Jerusalem Patriarchs denounce Christian Zionism

8,086 Views | 237 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by Zobel
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

CrackerJackAg said:

Silent For Too Long said:


I also love the church of crusades, inquisition, and covering up child rape is now brow beating other Christians on how they might be negatively effecting public perception of Christianity. Good God the lack of self awareness.


Huh…Is that what you meant? I struggle with context sometimes. I missed the part where you said all groups are victims of this and you were simply pointing out we shouldn't make these kinds if arguments. I missed the unity call. Sorry about that.


The context was you calling all Protestants ignorant ******s.

I've spent years being critical of the way protestants talk about RCC and EO, but their is some vial tribalism on this thread.

Really doing the Lord's work, guys. Keep fighting the Good fight.


Again, this is a discussion forum to discuss religion and philosophy differences etc….

Most people don't participate in these types of a discussions.

It is reserved for people who are OK have a conversation about differences and not get offended by discussion.

My interaction with Protestants in life are very different from a web forum to discuss religion.

Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fair enough, but you might more constructive attack the ideas and not the people.

Also, from I've found with a little Googling, it seems the EO does have an official perspective on modern Isreal, in that they don't view the current state as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and they don't agree with Zionism. I'm not sure why you had to be so evasive and couldn't just say that.

I don't agree with Dispensationalists but I don't agree with the EO's stance, either. God still has a purpose for Isreal, and scripture makes that pretty clear.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

Fair enough, but you might more constructive attack the ideas and not the people.

Also, from I've found with a little Googling, it seems the EO does have an official perspective on modern Isreal, in that they don't view the current state as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and they don't agree with Zionism. I'm not sure why you had to be so evasive and couldn't just say that.

I don't agree with Dispensationalists but I don't agree with the EO's stance, either. God still has a purpose for Isreal, and scripture makes that pretty clear.


There is no official Orthodox position on Isreal.

You can find different perspectives of bishops and patriarch and priest and lay people and clergy all over the place, but there's absolutely no official position by the Orthodox Church.

That's more of an RCC thing and not something we normally do. Pretty much take an ecumenical council. We haven't had one of those in over 1000 years.

CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

You are literally blaming the struggles of the EO in the Middle East on American Protestantism.




I'm curious what your response is after reading the story about Bush and the French president.

1) Refusal to believe it. The Bush camp did say that he was misunderstood. They did not deny he said it. They pretty much confirmed it.

2) It was a just Holy War

3) Stunned disbelief to have been wrong that this type of thing was occurring? Did you listen to the Ted Cruz interview with Tucker Carlson?
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Iraq was fought over oil, and the MICs profit margins, regardless of the stupid **** Bush said on a phone call.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So refusal to believe it. I kind of figured that was the case.

Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh brother. Grow up.
AgPrognosticator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Severian the Torturer said:

Silent For Too Long said:

CrackerJackAg said:

Gross.

American/Western Protestant Dispensationalist are the absolute worst and the single most ignorant people on the planet. Basically the same as a backward goat loving weirdo in Afghanistan just in a richer country.

I would rather try to find common ground with a Buddhist or Zoroastrian. At least those people aren't ******ed.

If you agree with Mike Huckabee you are a heretic and I don't believe you are Christian. You follow a different religion all together.


This is really a terrible thing to say about fellow members of the Body of Christ and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Just an ugly and disgraceful post.


To be quite honest, many of us in the Apostolic churches don't consider Protestants to be a part of the Body of Christ.

It's nothing personal, Christ just established the Church as his Body, and the Church is made up of the descendants of the Apostles and their flock, as per Christ.





LOL

arrogance and ignorance combined into one. Well done, sir.
AgPrognosticator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CrackerJackAg said:

Silent For Too Long said:

Fair enough, but you might more constructive attack the ideas and not the people.

Also, from I've found with a little Googling, it seems the EO does have an official perspective on modern Isreal, in that they don't view the current state as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and they don't agree with Zionism. I'm not sure why you had to be so evasive and couldn't just say that.

I don't agree with Dispensationalists but I don't agree with the EO's stance, either. God still has a purpose for Isreal, and scripture makes that pretty clear.


There is no official Orthodox position on Isreal.

You can find different perspectives of bishops and patriarch and priest and lay people and clergy all over the place, but there's absolutely no official position by the Orthodox Church.

That's more of an RCC thing and not something we normally do. Pretty much take an ecumenical council. We haven't had one of those in over 1000 years.




Sure, run to other men to tell you what to think. Despite God's word being freely available to read to every person in the civilized world.

