/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>831914

You seem very preoccupied with the Eucharist, I hope you are at peace with it now.

>>831923

This is because of boomer non denoms

Do Catholics and protestants still go to heaven? I'm the only orthodox member of my family and I worry about them a lot.

>>831991

i think what you're asking is "can they" and yes they can but they're not in The Church so they're going to make it a lot harder for themselves

>>831991

Then don't. If you worry about God's presence, how much worse will it be for you when he is all and in all?

The problem is you have a western conception of afterlife. St. Isaac the Syrian says in his asceticaal homilies that the love of God is the fire of hell.

>>832041

>don't worry about your family

great tip mate

>>832044

It is, don't worry about yourself as well. The Lord shall judge all things. Why worry if we trust him?

>>832049

>to keep thinking about unpleasant things that might happen or about problems that you have

in the literal definition you are correct

what if i rephrased it

>don't care about your family

>>832050

What is there to do if not the obvious?

Treat them nicely and be an example, invite them to the Divine Liturgy, and be upfront as in, for example, my faith is something I value and enjoy so I would like to share it with you because I love you.

Dwelling further than that is unfruitful, thus a sin. Though I did have the tendency to gnaw emotionally over my problems a lot, so perhaps I'm overreacting.

>>832137

Thank you, brother.

>>832599

Already enough apostasy and following traditions of men instead of God's Word in America.

>>832633

>said the masonic wizard

>>832819

>Ezra

Heh, a big mess:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esdras

>3 Maccabees

The numbering reflects the time a book was written, not the time of the events in the book. Books 1 and 2 were written by witnesses of the events, while book 3 was written at a much later time.

> Why major prophets after minor, why Job between psalms and proverbs

There is nothing "Orthodox" in any particular ordering. Different orderings are used in the different codices of the Septuagint and different orderings are considered "standard" in the so called Orthodox countries. And BTW, there are some ordering variations even in the masoretic Hebrew manuscripts.

> not really that big a deal, but it triggers my autism

I agree. In my opinion, the English Bibles should use the standard English ordering.

>>832692

Matthew 10:16 be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

>>832846

Sirach 3:21-24

The things that have been prescribed for you, think about these,

for you have no need of secret matters.

With matters greater than your affairs do not meddle,

for things beyond human understanding have been shown to you.

Good homily and good channel.

Main cathedral of the Russian armed forces is finished. Putin finally built his imperial church.

Rate.

>>833260

Tacky and western. The taller the ceiling, the further is God.

>>833260

I dislike the communist symbols. I understand that these are no doubt related to various Russian military units who will now be using the cathedral and to WW2 soldiers. But considering how the Bolsheviks slew the martyrs by the millions I would say they don't belong. Also there is a touch of hypocrisy given how the Ukranians have been criticized over nazi symbolism in their mural a few years ago.

>>829116

Partially because the mods have this containment thread to keep Orthodox from posting pro-Orthodox materials in other threads.

>Chadodox: One person in Christ, the person is the important part here

>fat shaven man wearing secular clothing: Not the natures?

Every debate with the Romans ever.

Reminder to all that Christ is a Divine Hypostasis who assumed a pre-fallen human nature to redeem Adam's failures

>>833678

In general, the orthodox pay more attention to the joy of the Resurrection while roman culture is centered around the bodly torture of Christ

Indeed, he is risen.

Have all already heard about Erdogan decision to make Hagia Sophia mosque again? Any thoughts about it?

>>833731

It's just political squabbling with the international community because it's an internationally sanctioned museum.

I need to go to Church and confess asap.

It's been so long since I last been.

Please pray for me to be able to go. My sleep schedule is not fit for this, and I smoke a lot of weed.

I asked this silly question >>835089

If any Romanian bros/ common sense people can answer that'd be pretty neat.

God bless!

>>829116

Imagine a time when orthodoxy of yesterday was different from orthodoxy of today. Would that even be "Orthodoxy" anymore ?

Because it was co-opted by hellenic pagan philosophers and so-called "Orthodoxy" itself continously evolved over the course of the 3rd and 4th centuries.

If you'd show the Apostles what "Orthodoxy" today is, they would be surprised of how different it is to what they understud as "Orthodoxy" of their day.

What i'm trying to say is that this whole beauty pagent of who's the oldest church is irrelevant, because neither branches of christianity are "old" or "ancient". Stick to the moral norms and normative demands of Christianity as found in Scripture. It's more useful for your salvation than wanting to prove something to others.

>>835180

>If you'd show the Apostles what "Orthodoxy" today is, they would be surprised of how different it is to what they understud as "Orthodoxy" of their day.

God's word is unchanged, incorruptible. Likewise, there has always been his church safeguarding the truth down through the ages, as the pillar and ground of the same. That's among the reasons why he said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. If you still haven't found it I would start searching in earnest, because God said in his word, that "he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." He also said that we should not neglect the assembling of ourselves together; surely if there has always been a pure population of Christian people in the world reverencing this command, then his church would also not cease to be.

>>835199

I had searched for God, and ever since i stopped giving my life arbitrary meaning, fully entrusting my soul into his hands for my path to salvation he led me to some interestingly wordly (to say the least) conclusions about the teachings men say about him. Hence I don't subscribe to the Logos theology created by hellenistic pagan philosophers, because it was not part of original apostolic tradition regarding God and Christ.

>his church safeguarding the truth down through the ages

They must be doing an awful job at it since this supposed truth kept changing every couple of councils or centuries.

>>835180

>Because it was co-opted by hellenic pagan philosophers and so-called "Orthodoxy" itself continously evolved over the course of the 3rd and 4th centuries.

Then how do you explain the Assyrian Church?

>>835203

Do you have information about how people did not see Christ as Logos before the gospel of John? If so, publish them because no one in the world does.

>>835220

What about it ?

>>835225

What kind of reasoning are you trying to put forward?

