[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=9549.msg117939#msg117939 date=1281564485]Simply out of curiosity, is that written anywhere?Romans 3:4. I would mention that other translations (the one I normally use is NKJV, however, I also normally check other versions, as I've previously mentioned) say to let all men be false. Since liar can mean someone who speaks a falsehood, and not necessarily one with deception, it isn't an inconsistent translation here.
[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=9549.msg117939#msg117939 date=1281564485]Also, although you question Orthodox Christianity, your faith in Christ seems very strong. I would only caution you from letting any conversation you have with a member of any church to be representative of that entire church. Make sure your search is thorough.Strangely, I actually only came to ask one question, and that was how this Church verifies it's doctrine. I do appreciate your encouragement, concern and advice.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg117940#msg117940 date=1281564562]Here's a question: When the Bible calls for a person to seek out the elders of the Church (when someone is sick)...Who are those elders? Do they not have a position, a title, a presence? Which Church? The Bible is specific: "An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient." As I've said, I do not believe that I've seen God's people confined by any denomination, it seems I've more leeway than many in finding those who are elders.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg117940#msg117940 date=1281564562]If one is individualistic as you pronounceI refrain from answering the question attached to this as I have made no such pronouncement. I find it a sad situation that I see no coagulation of the congregation of God's people.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg117940#msg117940 date=1281564562]As for the Bible, whether you want to state clearly or not, directly or not, it came from one of those Churches that you are trying to avoid. Before there was a King James, there was the Coptic, Greek, and Latin versions.You want me to state that the Bible came from those Churches, yes. But in the sense that driving from Mexico to Canada, one comes from the U.S. Presuming the U.S. hasn't messed you up to bad, people should still be able to figure you out when you reach Canada.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg117940#msg117940 date=1281564562]Please do not feel so alone as to avoid the obvious, and do not let pride deny you the pleasure of God's Presence.I have not felt really alone since I found out what the Bible was (see previous post). And I do try to be humble. I am aware that pride separates one from God. Thank you for the good advice.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg117940#msg117940 date=1281564562]There is no need to banter back and forth. ... You asked a question, we answered in different ways with different points to your question. Please do not continue with the thought of proselytizing on this forum.I have done nothing of the sort. I came to ask one question (which seemed relevant to the thread), I asked (providing at that time the information previous questioners had been required) and received my answer. As essentially a protestant (monitoring the thread for any questions posited to me), I was challenged and replied asking (besides rhetorical questions) only if I had skirted the issue, and I received my answer. Everything else has been a direct response to a question or challenge seemingly directed at me (note even how I did not respond to posts directed at Thackery until prompted such, in fact, I did not voice my disagreement with Thackery on certain issues because his posts were not directed at me). If it is desired that I cease posting, I will comply immediately without complaint upon being asked, though (as long as I am allowed) I will likely still continue reading this thread.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg117951#msg117951 date=1281569615]How is Christ the Head of the Church, if there is no Church?Because you and I have a different definition of Church, and I am trying to use yours. Without mincing words, God is head of all that is His, whether my definition or yours, He is the head of His people. They are His, who have Him as their head.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=9549.msg117950#msg117950 date=1281569174]A verse for anyone who falsely believes that the Holy Spirit is not a Person of the Holy Trinity:Though this does not technically describe me ("I haven't found a satisfactory explanation of how the Holy Spiritis a person" as I said before), I have not made a decision to believe or not believe in the structure of trinityness...as of yet, I have still not been able to find complete Biblical support. This is one issue as a valid translation of "spirit" is demeanor/attitude which can influence all actions, thus actions of it cannot be successful proof of doctrine of personhood. I will agree, however, that actions of the spirit can insinuate (especially to one who already views a spirit as a supernatural being already) personhood. I do appreciate the assistance on one of my current quests though. Thank you wholeheartedly.
My point relative to the "Church" is that there has to be a CHURCH for Christ to be Its Head. It is not an abstract idea, but a full manifestation of the word. The elders constitute those responsible for the CHURCH on earth in discipline and in commission from Her Master--Lord Jesus Christ.
I think that no one is perfect, every one is prone to sin and to weaknesses, especially since the fall of mankind when we all lost our ideal state that God made for us. That is why even the best elders are prone to mistakes and will be reproachable. But... God does not treat us as we treat each other, because He is perfect Love and He is the fullness of Wisdom, He has a better plan for us.
I thank your for your kind words. You are encouraging me to suggest a useful reading for you. While I was thinking about how to reply more for the important question about the Holy Spirit, I remembered the last chapter of a book in our CO Church discussing Jehovah's witnesses, from the Orthodox perspective.
One problem with the 'read the Bible and see where it leads approach is that this is not the apporach modelled at all in the early Church.
When the early Church was growing, as described in the Acts, there were no New Testaments. People came to the Church, the Apostolic Christian community, and were united to it in baptism and then learned the fullness of the faith.
It was IMPOSSIBLE for any of these early Christians to have sat down with the Bible (which didn't exist) and decided for themselves what it all meant, and then gone looking for a group of people who shared their personal opinions. This is IMPOSSIBLE. There was NO New Testament.
And we see that this same Acts approach is modelled by all we know of the early Church. In fact non-Christians would never be allowed access to the written texts as they became available. These were strictly texts produced by the Church, for the Church and to be understood IN the Church. A person would be attracted by the Christian message as it was shared by others, and would then become a catechumen, receive instruction in those aspects of the Faith which were necessary for a beginner. These catechumens would not be given a New Testament and told to go home and decide what it meant. When they became baptised members of the Christian community they would finally be allowed to participate in the entirety of Christian worship, from which they have previously been excluded, and would recieve further instruction in the deeper aspects of the Faith.
At no time in history, until the Protestant revolution, were people encouraged or taught or able, to read the Bible on their own and decide for themselves what it meant.
Therefore the very practice of doing so is already non-Christian, and non-Scriptural. It is ONLY by associating ourselves with the Apostolic Christian community that we experience and participate in and become members of the Christian community. We do not choose what we want to believe. We RECEIVE what is taught.
This is the New Testament method. It is the early Church method. It is the 3rd century method. It is the ONLY Christian method. Anything else is very likely to go astray because it is not the Christian way of becoming a Christian. If we take the example of the CoGI. It comes from a group started about 80 years ago and which has already fractured into 8 or 10 or more groups of people - all reading the Bible and deciding for themselves what it means. Yet the Orthodox Church has remained essentially undivided for 2000 years. There are not hundreds of Coptic Christian denominations. Just one. Yet my own faith tradition of origin, the Plymouth Brethren, just in the UK, had split into 10 or 12 groups within a couple of generations of its beginning.
If you will read the Bible and decide for yourself what it means then you will be led astray. It has already been tried. There are already too many Protestant denominations all created over the last 50 years even by people doing the same thing. The very fact that you do not consider the Holy Spirit a person - and I say this gently - puts you far outside all Christian theology.
We can only learn what the Apostolic Christian faith means by listening to the Apostles, and to those they taught. Forcing our own opinions on their words is not the Christian way. Start reading the Apostolic Fathers. These men all knew the Apostles, or were taught by someone who personally knew the Apostles.
St Polycarp St Ignatius of Antioch St Justin Martyr St Irenaeus of Lyons The Didache
These are a good start. They clearly show us how we should understand the Apostolic Faith. They lived what the Apostles themselves taught.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg117995#msg117995 date=1281613513]My point relative to the "Church" is that there has to be a CHURCH for Christ to be Its Head. It is not an abstract idea, but a full manifestation of the word. The elders constitute those responsible for the CHURCH on earth in discipline and in commission from Her Master--Lord Jesus Christ. For this to work, we have to remove the ambiguity. I suppose this may seem like proselytizing, however, it is intended only for clarification so that the topic can be resolved between us.
The difference being: Church in English refers to an organization made up of Christians (or parts thereof), ἐκκλησία (the Greek word translated into Church) means any group of assembled people including those which are not Christian, though clearly when speaking of God's ἐκκλησία, it would be those assembled for Him. An ἐκκλησία is not necessarily a persisting structure like a Church (as the dictionary presents), for when the people disperse, there is no longer a group assembled.
I believe if you showed most Churches of today and even of only centuries after them to the apostles they would not recognize them.
As I clearly do not know the doctrine of your Church, I cannot remark on the responsibility or persistent office of elder (if that is an actual office in your Church). I can only comment on what the Bible speaks. And that is where elders are people who are older. Be submissive to them, after all, time and experience has increased their knowledge. Do not entertain accusation against them without multiple witnesses. Give double honor to those of these who have led well. Well, you can read the Bible as easily as I, but I ask you this, in English, when you hear, "Respect your elders," do you think of a religious office or of people who are older? I do not see the need for offices and organizations for the Bible to make sense of the passages on elders.
In regard to elder as a term, in the two uses, they are distinctly different. Sure 'elder' may be a senior citizen, but the English rendering of 'elder' for presbyter (as an official of the church) is different.
I appreciate your use of the Greek word for church 'eklesia' but as you know there are evolutions to words, such as the words: 'awful' and 'terrible' or even the more colloquial 'cool'. The fact that a given word, in a given point in history has one meaning, and then it grows in its encompassed point is also possible. True, the early Christians met in sequestered quarters, but as with an amazing thing of growth, edifices and basilicas were erected. Moreover, administration had to develop in order to meet the needs of the faithful. It should not be in a haphazard fashion, but within the guidelines of the Biblical writings, Biblical Tradition, and Apostolic Tradition and Teachings (both written and as passed orally).
