Peter says, Jesus is the Stone the builders rejected.

[Petro]

author  pnotc,

A little history;

Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy claims a direct line of succession back to the original apostles. Also like Catholicism, Orthodoxy observes seven sacraments. Worship in Eastern Orthodoxy is heavily sacerdotal and mystical; what you can't see, we see plainly..and we have been warning you about the adventure you want to embarc on is idolatry, but it appears you can't hear either, so you are deaf and blind, or would you argue this point,  also.

Let me repeat myself;

"You my friend are misinformed, the first pope of Orthodoxy is the pope (orthodoxy prefers to use the word patriarch, so what, pope, patriarch, we know what you mean) peter, you need to bone up on the history of your soon to be new religion."  Following the break with rome, the Patriarch of Constantinopel has always had the primacy in the east (in fact if you checked the record they voted amongst themselves that the patriarch at constantinople would be second to rome among their churches, so, quit being confused your pope is the man you will refer to, as your Patriarch.  (please refer to Ecuemenical Patriarchate)

Why are you having such a hard time differentiating between Orthodoxy and Catholicism?  

 I Am not..

You are the one that is having a hard time, understanding, that the roots of orthodoxy are interwoven with roman catholicISM, the founding doctrines to orthodoxy are firmly planted in the teachings of rome, even saint worship, burning candles to them, and praying for salvation to them (mariology), sacramentalism, and the doctrine of transubstantion, which you call something else, but clearly has the same teaching built into it.  

Nowhere, in the OT, will you ever find anyone praying to another man of God, whether prophet, king, priest who has passed from this life, first century christians, never did it either, this practice began first with prayers for the dead about 300 AD, followed by veneration of angels and saints approx 375 AD, in the Roman Catholic church, you may want to will yourself to be disassociated from this institution, but  they are nothing other than pipe dreams, unfortunately you will be married to it, when you join this practice of idolatry (praying to your saints).

"Saints are dead to your prayers, they don't live to you, they live unto God, they hear only God, intecessation is not what they do for you or anyone else, since they have ceased from all of their works."

Prayer is a work?  

The prayer life of Gods speople are the result of God working in us,  perfecting His people unto all good work, and prayer is the evidence that the Spirit is at work in our lives (how is your prayer life by the way?) And every believer who is a priest and king before Him, offer up by Him the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks always by His name.

Those that die in the faith, have ceased from their works; they live unto God by the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead and will forever worship Him and only Him.

And now you're admitting that the Saints aren't asleep and unaware?  You stated that on a previous post, possibly on another thread.  If they can hear God, then they must be aware, correct?  And I suggest you read Rev 5, especially verse 8.  The saints in heaven, at the very least, hear each other and the angels.  This reminds me of that time you said only prayers to Jesus were legitimate, and then I showed how that is no where in the Bible.

Well, I say you are wrong....here is a verse..you might consider, Heb 13:12-15, I just gave it to you above.  How about these;

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. (Jhn 14:13-14)  

If you think, this means you shall pray to someone else in His name, consider what Jesus says, in the next few verse; it is because you have  NOT read  the rest of Jhn 14, 15, 16; and I am not speaking of praying for someone else, in his name, that is a different matter.

"You seem to be looking for such a pile (of dung) to pick up and carry as your righteous works to gain admitense into the presences of the Almnighty. "

If Orthodoxy is a pile of dung, it still smells better than Calvinism.

Well, I can't argue this point with you, since this must be reason why dogs, love to sniff dogpiles, that reminds me of what,  the scriptures say;

But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Also, I do not believe in works-based salvation.  I've stated and demonstrated that several times, so get off it.

"All popes, are saints, except for a few heretics. I suppose you will argue, none of them were heretics."

In the Orthodox tradition, I would imagine that most popes stopped being considered saints after 1054.  You're thinking of Catholicism again.  Additionally, Orthodoxy does not have a formal system for declaring anyone a saint, so I would bet there are more than a few Roman pontiffs who did not make the grade.

Well ok...what about your patriarchs, are they not considered to be saints??  How about St. John Chrysostom, wasn't he a patriarch pope.

The two schisms which caused the final break with rome in 1054, was;

The issue of Papal authority which had been in dispute for some time, and the dispute over, really because they eastern empire wanted to have primacy (the issue was really one of having power), and,  whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father only (Orthodoxy), or from the Father and the Son (the Western Church); while it matters to me very little to me, what the orthodox position is today, we know the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son,

It is clear from scripture both the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit, so,  orthodoxy was in error at this point and time, when they broke with rome.

As for the saints, to 1054, they included heretical popes, which are saints in both stables, no doubt some in orthodoxy do pray thru these saints, heh...........

Even the same word rome uses (latreia), is used by orthodoxy with a different definition to teach the worship of saints;

In the Orthodox Church the worship (latreia) given to God is completely different from the honor (tim) of love (agape) and respect, or even veneration (proskynesis), "paid to all those endowed with some dignity" (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. III, 40). The Orthodox honor the saints to express their love and gratitude to God, who has "perfected" the saints. As St. Symeon the New Theologian writes, "God is the teacher of the Prophets, the co-traveller with the Apostles, the power of the Martyrs, the inspiration of the Fathers and Teachers, the perfection of all Saints ... " (Catechesis, I).

The Seventh Ecumenical Council (787 A.D.), in summarizing this practice of the Church, declares that "we adore and respect God our Lord; and those who have been genuine servants of our common Lord we honor and venerate because they have the power to make us friends with God the King of all."

