/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

He says: "This is the work of God: that you believe in Him whom He has sent." [29]

Now, let us reflect for a moment what actually Jesus wanted from those people. They expected to be given some specific instructions, like "do this, then do that and you will be given food for eternal life". They wanted something like the Roman Catholic thesis for salvation through specific works. But instead of specific works Jesus wanted only one thing, He wanted them to believe in Him.

What did He want from them? Is this the Protestant "Sola fide"? How bad that these people didn't know about "Sola fide". Then they could simply say "Yes, sir, we believe in you, now give us the food for eternal life". But instead of "Sola fide" these people knew about Moses who had spoken about a Prophet greater than Moses, Whom they should listen. (Deut. 18:15-19) To these people to believe in Jesus was not an empty declaration. It meant that He was the Prophet spoken by Moses. The One, Whom they should follow in everything. Just as they followed Moses through the Red Sea, in the wilderness, to go to the Promised Land, to fight the enemies mercilessly. To obey Him, to execute every single command of His, now and forever.

Many, many times during the Orthodox Office we can hear the following exhortation: "let us commend ourselves and each other, and all our life unto Christ our God." This is the meaning of the true Orthodox faith. It requires more than an empty statement "I believe in Christ", more than some specific works. It means to devote to Christ everything we have – ourselves and all our life. The works are only the consequence of such faith.

Ok, let us continue our story. "This is the work of God: that you believe in Him whom He has sent." says Jesus and they reply: "What sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, maybe you will do some greater deed?" [30-31]

He answers that the food given to their fathers by Moses was not from the heaven. However, "my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the bread coming down from heaven and giving life to the world". [32-33]

"Ok, sir, by all means, give us this bread!", they say. [34]

He says, "I am the bread of life. You have seen me [and my miracles] and yet do not believe. I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me." [35-40]

"Argh… He is not giving us real bread. He says He is bread coming from heaven. How can He be coming from heaven when we know his father and his mother?", they grumble. [41-42]

He says, "Don't grumble because those who come to Me are drawn to Me by My Father. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. Yes, I am the bread of life. You eat this bread and you live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." [43-51]

Now the Jews are confused. "First we thought He would give us food. Then He asked us to believe in Him despite that He refused to give us food saying that He is the food coming from heaven. And now it seems he actually wants us to eat his flesh. What is he talking about?" [52]

Yes, He is asking a strange thing. And He confirms He actually wants this: "Yes, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. My flesh is true food and My blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. Just as I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on Me, he also will live because of Me." [53-59]

Now even His disciples grumble, "This is a hard thing; who can do it?” [60] But Jesus says to them, "So you are offended by this? Then what if you see the Son of man ascending to the heaven where He was before?" [61-62]

And now we come to verse [63]: "It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing."

Notice that Jesus said that His flesh is the food for life for the first time in verse [51]. In verse [52] the Jews are dismayed by this statement. Then in verses [53-59] He confirms this repeatedly. Yes, not only you have to eat my flesh but also you have to drink my blood. And he says this many times with different words in order to remove any doubts.

Now it seems, the anon >>856369 wants us to believe that Jesus says: "Don't worry, I lied to them. I am not giving them to feed on my flesh or to drink my blood. Only to my internal circle of disciples I will reveal the truth. My flesh is useless as food. It is the Spirit that gives life."

But I refuse to believe that He lied to these people. I refuse to believe that He intentionally led them to error because He cared only about His disciples.

Then what is the meaning of the words "What if you see the Son of man ascending to the heaven where He was before? It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing."

The statement is unclear because any theology about the Spirit is possible only through personal experience of the Spirit and the event in John 6 happened before the Pentecost. Therefore, different interpretations of this verse are given by the exegetes. My personal preference is this: "Are you offended by my statement that my flesh is the food for eternal life? Then what if you see me ascending to the heaven where I was before? Maybe then you will recognize that I am not only Son of man but I am also God? God is Spirit, so the Spirit is in my flesh and it is the Spirit that gives life. Only a simple flesh profits nothing."

When the disciples heard this statement, many of them turned back and no longer walked with Jesus. They decided that it will be better for them to become Baptists. Then Jesus asked the twelve: "Do you want to go away as well?" Simon Peter answered: "Lord, to whom shall we go? Do we go to the Baptists? Only you have the words of eternal life."

>>856380

>Anon, haven't you read where it says in the Gospel of John, "and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"? If so, then it becomes clear what Jesus' flesh actually is being referred to here in the passage of John 6.

What Jesus' flesh have you in mind, anon? Never mind, it doesn't matter…

By the way, the translation you use is wrong… It should be "the Word became flesh", not "was made flesh". The difference is significant and potentially leading to heresies. (ἐγένετο=became)

The meaning is exactly what it says, "the Word became flesh". But in order to understand this, you have to renounce your own wisdom and to allow your mind to be adjusted to the wisdom of God by accepting the Orthodox faith. Because this is what no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which is revealed to us only through the Spirit. (1 Cor. 2:7-10) The main work of seven ecumenical councils was nothing else, but to fight various adjustments of this simple sentence, "the Word became flesh", to the wisdom of this age.

