ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Orthodox Church Teachings

Cluny what is the teaching of the Orthodox Church concerning the statement of Christ," on this rock I will build my church", who or what according to their teaching is the rock? Any other Orthodox members comments welcome.

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Christian Living Quiz
 ---mima on 6/20/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



Axey: Your reasoning does not compute. The very definition of Orthodoxy (to which Cluny slavishly clings) is that it teaches only the straight, true teachings of the Apostles and their immediate successors. Theistic, multi-million year Evolution was not a part of that original teaching, and thus must be unorthodox, as must be anyone who affirms it.

I'm surprised that a mental giant such as Cluny could not answer for himself.
---jerry6593 on 7/4/11


Alan, maybe these Scriptures will help!


English Standard Version
"...and hangs the earth on nothing."

New American Standard Bible
"...And hangs the earth on nothing."

King James Bible
"...[and] hangeth the earth upon nothing."

American Standard Version
" ... And hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Bible in Basic English
"...and the earth is hanging on nothing.

Darby Bible Translation
".......he hangeth the earth upon nothing,"
---Warwick on 7/4/11


Alan you wrote "Now of course you have shown on one or two issues tht you disagree with the Bible based views of others here..."

And those issues were?
---Warwick on 7/4/11


jerry6593:

You said: Did the Orthodox Church Fathers teach multi-million year creation or not? If they did not, and you do, then you are NOT Orthodox!

This does not follow. If you had similarly said Did Jesus teach use of the internet or not? If he did not, and you do, then you are NOT a Christian!, the absurdity of the logic would become apparent.

There are three possibilities: either the Fathers taught for something, or against something, or third (which you seem to have overlooked), they may have not taught dogmatically one way or the other.
---StrongAxe on 7/3/11


Warwick ... you say: "the Bible ... actually says the earth is round, and hangs in space suspended over nothing!"

If the Bible does actually say that, that is proof that the Bible does not intend to be physically accurate on this particular point

Unless of course you can say which is the top of the Earth (where the "hook" is, visible or not, but physically effective) and show that vertically underneath the "bottom" of the earth there is a void for ever and ever.
---alan8566_of_uk on 7/3/11




Warwick, you say of me "you hold views of Scripture which are contradictory of Scripture"

So you are the Bible?

I hold views which do not agree with your interpretation of the Bible

That's something quite different ... unless you hold yourself out to be God

Now of course you have shown on one or two issues tht you disagree with the Bible based views of others here ...that makes you a Bibliosceptic?
---alan8566_of_uk on 7/3/11


Cluny: "you are in no position to know what Orthodoxy does or does not teach."

So answer the simple, straightforward question, oh great one:

Did the Orthodox Church Fathers teach multi-million year creation or not? If they did not, and you do, then you are NOT Orthodox!

And no, your childish slurs against EGW are still not an answer.
---jerry6593 on 7/3/11


jerry, since you hearken to a medium who had a walk-in spirit walk in during an extended period of unconsciousness (as so often happens), you are in no position to know what Orthodoxy does or does not teach.

Glory to Jesus Christ.
---Cluny on 7/2/11


Once on a park bench in Mexico(my wife and I used to go there to witness) a very intelligent man sat down by me and informed me that he was professor of "Comparative Religion". This man was so mixed up and confused bound by the ropes of symbolism that he could hardly complete a single thought concerning Christianity. I must say in reading these posts I am often reminded of that man. I tried to witness to him but he led me down many many rabbit trails and in the end rather sarcastically said to me what your trouble is if you tied by faith in the Bible.
---mima on 7/2/11


No true adherent to Orthodoxy would embrace Theistic Evolution or a multi-million year creation.
---jerry6593 on 7/2/11




Cluny: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Ah yes, sheer poetry! ... metaphorically speaking.

ROFL!
---jerry6593 on 7/2/11


Cluny if the six days of creation as per Genesis one can be understood as poetry or metaphor then the Ten Commandments can also be understood as poetry or metaphor.

It is quite reasonable to point out the consequences of any interpretation.

Adam is man who was made from earth so that makes sense.

BTW as you say Genesis could be poetry please quote a line of Hebrew poetry.
---Warwick on 7/2/11


Warwick, I'm not talking about the historicity of Adam, but even the NAME can be interpreted as a parable, as it means both "earth" and "man".