I believe that the Coptic Church has been faithful to that cause and aim. We are unique, certainly others have made that claim. Yet, there are some amazing points about this Church of Alexandria, and I invite you to learn about Her. You may be surprised, and pleasantly in that gain.
May I suggest:
(1) The Copts and Christian Civilization, by Aziz S. Atiya. University of Utah Press, 1979. It is probably out of print, but you can get a copy on Amazon.
(2) Comparative Theology, by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, 1996 (You may download a copy in pdf format with Adobe Acrobat or even to any of the portable electronic readers).
In a Jewish and the Christian context ekklesia does not mean 'any old gathering of people'. It is a word used often in the Old Testament to describe the intentional gathering together to worship God, and it means in Greek the organised and structured assembly to conduct business. It is both an organised and a purposeful gathering, and it is not one that just ceases to exist as soon as the meeting is concluded.
The Town Council is a secular ekklesia. It is especially manifest when the Council is in session, but it does not cease to exist when the councillor head of to conduct their various responsibilities. It intends to meet again to confirm the actions that have taken place in its name in between the sessions.
When our Lord said, 'I will build my Church, my ekklesia' he had in mind the Jewish ekklesia which was already a part of the spiritual tradition. This was not a random gathering of Jews, it was the community of all Israelites, which found organisation in the Temple and the priesthood, and especially when all came together at the Feast of the Passover. It had no ceased to exist ever since the first use of the word ekklesia to describe the gathering of the Israelites at Sinai to receive the tablets of the Covenant with God. They became the Ekklesia of God then, and remained it. It was not a matter of mere gathering together over a pint in a pub, it was the purposed gathering together of God's people by God and with the order and structure which God provided.
When our Lord said, 'I will build my ekklesia' he most certainly did not have in mind some meeting which would close and the ekklesia would disappear. Nor did he mean an invisible community which no one could tell who was a member or not. He meant entirely that he was calling together a new community, a new congregation, with a new purpose and a new order, and this ekklesia was the community governed by the Apostles. There was no other. You were either a member of Christ's ekklesia, the Apostolic community, or you were not. It was nothing to do with simple meetings every now and again. It was and is THE ekklesia of Christ, just as Israel was called to be the ekklesia of God.
In my own Brethren Assembly background the communion service would be called the meeting. This is an English translation of ekklesia. But even the Brethren did not mean, any old meeting, they meant THE meeting, THE gathering, THE community, which referred to the congregation of the faithful both when they were gathered and when they were not.
There is no other common meaning for ekklesia in the New Testament and the Old Testament. It has the theological substance of God's people gathered together and in a visible organisation. The mere etymology of a word will not take you far. If you want to know how a word should be used you must ask those who used it, not rely on your own guesswork.
Both Jews and Christians have the same tradition of the same word. You do not create a temporary gathering that ceases to exist. You call together a community that persists and has boundaries. This has been the teaching from the time of the Apostles. If you will not listen to the Apostles but only to the voice of your own opinions - however well meant - then you will always be led astray.
I will build my ekklesia.
Where is this ekklesia then? The one that Christ built, that is solid and lasting? Is it the one that the disciples of the Apostles took care of or not? Please answer that question. If it is not then our Lord lied when he said that the Church would not fail. If it is then surely you must read the writings of those disciples to see what they taught from the Apostles.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=9549.msg118000#msg118000 date=1281617991]I think that no one is perfect, every one is prone to sin and to weaknesses, especially since the fall of mankind when we all lost our ideal state that God made for us. That is why even the best elders are prone to mistakes and will be reproachable. But... God does not treat us as we treat each other, because He is perfect Love and He is the fullness of Wisdom, He has a better plan for us.Agreed; you're welcome; and thank you again for the resources. I look forward to reviewing them. I probably will read the Holy Spirit one sooner as I am, as I said, on a particular quest to find direct Biblical support for personhood...or acknowledge it's not there, whichever the case may be, you know, as long as it's the truth.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg118003#msg118003 date=1281618961]At no time in history, until the Protestant revolution, were people encouraged or taught or able, to read the Bible on their own and decide for themselves what it meant. Except that:
Jesus reprimanded the public for their ignorance of scripture: Matthew 21:42, Matthew 22:29, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24 Jesus acknowledged that people searched the scriptures: John 5:39 Jesus expects people to know the scriptures: John 7:38, John 7:42 An Ethiopian eunuch seen reading scripture: Acts 8:28 People in Berea called more "fair-minded", "nobel", "noble-minded" (etc. depending on translation) for searching scripture to make sure that what they were being told was not lies: Acts 17:11 Paul expects people to know the scriptures: Romans 11:2, 2 Timothy 3:15 Peter acknowledges that there are those who even have Paul's writings: 2 Peter 3:16
If the Almighty God says one thing and you say another, who should be called false? I don't mean to be offensive in my directness, but I find it very unlikely that God's Word created the universe, time, logic and even communication itself and yet He doesn't know how to make coherent sense to very creatures He Himself created. You are very clear that your Church does not want people to allow God to speak to them directly through His Word. I am quite well aware of the damage that would do to your organization if your members began doing this, fervently studying the scriptures and testing all the things presented them with the scriptures, and I entirely and completely understand the enthusiasm in your position.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg118003#msg118003 date=1281618961]The very fact that you do not consider the Holy Spirit a person...puts you far outside all Christian theologyThough I can't agree with the first part (I am still considering both perspectives), I would comment on the conclusion: I have been told I am not a Christian before and in different ways some gentler than others (yours was medium really). But I'm okay with all this because I would rather be outside, yes, far outside all Christian theology with God's Word than to be in the dead center of it without His Word.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg118014#msg118014 date=1281624293]In regard to elder as a term, in the two uses, they are distinctly different. Sure 'elder' may be a senior citizen, but the English rendering of 'elder' for presbyter (as an official of the church) is different.The English word elder in the time of Strong's concordance has held essentially the same meanings as it does today. And the common use (older person) seems to make sense in context. Not that the theological use (a religious office) doesn't...that is, if you believe the history your Church teaches.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg118014#msg118014 date=1281624293]...but as with an amazing thing of growth, edifices and basilicas were erected. Moreover, administration had to develop in order to meet the needs of the faithful. It should not be in a haphazard fashion, but within the guidelines of the Biblical writings, Biblical Tradition, and Apostolic Tradition and Teachings (both written and as passed orally).And that is part of the history of your Church which clearly, I have not yet been convinced to accept. Though, I probably will review some of those documents in the Theology link you gave.
You see you are twisting things, though I am sure unwittingly.
No-one has said that people should be ignorant of Scripture.
The Jews were the people of God, and were in a similar relation to God as the members of the Church today. The members of the Church SHOULD have a good knowledge of the Scripture. They received that knowledge in the synagogues where the scrolls of the Torah were carefully kept and were interpreted by those who were recognised as having that ability. THEY WERE NOT FOR PERSONAL USE. They belonged to the community and in the community.
The Ethiopian eunuch may be commended as someone seeking after God, but while he studied what he had on his own HE GOT NOWHERE. It was only when St Philip, as a teacher in the Church, interpreted the Scriptures to him that he understood correctly and was able to enter into the community of life.
The Church should have a knowledge of the Scriptures and does have. We do not essentially make things up as we go along. We study carefully what those who lived closest to the Apostles, and those who have lived lives of sanctity, teach us the Scriptures mean. When I want to know what a passage means I turn instinctively to the writings of the great Christians who lived 1700 years ago, even 1850 and 1900 years ago. They, by any reasonable external standard, let alone the witness of the Holy Spirit, will be more authoritative in knowing what the Church teaches, in knowing what the Apostles teach, in knowing what the Scriptures mean, than any single 21st century person reading the Bible alone and deciding what it means.
Nothing you have said in the last post represents your own position, which is that of a single person reading for themselves and by themselves and deciding for themselves what the Bible means. The only person representing this situation are the Ethiopian eunuch who needed the help of the Church, in St Philip, to understand.
When the crowd gathered at Pentecost they did not say, 'Let us go home and each one of us decide what this means in the privacy of our own studies'. No, they turned to the Church, the Apostolic community, and heakened to the words of the Apostles, then having heard the message they asked, 'What shall we do?'. And this community continued in the Apostles teaching and fellowship and the breaking of bread and prayer.
How could they hear the teaching of the Apostles when it had not been written down? How could they break bread and pray if they had no written instructions? All of this shows plainly and clearly that the Church, the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit comes before the written word, and the ACTUAL PRACTICE of the Apostles and the early Church MUST, ABSOLUTELY MUST inform the reading of the Scripture.
If I was writing a book about Churchill and added a section about how much he loved cigars, I could call on all manner of evidence from photos etc that show him smoking a cigar. But what if there were historic letters from his wife, and from close friends and employees, who all stated that he never smoked cigars but just liked to be photographed with one as he felt it made him look dignified. What then if someone just kept saying - LOOK AT THE PHOTOS! Wouldn't we think he was being foolish for denying all the other material which put this habit of Churchill's in context, and explained his habit with contemporary and near contemporary material. Would we value at all any historian who just ignored these letters and said that all he needed to do was look at the photos to know all about Churchill. Yet this is what you, and most protestants are doing. You are taking one aspect of the Christian tradition, isolating it entirely from its context, and then forcing your opinions back onto it at all costs. You are ignoring the evidence from those who were gathered around the Apostles, were their disciples and knew exactly what they meant.