I'll try to explain but… You should realize this is only an analogy. You can't understand the Orthodox faith by reading books or Internet resources. You can only experience it by living it in the Spirit.

Imagine a metal bar. It has some length, some gauge, some weight. Now suppose this metal bar is heated to some high temperature. It is still a bar and it still has the properties we would expect from a bar – length, gauge, weight. But at the same time it shines with light and it radiates heat, just like a fire. Two natures – the nature of the bar and the nature of the fire – manifest as one object, that is as one manifestation, one hypostasis. One hypostasis which has the properties of both natures, of bar and of fire.

Not "the Word attached flesh to Himself" but "the Word became flesh". Human flesh with all properties we would expect from human flesh is now shining with divine light and divine power is coming from it. In Christ the Word is hypostasically united with this flesh, so one can say that the Word was truly born according to the flesh by Theotokos, the mother of God.

In the Eucharist we eat the flesh of Christ. His human flesh. This is not symbolic eating, nor symbolic flesh. This is literally eating His flesh. Just as in the Old Testament one would eat the meat of a sacrificial animal. However, while the meat of a sacrificial animal is just this and nothing more, the flesh of the Christ is united with the Godhead and divine power is coming from it. To some this power acts as joyful light, but to others it acts as burning fire. "That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Cor. 11:30) says the apostle.

What is written above follows from the theology of the Third Ecumenical Council. But in order to understand the other verse that interests you, "it is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing" (John 6:63), we need to move to the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Even though the two natures, the divine nature and the human nature, are united in Christ, the distinction between them is by no means taken away by the union. Rather the property of each nature is preserved. Christ is one person, but He has two sorts of actions – actions according to the divine nature and actions according to the human nature (or, in Orthodox jargon, energies according to the respective nature). When we eat the flesh of Christ, the actions which are intrinsic to flesh (appearing as bread) do not profit. What profits is the fact that the flesh of Christ is united with His Godhead, that is with Spirit and "it is the Spirit that gives life".

>Haven't you read where it is written in John 12, or again, in Mark 4.

I knew you would try this argument. It is one thing to speak in parables which people don't understand but are free to ask for an explanation if they chose to. It is totally different thing to lie and lead the people into delusion with twisted words.

>Not to me this statement is not unclear. It is perfectly clear.

Considering that people who can prove their faith with works have given different explanations of this verse, you should at least consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Especially considering that in order to accommodate your understanding of this half verse you are twisting the meaning of many verses.

>>856388

>>856389

>you should at least consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

If you have an explanation, then by all means you have the stage to provide it. I am always listening to hear what people have to say about Scripture, considering carefully if what they say is consistent or not, in fact that's just about the only thing that interests me as you may have noticed. If you don't, then it seems like there is clearly only one coherent explanation provided for the passage of Scripture here.

>Especially considering that in order to accommodate your understanding of this half verse you are twisting the meaning of many verses.

Please explain further which verses and what you mean? I'd like to learn if I made a mistake on any one of my posts. Or what Scripture there is to give as an answer, whether it needs to be accounted for. If a mistake is known by anyone, then let them make it known here. If there is a sincere issue with anything that I said, please explain. As always, thanks. Just let me know what you find.

>>856390

>considering carefully if what they say is consistent or not, in fact that's just about the only thing that interests me as you may have noticed.

I haven't seen much of that from Baptists, personally. For the most part, the worldview of Baptists centers around the concept of "Sola Fide". A phrase never mentioned in the scriptures once, except in the negative: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." - James 2:24. How can people hold something to be so central and in so high regard when it's not even in scripture? And if your foundation has this big of a crack, it's probably dangerous to hang around that house… no matter how admirable the craftsmanship of the roof or windows might be.

Perhaps the main thing that makes Baptists less deluded than Lutherans is you wouldn't stand for Luther's trickery, when he fabricated a proof text and injected "faith alone" in his German translation of Romans 3:28, which says "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith *alone* without the deeds of the law." He also famously went on to call the Epistle of James an "epistle of straw" and wanted to remove it from the canon entirely. He just couldn't face the truth. But I'm glad that Baptists at least respect scripture more than he did, despite sharing the same Sola Fide doctrine. You all at least have enough self-respect to search for it in a more legitimate fashion. But you're not going to find it.

>>856393

It seems like you have more of a misunderstanding about the lexical properties of the English words than the Greek ones. Became can be either passive or active, like noted previously >>856389 where it was said, " 'became' can potentially mean either active or passive voice in the English language." Take for example Matthew 28:4, where the similar word ἐγένοντο (plural instead of singular) is used to describe the guards passively becoming as dead men. Here, the English is rendered as: "And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men." Clearly then, using the English word became, as in this example, does not necessarily imply active voice. Making that modification is clearly not enough to force this in English.