The twentieth canon of the Council of Gangra in Asia Minor (between the years 325 and 381) anathematizes those who reject the feast days of the saints. So great was the esteem in which the Apostles, prophets, and martyrs were held in the Church, that many writings appeared describing their spiritual achievements, love and devotion to God.
The scriptures are silent about what the apostles did or din not do, concerning feasts days of the saints, as to what prophets and martyrs are refferred to herein is a mystery.  The point is;

Gods word is silent concerning the worship of feast days in honor of saints.

And as for,  how  orthodox saints are chosen,  it lacks any  biblical support, and they even acknowledge, men do not have to approve Gods choice of who becomes a saint, The following except is found in the orthodox website;

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8044.asp

CANONIZATION OF SAINTS
"The Orthodox Church does not follow any official procedure for the "recognition" of saints. Initially the Church accepted as saints those who had suffered martyrdom for Christ. The saints are saints thanks to the grace of God, and they do not need official ecclesiastical recognition."

I say amen to this..

Yet, they chose them by popular acclaim, until the church issued an edict, to prevent corruption, which was occuring, the article goes on to say; in the same article;

Http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8044.asp .....

Under, CANNONIZATION OF SAINTS;

"The Christian people, reading their lives and witnessing their performance of miracles, accept and honor them as saints. St. John Chrysostom, persecuted and exiled by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, was accepted as a saint of the Church by popular acclaim. St. Basil the Great was accepted immediately after his death as a saint of the Church by the people. Recently, in order to avoid abuses, the Ecumenical Patriarchate ;

Http://www.patriarchate.org/book/INTRODUCTION

has issued special encyclical letters (tomoi) in which the Holy Synod "recognizes" or accepts the popular feelings about a saint. Such an example in our days is St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain (1955)."

[Petro]

(By the way your arguments, claiming Mat 16:18, refer to Peter as the rock on which the church was to be built goes against some orthodox teaching, but since orthodoxy is born out of catholicism, and they claim apostolic foundation, it is thru the founding lineage which is Peter the first pope as claimed by CatholicISM. Just as he is the first pope for rome, he is the first  patriarch for constantinopal at rome.)   If your not confused yet, you will be ..

"And we also know what Jesus said about judgment."

I think this is worthy of reply, Petro.  Give me your justification for the judgement and scorn you've heaped on me.

If we lived in the OT, I would have been duty bound to throw the first stone, at you for wanting to lead my brothers to go a whoring after deceased men of God, and icons.

But, since we live in the NT, I am duty bound to expose your error, and since you have not recanted, but continue this nonsense by argueing in favor of  saint and icon worship,by claiming it  is Biblical,  according to 1 Cor 5,  your desire to turn men of faith in God away from His word and teaching, by desiring that they listen to your word, claiming that it is of God, to pray to men as though they can intercede for men,  makes you and idolater, and since you claim to be a member of the body, the apostle has written;

11  But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.   Eat means to partake of the Word of God.

And you seek  acceptance as a brother (even claiming His blood, while denying the commandment) among those who claim to be of the body of Christ, yet, come teaching other doctrines, which lead not to Christ but away from Christ.  He and He alone is to be our intercessor. Praying to God, thru anyone other than thru Christ, does not honor God nor Christ.

It is unbiblical, and of no value to Christians..period.

It matters little, if you think it might..it is only wishfull thinking, and not much of that either..

"You have already rejecte sound advise,"

I'm not sure what sound advice you're talking about.  Was it when you called me an idolater?  When you condemned me for not believing in Calvinism?  When you said I was blind for not agreeing with your misinterpretations of scripture?  Where in all of that is "sound advice?"  If you had really been trying to help me, if you had really been trying to be anything other than acrimonious and condescending, I would expect your advice would have been accompanied by a lot more love.

You are the one that has been arguing against Calvinism, I never have spoke to you about it at all, except to tell you if you believed what scripture teaches, you would understand the teaching, and believe what Calvin taught..and would amaze yourself, that you were wrong all along.

Your argument from the beginning has been, that praying to or thu saints is of God.

I Say nonsense.

 I know these debates can get pretty heated, and I know I'm guilty of more than a few posts that did not live up to a Christian expectation, and for that I am sorry.  You willing to offer the same apology?

I forgive you, and I ask your forgiveness for the very same thing..

My desire is that you understand, Idolatry is Idolatry, whether you agree with me or not, I disagree with you on praying to or thru saints, and the worship of icons, I don't care what word you use to describe what it is you will do (latreia, venerate, honor, esteem, worship but not the type of worship do God (whatever that means), etc, etc.), when you join this church, but it is crystal clear to me ,

That this practice instituted in CatholicISM when orthodoxy was a dream in satans plan, exist to this day in both institutions, with very little of it  changed (except for the redifining  one or two words) since being set in stone at the seventh ecumenical council (787); if this insults you, for it I apologize, but I can't make it any clearer than that.

Blessings,
Petro

PS:  You see, how I have to go dig out, what orthodoxy believes and teaches, just to post it hear for your sake; and all when I don't even care about orthodoxy, or catholicISM, I am interested in what God's word has to say.  But I don't consider it a total waste of time, if just one person reads one word which helps them to see the error of the teachings.

[Petro]

pnotc,

The final point I want to make about this idea, that saints in orthodoxy, where chosen by popular acclaim, completely, puts this matter of who is a saint in mans hands; and all this after claiming mans approval is not required to allow God His choice of who is a saint or no.