In any case, I never said that the six days of creation were a parable, but could be understood either as a metaphor or as poetry.

Please don't drag side issues into the conversation.

Glory to Jesus Christ.
---Cluny on 7/1/11


Cluny, the parables are obvious. But neither Genesis or the Ten Commandments are parables.

You propose Adam is but part of a parable, not a real person. However the gospel is based upon the actual events of Genesis, of Adam's sin, and the curse this brought.

1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, ...."

vs 14 "Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam..."

Now we have Moses and Jesus as non existant characters in a parable.

Where will it end?
---Warwick on 7/1/11


Alan, by inference you hold views of Scripture which are contradictory of Scripture. I say "by inference" because you allude to these ideas in a very English roundabout way, but will not explain what you actually believe.

You have often brought up ideas which you believe cast doubt on the truth of God's word. For just one example you wrote: "Warwick ... you say: "the Bible ... actually says the earth is round, and hangs in space suspended over nothing!" However the Earth is located in "space" there is something in every direction. So how can it hang over nothing??"

This demonstrates your sceptical attitude towards God's word.
---Warwick on 7/1/11


Warwick ... I have never expressed doubt as to the truth of the Bible

My questions have related to interpretations of the Bible.

In many areas there are different interprtations by man of parts of the Bible, and sometimes they appear to conflict.

But those who hold those detail interpretations, which as I say may differ, or even conflict with details interpretation by other men, all hold to the Truth.

A pity you won't accept that
---alan8566_of_uk on 7/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


\\Several here try to convince us that "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth" (Exo 20:11) is either a mistake or a lie.\\

Or maybe metaphoric/poetic speech?

One might as well argue that the parables of Jesus are about actual people and events and to say otherwise is calling Him a liar or mistaken.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/1/11


No Jerry ... Christians here do not say that is a mistake or a lie
---alan8566_of_uk on 7/1/11


Alan: "I don't see anyone here, except Atheist, who sees or wants to find errors in the Bible."

I do. Several here try to convince us that "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth" (Exo 20:11) is either a mistake or a lie. But I keep asking ... WHY? What motivates a Christian to believe atheist college professors above the Word of God?
---jerry6593 on 6/30/11


Alan a Bibliosceptic is someone who is sceptical about the truth of God's word, as I have used the term. I think this honestly describes you as you have posed questions for years whereby you express doubt in Scripture's truth.
---Warwick on 6/29/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


StrongAxe interestingly in 1969 I was having dinner in a small mountain village and ordered a caraffe of wine. When delivered it had a layer of fruit fly at the bottom. I asked for it to be strained so we could drink the wine. When I became a Christian and started reading Scripture this event caused me a laugh.

I have met people who insist we should take all of Scripture literally, but I disagree. I believe we should take it at face value unless there is good reason no to do so. Just as we do with other literature.

God has written on what we call scientific issues, informing us of these truths long before man discovered them. Man's science is of a lower order of truth. We make mistakes.
---Warwick on 6/29/11


StrongAxe many people bring up the Pi issue endeavouring to prove Scripture wrong. However for the reasons I gave we cannot say the measurements are wrong.
---Warwick on 6/29/11


why would orthodox teachings be any more or less important than any other OT based denominational church?
---michael_e on 6/29/11


Jerry ... "But the core issue is: WHY would someone WANT to find errors in the Bible?"

I don't see anyone here, except Atheist, who sees or wants to find, reeros in the Bible.

And Warwick, what does Bibliosceptic mean? I can't find it in the dictionary,
---alan8566_of_uk on 6/29/11


Shop For Church Fundraisers


\\Why do you add to scripture and spread deceit to support your New Age religion?\\

Your reproaches are compliments. Your curses merely bless me.

Keep it up!

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/29/11


jerry6593:

I am not speaking about the Bible's "foundational truths". Rather, I am speaking about people who take the Bible SO literally, they swallow camels while choking on gnats. The Bible is NOT a science textbook. It was never intended to be one. Those who look to it to build dogma about scientific issues end up extracting much more data from it than the authors put into it.