Similarly, as in the example pointed out here >>856389 where it was noted: "likewise, Philippians 2:7, 'But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:' " we find an example of the word ἐκένωσεν which is aorist active (instead of aorist middle deponent) and is clearly translated actively as "made." Later in the very same sentence in this verse, the same exact word from John 1:14 appears, and is translated again as "was made," and this clearly indicates for us that "was made" in English can be used to mean actively voiced rather than passively voiced. Furthermore, if a person is acting upon themselves, that is the textbook use of the middle voice, anyway.

Because of this, even if this verb were not a middle deponent, which strongly points to it being active, and if hypothetically there actually was an active voice verb (which John chose not to use in favor of middle voice), that hypothetical scenario still wouldn't change my understanding of it in the slightest. And as it stands, it would not require a retranslation either. This is the benefit of having such an accurate translation— accurate, provided one understands the English language as well as the Greek and Hebrew from which it is translated.

>You say Jesus didn't speak about His real flesh.

Oh no, I never said that. I was exemplifying how literal it is that the Word became flesh, and that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, according to Matthew 4:4. This is all in accordance with what Jesus Christ said in John 6:63, the whole point of the passage, which you originally brought up to this subject >>856367 here. In that post, you mentioned John 6:53 but did not mention the explanation of Christ in John 6:63. I merely pointed out that context, which is how this whole discussion started, because you mentioned John 6:53 without John 6:63, and also tried to link it to Luke 22:19-20 which is a completely separate passage, and as I noted >>856380 here, this is an ordinance or commandment of Christ that took place, namely the Lord's supper or communion [i.e. Luke 22:19-20], with its own teachings and commandments, which should not be combined or confused with these [i.e. John 6:22-71]. Rather, we should associate John 6:53 with John 6:63, as it is in the same passage with it and an explanation of it.

(1/2)

I think we should start calling Baptists the Church of Gavin.

>>856397

What's this about, anon? Most of the examples you claim to be in passive voice are in fact active voice. In English, active and passive voice are primarily syntactic notions and only secondarily semantic. If you maintain that constructions like "the keepers became as dead men" are in passive voice, I can only ask you to give a reference to at least one English grammar where such claims are made. Who knows, maybe I am wrong…

But more importantly, all this seems to be completely irrelevant to the problem we are discussing. We don't need to dip into grammar depths in order to see the difference between the two translations of John 1:14.

In the correct one, "The Word became flesh", the most natural reading makes the Word the actor. Even though this sentence permits an external force which acts on the Word, no such force is suggested.

In the wrong translation, "The Word was made flesh", such external force is suggested.

>You say Jesus didn't speak about His real flesh. Oh no, I never said that

In this case, I don't know what you are saying. If Jesus was speaking about His real flesh, then your interpretation of John 6:63 makes Him a liar.

>>856400

>In John 3, Jesus told Nicodemus

Yes, He told him about the birth of Spirit and He gave to Nicodemus the necessary explanations.

>In Matthew 16:6, Jesus told the disciples, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." Was he referring simply to the physical?

It was obvious to the listeners that He wasn't talking about physical leaven.

>If they had been like the disciples and asked for an explanation, instead of being offended or walking away with their own conclusions, then they would have received their due explanation.

Then they would know He lied to them. Is this what you are saying?

>or if they had been like the woman at the well in John chapter 4

He didn't leave her misled.

Random thought:

Outside of it's own internal worth, the most compelling evidence that indicates Byzantine manuscripts of the New Testament are the best ones is…..

Liturgy (and lectionary reading).

Something degenerate scholars and even "conservative" Evangelical ones will never appreciate. They project their own Protestant conception of preacher centric services, of pulpits and random lessons and scripture reading, and then imagine that heretics got away with introducing new texts this way. But that's not how it works. Scripture was contained in liturgy. Liturgy is timeless and unchanging. It is the most repetitive human practice on Earth. Something the "radical orthodox" (not Eastern Orthodox necessarily.. many are Anglican) philosopher Catherine Pickstock talks about as one of the defenses against the individualistic experience of the postmodern world. That repetition of liturgy creates similar identity and experiences across generations and even millennia, and connects you to a wider community than usual. It's the opposite of the postmodern conception of the world, where everyone is on their own, and everyone's experience is validated, and identity is self-created, and everyone can interpret any thing in their own unique way. It's madness.

Philosophy aside though, the theory that a Byzantine text could randomly pop up and gain such massive and widespread use is preposterous: Especially in a liturgical tradition. You would see evidence of this. You would see hundreds of church fathers crying foul about the supposed "new text". You would see revolts (there were actually revolts in churches where Jerome updated the Vetus Latina to the Vulgate. So it did happen). There is zero evidence of this with the Greeks. Not one even indirect mention of it. So why do scholars insist on it? Bart Ehrman in particular has made millions shilling this idea with his book "The Orthodox corruption of Scripture". And the reason why you won't ever see evidence is because of Liturgy. They already knew it well - they were already hearing much of scripture in Liturgy. And their fathers before them. And their fathers before that. If there was some interruption in the "true" textual tradition, the grandpa would have told his grandson: "This isn't what I used to hear. What is this?" But instead, grandpa, father, and grandson were all united in the same scriptures, the same liturgy, and the same Christ.