At least the Apostle drew straws, when chosing a succesor to Judas Iscariot, the lot fell of Matthias the scripture tells us (Acts 1:26), and I have to say this is a more God honoring way, because at least it can be said, God could have had the opportunity to get his 2 cents in edge wise .

Yet, either way, mans choice came to naught, since God chose Paul to take Judas Iscariot's place, we never hear about Matthias, in the scriptures again..

God Bless as you stufdy His word.
Petro

[ebia]

Just thought I'd stick my oar in a point out a few of the more glaring errors in the last few posts:

"You my friend are misinformed, the first pope of Orthodoxy is the pope (orthodoxy prefers to use the word patriarch, so what, pope, patriarch, we know what you mean) peter, you need to bone up on the history of your soon to be new religion."  Following the break with rome, the Patriarch of Constantinopel has always had the primacy in the east (in fact if you checked the record they voted amongst themselves that the patriarch at constantinople would be second to rome among their churches, so, quit being confused your pope is the man you will refer to, as your Patriarch.  (please refer to Ecuemenical Patriarchate)

There is a huge difference between the E. Othodox concept of Patricarch and the RC concept of a Pope.  Most notably Patricarch's are not concidered infallable, and are first amongst equals with regard to the bishops that fall into their juristictions, just as (in the Orthodox view) the Bishop of Rome should be first amongst equals amongst the Patriarchs (and has exceeded his authority to claim more than that).

Nowhere, in the OT, will you ever find anyone praying to another man of God, whether prophet, king, priest who has passed from this life, first century christians, never did it either, this practice began first with prayers for the dead about 300 AD, followed by veneration of angels and saints approx 375 AD, in the Roman Catholic church, you may want to will yourself to be disassociated from this institution, but  they are nothing other than pipe dreams, unfortunately you will be married to it, when you join this practice of idolatry (praying to your saints).

Of course, if you used a decent bible (one without some of the books taken out) you would find biblical authority for this.

The early church clearly DID recognise praying to the saints: the Shepherd of Hermas talks about it, and that book was so highly regarded it almost made it into the bible.

Also:

Clement of Alexandria

"In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" [A.D. 208].

Methodius

"Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto thee do I again return. Thou are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs unto the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the Bread of Life [Jesus]. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son's love for man. . . . You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing mother, of the light of the sun; you gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity, bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of thee . . . making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the invisible Son of the Father--the Prince of Peace, who in a marvelous manner showed himself as less than all littleness" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).

The list goes on.
Quite apart from that, the bible doesn't authorise the use of the internet, but that doesn't seem to stop you.

It is clear from scripture both the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit

The question isn't who sent the Holy Spirit, but who the Holy Spirit proceeds from (originates from, approximately).  

And as for,  how  orthodox saints are chosen,  it lacks any  biblical support, and they even acknowledge, men do not have to approve Gods choice of who becomes a saint, The following except is found in the orthodox website;

I'm not quite sure what this says - it really help if you put commas in sentences in roughly the right place instead of distributing them randomly.
Anyway, neither Orthodoxy nor Rome make saints, they merely recognise some people as clearly having been saints.  Both admit that they will have been far more saints that they will never notice.

And as for,  how  orthodox saints are chosen,  it lacks any  biblical support, and they even acknowledge, men do not have to approve Gods choice of who becomes a saint, The following except is found in the orthodox website;

I'm beginning to think that you think that there is only one Patriarch, which is not true - there are several including Constantinople, Antioch and Moscow.  All equal.

[Petro]

author  ebia
Just thought I'd stick my oar in a point out a few of the more glaring errors in the last few posts:

 
There is  a huge difference between the E. Othodox concept of Patricarch and the RC concept of a Pope.  Most notably Patricarch's are not concidered infallable, and are first amongst equals with regard to the bishops that fall into their juristictions, just as (in the Orthodox view) the Bishop of Rome should be first amongst equals amongst the Patriarchs (and has exceeded his authority to claim more than that).

ebia,

One oar will, always have you going,  around in circles.

Orthodoxy claims Peter as its first patriarch, since orthodoxy did not exist till after its break with rome, then Peter is orthodoxies frist pope, argue what you may, it doesn't change this fact.

Of course, if you used a decent bible (one without some of the books taken out) you would find biblical authority for this.

The early church clearly DID recognise praying to the saints: the Shepherd of Hermas talks about it, and that book was so highly regarded it almost made it into the bible.

This is your problem what you recognize as decent we, don't even consider it worthy of comment.

But most importantly, your source (Shepherd og Hermas), is questionable, In every case, where  I have examined the refernces submitted by individuals trying to make their point, I have found, the person quoting the source, as misquoting and taking the quote out of context.

So, I say, post what the Shepard said, and cite your source; I am willing to bet you have misquoted Him.

The same goes for Clement of Alexandria..where can this weak quote be found, or is it smething you heard someone else quote, this.



Also:

Clement of Alexandria

"In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" [A.D. 208].

Methodius

"Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto thee do I again return. Thou are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs unto the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the Bread of Life [Jesus]. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son's love for man. . . . You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing mother, of the light of the sun; you gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity, bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of thee . . . making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the invisible Son of the Father--the Prince of Peace, who in a marvelous manner showed himself as less than all littleness" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).


The list goes on.

I don't know what you are trying to prove by these quotes, you seem to have strayed off the subject.  Whats your point??

We were discussing Peter as your first pope...you have wondered off, the mark.

Quite apart from that, the bible doesn't authorise the use of the internet, but that doesn't seem to stop you.