As far as the "pi" issue goes, to the nearest integer, the sea would have had a circumference of 31, not 30. But again, this only matters if someone is looking at 1 Kings as a textbook of mathematics, rather than the book of history that it actually is.
---StrongAxe on 6/29/11


Warwick:

You know this, and I know this. However, some people insist that every single word of the Bible MUST be taken literally. Those who believe this must choke on various gnats such as I mentioned in my last two messages. They forget that "common sense" is one of the most important principles of understanding ANY writings, including the Bible.
---StrongAxe on 6/29/11


Warwick and I have a problem with those who search the Bible to find reasons to disbelieve its foundational truths. It is not surprising that text from millenia ago, translated through several languages, written by those of a foreign culture, and containing idioms of those cultures may not "exactly" fit our current definitions. But why should that be surprising? "Four corners" was not used as a description of the earth's shape, but as idiom for the extreme quarters of the earth. And 3 is the correct value of pi if it is rounded off or integerized. (It is not possible to write the exact value of pi - it just keeps going 3.141592653....)

But the core issue is: WHY would someone WANT to find errors in the Bible?
---jerry6593 on 6/29/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


StrongAxe, consider, sunrise, my right hand man, drunk as a skunk, dumb as an ox, high as a kite. Do we mean these literally?

We use 'the four corners of the earth' well aware it has no corners. God knew this way before us!

1 Kings 7:23-was the rim to rim measure inside or outside? It was a "handbreadth" thickness- vs 26.

We do not know whether the measurements were approximated, not being part of a mathematical treatise.

The description fits with a vessel with a lip at the top curving outwards ("its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom" vs 26) therefore this vessel would have greater circumfeence at the top than below. Where was the circumference measured?
---Warwick on 6/28/11


Alan how typical of the Bibliosceptic that you always argue against what Scripture says!

Job 26:7 says us God "hangs the earth on nothing' NASB. A person of faith accepts that as truth, truth we can now see from space. But you...

As I have said repeatedly I do not take the Bible literally, but at face value unless there is good reason not to do so. You, a literate man, should know all literature contains figures of speech which are not to be taken literally-it was raining cats and dogs. Do we take this literally or as a figure of speech meaning it was raining heavily. I will leave that to you.

Maybe you go outside when it rains and look for the cats and dogs?

"The moon was a ghostly galleon...."
---Warwick on 6/28/11


Warwick ... you say: "the Bible ... actually says the earth is round, and hangs in space suspended over nothing!"

However the Earth is located in "space" there is something in every direction.

So how can it hang over nothing??

It would be inbtersting to see your scientific explanation as to how the Bible can be taken literally.
---alan8566_of_uk on 6/28/11


Isaiah 11:12
"... from the four corners of the earth."

Taken literally, the earth is square (or rectangular, or trapezoidal), not spherical.

1 Kings 7:23
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

Circumference/diameter depends on shape - 4 for squares, pi (3.14...) for circles, the smallest possible, but this is 3, even smaller.

Taken literally, that sea warps space much more than planets do. These are just two examples where taking the Bible TOO literally leads to conclusions that violate physical laws.
---StrongAxe on 6/28/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


StrongAxe, I can assure you the Bible does not say the earth is square. It actually says the earth is round, and hangs in space suspended over nothing! Do some research.

Neither does it say Pi=3!

The Bible isn't a scientific textbook as it is Truth. It does not change because God got it right first time.

Scientific textbooks on the other hand do change, as new information contradicts old information. This is not meant as an insult to science but to show that it is man's best guess, and well below Scripture.
---Warwick on 6/28/11


Cluny: "Don't forget about the verse in Psalms that says the Earth can't be moved from its place."

NO IT DOESN'T! You know full well that verse (Psa 104:5) does not contain the words "from its place", but, like many other verses, refers to stability in earthquakes. c.f.:

2Sa 22:8 Then the earth shook and trembled, the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth.

Why do you add to scripture and spread deceit to support your New Age religion? Why can't you answer questions for yourself, without appealing to Orthodox websites? Theistic Evolution contradicts Orthodoxy!
---jerry6593 on 6/28/11


\\We can jump to many false conclusions if we take it as one (for example, pi=3, the earth is square, etc.)\\

Don't forget about the verse in Psalms that says the Earth can't be moved from its place. This is precisely the verse used centuries ago to prove geocentrism from the Bible.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/27/11


Warwick:

The reason science changes its mind so often is because the available data, as well as the techniques for understand it, keep expanding over time. Science knows our knowledge is imperfect, like Paul who said "we see through a glass darkly".

