whine of astonsihment

I think the absolute height of hypocrisy is donning the user name 'Orthodoxy', defining yourself as a or possibly THE 'defender of Orthodoxy', and trying to appear as though you are genuinely knowledgeable about the Orthodox Church via your 'volume of posts' when, IN REALITY, your ACTUAL STATUS is someone who has ACTUALLY attended less than a handful of Liturgical services, understood little about what you saw, as clearly evidenced from the depth of your comprehension of the whole hand-kissing discussion, and are simply a 'catecumen' (and of limited actual physical attendance at that, it would seem) who has yet been deemed ready for even chrismation - much less the actual 'preparation' of the Holy Eucharist, which requires both (a) graduation from an Orthodox seminary, which you only 'hope' to attend 'someday', and (b) ordination in order to even qualify for preparation of the Holy Eucharist - which coincidentally; if you happened to have been born with female genitalia instead of male genitalia AND managed to complete step (a) (presuming such a female actually lives, breathes, and walks this earth in the here and now) you (now a mere 'distraction') would automatically not qualify for step (b). in order for her to 'someday' become a member of the priesthood that you have no intention of ever ACTUALLY joining.

MMM... What's wrong with this picture? MY ESSENTIAL POINT here, my little Orthodox funny sonny,, is that this makes you about as much of an Orthodox Christian standing in your church (much less than a 'Christian' of any make or model year) as standing in a garage makes you a Ferrari (much less a 'car' of any gender or age).

I think you should at least take a good, long look into your narcissistic baptismal font, (if not take a flying leap into it) so you can see that YOUR ESSENTIAL POINT resides on top of your head.

You should wait until you have at least emerged from an authorized Orthodox chrismatorium, hopefully in about a year or so as you stated (or you can fax us a 'chrismatic certificate' signed by an actual Orthodox priest of ethnicity, if you have even met more than just one), providing you ever make it that far and can still walk and talk then, before you profess to ACTUALLY KNOW or BE anything Orthodox :rolleyes - unless you wish to experience a martyr's 'Death by Derision' for dancing with this particular Orthodox whiny woman again because you will receive no further apologies from me next time, sincere or sarcastic.

Next time it will not be like a 'knife in your heart', it will be more like me turning you into an organ donor and placing your organ(s) on the Holy Altar of the Divine Organ Grinder, where He can Transubstantiate them into your very own Orthodox pseudo-eucharist, thereby making it possiible for you through your orthoFOXy theosis to at least theoretically eat your own heart out (along with any other organs the Divine Organ Grinder bestowed upon you and deems worthy for sacrifice) DUDE lol:lol

BruceDLimber

"Do not believe the orthodox not prohibit?!!" IOW, two negatives producing a positive, you believe they DO prohibit. You appear to have said exactly the opposite of what you intended here. Meaning no offense, perhaps you need to rethink this statement and repost it in less convoluted language.

Funny how YOUR religion prohibits women from being priests and that's just fine with you, but you're REALLY QUICK to condemn us for not having women in the House when this is explicitly mandated by our scriptures (unlike YOUR prohibition)!

Speaking of double standards, . . . :-(

Not only do we beleive the Christ spirit already returned around a century and a half ago (yes, I know you disagree), but as we've already clearly stated, WE DON'T KNOW what the answer is--indeed, NOBODY does, so there's simply no point in your complaining that we can't provide it!

This is therefore simply just hot air on your part.


Bruce

Livindesert

O.k. how about saying some things about each other that we like. I would have to say I like and appreciate the passion shown by Orthodox, Whine, and Bruce.

BruceDLimber

The Baha'i scriptures explain this quite clearly!:

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."

—(The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 114;
also Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8) [emphasis added]

And you can't even SAY this until you first clarify which of the over 35,000 different Christian groups you're referring to given how different their various beliefs are!

Peace,

Bruce

arthra

You know I've probably been to more Orthodox services in my time than "orthodox" has if we can take his statement... verbatim, and I love Russian Orthodox hymns..

But to say the Lord Jesus established the Orthodox Church is to take more than a "flying leap".. I think.