In this case, you have taken Scriptures which show that those who are members of God's community, or pretend to be, should know the Scriptures, and are reading into these verses that you have the authority to read the Bible yourself, as someone who is not a member of the Church, and decide for yourself what it means. This is twisting the Scripture. This is taking it out of context and making a pretext.
The Ethiopian eunuch did not say to St Philip, 'Well you have some interesting ideas, but actually I've already studied this myself and have my own opinions'. On the contrary, moved by the Holy Spirit of God he says, 'How can I understand unless some man guide me?'.
This is the true and scriptural and historic relationship of the enquirer to the Church, the visible and organised Christian community or ekklesia of God.
You know, I think I'm going to skip replying to the ἐκκλησία conversation and skip to the brunt of the issue.
I believe that the Bible is God's Word which comes from God and is God. I believe that God knows how to communicate and your claims that I am "deciding for [myself] what the Bible means" or the insinuation that I do not study it carefully are unfounded because I know that studying It is how to understand It.
You believe that the Bible is a product of men, perhaps men inspired by God, but is incomplete and must be taken with more products of men in order to be understand, (again perhaps men inspired by God).
We have fundamentally different starting points. And I don't have a reason to believe your history, thus, your words seem stained to me for that history...as I'm sure you would say that my words seem unenlightened without your history. I believe this is simply an impassable fundamental obstacle to us agreeing.
I would say one thing about what you said about the eunuch's passage which you used against me. When I read that passage in Isaiah and it made immediate sense to me. Why? Because I've heard the story of Jesus. Even the Bible says that it was hidden from the world till He came and clearly the eunuch simply hadn't heard yet. What did it take for the eunuch to understand the Word of God? Jesus, that is, more Word of God. I bet even an elementary school child whose heard the story of Jesus could understand Isaiah 53:7-8, the specific passage that confused the eunuch, do we have any elementary school children here?
Fr Peter's reply #69 was very logical and brilliant.You do not need to skip replying, either refute or just listen and appreciate it.It is for your own good.Do not resort to "It is a goat, even it fies" mentality.
No-one can stop you doing whatever you want, but you have already shown that the process you have adopted is not leading you towards the Christian faith since you do not believe what the Christian faith teaches.
I can't think of any who doubt that the Holy Spirit is a divine person save the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Does this not give you any cause to doubt that you are on the right course.
You also believe that the Bible is God. This is again another novelty that is unique to yourself.
Surely you can see that the liklihood that you alone are correct is 0%. And that those who knew the Apostles and learned from them are correct must approach 100%.
An interesting point I'd like to bring up is that Isaiah says: “In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at its border”
This altar in the midst of Egypt is none other than the Coptic Orthodox Church. As you can see God sees that what we’re doing is good, which is why he inspired Isaiah to prophecy this.
Also Proverbs 9 says: 1 Wisdom has built her house, She has hewn out her seven pillars; 2 She has slaughtered her meat, She has mixed her wine, She has also furnished her table. 3 She has sent out her maidens, She cries out from the highest places of the city, 4 “ Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” As for him who lacks understanding, she says to him, 5 “ Come, eat of my bread And drink of the wine I have mixed. 6 Forsake foolishness and live, And go in the way of understanding.
What is the house but the church, and what are the seven pillars, but the seven sacraments. This wine is none other than the blood of Christ which starts the liturgy as wine, and the bread is the Body which starts the liturgy as bread.
You are very clear that your Church does not want people to allow God to speak to them directly through His Word. I am quite well aware of the damage that would do to your organization if your members began doing this, fervently studying the scriptures and testing all the things presented them with the scriptures, and I entirely and completely understand the enthusiasm in your position.
2 Peter 1:20-21 says: "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
You're also twisting what we think. Have you honestly read the commentaries of the fathers, to say that we shouldn't rely on their interpretations. I can tell that you yourself have good intentions, but I fear that the devil has decieved you. The Holy Spirit is in fact a person of the trinity which is shown in 1 John 5:7:
"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
Also as for the importance of tradition St. Paul the Apostle acknowledges it in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 which says: "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us."
There is no one that has said that the Bible is incomplete, not by any means. There are different aspects to Apostolic Tradition, and mostly it is the erudition, exposition, interpretation, and incarnation of the words in the Bible of "The Word" [Logos]--Jesus Christ.
I appreciate that you said you would at least look at the items that I linked and reference.
Out of curiosity: Would you consider the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons as Christians?
I was reading about Augustine just now, and interestingly, St Ambrose told him to read Isaiah when he was wanting to become a Christian, because it more clearly foretold the Gospel message.
But when Augustine picked it up he found its meaning eluded him.
I did not understand the first passage of the book, and thought the whole would be equally obscure.
So it would seem that the Ethiopian eunuchs experience was not unique, and even a giant mind like Augustine's needed to ask the Church for a man to explain it to him.
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=9549.msg118045#msg118045 date=1281644921]Fr Peter's reply #69 was very logical and brilliant.You do not need to skip replying, either refute or just listen and appreciate it.It is for your own good.Do not resort to "It is a goat, even it fies" mentality.My entire previous response was devoted to that post #69. I have read it thoroughly and reread it even just now. I have nothing more to say on it that wasn't said in post #70 and everything Peter said was covered in that response. Though, I could reword this, "but is incomplete and must be taken" to this, "but is incomplete without being taken" as it will suite better to the posts I have read, and hopefully a more accurate representation of what I've understood come to me from here.
It was actually post #67 (on ἐκκλησία) that I skipped replying to not because of agreement/disagreement, but because of time and importance. Mincing definitions is unproductive and I am now sticking to trying to use the Church meaning as best I detect it is used by everyone else here.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg118046#msg118046 date=1281644997]I can't think of any who doubt that the Holy Spirit is a divine person save the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Does this not give you any cause to doubt that you are on the right course.According to religionfacts.com, Mormons believe the Holy Spirit is a "being," (though differently than Trinitarians) this is one aspect of the Holy Trinity I have not been able to confirm scripturally so far. I am still searching and will not give up easily. After all, it is a persuasive prospect to agree with the vast majority of people I know on this important doctrinal aspect. Jehovah's Whitnesses (according to watchtower.org) believe it is a "force." In my searching for "being"ness, I have come across nothing to inspire that idea, but for completeness I must admit I have yet to consider it positively or negatively.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg118046#msg118046 date=1281644997]You also believe that the Bible is God. This is again another novelty that is unique to yourself.I'm not going to deny that it is unique to myself (though of this I am not certain), but as long as I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that the Word of God is God, then it would be highly illogical of me to believe that the Bible is not God.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg118046#msg118046 date=1281644997]Surely you can see that the liklihood that you alone are correct is 0%. And that those who knew the Apostles and learned from them are correct must approach 100%.You stating my falseness has nowhere near the impact of God doing it.
[quote author=anba bola link=topic=9549.msg118047#msg118047 date=1281645708]You're also twisting what we think.Probably, it's going from one worldview to a completely different worldview and back. It's not an easy process.
[quote author=anba bola link=topic=9549.msg118047#msg118047 date=1281645708]The Holy Spirit is in fact a person of the trinity which is shown in 1 John 5:7I appreciate the help, but I've already tried that one. Fact is, it still doesn't say that it's a person. Anyways, I simply can't base such an important doctrine only on a single verse on which even the copies of scripture disagree. After all, many of these copies may have been in the hands of evil men trying to con by pressing into it false additions or deletions. See footnote in NKJV: "NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8 ). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek." Which would bring your quote of, "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." down to..."For there are three that bear witness", not really a useful statement on the subject. Of course, this begs the question...why in the world would the translators of the NKJV include it?
[quote author=anba bola link=topic=9549.msg118047#msg118047 date=1281645708]Also as for the importance of tradition St. Paul the Apostle acknowledges it in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 which says: "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us."Again to the same problem, my failure to accept your history. If I accepted your history and thus accepted that your history was the tradition of which he spoke, we would be in tremendous agreement.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg118051#msg118051 date=1281649108]There is no one that has said that the Bible is incomplete, not by any means. There are different aspects to Apostolic Tradition, and mostly it is the erudition, exposition, interpretation, and incarnation of the words in the Bible of "The Word" [Logos]--Jesus Christ.You'll see I've reworded that above. I did that before even reading your statement here.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg118051#msg118051 date=1281649108]I appreciate that you said you would at least look at the items that I linked and reference.You're welcome. I do appreciate the information, but as yet have not had a chance to look at any of it.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg118051#msg118051 date=1281649108]Out of curiosity: Would you consider the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons as Christians?The individuals, some maybe, I'd have to meet them. I haven't met many so far. The organizations, no.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg118066#msg118066 date=1281656795]But when Augustine picked it up he found its meaning eluded him.This incident must have a significant meaning for you.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg118066#msg118066 date=1281656795]I did not understand the first passage of the book, and thought the whole would be equally obscure."passage" is a term which normally insinuates specific boundaries. If you could specify chapters/verses, I would be better suited to understand your comparison.
Well, this has been a lot to respond to. It has been a good experience though. I do sincerely hope you guys are enjoying this conversation as much as I am.
you must believe in the devil, a roaring lion seeking lambs to devour...
I wonder, when you read the Bible on your own, how do you know that your interpretation is indeed the correct one? How do you know you are not being deceived by the devil, as you yourself think many others (including the Orthodox) were deceived?
After all, both of us (Orthodox and non-Othodox) we read the same Bible (even if different translations) we seem to have completely different world views, if anything, this shows how 2 individuals can interpret the Bible in such different ways.. so do you believe there can be several valid interpretations? If not, if you, as we, believe there can be only one truth, do you believe you are in possession of it? That your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one?