Also, they were indeed liturgical. A great deal of the thousands existing Byzantine manuscripts are from ancient lectionaries. Not random bibles in personal libraries.

Orthobros, I need your help.

Recently I made friends with a Turkish fellow, who is a nice guy, but is tempting me.

He is obviously Muslim, his statements at first were the ones you'd expect, "Jesus was not God, was not the Son of God, he was a prophet and a good guy, peace be upon him".

His arguments were, "it doesn't say in the Bible that He is the Son of God > it doesn't say that He is God> He doesn't say in the Bible that he is the Son of God> He never says in the Bible that He is God > It's only said in the book of John, who could be lying > The whole Bible was written by humans, who could be lying". These are not my main issues, but I have been struggling with this as well, so please help if you have any insight. (i.e. Christ being God, Son of God and God being the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit)

But the bigger problem is, he's not really a traditional Muslim, he doesn't respect/believe in the hadith. He says, why would you risk believing in something wrong if you have a holy book to believe in, and the information in adjacent writings might be wrong.

And it makes sense to me. I'm not sure how to believe that Jesus is God, because it's not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and, since it's so important to our belief, I feel like it would have.

I'm not sure how to believe in the Holy Trinity. I can't understand it, more specifically why God needs "three persons in one being": God manifesting Himself into Christ made a little more sense, but Jesus being Messiah, God, Son of God and Man all into one is a bit much. But mostly because it's never mentioned in the Bible. I've seen videos/read articles justifying it, but I can't help but feel that, since it's so important, it would have been mentioned at least once. (God's Spirit being interpreted as the Holy Spirit and thus a separate personality(???) is a stretch to me.)

And this is a smaller issue I suppose, I hate that we have liturgy to praise saints. The way I understood it, one proof of Christ's divinity is performing miracles. But if Saints can freely perform miracles (or you could say God performs them through the saints, but in this case, it'd still be Jesus's perfectly God side performing miracles through His perfectly human side) then I feel like it could take away from that.

Lastly, how can I trust the holy parents' writings? The "it was God speaking through them" argument just doesn't do it for me.

I know it's a bunch of issues crammed into one post but I've been lost for a while. I have read John 20:29 and wept.

>>856568

Jesus is always saying He is God.

OT:

God to Moses - "This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

So God's name is I AM.

Now in the NT:

'Before Abraham was, I AM' and they stone Him for blasphemy.

Jesus walks on water 'fear not, I AM' and they worship Him

Guards ask who is Jesus 'I AM' and they fall on their asses.

Synedrium inquires Jesus 'You say that I AM' and they tear their clothes.

"When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM He '

I Am the Bread of Life

I Am the Light of the World

I Am the Good Shepherd

I Am the Way, Truth, and Life

I Am the True Vine

I Am the door.

etc

Jesus is talking to 1st century hebrews, for them this is obvious admission of divinity, hence the drastic reactions. For us 21th century plebs it just needs a bit of knowledge of scripture to pick this up. This should be made obvious in the translations but sometimes they botch it by trying to construe proper sentences.

Not to mention all the other stuff. In Job it says only God threads on the waters, then Jesus walks on the waters.

That only God can heal the lepers, Jesus heals a bilion lepers.

Thomas: 'My Lord and my God!'

etc, its never ending.

You just need to study basic apologetics.

>>856571

… basic apologetics and more scripture knowledge.

One more question, how do we explain the Holy Fire?

Obviously if it were the case that it spontaneously occurred as our tradition dictates, the Catholics not only would have not dismissed it as fraud, but would have the same date for Easter as we do.

Please, if you answer to this, answer to other criticism you might have come across. I feel like this might very well be a deal breaker for me.

>>856715

> Obviously if it were the case that it spontaneously occurred as our tradition dictates, the Catholics not only would have not dismissed it as fraud, but would have the same date for Easter as we do.

Heh, obviously if they have the Second ecumenical council (381), which they don't even care to dismiss as fraud, they would have the same Creed as we do. But they don't. Which is expectable, as we can see from the parable about the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31):

Then the rich man said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send Lazarus to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

>>856715

>mention Holy Fire to western Catholic

"What's that?"

Eastern Catholics accept the Holy Fire miracle in the same way that the Oriental Orthodox do. Their bishops do not receive the Fire as the Patriarch of Jerusalem does, but some will be present to receive the Fire along with the laity. The Catholics simply ignore it like they ignore the apostasy of their own hierarchy

>>856715

>>856765

>The Catholics simply ignore it

Well they could say the same thing about the various miracles that occurred in the catholic church.

Like the Miracle of the Sun (fatima) or Lourdes and its legacy of healings.