Catholics are so backward…
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Recent podcast said it well.

Quote:

You could say, "Well, Father Steven, you're saying that evangelicals aren't Christians."

Well, according to one definition, they're not. According to the definition of members of Christ's church, which is the Holy Orthodox Church, they're not. If your definition of Christian is a person participating in historic Christianity, honestly, they're not.

Now if your definition is like the definition that Father Andrew just gave, if what you mean by Christian is a person who loves Jesus as who they understand him to be and is spends their life doing their best to
follow Christ to the best of their ability and the best of their knowledge, then yes, a lot of evangelicals are
Christians by that definition.

And none of those categorizations I just made have anything to do with who goes to hell. Yeah. Zero. Zero relevance. None of the statements I made say that. Frankly "anybody is or isn't going to hell" is an evangelical assumption.

I have made zero statements thus far about anyone going to hell. Okay. It's just how do you define this term and then does person X fit that definition or not. So according to some definitions of Christian yes other definitions of Christian no. Right?

And none of those definitions had anything to do with who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, especially not who goes to heaven because you know the resurrection of the body and all that.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He's not catholic, and he's not running to anyone to tell him what to think. If anything he's telling you the exact opposite, that there is literally no formal position to tell him what to think.

You can tell because he said "there is no official Orthodox position".

Speaking of ignorance.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Israel is the people of God, of Yahweh. The Church is Israel in continuity, and in fact the words in the scripture, in the original language, are incapable of making a distinction between the old testament "assembled people of God" and "church" because they use the same word. The authors of the NT apply the same "people of God" language to formerly pagan, gentile Christians as is applied to the (in many cases formerly pagan, formerly gentile) Israelites in the OT.

Modern Judaism is not Israel.
AgPrognosticator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CrackerJackAg said:

Silent For Too Long said:

For the record, I normally stay out of these interdonominational pissing contests because I find them inherently counter productive, but anyone who thinks what Crackerjack said is above board and appropriate desperately needs to pray about it.


How so? Because you disagree with it? I think I articulated my position quite well and others followed up that many Orthodox and Catholics do not consider Protestants to be part of the body of Christ.

I'm sure Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses get their feelings hurt when you say they aren't Christians, but you're okay with that.


Comparing evangelicals to Mormons is laughable. Keep looking to the authority of men to run your life, instead of God's word. Men will continue to lead you down a path of shameless bigotry.

Your Christ did not teach this….but go ahead and continue to following your institution managed by sinful men…. I will follow my blameless savior.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Big talk, little scripture.
AgPrognosticator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Big talk, little scripture.


I don't need scripture to be acutely aware of Catholicism's fundamentally flawed reliance on the institutions of man, rather than the inerrant Word of God.

Our differences begin and end there. They always will.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

Israel is the people of God, of Yahweh. The Church is Israel in continuity, and in fact the words in the scripture, in the original language, are incapable of making a distinction between the old testament "assembled people of God" and "church" because they use the same word. The authors of the NT apply the same "people of God" language to formerly pagan, gentile Christians as is applied to the (in many cases formerly pagan, formerly gentile) Israelites in the OT.

Modern Judaism is not Israel.


I'm not sure if I agree with that. I don't think that squares well with both the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.

I think its incredibly interesting that God has seemingly preserved all the various stages of covenants to this very day. The Abrahamic convenat is preserved with the Samaritans, the Davidic covenant is perseved with the Jews. Even, in a sense, the covenant with Ishmael preserved with the Muslims.

I don't pretend to understand the Divine Plan with all these various people, but with God there is no accidents.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He's not Catholic.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well, you should take it up with Sts Peter and Paul, who both write to (former) gentiles including them in Israel. St Peter paraphrases Exodus 19:5-6 in 1 Pet 2:9 when he says "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." He's not talking to Jews there, he's explicitly talking to the faithful - "the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe...They stumble because they disobey the Word, as they were destined to do."

Are modern Jews obedient to Christ? Do they believe? Are they faithful?

St Paul, speaking to gentiles and former pagans, says - "OUR fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ."

None of the covenants are about strict heredity. St Paul writes against that explicitly when he tells pagans by heritage that Abraham was their father, and not all who are blood descendents of Abraham are his children: "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring."

And a little later he writes "As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.' And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"

Who are those people who were not his people, and now are? Are there more than one people of God? Is there more than one body of Christ??