This is not meant to be insulting in any way.. just food for thought...
John 4:23-25 (NKJV) 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” 25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (who is called Christ). When He comes, He will tell us all things.”
God is Holy + God is Spirit -> therefore God is also Holy Spirit
God the Father and God the Son and God the Spirit -> is the same One GOD , the HOLY ONE.
Thus we can now understand why did Jesus Christ (the Messiah) commands us to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. God teaches us He has three Hypostases, i.e. the three Persons are the One God, are Him and in Him - they are not just power(s) but the true One Holy God "I AM".
Also, a good food for thought: 1 Corinthians 2:11 (NKJV) For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
Let us ask God for His loving continual guidance and for the marvelous blessing of the gift of His Holy Spirit who is pleased to dwell in every one of us, as we are hopefully repenting now from our sins. Indeed God is Love, and He is also the powerful Almighty Lord of Hosts.
Matthew 12:32 (NKJV) Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
Please Lord forgive us and bless us all, and accept our humble prayers for each other. Amen.
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=9549.msg118084#msg118084 date=1281697846]you must believe in the devil, a roaring lion seeking lambs to devour...Why do you feel I must believe in the devil? You may answer some of your own questions by answering that.
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=9549.msg118084#msg118084 date=1281697846]I wonder, when you read the Bible on your own, how do you know that your interpretation is indeed the correct one?How do you know your interpretation of what I'm writing here is correct? Since I believe the Bible is a message from God and God (who invented communication) knows how to communicate, (and thanks to the tremendous work of translators), for the most part, I just take it for what it says. If there is something I don't understand, I ask God by praying and searching the Bible (sometimes this involves checking different translations and word origins due to human error involved in passing His message to me). If there's something of mine you don't understand in this thread, wouldn't you search my posts in this thread, my website, facebook page or autobiography (if I had one), perhaps the dictionary (for questions like "what in the world does 'flobi' mean?"), or ask me directly?
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=9549.msg118084#msg118084 date=1281697846]How do you know you are not being deceived by the devil, as you yourself think many others (including the Orthodox) were deceived?Quite the contrary, I am well aware that Satan's deception to the world is immense and would be a fool if I thought I was immune. Additionally, I am aware that there is evil in my heart which causes me to fail. Then again, there are still things which may be hidden until Jesus's glorious return. I just keep studying scripture trusting that if I am persistent in an honest search for truth (as opposed to simply finding things that could be taken to mean what I already think or what people tell me), God will give me the important information I need at any given moment.
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=9549.msg118084#msg118084 date=1281697846]After all, both of us (Orthodox and non-Othodox) we read the same Bible (even if different translations) we seem to have completely different world views, if anything, this shows how 2 individuals can interpret the Bible in such different ways.. I think (perhaps I'm about to say what you said in a different way) that we are, in fact, not reading the same book because of the different world view (even if the same translation). Something changed when I change to this view, and despite having the Bible my entire life, it was entirely new, even passages I've heard and read hundreds of times.
Look at the plight of the origins debate. At fundamental levels, the sides have such incredibly different understandings of the source of the universe and its purpose, so though they may have the same physical objects and phenomena, from an effective perspective they are not even looking at the same universe. Of course, from an absolute level a maximum of one of these can be true (even if it is Last Thursdayism).
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=9549.msg118084#msg118084 date=1281697846]so do you believe there can be several valid interpretations?I believe God can speak separate things to individuals even sometimes reading the same passages just as DNA (also written by God) reuses the same sections of code to preform multiple tasks. I would agree that there are several different meanings that God can convey from individual passages, but that in the case of irreconcilable differences in human interpretation, at max only one can be true (it is possible neither is).
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=9549.msg118084#msg118084 date=1281697846]If not, if you, as we, believe there can be only one truth, do you believe you are in possession of it? That your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one?The Word of God is truth, so, "Yes," to the first question. To the second, I understand I am not perfect and that my ducks aren't in a straight line. My faith is in God and that faith is positively and absolutely knowing He will not let me down. He said that the Holy Spirit comes from the Word and to get to the Father go to the Word; how can I do anything else? If everything else about me is wrong, it is my own fault for sinning and having evil in my heart. Even if this is the only thing, God will remember me for something good.
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=9549.msg118084#msg118084 date=1281697846]This is not meant to be insulting in any way.. just food for thought...I didn't come across in any way insulting. And to all, I would repeat this message. I have meant nothing in anything I have said here in any insulting way. If you have felt offended by me, please let me know so that I can offer my sincerest apologies.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=9549.msg118090#msg118090 date=1281702449]John 4:23-25 (NKJV) 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” 25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (who is called Christ). When He comes, He will tell us all things.”I'm afraid I've tried that one as well. Unfortunately, that's backwards of what I would need. At bare minimum, Spirit is God would indicate that the Spirit is a being (as God is a being), but not necessarily indicating that the Spirit is not actually the same "person" as the Father (another aspect I have been unable to locate in scripture). Since spirit can be a property (e.g. My cubicle walls are fabric), it is not necessarily a one to one reversible relationship, and obviously not since Jesus is God and He is flesh and bones.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=9549.msg118090#msg118090 date=1281702449]Thus we can now understand why did Jesus Christ (the Messiah) commands us to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.I've looked into this one too, but since scripture frequently uses parallelisms (e.g. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob) for emphasis, this doesn't necessarily provide positive identification in and of itself to there being three "persons" or "beings." I do see, however, if one already has accepted this Trinity belief, that this would seem a very supportive passage.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=9549.msg118090#msg118090 date=1281702449]Matthew 12:32 (NKJV) Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.This is one passage that led me to the importance of verifying the Trinity doctrine with scripture. With such absolute words, it seemed imperative that proper identification be established.
And now, I realize that I owe everyone here an apology. I have realized right before clicking "Post" below that every word I say is proselytizing. When I talk about God, my heart fills so immediately with ecstasy and in my soul I feel like every word I say and type is a contained scream, "Yes! He Is!"
I expect that my words should be shredded when I leave, and I will leave them such. It has, been a complete pleasure chatting with you guys on this and I pray happiness for all of you. I would leave you with some word of encouragement. Whoever you follow, do so wholeheartedly and the full fruit of whoever you follow will be manifest in you.
the Holy Spirit is certainly a Hypostasis, and not a force for these reasons:
• He speaks.
For the Lord said to His saintly disciples “for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you” (Matthew 10:20). And Saint Paul the apostle says, “Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts” (Hebrews 3:7-9). It is the Spirit who said, “Now, separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2). Therefore, He speaks and calls.
• He teaches, reminds, guides, tells and convicts.
This is evident in the words of the Lord to the disciples about the Holy Spirit, for He says, “He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all the things that I said to you” (John 14:26), and “When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth ... and He will tell you things to come” (John 16:13), and “He will convict the world of sin” (John 16:8).
• He leads the believers, whether they be congregation or individuals.
Saint Paul the apostle says that, “For as many as are led the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” (Romans 8:14).
• He also sets up shepherds.
Saint Paul the Apostle said to the bishops of Ephesus, “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (Acts 20:28); also see Acts 13:2.
• It is also the Holy Spirit Who determines the way and movement of ministers.
Saint Luke the Evangelist says of Saint Paul and his companions, “Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia. After they had come to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them” (Acts 16:6,7).
The Holy Spirit helps and comforts the believers, making intercession for them.
The Lord Jesus Christ says, “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever” (John 14:16). Saint Paul says of Him, “the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (Romans 8:26).
Since He speaks, teaches, reminds, guides, tells, convicts, leads the believers and sets up shepherds, determining their movement and helping and interceding, does it not follow that He is a Hypostasis?
As for the power, it is a consequence of His coming upon the believers, “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Acts 1:8). His coming upon believers also gives zeal and wisdom and knowledge.
I copied that from Pope Shenouda's book about the heresies of Jehovah's Witnesses. I’d also like to add that there isn’t a drop of evidence in the Bible that he is a force.
This also draws back to the Church fathers. None of the fathers spoke of the Holy Spirit being a force, and these were received the teachings of the Apostles themselves.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=9549.msg118119#msg118119 date=1281734071]I read he is leaving.For the sake of not misleading, I am still reading. I apologize if I mislead. For all intensive purposes, my leaving is that I will not proselytize by speaking of God. Though, frankly, for practical purposes that eliminates a very good portion of my spirit.
I have updated my profile (instant messaging addresses, etc.) so that I am not anonymous. I never really intended to be, I just never really thought about that aspect. I am also being notified via email of replies on this topic. But I will try my best to abide by the request and not proselytize.
Good! because there is a crucial point I wanted to address.
made of fabric
The spiritual cannot be compared in any way as a 1 to 1 characteristic(s) with the material.
Within our human limits, when we say spirit it is used as a spirit (for example specifically: the human, or a generally: a will whether good or evil, intrinsic and/or extrinsic), or the Spirit meaning God's Spirit.
Obviously God's Spirit cannot be considered as a mere attribute, as we do in describing any created things but it specifically means the Divine Will of the living Spirit of God, i.e. He is Him.
We know that a personal free will cannot originate from matter but the only possible logical way is to be the product of an intellectual, spiritual in nature, being.
So to digest this, the spiritual cannot be correctly understood from the usual approach of physical or chemical or any kind of current or future public or hidden scientific material properties.