>>856768

Indeed, which is why our faith is not based on miracles. God, in his infinite mercy, can grant miracles to the heterodox if He so pleases, and sometimes miracles can be not of God but of Satan. This is why we must test the spirits, and unfortunately the Roman Catholic west at some point lost the concept of prelest and began to never question apparitions. Interestingly, many Orthodox in Mexico accept or marginally accept Guadelupe. Some I think are explicitly demonic, others I'm not so sure.

The demons can appear to us as Christ, the Theotokos, our Guardian Angel, a Saint, ect ect, and this is a very common form of spiritual deception. That is why, in the Orthodox monastic tradition, it's taught that we not use any imagination in prayer, and if we are visited by an apparition, we ask the apparition to say the Jesus prayer. "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me". Demons cannot say the prayer, or any prayer to God for mercy, and when an apparition refuses to do so, you know it's a demon you're speaking to. But, even then, it is always wise to ignore apparitions. Unless you're a holy elder with great spiritual fortitude, such as Elder Ephraim+ in our modern day, you probably aren't going to see an apparition from God. It's always safe to assume it's either a demon, or something you ate. When asked about how we should view signs and visions in dreams, a monastic father said "If it is a dream, pay it no mind, because it's a dream. If it's of the devil, pay it no mind, because it's the devil. And if it's of God, pay it still no mind, because you may be tempted to pride [and God will grant you whatever you need by His grace]"

I need help, anons.

I don't know where to go or what to do. The only Orthodox churches near me are pushing the satanic vax and have already submitted to it. Due to a sectarian disagreement between my parents I was never baptised as a child, by any denomination.

I feel increasingly convinced that the end is coming, at least for me. I don't want to die unbaptized, but where am I to become a catechumen? Who am I to submit to? The hierarchs seem to have lost the plot and given in to the world with its fake diseases and worse solutions. I'm trying every day to not give in to despair. I am afraid, not of death, but of spending eternity outside the love of God. I don't want to go into the cold. I pray every day and read the Gospels at night before bed. Please advise, brothers.

>>856769

>some point lost the concept of prelest

Which is a lie, you can read about it in the writings of the saints often and also the Church doesnt approve of any phenomenon without in depth investigations.

There are even saints who say to disregard all apparitions and mystical graces since God can get from us what He wants regardless of if we dismiss them or not.

>>856845

Remember what it says in Hebrews:

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." - Heb. 11:6

God rewards those who diligently seek Him. We all have to believe that, anon. He will reward those who diligently seek Him. As Christ said in the Gospel, ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Our Lord's word can be trusted to be true.

>>856889

> What is the justification the Orthodox church has to the claim of the True Church?

There can be only one certain criterion for the True Church: the true faith. Even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed! As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed! (Galatians 1:8-9)

Our faith is not the wisdom of this age, nor of the great persons of this age who are doomed to pass away. It is the secret and hidden wisdom of God. Blessed are those who have this faith for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 16:17)

> What did Rome do to void theirs?

They didn't preserve the true faith. The faith of Peter, by the way.

They introduced novelties in their faith in any age. Today the Roman Catholicism is associated with the Roman pope and the pope with his infallibility. But maybe you will be surprised how recently they invented the doctrine about the papal infallibility - less than two centuries ago. For many centuries all that they had were their traditions and their conserved in stasis Office. But after Vatican II they don't have even this…

The modern Catholicism is a strange thing. In Ukraine they are in union with pseudo-Orthodox who celebrate saints who fought the errors of Rome. In the East they are in union with heretics who celebrate "saints" anathematized by Ecumenical councils. With the Orthodox they make joint declarations leaving the expression that they are Orthodox. With the Protestants they speak like Protestants. Union with everyone is their goal, union unprincipled, union external, disregarding the essentials, the faith. According to the present pope, with so many different religions "there is only one certainty we have for all: we are children of God".

> Also if the Orthodox claim that Rome is first among equals and has no authority to excommunicate other bishops,

In theory, any bishop has the right to excommunicate heretics, that is those who have deviated from the true faith. Is is absolutely irrelevant who is named first, who is second, who is last. Such an excommunication is not an act that has any force by itself. It is merely a visible announcement of the faith of the Church. In fact, according to canon 15 of the Council of Constantinople (861) even laymen have the power to deny those who preach publicly a heresy and to withdraw themselves "before any conciliar or synodal verdict has been rendered". "For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions."

> why was it ok for Constantinople to excommunicate Rome?

Actually, Constantinople didn't excommunicate Rome. This wasn't necessary.

>>856891

>There can be only one certain criterion for the True Church: the true faith. Even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel

ok but this is totally dependent on your interruption of the "true faith"

Is there anything more concrete? For example

The claim from Rome that the Pope's authority is was given by Christ in an unbroken line of succession from Saint Peter.

>They didn't preserve the true faith. The faith of Peter, by the way.

again this is just a simple accusation that all sects lay on each other.

