Peter says, Jesus is the Stone the builders rejected.

[Petro]

This is clearly seen in the teaching of the Liturgucal text for "Communion Of the Sick in a Hospital" , note the 'text' of the words, in the performing of the sacrament of Holy Confession, followed by Holy Communion;

http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/in_hospital.asp

Can a common living saint, perform such a rite, in the orthodox church??  NO, it must be performed by a priest.

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

Confession

"Confession is the Sacrament through which our sins are forgiven, and our relationship to God and to others is restored and strengthened. Through the Sacrament, Christ our Lord continues to heal those broken in spirit and restore the Father's love those who are lost. According to Orthodox teaching, the penitent confess to God and is forgiven by God. The priest is the sacramental witness who represents both Christ and His people. The priest is viewed not as a judge, but as a physician and guide. It is an ancient Orthodox practice for every Christian to have a spiritual father to whom one turns for spiritual advice and counsel. Confession can take place on any number of occasions. The frequency is left the discretion of the individual. In the event of serious sin, however, confession is a necessary preparation for Holy Communion."
The Serious sin above refers to the Catholic teaching of "mortal sin" as opposed to "venial sin", however it is clear, confession is necessary before receiving Holy Communion, and sin must be confessed  thru a priest, not a saint, he the priest is a sacramental witnes both to the confession and the asolution of sin, since he then performs the sacrament of communion.

"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.

How do you reconcile, the scripture I gave you above to this idea??  And in whose name do they ask to have their sins forgiven??

As for your statement;

I'm not sure how the Hebrews verse you referenced prevents petitioning the saints.

In Heb 8:1-4, we see Jesus our high priest who makes intercession at the throne of grace, day and night, since the accuser of the brethern brings those accusations at this place day and night (Rev 12:10);

Jesus according to scripture,  everliveth, to make intercession for us, and it only through His intercession, to God, that all manner of sin is forgiven (Heb 7:25),

It is only by His ministry at the right hand on high that, answer to prayer is obtained, and Christians are exhorted to come to the thone of grace boldly, it says nothing about confessing sin to priests.

Note, James 5:16, the word is "faults" not "sins" is used; there is no basis to believe or teaching, some men are priests and some are not, the Bible clearly teaches all who are of the Body of Christ are Priests. And prayer for the forgiveness of sin, directed to God the Father, in the name of Jesus, is accomplished by Him.

I don't have to prove anything I believe, since it is by Faith I believe it, because the scriptures teach it.

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

The Holy spirit is the same one that raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:11) and dwells in all believers, confirming these truths to them.

Jhn 10
30  I and my Father are one.

You obviously do not, believe Jesus. Because you give more crdibility to mans words.


Blessings,
Petro

[ebia]

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

Whatever the origins of the word (which I havent time right now to check up on) the important point remains that the RCC concept of Pope is radically different to the Orthodox concept of Patriarch.

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.

Sort out your punctuation and I might be able to parse this.  It might also help if you said what country you are talking about.

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.

The Jews didn't sort out and define their canon until after most of the NT had been written, by which time they had a vested interest in the outcome.
Those NT quotes from the OT that are identifiable (quite a lot) clearly come from the LXX
It's you who needs to read up on some unbiased history it seems.

BTW, Canon only has one n.  Unless you are planning to shoot someone with it.

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

Sorry - not had time yet.
Don't let that stop you posting some proof that they didn't though.

Jhn 15:26,

Talks about sending the Holy Spirit into the world

Jhn 10:30.

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

The Father, Son & Holy Ghost are all one.  By this logic then, the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself.

You don't seem to understand what "proceeds from" means in the Nicene Creed, and until you get that straight, any further discussion on this is pointless.  It does not mean sent.

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

I do.

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

Is anything still unclear.

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,

I'll say it again.  Those verses are talking about sending, not proceeding.

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

Likewise.  

I'll leave pnoct to deal with the rest, because (to be frank) I'm getting tired of talking to a brick wall.

[Petro]

author ebia

Whatever the origins of the word (which I havent time right now to check up on) the important point remains that the RCC concept of Pope is radically different to the Orthodox concept of Patriarch.

It doesn't matter what the origin is, the scriptures are clear; the word pope/papas, means Father, just because its transliterated in english as pope, does not change that fact.

Jesus said;

Mat 6
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Mat 23
9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Sort out your punctuation and I might be able to parse this.  It might also help if you said what country you are talking about.

Constantinople was the seat of eastern seat of the kingdom, you didn't know this, we are speaking of the Roman Empire, as for the punctuation, LOL..

"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."