This is the age of information, quote your sources for the information you have thrown around, without citing the references, so we can look at them.

It is clear from scripture both the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit

The question isn't who sent the Holy Spirit, but who the Holy Spirit proceeds from (originates from, approximately).  

It is obvious acording to scripture He (the Holy Spirit )originates with the Father and Son, and both send Him, to execute their work, nowhere will you find the Holy Spirit sending forth the Father or the Son to accomplish anything on their behalf.

I'm not quite sure what this says - it really help if you put commas in sentences in roughly the right place instead of distributing them randomly.
Anyway, neither Orthodoxy nor Rome make saints, they merely recognise some people as clearly having been saints.  Both admit that they will have been far more saints that they will never notice.

Thats you and they say, but contrary to your statement, they are made in orthodoxy, by popular acclaim, this is clear, since not every member is recognized as a saint, or honored as a saint, only those whom the church acknowledges, are saints, and have their date of death entered into a list of dates, used to celebrate these individulas dates of departure from this life, is evidence which contradicts your statement above.

"And as for,  how  orthodox saints are chosen,  it lacks any  biblical support, and they even acknowledge, men do not have to approve Gods choice of who becomes a saint, The following except is found in the orthodox website;'"

I'm beginning to think that you think that there is only one Patriarch, which is not true - there are several including Constantinople, Antioch and Moscow.  All equal.

You never read the website, for "Ecumenical Patriarchate", this gives you the history, of ther Patriarchal system within orthodoxy, your statement again, lacks substance, I am begining to think you don't know what your talking about.


Petro

[ollie]

 Ephesians 2:19.  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
 20.  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
 21.  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
 22.  In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Matthew 7:24.  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
 25.  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
 26.  And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
 27.  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.


1 Peter 2:1.  Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and  hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
 2.  As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
 3.  If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
 4.  To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
 5.  Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
 6.  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
 7.  Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
 8.  And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
 9.  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
 10.  Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.


And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


Peter, the other apostles, and the prophets laid the foundation.


Jesus is not just the cornerstone, but the chief cornerstone.

*1. fundamentally important person or thing: somebody or something that is fundamentally important to something

 
2. building stone at corner of two walls: a stone joining two walls where they meet at a corner

 
3. building first stone of new building: the first stone laid at a corner where two walls begin and form the first part of a new building.*

* Encarta Online Dictionary *

 
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
of Biblical Theology

Cornerstone [N]

Architectural term used twice in the New Testament (Eph 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6) to speak of the exalted Jesus as the chief foundation stone of the church, the cornerstone on which all the building depends. The New Testament draws on two Old Testament passages about the coming Messiah (Isa 28:16; Zech 10:4). In Isaiah 28:16 the prophet speaks God's words directly to the rulers in Jerusalem who boasted that they were immune to the scourges of life because they were secure in themselves. God said their security was false because he would lay a stone in Zion, a precious cornerstone, which really was secure—and it was not those present rulers. Zechariah expands this promise by saying that the cornerstone will come from the tribe of Judah (10:4). Paul builds on this concept in Ephesians 2:20 by saying that Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone, the apostles and prophets are foundation stones, and the whole building (the church) is a holy temple in the Lord. Peter's use of the idea is more complex, stringing three prophetic verses together (Psalm 118:22; Isa 8:4; 28:16). The stone laid in Zion (Isa 28:16) is precious to the believer, but as the stone placed at the "head of the corner" (eis kephalen gonias), that is, exalted (Psalm 118:22), he is a stone of offense and stumbling (Isa 8:4) to those who refuse to believe. The metaphor seems obvious: the cornerstone is either a source of blessing or judgment, depending on a person's attitude toward it. Some modern interpreters, beginning with J. Jeremias in 1925, take a different tack, separating the two stones and making the cornerstone one thing and the stone at the "head of the corner" another, that is, a capstone or keystone. It is hard to visualize one stumbling over a capstone, but metaphors can be stretched. In any case, the point is that the very foundation of the church is Jesus Christ. This was prophesied by the prophets of old and fulfilled through the incarnation. Those who believe are blessed and those who stumble over that rock chosen by God are condemned.

Walter A. Elwell

"Crosswalk.com"

[ollie]

Corner-stone (Job 38:6; Isa. 28:16), a block of great importance in binding together the sides of a building. The "head of the corner" (Ps. 118:22, 23) denotes the coping, the "coign of vantage", i.e., the topstone of a building. But the word "corner stone" is sometimes used to denote some person of rank and importance (Isa. 28:16). It is applied to our Lord, who was set in highest honour (Matt. 21: 42). He is also styled "the chief corner stone" (Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6-8). When Zechariah (10:4), speaking of Judah, says, "Out of him came forth the corner," he is probably to be understood as ultimately referring to the Messiah as the "corner stone."

"Easton's Bible Dictionary"


Solomon's Temple:

.....The building was 60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high.

The engineers of the Palestine Exploration Fund, in their explorations around the temple area, discovered what is believed to have been the "chief corner stone" of the temple, "the most interesting stone in the world." It lies at the bottom of the south-eastern angle, and is 3 feet 8 inches high by 14 feet long. It rests on the solid rock at a depth of 79 feet 3 inches below the present surface. (See PINNACLE.) In examining the walls the engineers were "struck with admiration at the vastness of the blocks and the general excellence of the workmanship."

"Easton's Bible Dictionary"

Contrast and compare this to the temple God is building with those in Christ. Is it a physical building?

[pnotc]

A little historical correction….

“Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy claims a direct line of succession back to the original apostles. Also like Catholicism, Orthodoxy observes seven sacraments.”

Yes, both churches lay claim to being apostolic, but no, Orthodoxy does not observe seven sacraments.  In the second place, the most common Orthodox term is “mystery” not sacrament.  In the first place, Orthodoxy does not designate 7 and only 7 mysteries; it recognizes at least 7.  This is because Orthodoxy is not as law-minded as Catholicism, thanks in large part, to a very different definition of original sin.  Catholicism has been heavily influenced by Augustinian thought, which looked at original sin in a purely judicial sense.  Orthodoxy has a different definition, wherein we inherit the effect, but not the guilt of Adam’s sin.

“Worship in Eastern Orthodoxy is heavily sacerdotal and mystical; what you can't see, we see plainly..and we have been warning you about the adventure you want to embarc on is idolatry, but it appears you can't hear either, so you are deaf and blind, or would you argue this point,  also.”

How is sacerdotal and mystical worship idolatrous?  Additionally, I see quite plainly that Calvinism is wrong and its teachings unbiblical – a fact I have warned YOU about.  Are you deaf and blind, as well?  I’m sure you will say that you are not, as do I, so lets just stick to things we can prove.  

“Following the break with rome, the Patriarch of Constantinopel has always had the primacy in the east (in fact if you checked the record they voted amongst themselves that the patriarch at constantinople would be second to rome among their churches, so, quit being confused your pope is the man you will refer to, as your Patriarch.”

He has had primacy of honor, not authority.  The voted to put the Ecumenical Patriarch behind Rome in honor, not authority or power.  In the Orthodox tradition, the head of another jurisdiction cannot meddle in the internal affairs of another jurisdiction.  He has no authority to do so, and no Orthodox Christian would recognize the edicts of someone from another jurisdiction.  You are clearly confused on the form of the Orthodox church.

“You are the one that is having a hard time, understanding, that the roots of orthodoxy are interwoven with roman catholicISM, the founding doctrines to orthodoxy are firmly planted in the teachings of rome, even saint worship, burning candles to them, and praying for salvation to them (mariology), sacramentalism, and the doctrine of transubstantion, which you call something else, but clearly has the same teaching built into it.”

Your statement is actually pretty interesting.  For all your obvious hatred of Catholicism, you still hold it in prejudicially high regard.  The fact is, the teachings of Catholicism have their roots in Orthodoxy, not the other way around.  The Christian East developed intellectually and theologically much faster and in greater depth than did the Christian West.  It was not until well past the canon was formed and the essential creeds were drafted that the West started to pick up its slack and get on an intellectual par with the East.  If I may, I would suggest a set of church history books by Jaroslav Pelikan.  He is an excellent author and historian – and very objective.  

“Nowhere, in the OT, will you ever find anyone praying to another man of God, whether prophet, king, priest who has passed from this life, first century christians, never did it either, this practice began first with prayers for the dead about 300 AD, followed by veneration of angels and saints approx 375 AD,”

In a later post, you chided Erbia for failing to back up her post with references.  Would you mind posting support for your position?  I’d like to see your evidence that this practice developed so late.  In fact, if you can, it would go a decent ways of dissuading me of the truth of Orthodoxy.  



“The prayer life of Gods speople are the result of God working in us,  perfecting His people unto all good work, and prayer is the evidence that the Spirit is at work in our lives (how is your prayer life by the way?)”

So when a saved Christian dies, God no longer works in them?  If prayer is evidence of the process of being perfected, doesn’t it make sense that they would continue to pray once perfection has been granted to them?  Certainly their prayers would take on a different form, but is it reasonable to belief they would cease from prayer, from communication with God?  Hardly.  And actually, my prayer life has expanded quite a bit since I started exploring Orthodoxy.  They put a much greater influence on it than does Protestantism, and in a different way.  

“Well, I say you are wrong....here is a verse..you might consider, Heb 13:12-15, I just gave it to you above.  How about these;
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. (Jhn 14:13-14)”

I’m not sure how the Hebrews verse you referenced prevents petitioning the saints.  But actually, I’ve read the NT several times, so I have read John 14, 15 and 16.  And while I’m not 100% on this, I don’t think the Orthodox petition the saints in Christ’s name.  I’m pretty sure they don’t.  Maybe they do in Catholicism, but not in Orthodoxy.  Also, as we discussed in my class this last week, the word prayer is actually inappropriate in its modern usage as it concerns petitioning the saints.  Prayer initially had a wider definition than it does now.  In my opinion, the better term is “petitioning” as it regards asking for the intercession of the saints.  

“while it matters to me very little to me, what the orthodox position is today, we know the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son,”

Prove it.

“It is clear from scripture both the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit, so,  orthodoxy was in error at this point and time, when they broke with rome.”

Then the church was in error since Nicene I.  This includes your beloved Catholicism.  

“Even the same word rome uses (latreia), is used by orthodoxy with a different definition to teach the worship of saints;”

They may use the same word for worship or adoration of God, but the Orthodox use a different term for veneration of the saints. We’ve gone over this ground before.  You’ll keep repeating yourself that proskynesis is proskuneo, while I will repeat (again) that you are wrong since they are obviously different, though related terms.  They are different in practice, form and intent.  Must we re-hash this ground?

I am, unfortunately, short on time tonight.  I will respond to the rest of your posts later.  

[ebia]

Orthodoxy claims Peter as its first patriarch, since orthodoxy did not exist till after its break with rome, then Peter is orthodoxies frist pope, argue what you may, it doesn't change this fact.