If it was apostolic tradition, there wouldn't have been any need to keep redacting the parts of the NT concerning when exactly was Christ begotten, at his birth or at his baptism. Only when logos theology became dominant did it become accepted fact that Christ was infact "pre-existent" as evidenced by further editing of the synoptics later in the 3rd century when these issues appeared as a matter of debate

>>835262

If you don't believe Christ is God, at least don't use misleading labels like Orthodox in your name.

Out of respect for yourself.

>>835271

Almighty God is God, The Father.

Christ Jesus is the Lord, The Son.

God and Lord are used interchangeably in the Bible, they are the same word. Christ is God, not the Almighty God. We pray to the Father in the name of The Son, in the name of Jesus. One can be right by calling Jesus a God. But that’s not who Jesus was praying to, He was praying to the almighty God. He told us to pray to The Father, Almighty God. There is only one God.

>>835275

If you say I am right, whence came your desire to correct me if not from love of trifles?

>>835276

The forum was getting a little difficult to understand. It seemed some were making assumptions about others. I though I could simplify things with what I wrote and see where it goes from there. But the way it ended seemed like you were trying to make the assumption that if one doesn’t believe Jesus is the Almighty God, then one doesn’t believe Jesus is a God. I tire of trifles, they are not my goal.

>>835276

Are you saying you see Jesus and God as the same being? I’m saying the Father is greater than the son.

>>835283

In orthodoxy we worship the Triune God, three in one and one in three. Three hypostasis (close to the term person) of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

One Divine eternal Essence or Nature that the Father sustains for the co-eternal Son begotten by him alone and co-eternal Holy Spirit proceeded from him alone.

The hypostasis of the Father has logical priority over the Essence of God. The Father is the monarch, meaning the fact that the Father has divine personhood is the logical starting point about God.

>>835283

Yes, the Father is greater than the Son. Both share the same hyper-Being.

>>835303

And I guess that’s where my disagreement begins. I believe they are all share the same blood. Father, Mother, Son. They are one Family. Not one being, nor a Siamese-like existence (no matter how much you explain it that’s how it keeps sounding to me, and at some point in my journey I truly tried to believe what you do and gave it multiple chances). But I get it, this is not your belief. And because I believe the Bible’s manipulated and you don’t, this is where I have nothing else to add. If God’s perfect intent is to create things on earth as they are in heaven, I don’t see how a Father can have a Son without a Wife.

>>835271

I believe that all things are deduced strictly from the bible when it comes to all matters of prayer, faith and theology. I also believe the bible was written by more than one author over the span of over 4000 years without the express intent of laying down a concrete monolithic religion.

What i also believe so far is that God is the only and ultimate source of truth given by humans through revelation. It is exactly through revelation that God decided to reveal himself to the prophets of old. His last revelation for human beings on earth was made though Jesus of Nazareth by his dying on the cross and ressurection, which the prophets foretold and which christians identify him as Christ.

However, if Jesus was God made in the flesh i cannot tell, as i still have much more to study and learn

>at least don't use misleading labels like Orthodox

I don't subscribe to any names because of their political connotations. When i'll be able to understand the purpose as to why God made me reach the conclusions that i did, then i will change my name to something else.

>>835304

What you're spouting is called homoiousianism.

If Christians have a corrupted faith, why do you plaster our labels over your caprice? Invent your own like you did with everything else.

>>835310

You have in your name field "MoldovanOrthodox", how do you not subscribe to it?

>>835324

Oh yeah, and of course Colossians 2:8-9

>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

>For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

And Hebrews 1:8

>But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

>>835318

As you can see the term has a very broad and fluid meaning across history. When the time comes i will get rid of my fear and fully accept God's path. Until then, all who think they've made the correct choice in choosing Eastern Christianity thinking its -the- correct dinomination for salvation with a continuous "pure" historic lineage must be warned, that even witin it lies corruption, degeneracy, human arbitration and unGodlyness. Moreso when these things had such a large affect on what we today call "dogma"

>>835324

>John

The foremost representation of Logos theology in written form. Ever since Paul started to convert pagan hellens they had developed their own understanding, i would go so far as saying their own religion, because they'd use pagan philosophy to explain what Paul meant and inovating it further. Melito of Sardis is a representative of such tradition that sprang up in the christian communities that Paul had left behind.

Don't get me wrong, its a good thing Paul proselytized, but in using the language of the greeks in pagan terms he unwillingly created a chain of events out of his control when it comes to evolution of doctrine. Paul only wanted to spread the word of God and Christ, but the pagans coopted his ideas and writings and made them into their own religion.

It couldn't have been otherwise, pagans didn't have the context behind what Paul and the apostles had with regards to God, so they could just easily tap into what he's saying and focus on the idea of Christ. The athenians just heard what he spoke but were simply amazed at the way he did it. They though he was a God, even.

In any event its the pagan philosophies of the greeks that caused the Alexandrian school's hermeneutics method by allegorizing scripture, culminating into Theosis theology, with Athanasius as its prime representative.

It is what it is, but what i'm trying to say is that the ideas of scripture speak for themselves more often than not, without the need for the reader to induce preexisting axioms into it, beside their general context, because this twists meaning as in pagan philosophical fashion and alters the conclusion, which again speaks for itself.

Doing otherwise means exerting human arbitration on what is in essence, the only source of truth, which is God.

>>835337

>>835338

They ended up there only after the aftermath of Ephesus. Long after the monarchal bishop and long after christianity's downfall after it became a state religion.

Honestly, if the religion doesn't start being more self aware of its systematic problems and that there's other ideologies and religions in the world competing and threatening its existence, its entirely possible that the only people who will be left to call themselves christians by the end of the next 200 years will be Mormons, Penticostals, JW and Evangelicals.

For me at least, that's not the future i want my descendants to live in.