We could not even accept the spiritual idea unless we are each one a true spirit also. Each one of our individual created spirits God's Spirit said He created in Their likeness. That is why we have the capacity to think, to speak and to act in free will: I find these are closely inter-related yet three distinct characteristics too - in a much smaller scale of course than the Creator.
The principle of service is always the same. It requires a willing heart and a willing mind. When we serve the Lord I think He will not consider how we did it, but to what purpose we did it.
Here are my comments....for it is mine and if there is something wrong, then the fault is mine...This verses are my guide why I found this church.
The completeness of Bible?
"Rev 8:12 Then the fourth angel sounded: And a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them were darkened. A third of the day did not shine, and likewise the night."
It is in the library of Apostolic churches a thousand years ago, SOME teachings and scriptures, as of now it is in Vatican...but precious in Syria, Alexandria, Armenia and India...precious also in Axum...few of it i already read, more I want someday, GOD-permit.
With the start of post and heated forum, cheer up Copts, here is what ive read;
"Rev 11:3 "And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth." Rev 11:4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the God of the earth. Rev 11:5 And if anyone wants to harm them, fire proceeds from their mouth and devours their enemies. And if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this manner."
ex, St. Athanasius, James Bar Adai, etc...its in your blood....just share your light.
and "MY COPTIC CHURCH" lyrics....its worth living for.
Comments
[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=9549.msg117939#msg117939 date=1281564485]Also, although you question Orthodox Christianity, your faith in Christ seems very strong. I would only caution you from letting any conversation you have with a member of any church to be representative of that entire church. Make sure your search is thorough.Strangely, I actually only came to ask one question, and that was how this Church verifies it's doctrine. I do appreciate your encouragement, concern and advice.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg117940#msg117940 date=1281564562]Here's a question: When the Bible calls for a person to seek out the elders of the Church (when someone is sick)...Who are those elders? Do they not have a position, a title, a presence? Which Church? The Bible is specific: "An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient." As I've said, I do not believe that I've seen God's people confined by any denomination, it seems I've more leeway than many in finding those who are elders.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg117940#msg117940 date=1281564562]If one is individualistic as you pronounceI refrain from answering the question attached to this as I have made no such pronouncement. I find it a sad situation that I see no coagulation of the congregation of God's people.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg117940#msg117940 date=1281564562]As for the Bible, whether you want to state clearly or not, directly or not, it came from one of those Churches that you are trying to avoid. Before there was a King James, there was the Coptic, Greek, and Latin versions.You want me to state that the Bible came from those Churches, yes. But in the sense that driving from Mexico to Canada, one comes from the U.S. Presuming the U.S. hasn't messed you up to bad, people should still be able to figure you out when you reach Canada.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg117940#msg117940 date=1281564562]Please do not feel so alone as to avoid the obvious, and do not let pride deny you the pleasure of God's Presence.I have not felt really alone since I found out what the Bible was (see previous post). And I do try to be humble. I am aware that pride separates one from God. Thank you for the good advice.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg117940#msg117940 date=1281564562]There is no need to banter back and forth. ... You asked a question, we answered in different ways with different points to your question. Please do not continue with the thought of proselytizing on this forum.I have done nothing of the sort. I came to ask one question (which seemed relevant to the thread), I asked (providing at that time the information previous questioners had been required) and received my answer. As essentially a protestant (monitoring the thread for any questions posited to me), I was challenged and replied asking (besides rhetorical questions) only if I had skirted the issue, and I received my answer. Everything else has been a direct response to a question or challenge seemingly directed at me (note even how I did not respond to posts directed at Thackery until prompted such, in fact, I did not voice my disagreement with Thackery on certain issues because his posts were not directed at me). If it is desired that I cease posting, I will comply immediately without complaint upon being asked, though (as long as I am allowed) I will likely still continue reading this thread.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg117951#msg117951 date=1281569615]How is Christ the Head of the Church, if there is no Church?Because you and I have a different definition of Church, and I am trying to use yours. Without mincing words, God is head of all that is His, whether my definition or yours, He is the head of His people. They are His, who have Him as their head.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=9549.msg117950#msg117950 date=1281569174]A verse for anyone who falsely believes that the Holy Spirit is not a Person of the Holy Trinity:Though this does not technically describe me ("I haven't found a satisfactory explanation of how the Holy Spiritis a person" as I said before), I have not made a decision to believe or not believe in the structure of trinityness...as of yet, I have still not been able to find complete Biblical support. This is one issue as a valid translation of "spirit" is demeanor/attitude which can influence all actions, thus actions of it cannot be successful proof of doctrine of personhood. I will agree, however, that actions of the spirit can insinuate (especially to one who already views a spirit as a supernatural being already) personhood. I do appreciate the assistance on one of my current quests though. Thank you wholeheartedly.
My point relative to the "Church" is that there has to be a CHURCH for Christ to be Its Head. It is not an abstract idea, but a full manifestation of the word. The elders constitute those responsible for the CHURCH on earth in discipline and in commission from Her Master--Lord Jesus Christ.
I think that no one is perfect, every one is prone to sin and to weaknesses, especially since the fall of mankind when we all lost our ideal state that God made for us. That is why even the best elders are prone to mistakes and will be reproachable. But... God does not treat us as we treat each other, because He is perfect Love and He is the fullness of Wisdom, He has a better plan for us.
I thank your for your kind words.
You are encouraging me to suggest a useful reading for you. While I was thinking about how to reply more for the important question about the Holy Spirit, I remembered the last chapter of a book in our CO Church discussing Jehovah's witnesses, from the Orthodox perspective.
Find a chapter titled 'The Holy Spirit Hypostasis or Power?' on page 39:
http://books.google.com/books?id=FhfDf4VC130C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
You will read more Biblical verses on this for a clear and simply a natural deduction.
There is a bigger book treating the subject of 'Christ in the Eucharist':
http://books.google.com/books?id=TYay9WwmoeUC&lpg=PA1&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false
I have read many books, that helped me understand more about complex topics.
GBU
When the early Church was growing, as described in the Acts, there were no New Testaments. People came to the Church, the Apostolic Christian community, and were united to it in baptism and then learned the fullness of the faith.
It was IMPOSSIBLE for any of these early Christians to have sat down with the Bible (which didn't exist) and decided for themselves what it all meant, and then gone looking for a group of people who shared their personal opinions. This is IMPOSSIBLE. There was NO New Testament.
And we see that this same Acts approach is modelled by all we know of the early Church. In fact non-Christians would never be allowed access to the written texts as they became available. These were strictly texts produced by the Church, for the Church and to be understood IN the Church. A person would be attracted by the Christian message as it was shared by others, and would then become a catechumen, receive instruction in those aspects of the Faith which were necessary for a beginner. These catechumens would not be given a New Testament and told to go home and decide what it meant. When they became baptised members of the Christian community they would finally be allowed to participate in the entirety of Christian worship, from which they have previously been excluded, and would recieve further instruction in the deeper aspects of the Faith.
At no time in history, until the Protestant revolution, were people encouraged or taught or able, to read the Bible on their own and decide for themselves what it meant.
Therefore the very practice of doing so is already non-Christian, and non-Scriptural. It is ONLY by associating ourselves with the Apostolic Christian community that we experience and participate in and become members of the Christian community. We do not choose what we want to believe. We RECEIVE what is taught.
This is the New Testament method. It is the early Church method. It is the 3rd century method. It is the ONLY Christian method. Anything else is very likely to go astray because it is not the Christian way of becoming a Christian. If we take the example of the CoGI. It comes from a group started about 80 years ago and which has already fractured into 8 or 10 or more groups of people - all reading the Bible and deciding for themselves what it means. Yet the Orthodox Church has remained essentially undivided for 2000 years. There are not hundreds of Coptic Christian denominations. Just one. Yet my own faith tradition of origin, the Plymouth Brethren, just in the UK, had split into 10 or 12 groups within a couple of generations of its beginning.
If you will read the Bible and decide for yourself what it means then you will be led astray. It has already been tried. There are already too many Protestant denominations all created over the last 50 years even by people doing the same thing. The very fact that you do not consider the Holy Spirit a person - and I say this gently - puts you far outside all Christian theology.
We can only learn what the Apostolic Christian faith means by listening to the Apostles, and to those they taught. Forcing our own opinions on their words is not the Christian way. Start reading the Apostolic Fathers. These men all knew the Apostles, or were taught by someone who personally knew the Apostles.
St Polycarp
St Ignatius of Antioch
St Justin Martyr
St Irenaeus of Lyons
The Didache
These are a good start. They clearly show us how we should understand the Apostolic Faith. They lived what the Apostles themselves taught.
Father Peter
For this to work, we have to remove the ambiguity. I suppose this may seem like proselytizing, however, it is intended only for clarification so that the topic can be resolved between us.
It seems to me generally when English speakers say Church, they are generally referring to this: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/church , however, when trying to discuss church from a Biblical aspect (i.e. where the Bible uses the word church), it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation fallacy if you aren't talking about this instead: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1577&t=KJV
The difference being: Church in English refers to an organization made up of Christians (or parts thereof), ἐκκλησία (the Greek word translated into Church) means any group of assembled people including those which are not Christian, though clearly when speaking of God's ἐκκλησία, it would be those assembled for Him. An ἐκκλησία is not necessarily a persisting structure like a Church (as the dictionary presents), for when the people disperse, there is no longer a group assembled.
I believe if you showed most Churches of today and even of only centuries after them to the apostles they would not recognize them.