>They introduced novelties in their faith in any age. Today the Roman Catholicism is associated with the Roman pope and the pope with his infallibility. But maybe you will be surprised how recently they invented the doctrine about the papal infallibility - less than two centuries ago. For many centuries all that they had were their traditions and their conserved in stasis Office. But after Vatican II they don't have even this

I understand this and while this is valid criticism the orthodox church has also introduced novelties

You're not going to find perfection in any church

>The modern Catholicism is a strange thing. In Ukraine they are in union with pseudo-Orthodox who celebrate saints who fought the errors of Rome. In the East they are in union with heretics who celebrate "saints" anathematized by Ecumenical councils

ok? I'm sure its a lot more nuance then that. There are different rites that have different saints that are more important then those in Latin Rites if thats what you're talking about

>Union with everyone is their goal, union unprincipled, union external, disregarding the essentials, the faith. According to the present pope, with so many different religions "there is only one certainty we have for all: we are children of God".

This isn't true at all, Every church in communion with Rome has to agree to a certain set of parameters

>In theory, any bishop has the right to excommunicate heretics, that is those who have deviated from the true faith. Is is absolutely irrelevant who is named first, who is second, who is last.

well Christians and the church for the first 1000 years seem to disagree.

>Such an excommunication is not an act that has any force by itself. It is merely a visible announcement of the faith of the Church. In fact, according to canon 15 of the Council of Constantinople (861) even laymen have the power to deny those who preach publicly a heresy and to withdraw themselves "before any conciliar or synodal verdict has been rendered". "For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions."

has a layman excommunicated a bishop before?

>Actually, Constantinople didn't excommunicate Rome. This wasn't necessary.

so the mutual excommunications of Michael Cerularius and Pope Leo IX just never happened?

>>856900

>ok but this is totally dependent on your interruption of the "true faith". Is there anything more concrete? For example the claim from Rome that the Pope's authority is was given by Christ in an unbroken line of succession from Saint Peter.

No, there can be no visible attestation of the true faith like a succession line. Because the true faith is pure like the faith of Abraham. The true faith saves you and connects you with God, so it has to be an act worthy for a reward. The following is from St. John Chrysostom (with abridgement):

Let us not look that many incite and counterfeit the true faith. This very thing is itself a proof of the excellence of the doctrine. For it would not be so, if it were not good. What then shall we say to the heathen? There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?"

How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, ' I speak the truth.'"

No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If anyone agrees with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if anyone fights against them, he is far from this rule.

"But which am I to believe, as I know nothing at all of the Scriptures? The others also allege the same thing for themselves. What then if the other come, and say that the Scripture has this, and you that it has something different, and you interpret the Scriptures diversely, dragging their sense (each his own way)?"

And you then, I ask, have you no understanding, no judgment?

"And how should I be able (to decide)," says he, "I who do not even know how to judge of your doctrines? I wish to become a learner, and you are making me immediately a teacher."

If he say this, what, say you, are we to answer him? How shall we persuade him? Let us ask whether all this be not mere pretense and subterfuge. Let us ask whether he has decided against the heathen (that they are wrong). The fact he will assuredly affirm, for of course, if he had not so decided, he would not have come to (inquire about) our matters: let us ask the grounds on which he has decided, for to be sure he has not settled the matter out of hand. Clearly he will say, "Because (their gods) are creatures, and are not the uncreated God."

Good. If then he find this in the other parties, but among us the contrary, what argument need we? For let there be one that has no (religious) doctrine whatever: if he should say what you say about the Christians—“There is such a multitude of men, and they have different doctrines; this a heathen, that a Jew, the other a Christian: no need to accept any doctrine whatever, for they are at variance one with another; but I am a learner, and do not wish to be a judge”—but if you have yielded (so far as) to pronounce against one doctrine, this pretext no longer has place for you. For just as you were able to reject the spurious, so here also, having come, you shall be able to prove what is profitable. For he that has not pronounced against any doctrine at all, may easily say this: but he that has pronounced against any, though he have chosen none, by going on in the same way, will be able to see what he ought to do. Then let us not make pretexts and excuses, and all will be easy.

>>856900

>I understand this and while this is valid criticism the orthodox church has also introduced novelties.

Novelties in the faith? No, never.

> You're not going to find perfection in any church

Don't insult the bride of Christ. As a lily among brambles, so is my darling among the maidens. You are altogether beautiful, my darling; there is no flaw in you. Your lips, my bride, drip sweetness like the honeycomb; honey and milk are under your tongue, and the fragrance of your garments is like the aroma of Lebanon. (Song 2:2,4:7,11)

>There are different rites that have different saints

I am not talking about this. I am talking about someone being in a communion with people who celebrate those who have opposed his own doctrine.

>Every church in communion with Rome has to agree to a certain set of parameters.

In theory. In reality you only need to accept the pope.

> >In theory, any bishop has the right to excommunicate heretics,

>well Christians and the church for the first 1000 years seem to disagree.

Don't think of the excommunication as some formal act (although it can be). Excommunication=removing someone from communion with you.

The first 1000 years with so many heresies, especially in the East, is a testimony that in matters of faith everyone is responsible for his own choice.

> has a layman excommunicated a bishop before?