Pope does not equal patriarch, however many times you claim it does.

This is your problem what you recognize as decent we, don't even consider it worthy of comment.

I accept that you don't consider those books canonical.  I think it pretty sad that you consider books that were included in the scriptures used by St Paul and many other bilical authors unworthy of comment.

So, I say, post what the Shepard said, and cite your source; I am willing to bet you have misquoted Him.

I'll have to get back to you on that.

Remind me if I forget.
In the mean time, perhaps you would care to provide some evidence that early christians did not petition the saints.

We were discussing Peter as your first pope...you have wondered off, the mark.

I was addressing your point about praying to saints, if you remember.

This is the age of information, quote your sources for the information you have thrown around, without citing the references, so we can look at them.

Like I said above, I'll have to get back to you on that - I didn't bookmark the pages.

It is obvious acording to scripture He (the Holy Spirit )originates with the Father and Son, and both send Him, to execute their work, nowhere will you find the Holy Spirit sending forth the Father or the Son to accomplish anything on their behalf.

Can you really not see the difference between progress (in the sense used in the creed) and sent?
Obvious is a very unreliable indicator, particularly when applied to something and non-intuitive as the nature of the Trinity.

[Thats you and they say, but contrary to your statement, they are made in orthodoxy, by popular acclaim, this is clear, since not every member is recognized as a saint, or honored as a saint, only those whom the church acknowledges, are saints, and have their date of death entered into a list of dates, used to celebrate these individulas dates of departure from this life, is evidence which contradicts your statement above.

This is simply not true, but I don't have the time at the moment to dig out "proof".

That will have to do for now - must get dinner.

[ebia]

Quote:
[Thats you and they say, but contrary to your statement, they are made in orthodoxy, by popular acclaim, this is clear, since not every member is recognized as a saint, or honored as a saint, only those whom the church acknowledges, are saints, and have their date of death entered into a list of dates, used to celebrate these individulas dates of departure from this life, is evidence which contradicts your statement above.
 
This is simply not true, but I don't have the time at the moment to dig out "proof".

Finding orthodox websites that talk about this in detail is proving elusive (my information on the matter comes from on-line conversations with an Antiochian Orthodox priest, and is therefore not presentable as evidence).
So for the moment I will have to withdraw my assertion that I can prove the Othodox position on this.

Never the less, I believe you are reading into that statement things not intended by its author.

You never read the website, for "Ecumenical Patriarchate", this gives you the history, of ther Patriarchal system within orthodoxy, your statement again, lacks substance, I am begining to think you don't know what your talking about.

I do, but I may not have expressed it as clearly as I might have.  Comes of writing stuff in a hurry.

[Petro]

Ollie,

Very Good,

This, your post from Baker's ED, reminded me of this verse in the book Daniel 2.

34  .....................a stone was cut out ( of the mountain [vs 45]) without hands,...........

Refers; ..................to Jesus,

He at His return to earth will destroy the four kingdoms (in Nebuchadnezers vision at Dan 7 which are described as great beasts) and will establish an everlasting kingdom and will rule over the whole earth.

Peter is not this stone, and never will be, neither is he the Rock, of Mat 16:18.

But Jesus is,

The fact some place there faith, in Peter as founder of Christ's chuch, reveals their faith be to in there membership to a church,  not membership to a body, and this is because these walk by sight and not by faith.

 In the first, above (membership in a church, is something anyone can do under their own power, after all how hard is it to join a church??,  pnotc is being indoctrinated presently);  the latter,  that of being born of the Spirit of God,  is something God does,  remember;

"thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Mat 1:21)

These characters ebia, pnotc;

make themselves willingly ignorant concerning this fact, in spite of the fact, it is written that they might believe, Jesus is the Christ, they claim to know God, but deny His word.

Rom 1
21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Blessings,

Petro

[Petro]

Quote:
[Thats you and they say, but contrary to your statement, they are made in orthodoxy, by popular acclaim, this is clear, since not every member is recognized as a saint, or honored as a saint, only those whom the church acknowledges, are saints, and have their date of death entered into a list of dates, used to celebrate these individulas dates of departure from this life, is evidence which contradicts your statement above.
 
This is simply not true, but I don't have the time at the moment to dig out "proof".

Finding orthodox websites that talk about this in detail is proving elusive (my information on the matter comes from on-line conversations with an Antiochian Orthodox priest, and is therefore not presentable as evidence).
So for the moment I will have to withdraw my assertion that I can prove the Othodox position on this.

Never the less, I believe you are reading into that statement things not intended by its author.

You never read the website, for "Ecumenical Patriarchate", this gives you the history, of ther Patriarchal system within orthodoxy, your statement again, lacks substance, I am begining to think you don't know what your talking about.

I do, but I may not have expressed it as clearly as I might have.  Comes of writing stuff in a hurry.

ebia,

I am not reading more into what these plain words explain simply.

But i did notice you are adding words to my quotes.

I never wrote:

This is simply not true, but I don't have the time at the moment to dig out "proof".

But it is OK, cause I know, what you mean when you say,

"Comes of writing stuff in a hurry."

The reason you cannot reliable sites on orthodoxy is because the eastern othodox church has never had an ecumenical council, to iron out doctrine, in reality the reason why there is so much confusion within these institutions, is because some  Eastern Christians who have returned to communion with the pope are called Eastern Catholics (they do recognize the pope as infallible), or Uniates; and in every respect apart from this obedience to Rome, they resemble their Orthodox counterparts.