He sums it up in Galatians - "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

You can say what you like about what God has done or not done with the Samaritans - I think He has a plan for all people to come to salvation. But that does not make modern Israel the Israel of God. And it is in fact not, because Christ, and Christ Alone, is the sole heir to Abraham, and inherits ALL of the promises, and indeed all creation. We inherit only through Him, and those who have separated themselves from Him inherit nothing.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgPrognosticator said:

Zobel said:

Big talk, little scripture.


I don't need scripture to be acutely aware of Catholicism's fundamentally flawed reliance on the institutions of man, rather than the inerrant Word of God.

Our differences begin and end there. They always will.


We are quite content in our tradition.

We don't view the Church as a mere human institution, but as the Body of Christ, shepherded by an Apostolic priesthood.

To clarify, the Scriptures are our canon (our 'measuring stick'). Everything we dofrom the Liturgy and the Eucharist down to the role of the Deaconmust square with the Word. Tradition isn't a replacement for Scripture; it is the lived expression of it.

I'm curious, though, about your perspective on ancient Israel.

They had the Tabernacle, the Temple, and a distinct priestly class. God had already manifested Himself and provided the Ten Commandments

The literal written Word of God.


By your logic, why was that not enough? Why did God establish Moses to provide additional instructions, or a priesthood to govern how the people lived and worshipped? If the written Word was all they needed, why did God Himself mandate a visible, structured religious system?

Were they backwards and led by man?
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't speak strictly of heredity, either, to be clear. The Samaritans have faithfully lived by The Torah for over 3,000 years. YHWH sees that. So have the Orthodox Jews. You are in no position to say that the original Isrealites aren't Isreal. Roman's says we are grafted into their roots.

I'll leave that judgement to the One who can Judge.
AgPrognosticator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CrackerJackAg said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Zobel said:

Big talk, little scripture.


I don't need scripture to be acutely aware of Catholicism's fundamentally flawed reliance on the institutions of man, rather than the inerrant Word of God.

Our differences begin and end there. They always will.


We are quite content in our tradition.

We don't view the Church as a mere human institution, but as the Body of Christ, shepherded by an Apostolic priesthood.

To clarify, the Scriptures are our canon (our 'measuring stick'). Everything we dofrom the Liturgy and the Eucharist down to the role of the Deaconmust square with the Word. Tradition isn't a replacement for Scripture; it is the lived expression of it.

I'm curious, though, about your perspective on ancient Israel.

They had the Tabernacle, the Temple, and a distinct priestly class. God had already manifested Himself and provided the Ten Commandments

The literal written Word of God.


By your logic, why was that not enough? Why did God establish Moses to provide additional instructions, or a priesthood to govern how the people lived and worshipped? If the written Word was all they needed, why did God Himself mandate a visible, structured religious system?

Were they backwards and led by man?


Universal literacy and the printing press changed a lot of things, including the Catholic church's stranglehold on the interpretation of all things biblical.

Thank God, it did. For the past 500 years, men have been able to read and digest God's Word directly without the the interposition of a fellow sinful man.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Great, so we can clear out the heredity thing, which is good because it's a massive problem that is specifically refuted by the scriptures - "a mixed multitude" went out of Egypt. You weren't an Israelite at Sinai because of your parentage, you were because of faithfulness to the covenant. Israel was made. Even later, a person could become an Israelite by following the Torah, culminating in circumcision and subsequently eating the Passover. At St Paul notes, "A man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision only outward and physical. No, a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter."

As for faithfully living by the Torah, I don't agree. For one, even in the days of Jesus the Samaritans had a different Torah than the Judaeans. By whatever means - either the words of scripture itself in the narrow sense, or in the broader sense of way of life, how they lived. Because if they followed the same way of life, they wouldn't be two people (Samaritan vs Jew) but one people, without distinction. The fact that the distinction exists shows they did not follow the same Torah. The Samaritans were the offspring of the remnants of the northern kingdom - destroyed for faithlessness, idolatry, not following the Torah - and the people forcibly migrated there by the Assyrians. They worshipped in a different temple, on a different mountain. There is no way to force a compatibility here unless you create two Torahs, two people, and... what, two Gods? Doesn't St Paul point to the opposite when he says "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?" It is at least in part (if not almost entirely) the ritual life that binds and creates the body, the people.

Second, it is not possible for them to follow the Torah. The Torah is a way of life that is both moral teaching and ritualistic. As above, if you cannot do the ritual, you cannot follow Torah. Like the Psalms say, "How can we sing a song of Yahweh in a foreign land?" The inability to practice the Torah is a cut directly at the identity of the people. No temple, no sacrifices, no Torah. Go read through Leviticus sometime and see just how much is impossible today. At best they are all ritually unclean, without a priesthood.