Unfortunately, many Christians do not understand this, and think they can know everything with certainty. Just look at Harold Camping and how wrong such a presumptuous attitude can be.

The Bible is not a rigorous scientific textbook. We can jump to many false conclusions if we take it as one (for example, pi=3, the earth is square, etc.)
---StrongAxe on 6/27/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


jerry and others, please read the article on evolution at orthodoxwiki dot org. This will explain both sides of the issue briefly in an historical context.

Glory to Jesus Chris!
---Cluny on 6/27/11


Cluny when you wrote "Genesis should not be compared with scientific theory, but with the creation myths of surrounding contemporary cultures" were falling into the pattern that many pseudo-intellectuals fall into.
They invariably skate too close to the edge of the pond of their own intelligence and fall in that acid corroding substance. Namely their human intelligence. From such the power and hope of faith has fled!1
---mima on 6/27/11


Cluny, you wrote: "..Genesis should not be compared with scientific theory, but with the creation myths of surrounding contemporary cultures..."

Correct Genesis should not be compared to scientific theory which as best is a constantly changing human guess. Remember Neantertals,once portrayed as stooped nonHuman ancestors of man. Whoops that was wrong!

Other human creation myths should in fact be compared to Genesis,and they do not compare well.

Jesus, who you acknowledge as God, and His apostles, quoted from or alluded to the first 11 chapters of Genesis as historical fact 107 times! Not even a hint it was anything but historical fact.

A question: Did they mislead us, or didn't they know the truth?
---Warwick on 6/27/11


Cluny: "Genesis should not be compared with scientific theory, but with the creation myths of surrounding contemporary cultures"

Are you inferring that Orthodoxy consists not of what the Apostles taught or what can be proved, but rather of the pagan influences of eastern mysticism and Greek mythology? As Warwick has suggested, the preponderance of the original Church Fathers (as well as Christ's Apostles) did NOT promote or ever suggest the validity of such a pagan, anti-biblical system of origins as the Big Bang + Evolution of the species. Such teaching is at odds with the very definition of Orthodoxy, which you loudly champion, and anyone that teaches such rot is NOT Orthodox!
---jerry6593 on 6/27/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


Cluny in Basil's Homily II:8 he goes to considerable lengths to show that the days of creation are definitely 24hr days.

It is too long to post here, sadly.

The majority of the church fathers also believed in, and promoted 24hr days of creation. Quite a few of the fathers beliefs are unclear. Only very few believed the days were other than literal 24hr days.
---Warwick on 6/26/11


\\Did the original Orthodox Church Fathers teach Theistic Evolution as you do? \\

It's an open question there, beyond saying that the physical universe had a definite beginning caused by God Himself.

As I have said, Genesis should not be compared with scientific theory, but with the creation myths of surrounding contemporary cultures, some of which have a pre-existent universe causing the deities to come into being.

Read St. Basil's ON THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION (sometimes called the Hexaemeron).

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/26/11


Cluny: Did the original Orthodox Church Fathers teach Theistic Evolution as you do? Did they believe that the Old Testament contained such errors as geocentrism, as you do? Has the Orthodox belief system "evolved" thus becoming a self contradiction?
---jerry6593 on 6/26/11


Orthodox Jews do not hold services in temples. They hold them in synagogues. It's Reform and Conservative Jews who often call their buildings temples. But never the Orthodox.
---John.usa on 6/24/11

Heck I knew you would snag me on that one! But I hit submit anyway. True The Orthodox do not call it Temple since the only temple was destroyed in 70 AD.
---John on 6/25/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


\\John I was reffering to a Jewish Orthodox Temple(Sephardic).
Where they had Dress Codes and the men and woman sit separately. etc etc etc.
---John on 6/24/11\\

Separating the sexes happens in Asheknazi shuls, too.

Oddly enough, it happens in many Eastern Churches, Orthodox, Catholic, and Non-Chalcedonian, as well, though not so much in America or diaspora.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/25/11


Orthodox Jews do not hold services in temples. They hold them in synagogues. It's Reform and Conservative Jews who often call their buildings temples. But never the Orthodox.
---John.usa on 6/24/11


It is my experience that the Orthodox Church has priests. It is Orthodox Judaism that has rabbis. :-)
---John.usa on 6/24/11

John I was reffering to a Jewish Orthodox Temple(Sephardic).
Where they had Dress Codes and the men and woman sit separately. etc etc etc.
---John on 6/24/11


The confession of St. Peter, not the person.