I might add a few of these churches have sprouted in this country, and call themselves orthodox.

In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople lifted mutual excommunications dating from the eleventh century, and in 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together. John Paul II, the first Slavic pope, has made the reconciliation of Eastern and Western Christendom a special theme of his pontificate, and he has released a large number of documents and addresses honoring the contributions of Eastern Christendom and seeking to promote unity between Catholics and Orthodox.

If Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, are as different as you make it out to be, how can these two share the eucharist together, since we know, the eucharist  is celebrated only during the Mass and as taught by Catholicism is,  according to their teaching;

"In the Mass (refferring to the eucharist) is a true proper and propitiary sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead"  

Quoted in the summing up of the doctrine of the Mass by  Pope Pius IV confirming the decree of the Council of Trent at the conclusions of their sessions;  Council of Trent 22d session 1562 AD, passed a decree containing 9 explanatory chapters, and 9 canons

Petro

[ebia]

I am not reading more into what these plain words explain simply.

I think you are.  The fact that Orthodoxy doesn't recognise people as saints does not necessarly imply that those who are not recognised are not saints, but rather that they don't know whether they are saints or not.  Big difference.

But i did notice you are adding words to my quotes.

I never wrote:

This is simply not true, but I don't have the time at the moment to dig out "proof".

But it is OK, cause I know, what you mean when you say,

Yeh. Sorry.  That line got on the wrong side of the end quote.

The reason you cannot reliable sites on orthodoxy is because the eastern othodox church has never had an ecumenical council, to iron out doctrine, in reality the reason why there is so much confusion within these institutions, is because some  Eastern Christians who have returned to communion with the pope are called Eastern Catholics (they do recognize the pope as infallible), or Uniates; and in every respect apart from this obedience to Rome, they resemble their Orthodox counterparts.

I am quite aware of Eastern Rite Catholics.   I don't see what they have to do with the question under discussion though.

I might add a few of these churches have sprouted in this country, and call themselves orthodox.

If you say so.  I'm not in this country, and the only one's I've encountered have called themselves Catholic, not Orthodox.

There's no shortage of true Othodox churches here though, including heaps of Greek Orthodox and Macedonian Othodox and a sprinkling of Serbian, Russian, Antiochian, etc.
Surely this is off the topic though.

I suspect there are other reasons why getting this sort of info on Orthodox churches is much more difficult than (say) RC's, but that would be off topic too.

If Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, are as different as you make it out to be, how can these two share the eucharist together,

I don't believe they do.  The RCC allows Orthodox members to take communion (with reservations) at Catholic services.   If I remember correctly, the reverse is not true.

since we know, the eucharist  is celebrated only during the Mass and as taught by Catholicism is,  according to their teaching;

"In the Mass (refferring to the eucharist) is a true proper and propitiary sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead"  

That is a summary, that hides a heck of a lot of information behind those words that could be misinterpreted.

I couldn't say whether or not the Orthodox church is happy with that statement, though.

Orthodoxy has a lot in common with Catholicism.  I've never claimed otherwise.

Some key differences are:
1.  Volume of dogma.  The RCC has buildings full of dogma that you (at least in theory) sign up for if you are a member.  You are supposed to believe all of it to be true if you are a good Catholic.
Orthodoxy, on the other hand, has very little dogma and lots of doctrine (stuff the church teaches, but you can be a member in good standing and still disagree with).
2.  Papal infalibility.  The Orthodox church does not accept that any individual is infalible in the manner that the RCC claims for the Pope.  They also don't accept that the Pope (or any other bishop) has authority outside his juristiction.
3.  <can't remember what I was going to write here>

[Petro]

posted by ebia as reply #38

Pope does not equal patriarch, however many times you claim it does.

ebia,

The very Greek word "papas", means pope, first point.

Second point is, since orthodoxy is so fractured, that the Patriarch (pope) at Constaniple, where he is honored, holds authority, and where he is not, he has no authority, in this country, this religion is fairly new and novel, attracting the religious, who are impressed with pomp and circumstance, so the Patriarch who held primacy before there were all these churches which took up the name and cause came to exist, held this honor and authority, just cause you say it isn't so, doesn't change this at all. The fact is the very idea they recognize primacy to a particular patriarch pope, is because they rejected romes claim since they wanted this honor to themselves in the east.

I accept that you don't consider those books canonical. I think it pretty sad that you consider books that were included in the scriptures used by St Paul and many other bilical authors unworthy of comment.

What is sad, is that you, living in the information age, would be so misinformed about this matter. The oracles of God was given to the Jew, so it stands to reason the OT cannon, would be verified against what the Jews considered to be inspired, and what you refer as the scriptures used and read of by the Apostles as well as Jesus himself, are known as the and defined as "The Palestinian Cannon", you put your faith in the "Alexandrian Canon" with was the result of the diaspora, it came later, and was never considered canon, until the fourth century by the Roman Catholic church.  Get your historical facts right, and you will understand what truth is.

Remind me if I forget.
In the mean time, perhaps you would care to provide some evidence that early christians did not petition the saints.

Post your source and the quote and we will see, how distorted the teaching is from what was actually written by these early christians.

Can you really not see the difference between progress (in the sense used in the creed) and sent?
Obvious is a very unreliable indicator, particularly when applied to something and non-intuitive as the nature of the Trinity.

I will give you the same verses I gave pnotc,

Jhn 15:26, and Jhn 10:30.  

If you believed Jesus is one and the same as the Father, the Holy Spirit proceedeth from both.  