The laymen withdraw themselves from a communion with a pseudo-bishop who teaches a heresy.

> so the mutual excommunications of Michael Cerularius and Pope Leo IX just never happened?

Yes, they never happened. Some clerks excommunicated the Patriarch (without authorization by the dead Leo IX), then the Patriarch excommunicated the clerks.

Where can I learn the nitty-gritty about various orthodox Churches?

yes, they say you don't have to be Greek/Russian/Armenian etc to belong to the various ethnic orthodox churches; they didn't tell the members of those ethnic churches that.

I find nothing wrong with the Catholic Church wrt the actual religion. Pity no one belongs to the actual Catholic Church! You read most of the old Catechisms and agree, then you go to mass and it's Mary this and Mary that, Mary will save you from hell if you pray to her, Mary will win (not God, Mary) and all kinds of heresy. And then they have all these Marion apparitions that are straight up biblical and contradict the teachings of the Church like wear this brown scrap of cloth and you'll go straight to heaven.

Now, the Apostle Simon, who became Saint Peter, was the first bishop of Antioch as well as Rome, so I can see how that can work.

The Catholic belief about the Blessed Mother of God is this:

IV. The Mother of the Redeemer

Mary is truly the Mother of God.

Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.

Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man.

Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.

After the birth of Jesus, Mary remained a Virgin.

Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.

I'm not sure what the Orthodox position is, I've heard don't believe in Mary's immaculate conception because it means that Christ was not born of a common person like the rest of us and has a weaker claim to humanity. Interesting.

But then Orthodox, if I understand it correctly, don't depict the bloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and didn't suffer and die for our sins. No! That's wrong!

Pontius Pilate believed Christ to be an innocent man, and found no fault in him. He crucified him because if he didn't, the Jews would revolt causing a lot of bloodshed of both jews, Romans and himself. The symbolism is clear! Pilate had Christ scourged and not one inch of his body wasn't covered in his blood. The Orthodox deny that Christ was bloody and as one Orthodox put it, Christ "kicked ass" by being crucified.

Wrong, wrong wrong! The whole religion before Christ was about sacrifice for sin, and suddenly it isn't? Christ sweated blood at just thinking about what was about to happen to him, as the sins of the world would be laid upon him.

Then I ran into the whole issue of what the "genuine" Orthodox Christian church is. Seems the Orthodox are even more split than the Catholics! How am I to tell where the Church is! And like the catholics, they all say that if you don't subscribe to their particular beliefs, you're going to hell.

I have no problem with the real Catholic beliefs. I just don't think there is a Catholic church left, just the Catholic faith which is written down and no one believes it anymore. I feel I was given a "bait and switch" where I was given a catechism - all good, and then in practice they're worshiping Mary, every little thing is a mortal sin (clearly to get you into Church and contributing more often), and all kinds of strange gospels like the Gospel of Saint Aquinas.

>>856917

> immaculate conception means that Christ was not born of a common person like the rest of us and has a weaker claim to humanity.

This is correct. And this is not the only issue with this doctrine. But this is not the real reason the Orthodox do not accept it. The real reason is that the Orthodox faith is not based on human reasoning. We preach our faith in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. (1 Cor. 2:13) At the Orthodox councils the fathers gave their testimony about the Orthodox faith they already knew. They never invented new doctrines (only new, more exact terminology). On the other hand, the doctrine about the immaculate conception was invented as something new and unheard before. Even Aquinas didn't know this doctrine and wrote opposite of it: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm

> Orthodox don't depict the bloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and didn't suffer and die for our sins. No! That's wrong!

I think you have misunderstood the Orthodox position. Of course Christ suffered and died for our sins. And yes, you are correct that what you wrote here is wrong.

At the cross, Christ was suffering, his body loosing its strength, his muscles weakening. Finally, his body had no longer the strength to breathe, he made one final breath and died. All this is true. But at the same time the cross was the victory of Christ, his glory, his triumph. By death Christ trampled the death. This is why we boast with the cross: But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. 6:14) The cross is the sign of our victory. In one hymn from the Orthodox office the mother of God says: "my womb burns, seeing your crucifixion, the world however rejoices, receiving salvation from you".

And by the way, it is the same with the suffering of the martyrs. They suffered, they died, their suffering and death, however, are their victory, their commendation.

> not one inch of his body wasn't covered in his blood. The Orthodox deny that Christ was bloody and as one Orthodox put it, Christ "kicked ass" by being crucified.

He was bloody. But by being bloody and being crucified, he "kicked ass" (figuratively). And the same with the martyrs. By being burned, flogged, chained, imprisoned, stoned, sawn in two, killed by sword, they "kicked the ass" of the devil.

>Christ sweated blood at just thinking about what was about to happen to him, as the sins of the world would be laid upon him.

It wasn't sweated blood. It was sweat like drops of blood. (Luke 22:44).

We all agree that Christ suffered as human, being passionless as God. Whatever suffering Christ experienced in Gethsemane, it was suffering according to his human nature. Therefore, his sweat "falling like drops of blood" was a reaction of his human body, a reaction that our bodies are also capable of. Notice that no amount of sins laid upon you or me can cause your or my body to sweat in this way. So this can't be the cause of this reaction.