Third, at a deeper spiritual level it is impossible to follow the Torah and reject Jesus Christ. St Paul tells us that Christ Jesus is the culmination (telos) of the Torah for those who believe or are faithful. The Torah points us, leads us to Christ. If you claim to follow the Torah and reject Christ, you have missed it entirely. If you reject the heir, you place yourself outside the promises every bit as much as the Edomites or the tribes of the Northern Kingdom did - and you are cut off. So I categorically reject that people who have openly, willingly, knowingly, and unrepentantly rejected Chris Jesus - who is both the giver of the Torah and its end, who is in a mystical way the Torah itself ("I am the Way...") - can in any way be said to faithfully be living by the Torah. No.

Finally, the roots we gentiles are grafted into are not the roots of heredity, but the roots of faithfulness. This is St Paul's whole point, after noting that not all who are descended from Jacob are Israel, he talks about faithlessness resulting in branches being cut off of the faithful root. We are grafted into the the faithful remnant by faith. We are not grafted onto a faithless blood heredity by faith! St Paul says:
Quote:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.

"unbelief" and "faithlessness" are the same word. St Paul says, do not be yoked with the faithless. What partnership does righteousness have with anomia - literally non-Torah keeping. What portion can the faithful one share with the unfaithful? He reiterates what I have pointed out here, writing again to gentiles, that faithfulness and God make one part of God's people.

Modern Jews do not keep Torah. They are not faithful to the Master, the Torah-giver, the Judge, the mystical Torah itself. They are cut off because of unfaithfulness, they are not the faithful remnant. We are the people of God, in continuity; we practice the faith of the patriarchs and the prophets and the Apostles, who all worshipped Christ Jesus as the Word of God. And we should pray for their repentance so that, as St Paul says, they as natural branches can be grafted back into the tree of Jesse where they belong - by faithfulness to Christ Jesus.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgPrognosticator said:

CrackerJackAg said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Zobel said:

Big talk, little scripture.


I don't need scripture to be acutely aware of Catholicism's fundamentally flawed reliance on the institutions of man, rather than the inerrant Word of God.

Our differences begin and end there. They always will.


We are quite content in our tradition.

We don't view the Church as a mere human institution, but as the Body of Christ, shepherded by an Apostolic priesthood.

To clarify, the Scriptures are our canon (our 'measuring stick'). Everything we dofrom the Liturgy and the Eucharist down to the role of the Deaconmust square with the Word. Tradition isn't a replacement for Scripture; it is the lived expression of it.

I'm curious, though, about your perspective on ancient Israel.

They had the Tabernacle, the Temple, and a distinct priestly class. God had already manifested Himself and provided the Ten Commandments

The literal written Word of God.


By your logic, why was that not enough? Why did God establish Moses to provide additional instructions, or a priesthood to govern how the people lived and worshipped? If the written Word was all they needed, why did God Himself mandate a visible, structured religious system?

Were they backwards and led by man?


Universal literacy and the printing press changed a lot of things, including the Catholic church's stranglehold on the interpretation of all things biblical.

Thank God, it did. For the past 500 years, men have been able to read and digest God's Word directly without the the interposition of a fellow sinful man.


Good lord. I'm not Catholic!!

The Orthodox have always had local groups practice in their own language with their own bishops and patriarchs.

We literally invented the Slavic language just to make sure they could use their own books.

That's why Slavic uses the Greek alphabet.

Literacy in the city of Constantinople reached as high as 70%. The entire Byzantine empire was as high as 30% during the Macedonian Dynasty.

This is much higher than the entirety of Western Europe at its height even under 18th century France until extremely recently. Higher than Detroit today I think.

I'm not Catholic and you keep saying Catholic things.



Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Universal literacy and the printing press changed a lot of things, including the Catholic church's stranglehold on the interpretation of all things biblical.

Thank God, it did. For the past 500 years, men have been able to read and digest God's Word directly without the the interposition of a fellow sinful man.

boy, God sure was dumb making a fundamentally unworkable system because of low literacy rates for thousands of years, huh?
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

I don't speak strictly of heredity, either, to be clear. The Samaritans have faithfully lived by The Torah for over 3,000 years. YHWH sees that. So have the Orthodox Jews. You are in no position to say that the original Isrealites aren't Isreal. Roman's says we are grafted into their roots.

I'll leave that judgement to the One who can Judge.