The Jews didn't sort out and define their canon until after most of the NT had been written, by which time they had a vested interest in the outcome.
Those NT quotes from the OT that are identifiable (quite a lot) clearly come from the LXX
It's you who needs to read up on some unbiased history it seems.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  The Council at Jamnia aprox 90AD basically resolved this matter,  You my friend simply do not KNOW,  what it is you are saying, but unfortunately it doesn't have to be that way at all.

You are in the dark because you desire to be in the dark on these things.

BTW, Canon only has one n.  Unless you are planning to shoot someone with it.

So long as you understand, that is all that matters..

Jhn 15:26,

Talks about sending the Holy Spirit into the world

Jhn 10:30.

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

The Father, Son & Holy Ghost are all one.  By this logic then, the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself.

By Your logic it would, unfortunately it is written otherwise, this why you can read about it, believing what you read is another matter.

You don't seem to understand what "proceeds from" means in the Nicene Creed, and until you get that straight, any further discussion on this is pointless.  It does not mean sent.
[/quote

The Nicene creed was nowhere in site when the words of the verses I have quoted for you, were written, so your logic here again does not hold water.

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

I do.

I bet you do..

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

Is anything still unclear.

Whats unclear to you is based on lack of understanding of what the scriptures teach, this doesn't mean you can't understand, it means you won't, you willingly are ignorantly, because you put more faith in other things rather than Gods Word.

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,

I'll say it again.  Those verses are talking about sending, not proceeding.

The Word is "proceedeth",

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

I'll leave pnoct to deal with the rest, because (to be frank) I'm getting tired of talking to a brick wall.

Your not even acquainted enough with the Word to see the verse I quoted you, had a letter ommitted by error,  here is the way it reads;

 "whom I will send unto you........

As for "getting tired", I am with you, it appears we are not going to get anywhere, since you need to infrom yourself "mo betteh" in order to comprehend, and even then it is very possible this may not solve your problelemm..

yeah I know 'problelemm" is mispelled.......


Petro

[ebia]

Proceeds or proceedeth - depends whether you are using an archaic translation or not.   The original is not in English, remember.

One last time - It has nothing to do with sending into the
world.  It is talking about the Holy Spirit's eternal nature - equivalent to "Begotton of the Father" for the the Son.

Constantinople was the seat of eastern seat of the kingdom, you didn't know this, we are speaking of the Roman Empire, as for the punctuation, LOL..

I know what & where Constantinople is.  When you say "this country" you are talking about the eastern empire?  I thought you meant whatever country you are in.

The Council at Jamnia aprox 90AD basically resolved this matter,

 
I know.  And AD 90 is before or after the start of Christianity?

For the rest, until you stop evading the point, I've got better things to do with my time than keep repeating myself or pointing out the obvious, or getting sidetracked into another side-issue.

[ollie]

"FYI

Main Entry: pa·tri·arch
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-"ärk
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English patriarche, from Old French, from Late Latin patriarcha, from Greek patriarchEs, from patria lineage (from patr-, patEr father) + -archEs -arch -- more at FATHER
Date: 13th century
1 a : one of the scriptural fathers of the human race or of the Hebrew people b : a man who is father or founder c (1) : the oldest member or representative of a group (2) : a venerable old man d : a man who is head of a patriarchy
2 a : any of the bishops of the ancient or Eastern Orthodox sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem or the ancient and Western see of Rome with authority over other bishops b : the head of any of various Eastern churches c : a Roman Catholic bishop next in rank to the pope with purely titular or with metropolitan jurisdiction
3 : a Mormon of the Melchizedek priesthood empowered to perform the ordinances of the church and pronounce blessings within a stake or prescribed jurisdiction."
 
Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

[Petro]

"FYI

Main Entry: pa·tri·arch
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-"ärk
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English patriarche, from Old French, from Late Latin patriarcha, from Greek patriarchEs, from patria lineage (from patr-, patEr father) + -archEs -arch -- more at FATHER
Date: 13th century
1 a : one of the scriptural fathers of the human race or of the Hebrew people b : a man who is father or founder c (1) : the oldest member or representative of a group (2) : a venerable old man d : a man who is head of a patriarchy
2 a : any of the bishops of the ancient or Eastern Orthodox sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem or the ancient and Western see of Rome with authority over other bishops b : the head of any of various Eastern churches c : a Roman Catholic bishop next in rank to the pope with purely titular or with metropolitan jurisdiction
3 : a Mormon of the Melchizedek priesthood empowered to perform the ordinances of the church and pronounce blessings within a stake or prescribed jurisdiction."
 
Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

Ollie,

LOL, ebia and pnotch, must be the only ones who don't know the history of the Partriarchate on the Eastern Orhtodox church, here a secular dictionary defines, what all of secularISM, knows and undertands the history behind, of this office.


In the definition above all a,b, c, applied to the Bishop of Constantinople, until around 1054, when they finalized the break, when thre east ex-communicated the western portion of the church, followed by the west ex-communicating eastern church, and then both agreed to a mutual ex-communication of each other .

Both lifted their ex-communications of each other in 1965 when the catholic pope visited the eastern patriarch/pope, even celebrated the eucharist with the hosts.

The original battle, which caused the rift to begin with (which is called the big schism,(their were other issues, however) was this very issue of "primacy" the eastern patriarch/pope wanted the primacy because Constantinople was wher ethe emperor had established his headquarters, at that time it was for all the marbles, noit just "honor" as these birds claim, today.

BTW, you seem to rely quite a bit, on the NIV, and some of the modern english versions, what do you think of the Table of Comparison submitted, could it be alot of the verses you post, do not jive with the AV..??

Anyhow, you know what they say of ignorance being bliss, I think this is what affects these posters,here.


Blessings,

Petro

[Petro]

author ebia
Proceeds or proceedeth - depends whether you are using an archaic translation or not.   The original is not in English, remember.

One last time - It has nothing to do with sending into the
world.  It is talking about the Holy Spirit's eternal nature - equivalent to "Begotton of the Father" for the the Son.

ebia,

No wonder you are reeling from dizzyiness, now you are using the word "begotten";  this was never the issue, you are once again mistaken..

Every Christian knows, the Holy Spirit was never begotten, even orthodoxy would not argue this point.

Constantinople was the seat of eastern seat of the kingdom, you didn't know this, we are speaking of the Roman Empire, as for the punctuation, LOL..

I know what & where Constantinople is.  When you say "this country" you are talking about the eastern empire?  I thought you meant whatever country you are in.

Sigh.......??    You need to find your other oar..

The Council at Jamnia aprox 90AD basically resolved this matter,
 
I know.  And AD 90 is before or after the start of Christianity?

There used to be a lecherous sort of guy on this forum awhile back, who was a real moron, your old user name wouldn't be Hitch would it by any chance??

I can't believe you would ask such a question, maybe I do..

But anyhow, this council was several decades before the appearance of the Alexandrian Cannon (LOL) , which threw out your extra biblical books, you believe are inspired, ignoring this fact, won't make your problem disappear, if you trust the apocrypha for truth, what else can be said to you, since the truth has been given to you, you can do whatever you desire with it.

For the rest, until you stop evading the point, I've got better things to do with my time than keep repeating myself or pointing out the obvious, or getting sidetracked into another side-issue.

What a joke, you've ignored truth, and facts, you have sought out the sidetracks, to argue nonsense, which you embrace as your truth, based on baseless facts.  


Petro

[Petro]

posted by pnotc as reply #37
Petro said;
"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)" (end of Petro's quote}

pnotc's answer;
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.

pnotc,
You use the NIV, and rely on it, please refer to, again;
Jhn 14
13  And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.
14  You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
So, if orthodox believers do not petition the Father in the name of Jesus, whose name confidently, do they rely on for answer to prayer,
If Christians are saved under the name of Jesus, and He is Gods intermediary between  God and man, what other name could any Christian use for petioning God the Father, which would glorify the Father?
Since sin is not commanded to be confessed to saints, how could saints especially departed saints interceded for sins of living saints, this teaching lacks biblical authority.


Petro

[ebia]

No wonder you are reeling from dizzyiness, now you are using the word "begotten";  this was never the issue, you are once again mistaken..

Every Christian knows, the Holy Spirit was never begotten, even orthodoxy would not argue this point.

That isn't what I said.

Either you are blindingly stupid or you are deliberately misconstruing everything I say.

Either way, there is no point in continuing this "debate".

[geralduk]

The WHOLE edifice of roman doctrin of thier 'authority; 'rests' on this 'rock'

DISREGARDING ALL other scripture they hold to this as being the FOUNDATION of their church.
For without it they have NO authority at all.
Their light is in deed GREAT DARKNESS.

Now I have a         .          mole on my arm and its brown.
But if you was to EXCLUSIVELY look at it without ANY regard to the rest of my body.
You could 'argue' that im a 'black' man or negro or whatever may be described.
Yet while I find no shame to be called such yet I am not.
and when the REST of my body is put in CONTEXT then without a doubt I am white or pink or whatever I may so be described and recognised as.