As I clearly do not know the doctrine of your Church, I cannot remark on the responsibility or persistent office of elder (if that is an actual office in your Church). I can only comment on what the Bible speaks. And that is where elders are people who are older. Be submissive to them, after all, time and experience has increased their knowledge. Do not entertain accusation against them without multiple witnesses. Give double honor to those of these who have led well. Well, you can read the Bible as easily as I, but I ask you this, in English, when you hear, "Respect your elders," do you think of a religious office or of people who are older? I do not see the need for offices and organizations for the Bible to make sense of the passages on elders.
In regard to elder as a term, in the two uses, they are distinctly different. Sure 'elder' may be a senior citizen, but the English rendering of 'elder' for presbyter (as an official of the church) is different.
I appreciate your use of the Greek word for church 'eklesia' but as you know there are evolutions to words, such as the words: 'awful' and 'terrible' or even the more colloquial 'cool'. The fact that a given word, in a given point in history has one meaning, and then it grows in its encompassed point is also possible. True, the early Christians met in sequestered quarters, but as with an amazing thing of growth, edifices and basilicas were erected. Moreover, administration had to develop in order to meet the needs of the faithful. It should not be in a haphazard fashion, but within the guidelines of the Biblical writings, Biblical Tradition, and Apostolic Tradition and Teachings (both written and as passed orally).
I believe that the Coptic Church has been faithful to that cause and aim. We are unique, certainly others have made that claim. Yet, there are some amazing points about this Church of Alexandria, and I invite you to learn about Her. You may be surprised, and pleasantly in that gain.
May I suggest:
(1) The Copts and Christian Civilization, by Aziz S. Atiya. University of Utah Press, 1979. It is probably out of print, but you can get a copy on Amazon.
(2) Comparative Theology, by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, 1996 (You may download a copy in pdf format with Adobe Acrobat or even to any of the portable electronic readers).
Here is a link: http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/index.html
The Town Council is a secular ekklesia. It is especially manifest when the Council is in session, but it does not cease to exist when the councillor head of to conduct their various responsibilities. It intends to meet again to confirm the actions that have taken place in its name in between the sessions.
When our Lord said, 'I will build my Church, my ekklesia' he had in mind the Jewish ekklesia which was already a part of the spiritual tradition. This was not a random gathering of Jews, it was the community of all Israelites, which found organisation in the Temple and the priesthood, and especially when all came together at the Feast of the Passover. It had no ceased to exist ever since the first use of the word ekklesia to describe the gathering of the Israelites at Sinai to receive the tablets of the Covenant with God. They became the Ekklesia of God then, and remained it. It was not a matter of mere gathering together over a pint in a pub, it was the purposed gathering together of God's people by God and with the order and structure which God provided.
When our Lord said, 'I will build my ekklesia' he most certainly did not have in mind some meeting which would close and the ekklesia would disappear. Nor did he mean an invisible community which no one could tell who was a member or not. He meant entirely that he was calling together a new community, a new congregation, with a new purpose and a new order, and this ekklesia was the community governed by the Apostles. There was no other. You were either a member of Christ's ekklesia, the Apostolic community, or you were not. It was nothing to do with simple meetings every now and again. It was and is THE ekklesia of Christ, just as Israel was called to be the ekklesia of God.
In my own Brethren Assembly background the communion service would be called the meeting. This is an English translation of ekklesia. But even the Brethren did not mean, any old meeting, they meant THE meeting, THE gathering, THE community, which referred to the congregation of the faithful both when they were gathered and when they were not.
There is no other common meaning for ekklesia in the New Testament and the Old Testament. It has the theological substance of God's people gathered together and in a visible organisation. The mere etymology of a word will not take you far. If you want to know how a word should be used you must ask those who used it, not rely on your own guesswork.
Both Jews and Christians have the same tradition of the same word. You do not create a temporary gathering that ceases to exist. You call together a community that persists and has boundaries. This has been the teaching from the time of the Apostles. If you will not listen to the Apostles but only to the voice of your own opinions - however well meant - then you will always be led astray.
I will build my ekklesia.
Where is this ekklesia then? The one that Christ built, that is solid and lasting? Is it the one that the disciples of the Apostles took care of or not? Please answer that question. If it is not then our Lord lied when he said that the Church would not fail. If it is then surely you must read the writings of those disciples to see what they taught from the Apostles.
Father Peter
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg118003#msg118003 date=1281618961]At no time in history, until the Protestant revolution, were people encouraged or taught or able, to read the Bible on their own and decide for themselves what it meant. Except that:
Jesus reprimanded the public for their ignorance of scripture: Matthew 21:42, Matthew 22:29, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24
Jesus acknowledged that people searched the scriptures: John 5:39
Jesus expects people to know the scriptures: John 7:38, John 7:42
An Ethiopian eunuch seen reading scripture: Acts 8:28
People in Berea called more "fair-minded", "nobel", "noble-minded" (etc. depending on translation) for searching scripture to make sure that what they were being told was not lies: Acts 17:11
Paul expects people to know the scriptures: Romans 11:2, 2 Timothy 3:15
Peter acknowledges that there are those who even have Paul's writings: 2 Peter 3:16
If the Almighty God says one thing and you say another, who should be called false? I don't mean to be offensive in my directness, but I find it very unlikely that God's Word created the universe, time, logic and even communication itself and yet He doesn't know how to make coherent sense to very creatures He Himself created. You are very clear that your Church does not want people to allow God to speak to them directly through His Word. I am quite well aware of the damage that would do to your organization if your members began doing this, fervently studying the scriptures and testing all the things presented them with the scriptures, and I entirely and completely understand the enthusiasm in your position.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg118003#msg118003 date=1281618961]The very fact that you do not consider the Holy Spirit a person...puts you far outside all Christian theologyThough I can't agree with the first part (I am still considering both perspectives), I would comment on the conclusion: I have been told I am not a Christian before and in different ways some gentler than others (yours was medium really). But I'm okay with all this because I would rather be outside, yes, far outside all Christian theology with God's Word than to be in the dead center of it without His Word.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg118014#msg118014 date=1281624293]In regard to elder as a term, in the two uses, they are distinctly different. Sure 'elder' may be a senior citizen, but the English rendering of 'elder' for presbyter (as an official of the church) is different.The English word elder in the time of Strong's concordance has held essentially the same meanings as it does today. And the common use (older person) seems to make sense in context. Not that the theological use (a religious office) doesn't...that is, if you believe the history your Church teaches.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg118014#msg118014 date=1281624293]...but as with an amazing thing of growth, edifices and basilicas were erected. Moreover, administration had to develop in order to meet the needs of the faithful. It should not be in a haphazard fashion, but within the guidelines of the Biblical writings, Biblical Tradition, and Apostolic Tradition and Teachings (both written and as passed orally).And that is part of the history of your Church which clearly, I have not yet been convinced to accept. Though, I probably will review some of those documents in the Theology link you gave.
No-one has said that people should be ignorant of Scripture.
The Jews were the people of God, and were in a similar relation to God as the members of the Church today. The members of the Church SHOULD have a good knowledge of the Scripture. They received that knowledge in the synagogues where the scrolls of the Torah were carefully kept and were interpreted by those who were recognised as having that ability. THEY WERE NOT FOR PERSONAL USE. They belonged to the community and in the community.
The Ethiopian eunuch may be commended as someone seeking after God, but while he studied what he had on his own HE GOT NOWHERE. It was only when St Philip, as a teacher in the Church, interpreted the Scriptures to him that he understood correctly and was able to enter into the community of life.
The Church should have a knowledge of the Scriptures and does have. We do not essentially make things up as we go along. We study carefully what those who lived closest to the Apostles, and those who have lived lives of sanctity, teach us the Scriptures mean. When I want to know what a passage means I turn instinctively to the writings of the great Christians who lived 1700 years ago, even 1850 and 1900 years ago. They, by any reasonable external standard, let alone the witness of the Holy Spirit, will be more authoritative in knowing what the Church teaches, in knowing what the Apostles teach, in knowing what the Scriptures mean, than any single 21st century person reading the Bible alone and deciding what it means.
Nothing you have said in the last post represents your own position, which is that of a single person reading for themselves and by themselves and deciding for themselves what the Bible means. The only person representing this situation are the Ethiopian eunuch who needed the help of the Church, in St Philip, to understand.
When the crowd gathered at Pentecost they did not say, 'Let us go home and each one of us decide what this means in the privacy of our own studies'. No, they turned to the Church, the Apostolic community, and heakened to the words of the Apostles, then having heard the message they asked, 'What shall we do?'. And this community continued in the Apostles teaching and fellowship and the breaking of bread and prayer.
How could they hear the teaching of the Apostles when it had not been written down? How could they break bread and pray if they had no written instructions? All of this shows plainly and clearly that the Church, the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit comes before the written word, and the ACTUAL PRACTICE of the Apostles and the early Church MUST, ABSOLUTELY MUST inform the reading of the Scripture.
If I was writing a book about Churchill and added a section about how much he loved cigars, I could call on all manner of evidence from photos etc that show him smoking a cigar. But what if there were historic letters from his wife, and from close friends and employees, who all stated that he never smoked cigars but just liked to be photographed with one as he felt it made him look dignified. What then if someone just kept saying - LOOK AT THE PHOTOS! Wouldn't we think he was being foolish for denying all the other material which put this habit of Churchill's in context, and explained his habit with contemporary and near contemporary material. Would we value at all any historian who just ignored these letters and said that all he needed to do was look at the photos to know all about Churchill. Yet this is what you, and most protestants are doing. You are taking one aspect of the Christian tradition, isolating it entirely from its context, and then forcing your opinions back onto it at all costs. You are ignoring the evidence from those who were gathered around the Apostles, were their disciples and knew exactly what they meant.