>>835339

>They ended up there only after the aftermath of Ephesus.

Not really.

They developed pretty independently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Seleucia-Ctesiphon

>>835354

Nothing in what you posted suggests an "independent" development prior to 400AD as they still relied on the state-church model of the Roman Empire as their point of refence, effectively homonogising them together.

>>835339

Try not to worry too much about the Mormons, Penticostals, JW and Evangelicals, my brother. They are not the future. Currently they are old wine skins, God will not put new wine in them. When God’s Son arrives he will create the final new wine skin and put new wine in that instead. These denominations have committed too much sin and adopted too many doctrines of devils, they will not be preserved. The innocent and Holy members within them will be preserved, as well as any innocent and Holy members of all Christian denominations, but all of them will have to accept God’s new wine skin and come together.

As for any fears you may still have that hold you back from fully accepting God’s path, I can tell you once God clearly shows you the path He has for you it’ll be a path complimenting your free will. I’ve fairly recently accepted God’s path fully. There was one thing he wanted from me that I didn’t want to give up because it was the one thing I cherished most and without it I don’t have free will. After handing him my free will on the matter and telling Him I’ll do as he chooses on the matter from now on, He simply said, “Thank you, all I wanted to know was that you trust me again. Of coarse I’m not going to take what’s most precious to you for my own purposes. You can have this back, but guard it! It’s precious to Me as well, and your plans for it are good in my eyes”.

I don’t know how much this will help but I can tell you when we sacrifice, we must do so expecting not to get anything back. However, in my case, He just wanted to know that I trust Him, like I used to in my youth before I was stumbled and lost trust in Him. Ultimately you will see his personality after that last step, and you will love and trust Him like never before. It always ends the same, deeper love for God. Your free will will not be insulted.

>>835356

If the persian christians were any different and non-hierarchical, organizing them roman-style would have been impossible.

Besides, that still leaves the other side of the problem.

They existed outside of an environment dominated by pagan Greek philosophy, and had their own style of theology.

>>835336

No one who is in the church thinks it does not have an wordly aspect to it, you're condemning strawmans for fun. Further, having cloudy boundaries is not an excuse to call oneself by names that are misleading to others. Do you think you can go anywhere without breaking the command when someone asks "stay roughly over here"?

>>835324

We decided the canon of scripture because we held fast to the traditions written and those spoken by Paul, like baptizing all members of our household.

>>835380

I disagree. It's not like they were somehow untouched by the process. They had a great deal of contributing to its spread infact. It was the assyrian Ignatius of Antioch who came up with the top bottom hierarhical structure for the church.

It was Alexandria who promoted inovations using pagan philosophy and while Antioch was allegorizing less, it still promoted a hierarchy over the faithful, contrary to scripture, which was later used as a model enforced by the Roman state aparatus on all christian congregations. The unholy trinity of a pagan state, pagan academic institutions and pagan sin of lust for control

By 381AD there wasn't a single christian congregation untouched by pagan inspired theologic ideas due to the writings of church fathers a century earlier who were converts with intellectual pagan backgrounds.

These are my personal conclusions that i've reached so far and in my humble opinion, Christianity should purify itself from the historic pagan philosophical baggage of the past if it wants to recover from its spiritual dilluted state which dragged on for the past 1800 years. Christian scripture needs more pious scholars, and less philosophical speculations.

But anyways, the assyrians are today in communion with the Pope, so whatever theological features made them historically distinct in the past is virtually irrelevant now.

>>835362

Thank you for the kind words. I guess i really am in a point of my life where i have to decide what i want to do with my free will. I can only pray to God, and hope he will guide me on my path as he did so far.

>>835396

you strike me as a judaizer. Perhaps "Moldovan Orthodox" was "Moldovan Oorthodox Jewish' by any chance? Both St. John as well as St. Paul used so-called "pagan" philophy in scripture. Why exactly do we needed to eliminate 1800 years worth of Christian theology? In favor of what?

>>835392

I wish they would have been strawmans. The reality of christianity is much more grim and dire from where i'm standing. The saddest part is that no one seems to care.

>>835428

In favor of complete orthodoxy.

What so-called councils established was the nature of Christ and his relation to God. Yet scripture remained just a book of fairytales for them, that they can read and interpret freely however they want. It this fact would have been established in the very beginning, God is a witness, there wouldn't be any need for hierarchies, heresies, councils, states and human arbitration in truth. Orthodoxy is more pagan than it thinks.

Eliminate all paganisms from Cristianity and establish a single Orthodox interpretation of scripture.

>>835481

I did. And if you pay close attention to scripture, you will notice only the Pauline pagan exagerated works of the Johannite community seem to be at odds with the rest of the NT books. It's why it wasn't accepted as scripture in the first place as fast as the rest. You can't choose one theological tradition from scripture and ignore the rest. Not if you cherish scriptural integrity that is.

Those that do not have either a childish mind, treating scripture as mere books no different than children's books with meaning being open for debate, or false and scheming men with egotistical interests that twist meaning on purpouse to win power and control. In either case, both are paganisms applied to scripture.

>>835481

Yes, the orthodox did. Then your kind decided to take out parts that did not agree with your man made traditions like scripture alone.

>>835491

>The reality of christianity is much more grim and dire from where i'm standing. The saddest part is that no one seems to care.

If you are the only one that noticed Christendom died 1700 years ago, and it has no descendants, either in continuity, or in revival, and no group, no matter how puritan and anti-pagan, is in agreement with you, maybe that should raise some questions.