---Cluny on 6/20/11

Please provide me with the Early Church Fathers who made this argument and quotes? Jesus doesn't build his church on'confession' and 'faith' but on people,"foundation on the apostles" with Peter as the "Rock" and Jesus as the chief cornstone!
---Ruben on 6/24/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


Good Post Poopsey!

Seems like Cluny was too embarass to expose the truth concerning his church.
---John on 6/24/11


Cluny please comment on this statement by poopsey,"The orthodox church prays for the dead and is heavily steeped in tradition like the Catholic Church. Their idea of salvation is a progression and not a one time event based on faith. No real assurance of salvation just like the Catholic Church." I tend to agree who I would. like to have your opinion.

---mima on 6/24/11


\\In fact it came out of the Catholic Church even though it claims to be the original church. Early churches were not denominational but built separately in different locations with their own leadership. The original head church was in Jerusalem and was not the Orthodox Church.\\

Wrong on three counts:

1. The Roman Catholic Church came out of Orthodoxy.

2. The different original congregations had their bishops and presbyters ordained by the apostles (of the 12 or 70).

3. The native Christians of Jerusalem who have been there for centuries are all Orthodox. What does this tell you?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/24/11


It is my experience that the Orthodox Church has priests. It is Orthodox Judaism that has rabbis. :-)
---John.usa on 6/24/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


The thing is Cluny I asked sincere questions, because I wanted to learn. I was not intending to be confrontational or "bash" etc.

I was just asking to learn and listen. No arguement on your thesis. Just asking.

I did tell you I intend to visit an Orthodox Church.

I will be reading books as well. Right now I read enough books.

Also I would like to know how I need to behave in an Orthodox Church before I visit one. What to do, what NOT to do.

I always ask someone who is a member before I attend.

I asked an Orthodox Rabbi and it was quite a procedure. But well worth it!
---John on 6/23/11


The orthodox church is very similar to the Catholic Church. In fact it came out of the Catholic Church even though it claims to be the original church. Early churches were not denominational but built separately in different locations with their own leadership. The original head church was in Jerusalem and was not the Orthodox Church.

The orthodox church prays for the dead and is heavily steeped in tradition like the Catholic Church. Their idea of salvation is a progression and not a one time event based on faith. No real assurance of salvation just like the Catholic Church.

Very traditional and ritualistic which is religion. Not quite the same as having a personal relationship with Christ.
---poopsey on 6/24/11


What you call elitism and arrogance, John, I call giving uncompromised sound doctrine and truth without fear or favor.

The Orthodox Church is available to everyone, John. No elitism about it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/23/11


Cluny...Is the doctrine for salvation so long that it needed a book about it? It was a sincere question. Didn't expect to be told to read a book.
---KarenD on 6/23/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


I like the Orthodox Church and the Byzantine liturgy, although I'm not Orthodox myself. ---John.usa on 6/23/11

I agree. That's why I want to visit an Orthodox Church. I believe much has been lost without the liturgy. I've been to many RCC services.

This was mostly due to Calvin removing the stain glass and onward until today it is all sterilized in an all white office building...

AND PLLEEEZZZ FOLKS...

Don't post the..."Its not the building that makes a church" cliche' blah blah blah..

I'm out of Pepto Bismol.

---John on 6/23/11


Orthodox people are just like other people, some nice, others nasty, some humble, others proud. The average person of the Orthodox faith would not bother to come to ChristiaNet and debate. They have nothing to prove to us. I like the Orthodox Church and the Byzantine liturgy, although I'm not Orthodox myself. My favorite saint is Gregory of Nyssa. :-)
---John.usa on 6/23/11


\\I receive nothing more than ELITISM AND ARROGANCE. As your posts so eloquently demonstrate.\\

You should talk, John. You constantly say thing that have no basis in history or reality.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/23/11


Cluny, the questions KarenD and I have asked you are WELL within the auspices of this Blog. Pleeezzz!

I think you've seen blogs that wonder off topic.

ANOTHER QUESTION...
YES... This is a real honest question...NOT a comment!