The Greek word in Matthew 16:18 doesn't really even translate as "Church" but more like Assembly or gathering.. Come to think of it that's what we call our Local Spiritual Assemblies..but hey..probably the word that Jesus used was in Aramaic and referred to a more Hebrew sense:

) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating

b) the assembly of the Israelites
c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

- taken from the Blue Letter Bible

The Aramaic or Hebrew word the Lord Jesus was supposed to have used was more likely "Qahal"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qahal and the Arabic word "Qala" to speak is close to the meaning also.

SO when the word "church" is used it conjures up the whole hierarchy and set up that took well over a hundred years to develope and even then there were many kinds of churches and Christians.. The Orthodox Church did not spring "full blown from the head of Zeus.."

Orthodox

Why yes I am quite ignorant of orthodoxy. But what I know seems valid and thus I defend it. So Whine you have shown your sarcastic colours of one who merely wishes to insult. That being said I define myself as orthodox and do defend the orthodox faith because I believe it. You have not attacked any of my ideas or opinions but instead want to focus on me personally. In the buisness we know this as an Ad Hom fallacy it proves nothing on your part and for a woman claiming to be so old you talk as if you were an... actually I better not say that. So Whine act mature and deal with my criticisms. Stop fallacies and painful sarcasm.

Now alright Arthra, the word Ecclesia does mean assembly, yes but thats word from which we get the word church and the way it is translated. A church is also an assembly, however we don't just know about the ecclesia from how Jesus established it on peter but through the apostles. It was an organised front of people dedicated to moving the gospel around and that gospel and organisation did not cease to exist with John's death.

And Bruce, I have never condemned your organisation for not allowing women into the highest seat of authority. I'm just using it as an example that you attacking the Orthodox church for how it lets women take part in the church is a double standard. Unless you let women in all facets of your organisation it is a double standard and you have no right to attack the church. And Bruce stating your ignorance and awaiting an answer is not an excuse. Its like saying "Teacher you have wait untill the appointed time in which I can hand in my homework" so saying you will receive an answer is not enough to avoid this double standard. Thats all Im pointing out here a double standard with bahai.

ANd livin, the elephant does not prove what you say. The text argues that all these things are different aspects of the one whole it does not deliberately try to make them contradict. However the God of Christianity and bahai contradict. What is it about this that is hard for you to understand? Do you know what the law of non contradiction is? It was thought of by Aristotle I believe.

That being said the word Ecclesia was being used by the early fathers and it was the church this word meant. And there weren't really many churches until the protestant reformation. In the History of Christianity there have only been a handful of huge schisms. The early orientals who believe in the miaphysite heresy. Then the catholic church, then the protestant schism from the catholic church out of which we have thousands of churches. So when you say there are 35,000 churches in Christianity it doesn't matter. Why? Because these churches came along alot later and we do not regard them as the true church. The Orthodox do not believe in a mystical body that is invisible but unites all with a common faith such an idea proposes that Christ's body can be divided, which it cannot. No there is one body and that is the orthodox church. Even then all Christians believe in the trinity conception of God so your trying to point out a double standard is fruitless.

Livindesert

Sir the is only contradiction to those who wish to see it, once the mind is detached from man and focused on God then all perceived obstacles drop away.

Livindesert

Here is Rumi's version of the elephant and the blind men.

Orthodox

So you have essentially admitted you don't see the contradiction because you don't want to. Alright Hitler didn't exist because I don't want to. in fact bahai doesn't exist because I don't want it to.

No livin. you will not get away with your logical fallacies.

pheonixduprese

Moderator, Moderator? Where art thou, moderator?

Livindesert

It is just the truth brother

Livindesert

I don't think there are any moderators.

Orthodox

And I don't think it would be justified for a moderator to step in here. What have I done wrong? Is it wrong to talk about and question important beliefs of bahai? I've had my beliefs challanged while being here as well.

And no livin, it is not the truth. What you want me to believe is bahai and the early church were both right and that bahai just brings a revelation more knowledgable, however the fact that the early church contradicts bahai is something that seems to escape you.

arthra

Now alright Arthra, the word Ecclesia does mean assembly, yes but thats word from which we get the word church and the way it is translated. A church is also an assembly, however we don't just know about the ecclesia from how Jesus established it on peter but through the apostles. It was an organised front of people dedicated to moving the gospel around and that gospel and organisation did not cease to exist with John's death.

See this is the issue you mentioned earlier that Jesus establsished the "orthodox church",

You admit that it took more than the words of Jesus to "establsih" that church.. It was a process over quite a long period of time after Jesus ministry..