>>835509

These people are un-orthodox-ly trusting in men. But me, I'm trusting in God, and that right there is the difference. For no man can serve two masters. The truth will prevail over this silliness, yea, triumph, and I have remorse over them that turn from the truth so willingly, unto powerless fables and weak wives' tales, tabloids devised and told over the dinner table by some superstitious man and too readily believed. If only the Truth, which we have, were given a hearing in these places at any time it would be overthrown in an instant. But it flatters the senses and appeals to the base carnal desires, so it has found sadly a place in many superstitious and pagan houses that place such big emphasis on the appearance only, and ignore the substance, for that convicts them. The very word of God that convicts them is found in their hands, yet in a strange twist they do not read it; instead, turning back to old wives' tales, myths, emptiness, vanity. Too puffed up and trying to make a vain show to even seek God, or else they would have found Him in the Bible. They are too caught up from fitting into the cult crowd to find God, because it's all a show to them, and no substance at all. And yet right there at all times God and his church too, I might add has been here in his inspired Word on any occasion whenever some person would actually humble themselves and would seek to actually find him, knowing that He is there. Amen.

>>835510

What is a Christian? Someone who believes only in God of the patriarchs and prophets, and who acknowledge Jesus as Christ.

Indeed those questions naturally arose for me, because i wanted to make some common sense of the very basic evolution of the religion in it's first 50 years having in mind the clustertwine between human obscure interests, pagans, heretics and state politics that's characterized Christianity at least since then.

Christians did not disappear over the past 1800 or so years. They continue to live on as they do today, but the leaders are false and their teachings are false. I would go as far as to say that true orthodox teaching died together with the martyrdom of the apostles. Had they not suffered the fate they suffered, Christianity would look completely different today because they would have had enough time to establish a concrete and rigid set of interpretations, doctrines and understanding of our own religion.

They were completely cut off the natural course Christianity should have taken under their guidance and nurture, which gave other people the idea that they can simply pick off where they left, but inserting their own personal interpretations.

Do you even know what it's like having reached the conclusion that what Christianity is today is nothing but one huge LARP of what some hellenistic pagans (who weren't even fully monotheists let alone christians!) decided what the faith should be like all those centuries back with their pagan writings?

It's a tragedy. It's simply sad acknowleding all these things. But what really hit me into a spiral of depression is knowing all these things cannot be reconciled with what we have today in absolutely no other way, because continuity of Christ died together with the apostles.

I can only thank God we still have some first century writings about what Christianity really looked like back then at least, aside NT. And not only the works of pagans who wrote whatever bogus they wanted about Christ back then.

God willing, i will continue studying about our religion. I pray to somehow reconcile these past 1800 years of pagan writings, pagan teachings and pagan practices with true christian faith.

>>835515

Nice cope but Paul literally wrote to keep the traditions delivered by speech in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and be careful of speech from non-Christian. King James misleads and willfully mistranslates by using the generic "word" instead of speech, logou is not used for written things.

Know your Bible.

>>835525

You have nothing but your pride as a map, since you so easily inscribe bad faith to writers when it is useful.

>>835586

>Nice cope but Paul literally wrote to keep the traditions delivered by speech in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and be careful of speech from non-Christian.

Oh, is that an exact quote? No, I don't think so. It sounds like you need to do some studying then. It says whether by word or by epistle. And since I'm not meeting Paul in person I'm therefore keeping his word by epistle. The apostle also warned me in the Bible there would come those who tried to wrest the scripture unto their own destruction. That's what's happening now. At least you know that you're supposed to appeal to Scripture. That's good. Now you have to be aware of those who wish to wrest those same scripture to take disciples for themselves and then teach us to disregard the word of God in order to follow them, and that's what we're dealing with now. The usage you see there of Paul's epistle to the Thessalonians is not as you have alleged. And we can tell because you had to misquote it and added things over and above what the Bible says there. He said to the brethren, "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." You've removed that detail because it didn't fit your narrative. We see that here. It is good that you are at least trying to appeal to Scripture now, as you must do.

>>835588

Not pride. A disgust for untruth.

New movie on St. Joseph the Hesychast. This is the one with the actor Jonathan Jackson who converted a few years ago. Trisagion released a video on St. Joseph as well, and their movies are always great. Link is Trisagion video. https://invidio.us/Pe4OtnPJGpo

>>835647

Nice job ignoring half my post and repeating your pre-conceived traditions of men like King James VI wanting to form his state church.

>>836386

Hah, I never heard them say anything about it, and I'm kind of a TES lore geek. I'm not sure what the inspiration is, but Michael Kirkbride charted out a lot of the lore way back in the Morrowind days. He does seem to have a thing with associating isolation with wisdom though. Vivec was also his creation in Morrowind (but he was all alone). Same with the mages (Psjic Order). I would guess he's just drawing on a general hermit trope.. from Christian to Shaolin monks.

>>836551

Should be games instead of genres.

>>835949

The rest of your post isn't even dealing with scripture.

>>836639

Yes, it is. Logou is not used once in the sense of written word, not even by KJ. Stop being inconsistent to fit your man-made agenda.

>>837194

I know the EP published a letter to do it properly, can't speak for others.q

>>837208

I suppose I will find out in July, when I hope to be able to return. We have a sign up sheet currently limiting the number to 20 persons per service. I live the farthest away so I figure I will sit it out for a bit.

>>837237

I'm priviledged since I never stopped attending because I'm a reader and our metropolitan allows two helpers per parish. I would be going insane if I were in your position.

I pray for those who got forcefully removed from communion and that all Patriarchs use their authority to stop with this nonsense and fear.

>>837240

>I would be going insane if I were in your position.

I feel like I am going insane. Thankfully I was at least able to give confession over the phone to my spiritual father at one point. It isn't the same but it is better than nothing and kept my spirits up. Now my spiritual father is in the hospital for a major surgery and I will not be able to talk with him for awhile. At the very least it has allowed me to get the home church in order.

>>836724

> John 15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

>>837247

Logos here does not mean written letter, otherwise it would say the written letter which is written in their law. Word means promise or prophecy here, as in "you have my word". When you say "you have my word", do you physically give out paper or is it a promise?