God created us perfect. Our instincts are perfect. Whenever our passions make us suffer, this is only because the sins have injured our conditioned reflexes, bad habits have formed and the instincts and the unconditioned reflexes do not work properly in our lifestyle. Christ, however, had no sins, his body and soul, his human instincts, reflexes, habits "working properly" caused him no suffering.

And then we come to the prayer at Gethsemane when his human instinct of self-preservation kicked. This was the first time Christ had to resist his own instincts and desires. The instinct of self-preservation is a very strong one and it was forcing him to avoid his imminent death. So he prayed Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. And yet, he resisted his instinct and remained obedient to his Father: Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done. (Luke 22:42) His sweat "falling like drops of blood" was result of his internal struggle, Greek: agony. (Luke 22:44)

This sweat like blood is example and inspiration how we should behave when we are tempted by our passions. Compare the words of Ap. Paul: Jesus for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of blood. (Heb. 12:2-4)

> Then I ran into the whole issue of what the "genuine" Orthodox Christian church is. Seems the Orthodox are even more split than the Catholics!

I am not sure what you mean. There are some monophysites who call themselves Orthodox (mostly Copts, Ethiopians and Armenians). They have some Internet presence but it is unlikely that you will find their church at the place you live.

im a neet who hasnt left the house or spoken to another human besides my mom for the past 8 months. I've looked at every religion imaginable, and orthodoxy is the most obviously accurate one. The theology is so solid, has a satisfactory explanation for every question. I'd like to begin my process of joining the church, but the idea of leaving the house, let alone joining a likely all ethnically greek community as an outsider, terrifies me. How do I go about conquering this irrational fear? Everything in my body keeps me from taking that step I know I need to take.

>>857004

Be not afraid. Read the Bible and pray, enter with courage.

So I want to contact a local parish and start my inquiry, there is an OCA Church and a Greek Orthodox, what exactly is the difference other then the obvious one is greek

>>857026

If you're referring to the OCU (Orthodox Church in Ukraine), then they are schismatics and outside the Church. The true canonical Church in Ukraine is the UOC-MP (Ukrainian Orthodox Church, under the Moscow Patriarchate).

>>857100

why do orthodox churches keep breaking from each other

>>857113

US state department / foreign policy / CIA

Christ is risen!

I went to what would have been my third Divine Liturgy at a church I found for Pascha today, but the doors were locked. I checked the schedule online, and everything said it was the same time as usual. I went back to my car because it was cold and raining, and returned to check the door like 5 more times, but it was never unlocked.

So that's the story of how I missed Divine Liturgy on Pascha this year. I hope everything is alright, I really like this ROCOR parish I found.

>>857175

Truly He is Risen!

That is bizarre experience. Was this at a fairly small parish? Perhaps the priest was sick and directed the rest of the parish to neighboring areas?

>>857193

So it turns out the door I was trying to use is only unlocked if a certain person happens to be there that day, and everyone in the parish uses the back door primarily. Big mix-up was all it was, thank God, I was just too new to know that and too shy to poke around.

I'll be ready for next year, and God-willing I'll be able to receive communion.

Constantly find myself coming back to orthodoxy but never commiting. I genuinely hate my life and don't understand why god has given me such a burden. I struggle with wanting to be a girl and I ended up taking tranny pills and I don't know if I want to continue. I hate the role placed upon me by god. I hate that he didn't just create me as an orthodox christian woman so I could be a wife. No I have to be a man. I'm probably possesed but they only do exorcisms on baptized orthodox folks. I also dabbled in tne occult and regret it. It didn't bring me what I wanted. Also if I stop the pills I'll loose my hair again. Forgive me if this isn't a complete orthodox topic. I don't know what to do anymore.

>>857209

We all have burdens, you are not unique in that respect, but our burdens are unique to each of us. Most of the time the burden is just the struggle with the fallen world. Sometimes God allows us to be tested as a result of our sins, to see how we react to temptation. All of these struggles are for the benefit of our salvation. You want to be a woman but God created you as a man, that will be your cross to carry until the end. God made you a man and gave you certain talents, glorify God with those talents. Put aside your own desires because most often they are false and are deluded by your passions and follow God's will instead. Orthodoxy is not the easy route, it is the only route, and it will make you truly human.

If you are indeed possessed then continue on with studying Orthodoxy and putting it into practice. Attend liturgy so that you will be surrounded by the grace of God. This will weaken the demons within you. If you complete you catechesis then you will have exorcism prayers read over after your baptism.

I dabbled in the occult also prior to my entrance into Orthodoxy, don't worry about it now it is in the past. First thing to do is create a prayer rule, nothing big in the beginning. Maybe the Lord's prayer morning and night. If that is even too much, then just make the sign of the cross upon arising and going to bed. Begin to think about God more than you normally do and try at least to create a feeling of gratitude. God Bless.