Now I am no scholar so I cannot argue from what I do not know.
Yet Taking my bible which is in PLAIN ENGLISH I see a man called PETER who romes SAYS is the ROCK on which the church is BUILT on.
Yet I see that the Lord had 12 apostles.
Not ONE.
Two I find in the marvelous wisdom of God a man called PETER who is no ROCK on which an ETERNAL church can be built but a man who in the very next BREATH sought by his ne wfound  revalation to disuade the Lord from Gods chosen path.and was rebuked for his pains.
Who DENIED the LORD 3 TIMES.
Who WRONLY chose another 'APOSTLE ' by the WRONG METHOD(which they wrongly folowing do wrongly still!)
For it is clear it is PAUL who was the substitute.
That in matters of DOCTRIN and FAITH acknowledges PAULs teaching as "hard to understand"
In matters of CONDUCT was rebuked publicly by PAUL  fro his hypocracy with the "curcumcision party"

True He was the FIRST to speak to the JEWS on the day of pentecost.
But then that was ONE of the keys to the kingdom.
True he was the FIRST to speak to the GENTILES but that too was the other key.
But where as PAUL clearly says and was the APOSTLE to the GENTILES so to then was PETER the Apostle to the JEWS.

So as a MAN he was NO rock(IN THIS SENSE)STRONG ENOUGH
ROCK  then to build a church ONfor ETERNITY.

But when we look at " THE CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD"
We see a ROCK worthy of the NAME on which to BUILD AN ETERNAL church.

It should also be remebered that the scriptures not only speak of THE church as a BUILDING OR TEMPLE but as a BODY.
and so If PETER was the 'rock' on which it was built then gievn that ALL scripture harmonizes with scripture.
Then He must needs bve somehow a 'rock' for the body.
But what do we see?
That it is CHRIST who is the HEAD of the BODY even as He BROUGHT it with His own blood.
and even as the BLOOD is the LIFE of the natural body so too is the BLOOD the LIFE of the SPIRITUAL.

How then is peter the foundation of life of the BODY!?

Jesus said that "f any man heareth MY WORD and DOETH them I will liken unto him as a WISE man who buildeth his house upon a ROCK....."
tHE LORD THEN conecting the doing oNHis WORD as building on a ROCK.
How then is PETER the rock on which the church is BUILT when it is the DOING OF CHRISTS Word which the church is suposed to be doing?

Now is it not written that "wothout FAITH it is impossible to pelease God"
Yet then is our faith to be in PETER or His successors?
or God?
Now ROME would say it in all but name that it shouild be in THEM!
But "faith (IN GOD)comes by hearing and that UNDERSDTANDING the WORD OF GOD.
Thus making again the WORD the ROCK on which THE foundations of our faith REST.

For our faith is NOT in MEN but in God.
But thier fruit is ALWAYS to draw mens TO HAVE faith in EVERYTHING else BUT GOD.

If we look at john letters we see what OVERCOMETH THE WORLD? EVEN OUR FAITH!
iN WHO?
peter?
NO!
But IN Him Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God who is the ROCK not only of our salvation but of the CHURCH AS WELL.

AND THAT ROCK liveth and abideth forever.

Now if more be needed?


Apsotles are FOUNDATIONS of the church.
But the BUILDING does not REST UPON THEM but are BUILT even as THEY ARE ...... UPON THE ROCK!

The FOUNDATIONS give the SHAPE AND PATTERN of the BUILDING.

bUT HERE TOO THEY show themslevs in error!

For where as PAUL shoed clearly in HEBREWS that the old tabernacle MADE WITH HANDS has passed away even asd the PREISTHOOD has.
For they were @after thew pattern that I will show you@
Meaning the TRUE and PERFECT pattern iS in HEAVEN and NOT made with hands and has NO preisthood of the FLESH.
and that we are made AFTER THE TRUE tabernacle and TRUE APOSTLES  folow after THAT pattern OF HEAVEN not one made with hands!
and so if folowing THEM.
have the HOLY SPIRIT.
IF ROME candles.
If of heaven.
A high preist who LIVETH AND ABIDETH FOREVER "WHO EVER INTERCEEDETH FOR US"
and who are "made preists and kings unto God"
of rome.
men and UNLAWFULL preists.
O(f heaven
The fervant heartfelt prayers of a rightous man and the "groaning which cannot be uttered"
Rome
Incnese and "vain repertitions of the heathen"(godless)
Heaven
rOBES OF RIGHTOUSNESS washed in the blood.
rome
vestments and OUTWARD SHOW and "forms of godliness"
The list is endless.


That which is built on 'PETER'(SO THAT SAY)
is built on SAND.
That which is built on CHRIST
is built on THE ROCK of AGES.