>>837250

Then how is it written in their law. No, you know what? Actually, how about you answer my first post. Tell us why you had to misquote 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and I had to come and correct you about what it actually said.

>>837367

>Then how is it written in their law

If you don't understand what a promise is and how it can be written then you lack basic understanding of reality itself and I can't help you. I'm sorry, but you are beyond my capabilities. I tried helping you, yet I can't help but feel defeated by your lack of basic comprehension. I read a lot on language, perhaps The Meaning of a Word by John Austin can help you.

>>837386

No thanks I know what the word of God is and your new age pseudo-babble is exactly the kind of man-made tradition I'm talking about. Again, you don't have any scripture to speak of, just man made traditions. The scripture you tried to wrest you had to quote it inaccurately and add things to it as I've shown. No scripture supports a single thing you've said. It is good that you tried to quote 2 Thessalonians, but you didn't quote it accurately and that inaccuracy is what led to your downfall. Now you know that you don't have any scripture to support anything you've said.

For informative reasons and to consolidate my faith, is it bad to read about other denominations or religions?

I was planning to read the quran and some buddhist sutras.

Basically I'm curious how others rationalize their faith in comparison with Orthodoxy and Christianity.

I decided to not convert from Orthodoxy after some thorough research, which is why I don't think this would be bad

>>837955

>is it bad to read about other denominations or religions?

Not at all especially if you are coming from an apologetic and comparative standpoint. Think of how Orthodox books Christ the Eternal Tao by Hieromonk Damascene and The Human Icon by Christine Mangala Frost approach their topics of Taoism and Hinduism respectively.

>>837407

It's impressive how dedicated you are to not reading my posts.

>>839206

Be centered on Christ. You are in my prayers. God bless you, Anon.

>>839212

porn addiction*

>>839212

> I just wish I had been born orthodox, or had god made me a woman I'd be happy.

A perspective that has to be discarded is the notion that "if it were not for X, I would be happy". Living in this world will always be painful for anyone with a big and good heart - which I feel you do.

>I just cant get myself to ghost all these people who are wrongfully encouraging me to be a degenerate.

>I'm pretty sure hell is better than this.

I remember reading from Saint Makarios that the closest we can get from understanding the transcendent reality of hell is loneliness, so I understand why you can't see yourself deleting your less than Christian friends.

>I wish god would just send an angel down and tell me exactly what to do.

I do not believe an angel coming from heaven to give you instructions would help you. There is so little to be said about spirituality and prayer, yet there is so much to be done. The biggest first step will be one you don't think will make a difference, for when it does you shall realize all our actions affect all our actions. I genuinely do not believe there is something to be heard beyond "develop good habits for both the body and spirit". Yet, there is so much to be done, for such little seeds of faith grow into an enormous orchards that are fruitful and beautiful.

>>839212

>or had god made me a woman I'd be happy

Not true. The devils whisper this one in our ears. You need to stop fantasizing and you'll feel better.

>cant get myself to ghost all these people who are wrongfully encouraging me to be a degenerate

"He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed."

"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Delete bad contacts from your phone. Block numbers. Delete social media profiles. Wipe everything that leads you to sin. It is hard to work up the courage to start doing this but it helps enormously.

>don't know how to delete my giant porn folder

This will take some courage but it is precisely what you need to do. Take hard action and just wipe everything. You'll feel bad before doing it and you may have to repeat the process but it helps to focus on the fact that, no matter how you look at it, you will eventually have to do it anyway. Whether you delete it now and then stop watching filth or stop watching filth and only to delete it later, it has to go so why not before it can do more harm.

>I'm also a glutton

I know that feeling. A lack of self-control in the belly feeds into a lack of self-control with lust. You need to work on this one but slowly. You and I are both in the position of not having a spiritual father for guidance. What helps in my experience is that you start fasting very slowly and modestly. Skip meats & animal products on Friday and Wednesday (except when someone sets it before you so you don't insult your host). Start by setting yourself a fixed number of meals in the day and don't snack between them. Do not try to set records.

>I wish god would just send an angel down and tell me exactly what to do

"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

The Good Lord gives us no more than is good for us. You already know His will, the problem is that you are trying to look for a justification to disobey because it is hard.

>>839212

unironically went through very similar situations. I think it stems from the same sort of issues.

I am now still fat, still no friends, but I have a stable job and a huge passion that I work for every day, managed to quit weed, alcohol and cigarettes and I'm working towards weight loss. I'm currently 25 and I started changing my life in January 2019

What I did to fix this is:

>understand the evilness of your sinful life

>understand exactly how bad it is

>understand that God will forgive you and that it's never too late.

>find something that you're extremely passionate about. something you love doing and it's also productive and not just a simple stupid dopamine kick like porn or videogames

Personally ever since I started learning Japanese my life got turned around for the better.

Regarding your issue with the need for attention. I don't think you're pathetic at all. It's normal for people who feel so low to need attention, which is why I think you feel like you'd love to be a woman or to have been born as a woman.

I've ALWAYS had this thought and it's just a stupid little illusion. The need for attention is not an inherently feminine trait. Everyone has it. Even if girls receive more attention than men, this doesn't mean that the way you feel is feminine.

You can, and will get attention as a man once you start doing something that you love and become healthy both mentally and physically.

I'm not there yet myself, but the situation is massively different than a year and a half ago

>>839298

>>839225

>>839257

thanks guys

the church i used to go to is open now for services with 25 people only. should i go tomorrow to vespers?

>>839326

>should I go to church

Yes! The Good Lord bless you, we find eternal life in the mysteries of the Church! If I told you not to go, would I be dismissing the value of my brother without even thirty pieces of silver?

>>839422

I just want to know how I can handle this tactfully, I have been going to an Anglican church that is enabling of my degenerate behavior. They have a sign up sheet for services bc they only allow 25 people. What should I do? Ghost the church? The priest also gave me two books too.