There were many kinds of Christians not just one and not necessarily in your words the "true" one..

In our Faith the organization is pretty much established though from the Kitab-i-Aqdas.. where Baha'u'llah mentions the Houses of Justice and how Abdul-Baha and later Shoghi Effendi interpret it..

Orthodox

The church was established and yes it did become more organised and was able to defend its doctrines when the empire actually tolerated us. Remember Christianity was persecuted people were killed for refusing to sacrifice for the gods of Rome and instead were worshiping Jesus.

That being said, there was just one type of Christian church till about chalcedon and a few split in the orientals in acceting heretical doctrines. But if you are going to equate gnositicsm to Christianity it most certaintly isn't. Christianity has a meaning it was given the apostles. And simply mentioning the existence of these groups in no way affects the direct succession from the apostles whom received authority, whom are authority.

And there could only be One true group, not all of these groups could be true at the same time. Were the docetics right in their beliefs? What of the nestorians and the gnostics? No they all contradict each other and also the church. Your able to posit a certain group as from Christ if you want but be prepared.

So Yes Jesus did start the orthodox church, and I have yet to be shown the contrary.

arthra

You seem to have just admnitted though to the contrary by stating all these changes didn't occur over night and that there were different groups of Christians..

Even in the book of Acts we see there were what were called Judaizers on one hand and Gentile Christians on the other..

See:

Judaizers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So one could not conclude from history that "Jesus started the orthodox church"

There "could be only one" sounds a lot like something from the Highlander TV show..

There is also the historical parallel between the persecution of the early Christians and the persecution of the Babi/Baha'i community .... if you were not aware of that...:wink

Orthodox

Um when the doctrines of the orthodox church are more defined it is not contrary, nor is it to say the concepts did not exist. THe Orthodox has its theology from the desciples whom Jesus taught for forty days after he had been ressurected. That being said, I admitted there are different groups. Of Heretics. Many of these groups could not be considered Christian for denying the very ressurection of Christ and believing in Docetism. So no I have not submitted to your point nor has it been proved.

That being said, persecution however does not entail truth. While the church was persecuted that does not mean it was true, it simply means it has been treated badly, and it has, its holiest places have been taken from it, its people were martyred worshipping Christ and many other things. But this means one thing they believed what they believed. As did the bahai I am sure who are persecuted. No one dies for what they know to be a lie. St Ignatius did not call Jesus God and think it was a lie and die for him.

That being said, even Highlander doesn't follow that motto. Did you see Highlander 2? They completely raped the series and I'm not exagerating. But yes, there can be only one true religion, only one true church. All the churches of Christendom cannot be possibly right, because they contradict each other. They cannot be of the same body, because they are in schism from each other. This idea of the invisible church is so flawed it made me leave protestantism.

And yeah, Judaizers are bad. No shock there. They eventually resulted in their own bizzare sect, I forget the name but it was jewish and didn't believe Jesus to be God but that he physically rose from the dead.

BruceDLimber

It WOULD be if I'd ever done it, but the fact remains that I have NEVER attacked the Eastern Orthodox Church and very much resent your implying that I have!

Why is it that you can't get it through your head that NOBODY knows the reason for this and that we simply state (or if you prefer, admit) this??
Like it or not, we have no other choice but to say this now, and further, have no way of "forcing" the answer to appear immediately!

Why?--What would you have us do instead? Ignore our own scriptures and set up some man-made replacement "structure?"

It's real easy to carp about this (as you have profoundly demonstrated), but I have yet to hear you offer any realistically constructive alternative.

Bruce

BruceDLimber

What he ignores in his "the Orthodox Church has always been there," Art, is the fact that ONLY the Roman Catholic Church existed for several centuries until the Eastern Orthodox Church split away from it--a split which endures to the present day! So it's at best misleading to claim the Orthodox Church always existed, the more so given that it probably wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for the Roman Catholic's existence during four centuries before the Orthodox Church existed.

Peace,

Bruce

arthra

"Orthodox"..

You need to explain though why you think Peter and other disciples were "wrong" to continue as Jewish Christians as in the Book of Acts since I'm assuming you'd admit that Peter himself was the "rock" on which the church was established.

It is also the core of one of the first controversies of the developement of the church that led in many ways to anti-semitic sentiments later..simply saying "Judaizers are bad" doesn't cut it..