It doesn't sound like you're, in fact, leaving that judgment to Him.

It sounds like you have made that decision

I would like you to focus a bit more on the fact that God did establish a priesthood under Moses that lasted for thousands of years.

This is scriptural. God established it.

The Orthodox (and Catholic) Church are the continuation of the tradition established by God.

Protestants have ignorantly followed "sinful man" into leaving the Tradition and Church established by God.

You have been led astray by "sinful man". The Orthodox Church has been here 2000 years and hasn't changed.

Your "church" will be gone or transformed into something you don't recognize in time. It's a matter of years or a few decades at best.

If you think I'm a turd for being too direct or rude etc… have you met Calvin? Zwingli? Jan van Leidig? Joseph Smith?

Luther was at least funny.

Your entire faith was established on the backs of evil and sinful men living in the practical dark ages.



Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You are moving the goalposts around to suit your argument.

If the Sanaritahs aren't living by the right Torah then neither are you or the billions of other Christians.

The Samaritan Torah is probably the closest to the original. If you go read any Torah you quickly realize it lacks Zion Theology. This was all created much later under the Davidic covenant by the Judeans specifically. The Samaritans rejected this as heresy.

So, basically Samaritans are THE ORIGINAL "CHURCH" who stayed faithful to THE ORIGINAL Theology.

So you can either choose to believe in a God who adapts his scope, which allows for the Davidic covenant, then Christ, then RCC/EO, then Prostentaism, or you can choose 1 random part of that, in your case RCC/EO, and proclaim thats the only one that got it right.

Which personally, however you have to conceptualize in your head to draw closer in your personal relationship with the divine, you do you. But if you are going to go around proclaiming they YOU got it RIGHT amd everyone else is a heretic I'm going to politely remind you pray for humility and remind yourself that YOU aren't The Judge.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Once again, I'm not part of a denomination.

So your argument is that the RCC and EO are all sinless saints?

The unbridled narcissm is incredible.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

You are moving the goalposts around to suit your argument.

If the Sanaritahs aren't living by the right Torah then neither are you or the billions of other Christians.

The Samaritan Torah is probably the closest to the original. If you go read any Torah you quickly realize it lacks Zion Theology. This was all created much later under the Davidic covenant by the Judeans specifically. The Samaritans rejected this as heresy.

So, basically Samaritans are THE ORIGINAL "CHURCH" who stayed faithful to THE ORIGINAL Theology.

So you can either choose to believe in a God who adapts his scope, which allows for the Davidic covenant, then Christ, then RCC/EO, then Prostentaism, or you can choose 1 random part of that, in your case RCC/EO, and proclaim thats the only one that got it right.

Which personally, however you have to conceptualize in your head to draw closer in your personal relationship with the divine, you do you. But if you are going to go around proclaiming they YOU got it RIGHT amd everyone else is a heretic I'm going to politely remind you pray for humility and remind yourself that YOU aren't The Judge.


You are really all over the place. You're one of those people that want to hyper focus on one aspect of something when you are being shown your errors in all other areas.

I have a three time divorced cousin that can't get her personal life in order and she will do the same thing to avoid accountability.

I think it's a defense mechanism as you are unwilling to change your mind as it has already established your identity.

You are derailing the thread with weird stuff. The thread is about AmericanDispensationalist Christians and their relationship to Isreal.

Go start a new thread and let's chat.

Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

It doesn't sound like you're, in fact, leaving that judgment to Him.

It sounds like you have made that decision


It sounds to me you are making things up to suit your worldview. I'm not judging anyone. I'm just asking for caution and humility. I'm asking you te be aware of redwood size piece of wood hanging out of your ocular.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

Once again, I'm not part of a denomination.

So your argument is that the RCC and EO are all sinless saints?

The unbridled narcissm is incredible.


I don't think you are part of anything. You are doing a lot of name calling.

You ask very stupid questions and I'm just going to ignore those types of questions.

NO ONE thinks "the RCC and EO are all sinless saints".

Offer something of substance with real conversation or just stop.

When I called a group of people ******ed earlier I have very details reasons as to why. You just name call and ask silly five year old level questions.
Severian the Torturer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgPrognosticator said:

CrackerJackAg said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Zobel said:

Big talk, little scripture.


I don't need scripture to be acutely aware of Catholicism's fundamentally flawed reliance on the institutions of man, rather than the inerrant Word of God.

Our differences begin and end there. They always will.


We are quite content in our tradition.

We don't view the Church as a mere human institution, but as the Body of Christ, shepherded by an Apostolic priesthood.