I was thinking of going one more time, giving him the books back and saying "this isn't for me." after the service.

>>839446

after that, I plan on texting the priest from the orthodox church and scheduling a meeting with him. I can't take communion bc I was born into the Roman Catholic church.

Thank you for helping me brother.

>>839446

Giving his books back instead of keeping them sounds very good to me. I see no need to attend the service in order to do so since your purpose is after all not to belong there anymore. They probably also can use the space for someone else. Strictly speaking I should add that the canons do not allow mixed worship. You haven't joined the Church yet and there is some room for leniency and interpretation based on circumstances so don't take this as me telling you it is absolutely forbidden to do as you suggested. I think it is better to not attend a service but return the books at a different time. I wouldn't go into details of their position vs. ours when he has already rejected our morality anyway, especially since you probably don't feel properly prepared for apologetics. Just tell him that another denomination is closer to what you were looking for or something along those lines. At most you could gently touch on the subject that affirmation was not what you needed or that you are looking for a little more rigidity and strictness but perhaps it would not be all that helpful. Be sure to thank him for his help.

I know I suggested ghosting degenerates but not every single person who loves sin in this broken world or otherwise doesn't agree with us is necessarily in that category. I don't have any orthodox in my family at all and only a few friends I know through church itself. You'll have to make judgement calls about who is a reprobate you need to break ties with and IMO that will more often be the type of people who not only accept degeneracy in you but actively work to keep you from repentance. You might still keep some friends among the anglicans. We should not judge those persons outside the Church but pray for them regardless if their actions meet our expectations. Even if you have to cut ties with someone for the sake of your own soul, pray for him and do not condemn him for we will be judged by the measure by which we condemned our brothers.

>>839447

There are I think some 'orthodox' who would commune RC but it is definitely uncanonical. If that is the case you've got yourself a liberalized parish. Don't avoid church even if it is (my own local parish is rather liberalized) but it is much better to have a stricter one. Keep in mind that if someone is not keeping the rules doesn't mean that he is without grace and if he is in the church doesn't mean he is obedient. Kinda like how being a gym member doesn't make you fit. Do not be scandalized if you find out that bishops and priests are sinners–this has always been the case and they need our support and prayers.

Rules for joining will differ depending on the jurisdiction In our case for example protestants would have to be baptized but not RC. Even when non-orthodox are accepted in without baptism or chrismation it doesn't mean recognition of the mysteries in the other organization, it falls under 'economy'–basically leniency or following the spirit rather than the letter of the law (long story). Orthodoxy has a tremendous strictness to it but is not legalistic in the way that e.g. thomism or sharia are. It sounds kinda paradoxical but you'll get a feel for it.

Do not worry if you can't commune yet. It is normal for catechumens, those who haven't recently confessed and repented of their sins, women on a monthly schedule, and men after nocturnal emissions.

Knock and it will be opened for you. If you have any difficulty at any point in your conversion accept with prayer that the enemy is being allowed to tempt you and feel free to ask us or other orthodox for advice. I myself tend to check the thread from time to time but cannot, of course, guarantee that I will always be able to do so. As an example it took me a few months before I could first get my feet into the church (liberalized parishes can be overly keen on the "we don't proselytize" nonsense being peddled by heretics). It was simply the first of many trials.

Avoid breakaway groups who claim to be the real Orthodox Church while everyone else in the world is a heretic. They're really only significant on the internet but I thought I'd say it anyway.

I'm glad if we here have been of any assistance. The heavens rejoice if one sinner repents. Let us all pray for one another and pick up our cross. God bless you and may you find peace in Him.

>>839446

>I have been going to an Anglican church that is enabling of my degenerate behavior

Do you mean your gender disphoria? That's really sad, I hope the orthodox priest helps you with that by being a good confessor and shoulder to cry on.

It is difficult to sever absolutely all ties and then start from zero since thr loneliness can be crushing. Perhaps a smooth transition might help you in the long term. Don't ghost them, but start attending the orthodox liturgy instead. Be respectful to your old friends, if they ask about you just say you are a bit interested in orthodoxy and is trying it out. No sweat.

>>839446

>I was thinking of going one more time, giving him the books back and saying "this isn't for me." after the service.

What are the books about? - if you don't mind me asking.

I just wanna move to Japan near one of the 9 total Orthodox churches in the country, find a cute and faithful Japanese Orthodox wife, get married and live a blessed life.

I already speak Japanese and stuff

>>839460

one book is titled "love wins" its about hell and the other is reconciliation in the episocpal church.

>>839458

thank you brother, but these "new" friends are on my new fb I created and discord I use. Its gonna be hard to cut them off.

>>839455

thank you brother

>>839492

Do give them back, but remember that not every corteous man is humble but all humble men are corteous.

>>839212

>I don't know how to delete my giant porn folder that is getting close to 6 GB.

Select, right click, delete. If it ends up in the trash bin, do it again. It's only as hard as you and your demons make it out to be. I've got a similar problem, and I'm gonna do it right now. We'll do this first step together.

A good site for us to use so that we may all stay strong in the fight.

https://www.unseenwarfare.net/

>>837194

> I would think that using multiple spoons dismisses the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Why would it? When Christ celebrated communion with the apostles, using spoons wasn't a big deal at all. As long as the spoons are used only for the purpose of giving the Eucharist I'm fine with it.

>>839530

I think because it is a subtle implication that the Eucharist can carry something else aside from Christ. Christ can only heal our soul and body, not harm. So the use of multiple spoons during a pandemic is suggesting that the virus may be present in the Eucharist. It is most likely not an outright denial of Christ's presence, but it is a tilt in the direction of saying something aside from Christ can share the same place. Either it is Christ or it isn't, either it heals us or it doesn't, and may even harm us.