Recall that the early church developed in Jerusalem..and after it fell to a diaspora of all Jews..including the Jewish Christians from the area were not permitted to return there as it became Aelia Capitolina.

This is one of the more important issues for the early Christians how the teachings of Jesus which were originally given in Aramaic verbally were translated into Greek.. unless it is an article of faith for you that Jesus was Greek..

Finally I presented to you the persecutions of the Baha'is and Christians .. there is a parallel in history between both groups and it does suggest in both cases people who are willing to offer lives for truth..

You raise an interesting question though about what some of those deemed heretics by the church that were say persecuted themselves.. Once the church was established it began looking at heretics.. By establishing certain dogmas as say articles of faith the process of exclusion began.

So far in our Faith we have a general statement people agree to when they become Baha'is.. but we don't expect everyone to adhere to say articles of faith..

I understand you probably see yourself as a new convert and there's something about that that can often brings along with it a kind of attitude that everyone else is wrong and only you have the truth..not only that you seem to feel the need to be condescending toward others denouncing them as heretical... For us truth leads to unity as we can all see that as human beings we each have a portion of truth due to our limited capacities as people. Rather than denounce the other person as heretical and exclude them we need to work from where we agree to establish better communication.

whine of astonsihment

Thank you Livin. Sorry I missed this sweet comment.
I'm still trying to get the hang of 'managing threads' on discussion forums. So far I seem to only have managed to figure out how the notification settings work.
I knew I was just no good when it comes to managing 'threads' the first time I tried to to sew on a button - so there's lots of snaps, zippers, velcro, and drawstrings on my clothes now....heavy sigh

whine of astonsihment

OK ...... mmmmm .....nah:mellow.
Think of my big fat Greek tongue as a double-edged sword, it has a 'nice-sweet' side:wub and a 'nasty-sour' side.:mad
I prefer the 'sweet' side of course,:tongue but I think I might be pre-diabetic or something because too much sugar seems to make me rather sickly:huh .... eventually I begin too go into a coma:sleep ... and if I don't get a big fat dose of insulin quick I might just die .... :unsure
You don't want me to die from too much sugar do you?:wink

Orthodox

Arthra, Judiaziers were people who wanted the gentiles to be judaic in order to enter the church/ However the council of Jeruselum ruled against this, gentiles did not need to be circumsised or take kosher food.

That being said, Jesus did speak Aramaic indeed. However one cannot ignore the fact of te Nt being written in greek and it was by the apostles. Except maybe mathew and hebrews, those are the only books you could say were written in aramaic.

Uh bruce the eastern church did exist at the time of the roman church. Perhaps you lack church history. Allow me to educated. In Orthodoxy there are four patriarchies which have existed since the apostles (we have lists of bishops). At one time the west and eastern church were one church the orthodox church didn't begin to exist after the 10th century it existed along side of the roman church and due to detoriating relations between the two and the pope changing his position and the creed. So its funny when you say something like that you have no idea about.

arthra

The transition from Aramaic to Greek for the early Christians was probably also very problematic.. in the process I would suggest much was lost in translation. There were probably no two languages more distant in theri structure and meaning than Greek and Aramaic..

Some of the work of George Lamsa touched on this.

It's also not that easy though to simply brush off the "Judaizers" since the original disciples were all Jewish.

I'd recommend the following for study:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...601/peterkirby

arthra

Whine of Astonishemnt..

I'm sure you chose that name for the book "Wine of Astonishemnt"..very clever..

Amazon.com: Wine of Astonishment, The (9780853985211): William Sears: Books

Bill Sears gave me a copy when I first became a Baha'i and wrote something I won't easily forget..

"In appreciation for your future service to the Cause of God"

Orthodox

I trust the holy spirit in their guiding of the apostles how they wrote down the scripture as you should to since you and the bahai movement claim these texts that were written in Greek. But even then koine Greek was influenced to some extent by the aramaic of its time, such as the Nt use of Aramaic words.

And arthra, yes the desciples were jewish but they were not judaizers having not pushed on gentiles the rules for Jews at the council of Jeruselum.

Livindesert

There was a book that came out a while back called misquoting Jesus which talked about the distorsion of the early gospels. It is an interesting work.