Why is it on every encounter I have had with Orthodox Church members, I receive nothing more than ELITISM AND ARROGANCE. As your posts so eloquently demonstrate.
Is this a teaching of your church?
Is this NOT against the teachings of Christ who taught
HUMILITY AND MEEKNESS.

This Blog was an opportunity for you to speak about your church. Yet you call us babes who need milk. However if the milk is sour than who needs it, since it will only make us sick.
---John on 6/23/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


KarenD and John: Your questions are verging off topic.

If you want to know what Orthodox teaching in general is, there are good Orthodox web sites.

A basic book is Timothy Ware's THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, which he wrote while yet a layman. He's now known as Metropolitan Kallistos.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/23/11


cluny...Would you please explain the Orthodox doctrine on how a person becomes a Christian?
---KarenD on 6/22/11


As far as the rest, we speak of THEOSIS."Getting saved" in your sense is not a Biblical concept.
---Cluny on 6/22/11

Is it more of a collectivism of church members, rather than an individual salvation?

Can a Heterodox get saved?
---John on 6/22/11


\\Do you use unleaven bread (Matzahs)or something different?

Also, if you can with the 125 word ltd.\\

We use leavened bread, as the Greek Bible says Jesus took ARTOS, which always means leavened bread.

As far as the rest, we speak of THEOSIS."Getting saved" in your sense is not a Biblical concept.

But this is not milk for babes, as many here do not even believe that Jesus is God Incarnate.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/22/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


We don't use wafers, John.
---Cluny on 6/22/11

Do you use unleaven bread (Matzahs)or something different?

Also, if you can with the 125 word ltd. Can you tell me The Orthodox believe on how you get saved.
---John on 6/22/11


\\Cluny...Does Orthodoxy believe that the bread and wine are actually Jesus' body and blood when we take them?
---KarenD on 6/22/11\\

No.

The Orthodox Church teaches that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ after the Epiclesis, which is a Trinitarian prayer that the Father will send the Holy Spirit to change the bread and into the Body and Blood of Christ.

What you said is the old Western heresy of Receptionism--that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ to the communicant.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/22/11


Cluny...Does Orthodoxy believe that the bread and wine are actually Jesus' body and blood when we take them?
---KarenD on 6/22/11


\\example however the RCC condems iconography as idolatrous\\

Wrong. Icons have NEVER been condemned by Roman Catholics.

**A) Christ physically present in the wafer/wine(i.e.RCC)**

We don't use wafers, John.

||Cluny, you did not answer my question.||

I did my best to answer your question, Rob. Sorry you didn't like the answer you got.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/22/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


Andy

The rcc orthodoxy came from here, 2nd.Cor.11 v's 14 - 15, even her offspring daughters churches. That's why they Are here, Rev.17 v's 4 - 6. <-- If they were valid of God they wouldn't be there. Since they are Not valid of God (Matt.15 v 9, that's why they Are there.

---Lawrence on 6/22/11


Cluny, you did not answer my question.

I asked according to what is written in scripture, (not according to Orthodoxy), what criteria must a person me to be an Apostle of Christ.
---Rob on 6/21/11


Cluny, Two Questions.

1) What is the Orthodox Church teachings on acquiring Salvation.

2)In the Eucharist.
is...

A) Christ physically present in the wafer/wine(i.e.RCC)

B) Spirtually present (i.e. Lutheran)

C) Symbolically Present (i.e Baptist)
---John on 6/21/11


also the RCC accepts this, the big fight between the two is found more in frases and termminology then real differences. example however the RCC condems iconography as idolatrous they in practice to exactely the same with their statutes of Jesus and the saints.
---andy3996 on 6/21/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


Rob, Orthodoxy generally distinguishes between the Apostles of the 12 and of the Seventy.

Among these are Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and others, of course.

There are also those considered Equals of the Apostles. Many of these are women, such as Mary Magdelene and Nina, the Evangelizer of Georgia (the country in the Caucasus, not the Peach State).

Hope this helps.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/21/11


Cluny, according to what is written in scripture, what criteria must a person meet to be an Apostle of Christ?
---Rob on 6/21/11


The confession of St. Peter, not the person.

And when the successor of St. Peter returns to Orthodoxy, he will be given the honors of St. Peter.

Since in Orthodox teaching ALL bishops are successors of the Apostles, therefore ALL sees are Holy and Apostolic sees.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/20/11


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.