>>839531

Yep. It doesn't matter to me per se if we always had the tradition of the spoon or never did as I could have followed either way. But actions communicate and they speak louder than words. If I say that Holy Communion is the Lord but reject the spoon for fear of disease, then what I'm actually saying is something else. There is really no alternative. Any threats issued, any laws, anything else contrary to this point must be rejected by the Church as an order to blaspheme.

I cannot say "Lord, Lord" with my lips and then turn around and speak against him in action because I am threatened by the antichrist state. To a christian, taqqiya is apostasy.

>>839530

It isn't ultratraditionalists speaking, but people fearful of death. The problem is the reasoning.

How I understand, the problem is not that it denies the presence but that it denies that the presence of Christ is more important than having long years in this life.

I believe that people who do not have something more valuable than their own lives inside their lives go insane, as we witness in this virus mess.

is it possible to force yourself to believe in god

Happy St. Peter and Paul!

Anyone else went to liturgy today?

I got there super late, but I haven't been to Church in quite some time. I needed that.

Btw is it bad to give the food and drink you got from alms to a homeless person?

I have plenty of food and water at home.

>>839543

Belief isn't a feeling like a numbness in the stomach after a good digestion. Do not think a sensation is what faith means or that deepening a sensation through art, music or prayer means a deepening of faith.

I think fidelity is closer to a non-distorted view of belief. First edicate yourself to prayer and fasting, only then you shall see. I think Christ's message is clear that sureness follows dedication while the world thinks it is the other way around.`

>>839543

No. Belief is our answer to God revealing himself to us. All Orthodox Christians know that their decision to believe is result of a miracle. Maybe a small miracle, but a miracle nonetheless. Like this one: “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” (Luke 24:32)

It is, however, possible and it is necessary for us to make ourselves able to receive God, revealing himself. “What do you mean, ‘If I can’?” Jesus asked. “Anything is possible if a person believes.” The father instantly cried out, “I do believe, but help me overcome my unbelief!” (Mark 9:23-23)

>>839543

Pray to God that He strengthen your faith in accordance with His wisdom by revealing Himself in the way He wills.

Has anyone learned a language because of Orthodoxy? I am tempted to begin to learn Russian or Greek. Greek has better literature, but Russian is actually spoken and I attend a Russian Orthodox church. More importantly, though, my desire to learn such a thing most likely stems from pride and a greed for ideas. I don't quite know what to do.

>>839212

It is worth emphasizing that transsexualism is false, and a weaponized idea. Your infatuation with the feminine is a bastardization of your love for the Theotokos; I, too, have been in those shoes.

>>839614

There is more Orthodox literature in Russian than you will be able to read in your life, including translations of all important Greek works (new or old). And most of this literature is freely available in Internet at sites as https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/ (there is an English section there, btw: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/world/).

On the other hand, even if you know Russian, you wont be able to understand the words of the services in a Russian Orthodox Church because the language there is different: it is used not only by the Russians but also by the other Slavic people (something like the Latin for the Italians, the Frenchmen, the Spaniards and the Portuguese).

Also, Russian is very difficult language.

On the other hand, while Modern Greek is much easier to learn than Russian (simpler grammar and lots of recognizable words), in order to be able to read the writings of the Greek Saints, you will have to learn not only Modern Greek but also the Ancient Greek language (different grammar & different words).

>my desire to learn such a thing most likely stems from pride and a greed for ideas

I don't know about this :), but learning a new language is like opening a door to a whole new world. It gives you a lot more than just an access to new literature.

>>839619

Byzantine Greek was suggested to me. Do Russians actually know Slavonic?

>>839625

>Byzantine Greek was suggested to me.

There are no teaching courses in Byzantine Greek. In order to be able to read Byzantine Greek you need to learn Ancient Greek and you don't need Modern Greek.

>Do Russians actually know Slavonic?

I suppose they don't. A native speaker, however, will know a lot more Russian words than a non-Russian, including many dialectal words. This will allow him to adapt, so after a time he will start to understand Slavonic – not all texts, but a lot.

The situation is more or less identical as Greeks and knowledge of Ancient Greek. Except that Ancient Greek is a popular language with lots of courses and lots of texts you can read while Slavonic is hardly used anywhere outside the Church services.

>>839646

They say that Byzantine Greek is very easy once you know Ancient Greek. I think this would enable reading Basil, the Philiokalia, etc.

Please help me I really need to have this question answered.

Is repentance supposed to be instant (aka. I renounce all sin, and quit your addictions cold turkey and stuff) or gradual?

I tried absolutely everything to quit certain addictions and I cannot do it cold turkey however much I try. I always give in like the pathetic and weak guy I am.

I want to change, and I want to follow true repentance as taught by Christ, but I don't know how to do it. Do you have any answers or any resources or anything I can read?

>>840440

Gradual makes the most sense since, if man could change his ways with the flip of his palm, wouldn't every follow instantaneously be as Christ, holy in all his actions?

However, it is my belief that, although gradual, for the things not yet exorcised from one's life, the Holy Spirit would compel you towards change. As a consequence, in focusing on the short-term and putting faith in God for the long-term, by the time you reach the end of the road, you would've been cleansed of all malignancy.

Note that gradual though does imply completion. E.g., if you're going to accomplish A, B, and C gradually, i.e. just starting with A–by the time you're done with A it should no longer pose a threat to your spirit at all and will never draw you into temptation again.

>>840443

Thanks a lot for the answer friend. I managed to quit smoking weed and cigarettes and I'm no longer tempted to fall again into these traps.

But there are other things that I have yet to beat, and that I find to be unbearably difficult. Which is why I think my best shot would be to quit gradually.

Logically, to me it seems that repentance has to be done by will and that it's not supposed to be extremely easy. I pray to God for help, strength and an escape, but it's ultimately up to me to do the work and repent of my sin.I think God will refuse to simply brainwash me into being faithful and sinless just because I asked. It has to come out of my own volition.