In this case, you have taken Scriptures which show that those who are members of God's community, or pretend to be, should know the Scriptures, and are reading into these verses that you have the authority to read the Bible yourself, as someone who is not a member of the Church, and decide for yourself what it means. This is twisting the Scripture. This is taking it out of context and making a pretext.
The Ethiopian eunuch did not say to St Philip, 'Well you have some interesting ideas, but actually I've already studied this myself and have my own opinions'. On the contrary, moved by the Holy Spirit of God he says, 'How can I understand unless some man guide me?'.
This is the true and scriptural and historic relationship of the enquirer to the Church, the visible and organised Christian community or ekklesia of God.
Father Peter
I believe that the Bible is God's Word which comes from God and is God. I believe that God knows how to communicate and your claims that I am "deciding for [myself] what the Bible means" or the insinuation that I do not study it carefully are unfounded because I know that studying It is how to understand It.
You believe that the Bible is a product of men, perhaps men inspired by God, but is incomplete and must be taken with more products of men in order to be understand, (again perhaps men inspired by God).
We have fundamentally different starting points. And I don't have a reason to believe your history, thus, your words seem stained to me for that history...as I'm sure you would say that my words seem unenlightened without your history. I believe this is simply an impassable fundamental obstacle to us agreeing.
I would say one thing about what you said about the eunuch's passage which you used against me. When I read that passage in Isaiah and it made immediate sense to me. Why? Because I've heard the story of Jesus. Even the Bible says that it was hidden from the world till He came and clearly the eunuch simply hadn't heard yet. What did it take for the eunuch to understand the Word of God? Jesus, that is, more Word of God. I bet even an elementary school child whose heard the story of Jesus could understand Isaiah 53:7-8, the specific passage that confused the eunuch, do we have any elementary school children here?
Fr Peter's reply #69 was very logical and brilliant.You do not need to skip replying, either refute or just listen and appreciate it.It is for your own good.Do not resort to "It is a goat, even it fies" mentality.
Thanks Fr Peter for the great analysis.
I can't think of any who doubt that the Holy Spirit is a divine person save the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Does this not give you any cause to doubt that you are on the right course.
You also believe that the Bible is God. This is again another novelty that is unique to yourself.
Surely you can see that the liklihood that you alone are correct is 0%. And that those who knew the Apostles and learned from them are correct must approach 100%.
An interesting point I'd like to bring up is that Isaiah says: “In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at its border”
This altar in the midst of Egypt is none other than the Coptic Orthodox Church. As you can see God sees that what we’re doing is good, which is why he inspired Isaiah to prophecy this.
Also Proverbs 9 says:
1 Wisdom has built her house,
She has hewn out her seven pillars;
2 She has slaughtered her meat,
She has mixed her wine,
She has also furnished her table.
3 She has sent out her maidens,
She cries out from the highest places of the city,
4 “ Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!”
As for him who lacks understanding, she says to him,
5 “ Come, eat of my bread
And drink of the wine I have mixed.
6 Forsake foolishness and live,
And go in the way of understanding.
What is the house but the church, and what are the seven pillars, but the seven sacraments. This wine is none other than the blood of Christ which starts the liturgy as wine, and the bread is the Body which starts the liturgy as bread. 2 Peter 1:20-21 says: "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
You're also twisting what we think. Have you honestly read the commentaries of the fathers, to say that we shouldn't rely on their interpretations. I can tell that you yourself have good intentions, but I fear that the devil has decieved you. The Holy Spirit is in fact a person of the trinity which is shown in 1 John 5:7:
"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
Also as for the importance of tradition St. Paul the Apostle acknowledges it in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 which says: "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us."
There is no one that has said that the Bible is incomplete, not by any means. There are different aspects to Apostolic Tradition, and mostly it is the erudition, exposition, interpretation, and incarnation of the words in the Bible of "The Word" [Logos]--Jesus Christ.
I appreciate that you said you would at least look at the items that I linked and reference.
Out of curiosity: Would you consider the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons as Christians?
But when Augustine picked it up he found its meaning eluded him.
I did not understand the first passage of the book, and thought the whole would be equally obscure.
So it would seem that the Ethiopian eunuchs experience was not unique, and even a giant mind like Augustine's needed to ask the Church for a man to explain it to him.
This is the way it has always been.
Father Peter
It was actually post #67 (on ἐκκλησία) that I skipped replying to not because of agreement/disagreement, but because of time and importance. Mincing definitions is unproductive and I am now sticking to trying to use the Church meaning as best I detect it is used by everyone else here.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg118046#msg118046 date=1281644997]I can't think of any who doubt that the Holy Spirit is a divine person save the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Does this not give you any cause to doubt that you are on the right course.According to religionfacts.com, Mormons believe the Holy Spirit is a "being," (though differently than Trinitarians) this is one aspect of the Holy Trinity I have not been able to confirm scripturally so far. I am still searching and will not give up easily. After all, it is a persuasive prospect to agree with the vast majority of people I know on this important doctrinal aspect. Jehovah's Whitnesses (according to watchtower.org) believe it is a "force." In my searching for "being"ness, I have come across nothing to inspire that idea, but for completeness I must admit I have yet to consider it positively or negatively.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg118046#msg118046 date=1281644997]You also believe that the Bible is God. This is again another novelty that is unique to yourself.I'm not going to deny that it is unique to myself (though of this I am not certain), but as long as I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that the Word of God is God, then it would be highly illogical of me to believe that the Bible is not God.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg118046#msg118046 date=1281644997]Surely you can see that the liklihood that you alone are correct is 0%. And that those who knew the Apostles and learned from them are correct must approach 100%.You stating my falseness has nowhere near the impact of God doing it.
[quote author=anba bola link=topic=9549.msg118047#msg118047 date=1281645708]You're also twisting what we think.Probably, it's going from one worldview to a completely different worldview and back. It's not an easy process.
[quote author=anba bola link=topic=9549.msg118047#msg118047 date=1281645708]The Holy Spirit is in fact a person of the trinity which is shown in 1 John 5:7I appreciate the help, but I've already tried that one. Fact is, it still doesn't say that it's a person. Anyways, I simply can't base such an important doctrine only on a single verse on which even the copies of scripture disagree. After all, many of these copies may have been in the hands of evil men trying to con by pressing into it false additions or deletions. See footnote in NKJV: "NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8 ). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek." Which would bring your quote of, "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." down to..."For there are three that bear witness", not really a useful statement on the subject. Of course, this begs the question...why in the world would the translators of the NKJV include it?
[quote author=anba bola link=topic=9549.msg118047#msg118047 date=1281645708]Also as for the importance of tradition St. Paul the Apostle acknowledges it in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 which says: "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us."Again to the same problem, my failure to accept your history. If I accepted your history and thus accepted that your history was the tradition of which he spoke, we would be in tremendous agreement.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg118051#msg118051 date=1281649108]There is no one that has said that the Bible is incomplete, not by any means. There are different aspects to Apostolic Tradition, and mostly it is the erudition, exposition, interpretation, and incarnation of the words in the Bible of "The Word" [Logos]--Jesus Christ.You'll see I've reworded that above. I did that before even reading your statement here.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg118051#msg118051 date=1281649108]I appreciate that you said you would at least look at the items that I linked and reference.You're welcome. I do appreciate the information, but as yet have not had a chance to look at any of it.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9549.msg118051#msg118051 date=1281649108]Out of curiosity: Would you consider the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons as Christians?The individuals, some maybe, I'd have to meet them. I haven't met many so far. The organizations, no.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg118066#msg118066 date=1281656795]But when Augustine picked it up he found its meaning eluded him.This incident must have a significant meaning for you.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9549.msg118066#msg118066 date=1281656795]I did not understand the first passage of the book, and thought the whole would be equally obscure."passage" is a term which normally insinuates specific boundaries. If you could specify chapters/verses, I would be better suited to understand your comparison.
Well, this has been a lot to respond to. It has been a good experience though. I do sincerely hope you guys are enjoying this conversation as much as I am.
you must believe in the devil, a roaring lion seeking lambs to devour...
I wonder, when you read the Bible on your own, how do you know that your interpretation is indeed the correct one?
How do you know you are not being deceived by the devil, as you yourself think many others (including the Orthodox) were deceived?
After all, both of us (Orthodox and non-Othodox) we read the same Bible (even if different translations) we seem to have completely different world views, if anything, this shows how 2 individuals can interpret the Bible in such different ways.. so do you believe there can be several valid interpretations? If not, if you, as we, believe there can be only one truth, do you believe you are in possession of it? That your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one?
This is not meant to be insulting in any way.. just food for thought...
John 4:23-25 (NKJV)
23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (who is called Christ). When He comes, He will tell us all things.”
God is Holy + God is Spirit -> therefore God is also Holy Spirit
God the Father and God the Son and God the Spirit -> is the same One GOD , the HOLY ONE.
Thus we can now understand why did Jesus Christ (the Messiah) commands us to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. God teaches us He has three Hypostases, i.e. the three Persons are the One God, are Him and in Him - they are not just power(s) but the true One Holy God "I AM".
Also, a good food for thought:
1 Corinthians 2:11 (NKJV)
For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?
Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
Let us ask God for His loving continual guidance and for the marvelous blessing of the gift of His Holy Spirit who is pleased to dwell in every one of us, as we are hopefully repenting now from our sins. Indeed God is Love, and He is also the powerful Almighty Lord of Hosts.
Matthew 12:32 (NKJV)
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
Please Lord forgive us and bless us all, and accept our humble prayers for each other. Amen.
GBU
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=9549.msg118084#msg118084 date=1281697846]I wonder, when you read the Bible on your own, how do you know that your interpretation is indeed the correct one?How do you know your interpretation of what I'm writing here is correct? Since I believe the Bible is a message from God and God (who invented communication) knows how to communicate, (and thanks to the tremendous work of translators), for the most part, I just take it for what it says. If there is something I don't understand, I ask God by praying and searching the Bible (sometimes this involves checking different translations and word origins due to human error involved in passing His message to me). If there's something of mine you don't understand in this thread, wouldn't you search my posts in this thread, my website, facebook page or autobiography (if I had one), perhaps the dictionary (for questions like "what in the world does 'flobi' mean?"), or ask me directly?
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=9549.msg118084#msg118084 date=1281697846]How do you know you are not being deceived by the devil, as you yourself think many others (including the Orthodox) were deceived?Quite the contrary, I am well aware that Satan's deception to the world is immense and would be a fool if I thought I was immune. Additionally, I am aware that there is evil in my heart which causes me to fail. Then again, there are still things which may be hidden until Jesus's glorious return. I just keep studying scripture trusting that if I am persistent in an honest search for truth (as opposed to simply finding things that could be taken to mean what I already think or what people tell me), God will give me the important information I need at any given moment.
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=9549.msg118084#msg118084 date=1281697846]After all, both of us (Orthodox and non-Othodox) we read the same Bible (even if different translations) we seem to have completely different world views, if anything, this shows how 2 individuals can interpret the Bible in such different ways.. I think (perhaps I'm about to say what you said in a different way) that we are, in fact, not reading the same book because of the different world view (even if the same translation). Something changed when I change to this view, and despite having the Bible my entire life, it was entirely new, even passages I've heard and read hundreds of times.
Look at the plight of the origins debate. At fundamental levels, the sides have such incredibly different understandings of the source of the universe and its purpose, so though they may have the same physical objects and phenomena, from an effective perspective they are not even looking at the same universe. Of course, from an absolute level a maximum of one of these can be true (even if it is Last Thursdayism).
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=9549.msg118084#msg118084 date=1281697846]so do you believe there can be several valid interpretations?I believe God can speak separate things to individuals even sometimes reading the same passages just as DNA (also written by God) reuses the same sections of code to preform multiple tasks. I would agree that there are several different meanings that God can convey from individual passages, but that in the case of irreconcilable differences in human interpretation, at max only one can be true (it is possible neither is).
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=9549.msg118084#msg118084 date=1281697846]If not, if you, as we, believe there can be only one truth, do you believe you are in possession of it? That your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one?The Word of God is truth, so, "Yes," to the first question. To the second, I understand I am not perfect and that my ducks aren't in a straight line. My faith is in God and that faith is positively and absolutely knowing He will not let me down. He said that the Holy Spirit comes from the Word and to get to the Father go to the Word; how can I do anything else? If everything else about me is wrong, it is my own fault for sinning and having evil in my heart. Even if this is the only thing, God will remember me for something good.
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=9549.msg118084#msg118084 date=1281697846]This is not meant to be insulting in any way.. just food for thought...I didn't come across in any way insulting. And to all, I would repeat this message. I have meant nothing in anything I have said here in any insulting way. If you have felt offended by me, please let me know so that I can offer my sincerest apologies.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=9549.msg118090#msg118090 date=1281702449]John 4:23-25 (NKJV)
23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (who is called Christ). When He comes, He will tell us all things.”I'm afraid I've tried that one as well. Unfortunately, that's backwards of what I would need. At bare minimum, Spirit is God would indicate that the Spirit is a being (as God is a being), but not necessarily indicating that the Spirit is not actually the same "person" as the Father (another aspect I have been unable to locate in scripture). Since spirit can be a property (e.g. My cubicle walls are fabric), it is not necessarily a one to one reversible relationship, and obviously not since Jesus is God and He is flesh and bones.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=9549.msg118090#msg118090 date=1281702449]Thus we can now understand why did Jesus Christ (the Messiah) commands us to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.I've looked into this one too, but since scripture frequently uses parallelisms (e.g. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob) for emphasis, this doesn't necessarily provide positive identification in and of itself to there being three "persons" or "beings." I do see, however, if one already has accepted this Trinity belief, that this would seem a very supportive passage.
[quote author=John_S2000 link=topic=9549.msg118090#msg118090 date=1281702449]Matthew 12:32 (NKJV)
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.This is one passage that led me to the importance of verifying the Trinity doctrine with scripture. With such absolute words, it seemed imperative that proper identification be established.
And now, I realize that I owe everyone here an apology. I have realized right before clicking "Post" below that every word I say is proselytizing. When I talk about God, my heart fills so immediately with ecstasy and in my soul I feel like every word I say and type is a contained scream, "Yes! He Is!"
I expect that my words should be shredded when I leave, and I will leave them such. It has, been a complete pleasure chatting with you guys on this and I pray happiness for all of you. I would leave you with some word of encouragement. Whoever you follow, do so wholeheartedly and the full fruit of whoever you follow will be manifest in you.
the Holy Spirit is certainly a Hypostasis, and not a force for these reasons:
• He speaks.
For the Lord said to His saintly disciples “for it is not you who
speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you”
(Matthew 10:20). And Saint Paul the apostle says, “Today, if
you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts” (Hebrews
3:7-9). It is the Spirit who said, “Now, separate to Me
Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them”
(Acts 13:2). Therefore, He speaks and calls.
• He teaches, reminds, guides, tells and convicts.
This is evident in the words of the Lord to the disciples about
the Holy Spirit, for He says, “He will teach you all things, and
bring to your remembrance all the things that I said to you”
(John 14:26), and “When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He
will guide you into all truth ... and He will tell you things to
come” (John 16:13), and “He will convict the world of sin”
(John 16:8).
• He leads the believers, whether they be congregation or
individuals.
Saint Paul the apostle says that, “For as many as are led the
Spirit of God, these are sons of God” (Romans 8:14).
• He also sets up shepherds.
Saint Paul the Apostle said to the bishops of Ephesus,
“Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock among
which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (Acts 20:28);
also see Acts 13:2.
• It is also the Holy Spirit Who determines the way and
movement of ministers.
Saint Luke the Evangelist says of Saint Paul and his
companions, “Now when they had gone through Phrygia and
the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to
preach the word in Asia. After they had come to Mysia, they
tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them”
(Acts 16:6,7).
The Holy Spirit helps and comforts the believers, making
intercession for them.
The Lord Jesus Christ says, “And I will pray the Father, and
He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you
forever” (John 14:16). Saint Paul says of Him, “the Spirit
Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot
be uttered” (Romans 8:26).
Since He speaks, teaches, reminds, guides, tells, convicts, leads
the believers and sets up shepherds, determining their
movement and helping and interceding, does it not follow that
He is a Hypostasis?
As for the power, it is a consequence of His coming upon the
believers, “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit
has come upon you” (Acts 1:8). His coming upon believers
also gives zeal and wisdom and knowledge.
I copied that from Pope Shenouda's book about the heresies of Jehovah's Witnesses.
I’d also like to add that there isn’t a drop of evidence in the Bible that he is a force.
This also draws back to the Church fathers. None of the fathers spoke of the Holy Spirit being a force, and these were received the teachings of the Apostles themselves.
I quote this verse for him:
John 20:29
Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed.
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Amen
GBU
Within our human limits, when we say spirit it is used as a spirit (for example specifically: the human, or a generally: a will whether good or evil, intrinsic and/or extrinsic), or the Spirit meaning God's Spirit.
Obviously God's Spirit cannot be considered as a mere attribute, as we do in describing any created things but it specifically means the Divine Will of the living Spirit of God, i.e. He is Him.
We know that a personal free will cannot originate from matter but the only possible logical way is to be the product of an intellectual, spiritual in nature, being.
So to digest this, the spiritual cannot be correctly understood from the usual approach of physical or chemical or any kind of current or future public or hidden scientific material properties.
We could not even accept the spiritual idea unless we are each one a true spirit also. Each one of our individual created spirits God's Spirit said He created in Their likeness. That is why we have the capacity to think, to speak and to act in free will: I find these are closely inter-related yet three distinct characteristics too - in a much smaller scale of course than the Creator.
GBU
Here are my comments....for it is mine and if there is something wrong, then the fault is mine...This verses are my guide why I found this church.
The completeness of Bible?
"Rev 8:12 Then the fourth angel sounded: And a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them were darkened. A third of the day did not shine, and likewise the night."
It is in the library of Apostolic churches a thousand years ago, SOME teachings and scriptures, as of now it is in Vatican...but precious in Syria, Alexandria, Armenia and India...precious also in Axum...few of it i already read, more I want someday, GOD-permit.
With the start of post and heated forum, cheer up Copts, here is what ive read;
"Rev 11:3 "And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth."
Rev 11:4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the God of the earth.
Rev 11:5 And if anyone wants to harm them, fire proceeds from their mouth and devours their enemies. And if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this manner."
ex, St. Athanasius, James Bar Adai, etc...its in your blood....just share your light.
and "MY COPTIC CHURCH" lyrics....its worth living for.
to be continued....
Sincerely,
Jerold.
+ + +