Either way now Baha'is have been given the fullness of the teachings of Jesus and are the ones to carry these teachings into the next centuries. It was not as much the teachings the Christians have but how they just needed correction into how the teachings fit into the wider religion of God. One example is that many Christians do not see themselfs as spiritual brothers of Buddhists and Hindus. To become a global society dedicated to God one must get beyond earlier incomplete definitions of religion and adhear to Baha'u'llahs revelation for humanity.

BruceDLimber

They may always have existed, but they were apparently connected to the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church until after the great post-Nicene split, as I said!

Nor did the Pope "change his position": rather, the objection was immediate to the Nicene Creed as written by that council (which was in Nicea, so the Pope <in Rome> was not a member).

Peace,

Bruce

Orthodox

Bart erhman has frequently said the gospels are basically as there were when written, and if you truely believed that why use the gospels at all? Get rid of them and say they are corrupted. You really can't do that because your prophet quoted them and gave no indication of their corruption as I recall. That being said I can admit to textual changes, but don't make them into something they are not. Textual criticism is not something you want to discuss with me.

And the fullness of Jesus's teaching was given to the desciples livin not to your prophet. Jesus taught the desciples for forty days.

And no bruce, the pope had proclaimed his supremecy over the other bishops instead of first among equals, so the pope did change his position from something the church had never decided upon. The history is clear.

arthra

What Baha'is acknowledge is that the Gospel was not corrupted as many Muslims believe or were taught..

We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 89)

and we hold that the Bible was inspired..but not necessarily accurate..

We aslo favor a spiritual interpretation of the Bible over say a word for word literal interpretation..

So I would agree that the Gospel or teachings of Jesus are in the Gospels..

Where we would differ is that Jesus founded the Orthodox Church. As you've noted above Jesus taught in Aramaic and there were many Christian groups around.. The following is further expalined by the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith Shoghi Effendi:

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet

(from a letter written to an individual on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 11 February 1944).

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old and New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Qurán or the Bahá'í writings.

(from a letter written to an individual on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 4 July 1947).

. . . we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it is accurate

(from a letter written to an individual on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 23 January 1944)

arthra

From Galatians:

2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

whine of astonsihment

What a treasure that is! I think I might have some sort of word fetish or something - must have something to do with being born on the Feast of Words.....
Bill Sears was unquestionably a visionary man and what a sense of humor.

Orthodox

Yes Arthra, Paul did condemn Peter, he had the right as an apostle a member in the church. Peter was not infallible despite being the rock the church was found on. Peter and Paul worked out their differences (I believe Peter conceded to Paul eventually) and they were both Martyred in Rome. Blessed St Peter was crucified upside down and Paul was beheaded.

I must dissagree that the we can only trust the red letters.

arthra

I think though you may be glossing over though how these things were reconciled when the issues continued for many years


It does illustrate the problem as I see it between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians and the matter was apprarently not all that resolved..

The following is a very general description of early Christian groups:

Overview of early Christian history (30 to 300 CE)

"There was great diversity within the Christian movement during the first few decades after Jesus' execution.."

Then you have the conflict between Paul and Barnabas..

From the Book of Acts:

9:26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

9:27 But Barnabas took him (Paul), and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

(King James Bible, Acts)

So basically Barnabas was trying to gain acceptance for Paul..but then see what happens:

The dissension between Paul and Barnabas..

5:36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the LORD, and see how they do.

15:37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.

15:38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.

15:39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; 15:40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.3

Orthodox

I don't deny this event. What about it? It doesn't prove a mass distinction between the apostles and Paul of which i don't think you really believe. They died together and together established a bishoropric at Rome. This is not the actions of men who are divided.

arthra

It really suggests though to me that these men were not very united in their day to day lives..especially Paul. For Baha'is this would really be inappropriate behaviour..

Here's Paul contradicting Peter to his face..later he has a fight with Barnabas the very man who introduced him to the original disciples... I don't see a verse that says "...and Paul asked Barnabas for forgiveness ...and they parted with a "holy kiss"..

What happened to

"In your anger do not sin": Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry...

- Ephesians 4:26

If anyone established the "church" though it was probably Paul more than Christ Himself or Peter or James..

:wink

Orthodox

And we know they sorted it out, people have to be confronted when they do something wrong. Peter did something wrong by seperating himself from the gentiles and Paul was perfectly justified. And we know that these men were united in the end as they died together in Rome establishing a church there.