torah. Now, you seem to be arguing Yukon's very point.

In Leviticus, Moses comes down from the mountain the first time with way more than just the ten commandments. Its a huge ream of law. The second time he goes back up, when getting new tablets, God shares about the coming covenant. So to say that God delivers the 10 commandments at a different time than the rest of the law would be a misunderstanding. The sections of law deliverance are different than the lines you're drawing.

At the end of the day this whole conversation is about church authority or not. Does the orthodox church have the authority to interpret scripture? Yes, because they are the apostolic (both priest office and teaching) continuation of the early church and everyone else has to jump across some schism to get to their own claims. So when the this thread starts jumping into why you have to do X, why can't you reduce it to Y (like incense in prayers) its an inversion of where you stand in your schisms. You can't come from an interpretation that has cut cut cut, and then ask why add add add? You've got to start at the founding of the early church by Christ, walk through the counsels, see the practices being performed, and then see the history of why some practice has been done some way.

---

I do not accept that the EO has any authority. So your appeal to its authority is far from persuasive.

And the schism may have occurred centuries prior to the Reformation. The schism may have occurred when the EO, and any other man-made church, decided that it had authority equal or superior to that of Scripture. Rather than being schism, the Reformation, as its name states, was God's work to reform his church and restore God's authority within it.

Jabin said:

---

I do not accept that the EO has any authority. So your appeal to its authority is far from persuasive.

And the schism may have occurred centuries prior to the Reformation. The schism may have occurred when the EO, and any other man-made church, decided that it had authority equal or superior to that of Scripture. Rather than being schism, the Reformation, as its name states, was God's work to reform his church and restore God's authority within it.

---

Again, I'm not appealing to authority for the sake of my argument or Zobel, I'm saying its you versus the church, not you vs me, and you have no standing because you are outside the church. The orthodox church is the only church that can say, 'trace your roots from Peter to your beliefs without crossing a schism.' And the east west schism reached it crescendo in 1054, the protestant reformation isn't for another 500 years jack.

We are at an impasse and everything is permissible. Please pass the pope hat when you are done using it.

If the EO has literally no authority even with its traditions, teachings, and apostolic succession that goes back to Peter - how do you claim any superior authority?

Quote:

---

The orthodox church is the only church that can say, 'trace your roots from Peter to your beliefs without crossing a schism.'

---

You guys can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Every church claims to trace its roots back to the apostles without crossing a schism.

Quote:

---

And the east west schism reached it crescendo in 1054, the protestant reformation isn't for another 500 years jack.

---

You seem emotional, and I'm not sure what your point is in response to mine.

You guys like to call all others "schismatic", but as they say in most divorce cases, "it takes two to tango." In other words, almost always both sides have blame.

Quote:

---

We are at an impasse and everything is permissible. Please pass the pope hat when you are done using it.

---

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Just an FYI, one of the more common Jewish interpretations of Lev 18:18 is as a broad prohibition against polygamy. Sister is interpreted in the universal sense and not necessarily the blood sibling sense. Taking any additional wives would make the the wives into sisters in this sense. We use the same terminology, for example the show "Sister Wives". So the prohibition against polygamy is plausibly explicit in the Torah. Not that the point is any less valid. The Torah is not in any way a fully comprehensive accounting of all possible sins

---

The Bible never condemns polygamy (despite its near universality in the OT), so why are we adding yet one more rule or sin?

Also, the Bible seems to condone it. In Deuteronomy, men are commanded to marry their brother's widow. There is no exception to that commandment for men that are already married.

Finally, polygamy may have been an economic necessity. Unmarried women had only two options in ancient cultures: starvation or prostitution. Because men had much, much higher death rates than did women, resulting in many more women than men, polygamy was the only way for women to avoid those two horrible alternatives.

In these times, polygamy would seem to be very unwise to the point of stupidity. But I see little strong basis for arguing that it is per se against God's will under any circumstances.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

The orthodox church is the only church that can say, 'trace your roots from Peter to your beliefs without crossing a schism.'

---

You guys can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Every church claims to trace its roots back to the apostles without crossing a schism.

That is not true. Even the Catholic church now correctly admits they started the schism. And the protestant reformation was about being able to elect themselves in charge of the church away from the bishop of Rome. The orthodox wouldn't even have such a question because there isn't one man in charge of theology. And the church counsels did a good job excommunicating those who believed they had that type of authority. See the first counsel.

Quote:

---

And the east west schism reached it crescendo in 1054, the protestant reformation isn't for another 500 years jack.

---

You seem emotional, and I'm not sure what your point is in response to mine.

Your point was that you didn't know when the schism was and it was before the reformation. I'm outlining, yes it was way before.

You guys like to call all others "schismatic", but as they say in most divorce cases, "it takes two to tango." In other words, almost always both sides have blame.

Are you divorced? You either leave or your don't. The bishop of Rome, after a 1000 years, decided that they had sole authority, the other patriarchates didn't agree. The orthodox remained unchanged in the face of the bishop of Rome's changing demands. Rome decided to leave. The our four ancient churches remained and still do to this day. The orthodox beat the drum that the rest are schismatics because they are. This is the root claim of Orthodoxy that all other forms of Christianity resent because they can't make the same claim. Of your denomination, who first makes the claims you believe? Are they original church fathers? Do you hold to the same practices as the church fathers? If you believed the church fathers and you held the same liturgical practices - you'd be, at worst, opining between orthodoxy and a flavor of traditional catholicism here. The protestant reformation and its descendants wouldn't be an option.

Quote:

---

We are at an impasse and everything is permissible. Please pass the pope hat when you are done using it.

---

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

You are interpreting scripture for yourself as you see fit. You are assuming the role the Pope first took that caused the initial schism.

---

You left this one off your replies.

If the EO has literally no authority even with its traditions, teachings, and apostolic succession that goes back to Peter - how do you claim any superior authority?

Would you like to assert your denominational beliefs?