To clarify, the Scriptures are our canon (our 'measuring stick'). Everything we dofrom the Liturgy and the Eucharist down to the role of the Deaconmust square with the Word. Tradition isn't a replacement for Scripture; it is the lived expression of it.

I'm curious, though, about your perspective on ancient Israel.

They had the Tabernacle, the Temple, and a distinct priestly class. God had already manifested Himself and provided the Ten Commandments

The literal written Word of God.


By your logic, why was that not enough? Why did God establish Moses to provide additional instructions, or a priesthood to govern how the people lived and worshipped? If the written Word was all they needed, why did God Himself mandate a visible, structured religious system?

Were they backwards and led by man?


Universal literacy and the printing press changed a lot of things, including the Catholic church's stranglehold on the interpretation of all things biblical.

Thank God, it did. For the past 500 years, men have been able to read and digest God's Word directly without the the interposition of a fellow sinful man.


And they have digested it in ways that have led to a complete splintering and mangling of truth.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

Quote:

It doesn't sound like you're, in fact, leaving that judgment to Him.

It sounds like you have made that decision


It sounds to me you are making things up to suit your worldview. I'm not judging anyone. I'm just asking for caution and humility. I'm asking you te be aware of redwood size piece of wood hanging out of your ocular.


That scripture applies to everyone being a sinner. Not accepting flawed untruths about God and accepting things that are wrong

American Dispensationalist Christianity is wrong and in error.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How am I all over the place? The discussion is about who can claim the mantle of the Modern Isreal. You don't think the actual descendants of Isreal can make that claim. I disagree.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not moving the goalposts at all.
Quote:

If the Sanaritahs aren't living by the right Torah then neither are you or the billions of other Christians.

I disagree. We gentile Christians follow the Torah exactly.
Quote:

The Samaritan Torah is probably the closest to the original. If you go read any Torah you quickly realize it lacks Zion Theology. This was all created much later under the Davidic covenant by the Judeans specifically. The Samaritans rejected this as heresy.

So, basically Samaritans are THE ORIGINAL "CHURCH" who stayed faithful to THE ORIGINAL Theology.

My goodness.
Quote:

So you can either choose to believe in a God who adapts his scope, which allows for the Davidic covenant, then Christ, then RCC/EO, then Prostentaism, or you can choose 1 random part of that, in your case RCC/EO, and proclaim thats the only one that got it right.

No, I believe in One God, and one Lord Jesus Christ. Any other gospel is not from God. The scriptures say Christ delivered the faith once for all to the saints, and that the Holy Spirit led the Apostles into all Truth. There is One Lord, One Faith. You are very confused here, and I'm sorry for it.
Quote:

Which personally, however you have to conceptualize in your head to draw closer in your personal relationship with the divine, you do you. But if you are going to go around proclaiming they YOU got it RIGHT amd everyone else is a heretic I'm going to politely remind you pray for humility and remind yourself that YOU aren't The Judge.

This is a mischaracterization of the point. The scriptures I quoted above are incompatible with others. When you have mutual incompatibility, only one can be true. You don't get both, you don't get "adaptation".

I am proclaiming nothing. I've quoted what St Paul and St Peter write, what the Prophet Moses taught. You are talking about other faiths, and turning this into a litmus test about my humility.

This isn't about me (or you) and nowhere have I presumed to judge the soul of another person. Affirming what was taught in the scriptures isn't judging. In fact, we are called to proclaim the truth, and denounce falsehood - heresies themselves are necessary according to St Paul to separate the faithful from the faithless.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

How am I all over the place? The discussion is about who can claim the mantle of the Modern Isreal. You don't think the actual descendants of Isreal can make that claim. I disagree.


This is already been discussed ad nauseum and can be resolved with a simple google search.

I would invite you to do some of your own research outside of solely what you agree with and then draw your own conclusion.

I have. I grew up Protestant for 35 years and spent 10 in study of The Apostolic Churches before I converted.

I have spent time in seminary. I have an entire library of Christian texts larger than my Church. That I have actually read.

I am fitting nothing to my worldview. I am placing my worldview into the plan that God has for us.

You are winging it based on the whims of a few "sinful man".

Or Church has stability and no man has stood head and shoulders above any others in the Orthodox world. We are led by no man at all. We are Shepherded in the right path led by the Scriptures.

Protestants can name the" sinful man" their faith was shaped by.

In your case, since you claim to be unaffiliated to any group, the "sinful man" is you and you are arrogant to think you can't be corrupted by yourself.

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.