I bet you would claim to believe in the trinity??  Yet, it appears you really don't, or do you??

Now I am confused, you said you knew what you believe.  So can you square this up??

The trinity is Father , Son and Holy Ghost, clearly Jesus teaches in both of these verses, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, and the Son,

Note, Jesus words at Jhn 15:26,  "whom will send unto you from the Father"

It is a mystery, which cannot be comprehended completely by any man, clearly  Jesus taught He himself proceeded from the Father, and yet, He taught also, He and the Father were ONE. (Jhn 8:42, Jhn 1o:30), Yet nowhere will you find the Holy Spirit sending the Father or the Son.

And yet the Holy Spirit shares the perjogatives of the Father and Son, He is refered to as God in  (Acts 5:3-4); and in Acts 8:29 sent Phillip to the Ethiopian Eunuch, He separated and called Barnabas, and Saul, for the work HE called them.(Acts 13:2-4)

So to teach anything other than what the scriptures teach, is error, this church (orthodoxy) is in is founded on the error of this schism.

Petro




I believe it because it is written..pure and simple.
 

[Petro]

posted byPnotc as reply #37

Yes, both churches lay claim to being apostolic, but no, Orthodoxy does not observe seven sacraments. In the second place, the most common Orthodox term is "mystery" not sacrament. In the first place, Orthodoxy does not designate 7 and only 7 mysteries; it recognizes at least 7. This is because Orthodoxy is not as law-minded as Catholicism, thanks in large part, to a very different definition of original sin. Catholicism has been heavily influenced by Augustinian thought, which looked at original sin in a purely judicial sense. Orthodoxy has a different definition, wherein we inherit the effect, but not the guilt of Adam's sin.

pnotc,

As I stated, Orthodoxy believes and practices 7 sacraments, just like the Roman Catholic Chruch do, they are the same sacraments, with diferent names, ;

Whether you know or believe this, doesn't matter at all the record is there and true.

Here is the website;

Http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7105.asp

1. Holy Eucharist
2. Holy Baptism
3. Holy Confirmation In orthodoxy this is refferred to as Chrismation]
4. Holy Confession
5. Holy Marriage
6. Holy Orders
7. Hole Unction
 
The rest of what you refer to, are simply additional teachings of men, taught for commandments of God, by these men.  And varies from orthodox church to orthodox church.

"Nowhere, in the OT, will you ever find anyone praying to another man of God, whether prophet, king, priest who has passed from this life, first century christians, never did it either, this practice began first with prayers for the dead about 300 AD, followed by veneration of angels and saints approx 375 AD,"

In a later post, you chided Erbia for failing to back up her post with references. Would you mind posting support for your position? I'd like to see your evidence that this practice developed so late. In fact, if you can, it would go a decent ways of dissuading me of the truth of Orthodoxy.

You can research all I say about the Roman catholic church in the New Advant website, you don't have to take my word for, not that you do, it's all a matter of the historical record of your mother church, remmenber orthodoxy recognizes the first 7 ecumenical councils as binding, a little research on your own will, give you information which will help you understand what you need to understand to be a good orthodox faithful follower.

"The prayer life of Gods speople are the result of God working in us, perfecting His people unto all good work, and prayer is the evidence that the Spirit is at work in our lives (how is your prayer life by the way?)"

So when a saved Christian dies, God no longer works in them? If prayer is evidence of the process of being perfected, doesn't it make sense that they would continue to pray once perfection has been granted to them? Certainly their prayers would take on a different form, but is it reasonable to belief they would cease from prayer, from communication with God? Hardly. And actually, my prayer life has expanded quite a bit since I started exploring Orthodoxy. They put a much greater influence on it than does Protestantism, and in a different way.

The great difference which you are unable to see, between a living saint (one who is saved) and a dead one (one who has departed this world), is your misinterpretation, misunderstanding and application of May 16:18-19,

Mat 16
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Because, you believe Peter is the founder of Gods church,  and according to verse 19, you understand he has the power to "remit and retain" sin, you connect two other verses to this teaching;

James 5
16  Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Give me the verse, which you rely on to teach believers are to confess sin to each other.

Jhn 20
23  Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

From these verses Catholicism and orthodoxy has built this huge sacerdotal, priestly doctrinal system (and this is the whole reason for having priests) , since they are gods reprasentatives, who expiate sin, and offer up the liturgy,  execute the sacraments, especially Hoily communion upon the confession of sin.

What you fail to see, is that, the "keys of the kingdom" at vs 19, refers to the authority to proclaim the terms of salvation in Christ.

This is the privilege and duty of every Christian believer, because we have been made "Kings and Priests" in Christ Jesus, and this is a doing of God thruogh the the Spirit.

The authority to bind and loose is first and foremost the commission to proclaim the gosple which liberates those who believe it, and consigns to bondage those who reject it.
Orthodoxy does not recognize, the run of the mill faithful as a saint, but does cannonize those whom they perceive to have been great teachers, leaders in their office as priest, patriarch, or someother office within their church , giving them the privilege of being one who can confess sin, and even , you deny this but, this is the whole reason for the sacerdotal system.

The Sacrament of confession, is not exercised to any other than a priest, you will claim, but, the priest doesn't have the authority to forgive sin, he is only a witness; but this explanation does not square up with scripture.

Withregard to the receiving of Holy Communion, it cannot be received according to the teaching of the scrament, since sin has to be decalred "absolved" by the priest, who upon peforming the Sacrament of Confession,   Priest recites the Communion troparia;

continued...............