Since I'm too weak to resist temptation and withdrawal when I quit cold turkey, logically I believe that it would be much better to quit gradually and try every single day to take up my cross, even if I fall; than to fall back into sin, discouraged because I failed.

I want to make sure what true repentance really is though. To know that what I'm doing is right. Because maybe I missed something.

>>840440

It is difficult to give universal answers to your questions. Each case is specific and has to be judged spiritually. And I, most certainly, am not a spiritually wise man and I won't dare to answer you. I'll just give some random thoughts. I only hope that you will find there at least something useful.

First, there are different addictions from physiological point of view. In some cases quitting cold turkey is difficult but possible. Examples are the hard drugs like heroin. Is it difficult to stop heroin? Yes, it is very difficult but with proper support it is fully possible and many people succeed. And it is fully safe. On the other hand, the alcohol is much safer drug because the addiction to it develops very slowly. But once you become strongly addicted to alcohol quitting it cold turkey becomes impossible. In some extreme cases this can even lead to death.

I think I've read about a monk in Mount Athos who was addicted to alcohol since a child. He drank every day and he annoyed his brothers but he was freed from blame by God because throughout his life he was always reducing the amount of alcohol he drinks.

But these are only rare exceptions. In most cases we are required to quit all our bad habits "cold turkey". We are required to do so because this is beneficial for our physical and spiritual health and God always desires what is best for us. Imagine a situation with a bad chemical factory, poisoning all its surrounding area. And imagine your son loves to play there and he promises you that he will go there only on rare occasions. Will you permit him to go to this poisonous area even if only rarely?

When a relapse occurs and we sin, we sigh and we say "Ah, Lord, what else can be expected from me, the sinner? I am so inexperienced and spiritually weak. If it weren't for you, I would fall in a much worse way. Please, help me so I don't do this again ever." We can remember the numerous comforting words in the Gospel, like the following, and we fight the desperation because it is from the devil:

"Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times." (Matthew 18:21-22)

"And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart. He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected man. And there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary.’ For a while he refused, but afterward he said to himself, ‘Though I neither fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming.’” And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says. And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”" (Luke 18:1-8)

On the other hand, before the sin we must not comfort ourselves with such words. Instead we can remember that "the kingdom of heaven is subjected to violence, and the violent take it by force" (Matthew 11:12) and "the one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”" (Rev. 21:7-8) It also helps imagining Christ, suffering on the Cross by his own free will and doing so because he loves you. Don't betray his love for you like Judas. And pray with prayers like these:

The Lord is my light and my salvation;

whom shall I fear?

The Lord is the stronghold of my life;

of whom shall I be afraid?

When evildoers assail me

to eat up my flesh,

my adversaries and foes,

it is they who stumble and fall.

Though an army encamp against me,

my heart shall not fear;

though war arise against me,

yet I will be confident. (Psalm 26:1-3)

For not in my bow do I trust,

nor can my sword save me.

But you have saved us from our foes

and have put to shame those who hate us.

In God we have boasted continually,

and we will give thanks to your name forever. (Psalm 43:6-8)

Do not fear what it fears, neither be troubled.

Sanctify the Lord himself, and he himself will be your fear.

If you trust in him, he will become your holy precinct. (Isaiah 8:13-14)

Learn, you nations, and be defeated;

listen as far as the end of the earth;

be strong, and be defeated;

for if you become strong again,

again you shall be defeated!

And whatever counsel you take,

the Lord will scatter it,

and whatever word you speak,

it will not remain for you,

because the Lord God is with us. (Isaiah 8:9-10)

Rise up, Lord, come to our help!

Redeem us for the sake of your steadfast love! (Psalm 43:26)

Contend, O Lord, with those who contend with me;

fight against those who fight against me!

Take hold of shield and buckler

and rise for my help!

Draw the spear and javelin

against my pursuers!

Say to my soul,

“I am your salvation!”

Let them be put to shame and dishonor

who seek after my life!

Let them be turned back and disappointed

who devise evil against me! (Psalm 34:1-4)

So in few words: before you sin you remember the graveness of your situation, the terrible consequences if you remain in the sin and you try to melt your heart by remembering the Lord on the Cross and his love for you. After the sin you fight the desperation, you turn to the Lord with apology (=repentance) and you promise you won't sin again, having unwavering faith that God will help you to keep your promise. Before the sin you remember that you are fighting the war of the Lord. If you give in, you become a deserter and usually the punishment for the deserters is death. After the sin you remember that a lost battle is not a lost war and you deserve not a punishment but a revenge against your enemy.

>>840444

>it seems that repentance has to be done by will

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above." (James 1:17)

"Apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5)

>God will refuse to simply brainwash me into being faithful and sinless just because I asked.

God can cut all your temptations instantaneously. But our Fathers teach us that this won't be beneficial for us. For various and different reasons. Ap. Paul says "Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead." (2 Cor. 1:9)

Often the temptations reveal to us what stays hidden in our hearts. Without them we are our masters and we are free to say: "I don't like this bad habit, it is harmful and I quit it now. But I like that other habit, I will keep it." And this will be our doom, our pride will make us blind and unaware of the eminent danger. The temptations teach us to be obedient to God in everything. We learn by experience that when we ask from God "Please, help me to quit A" the answer can be "Ok, but first you have to deal with B".

"I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations that Joshua left when he died, in order to test Israel by them, whether they will take care to walk in the way of the Lord as their fathers did, or not.” So the Lord left those nations, not driving them out quickly, and he did not give them into the hand of Joshua. Now these are the nations that the Lord left, to test Israel by them, that is, all in Israel who had not experienced all the wars in Canaan. It was only in order that the generations of the people of Israel might know war, to teach war to those who had not known it before." (Judges 2:21-3:2)

>>840440

Repentance is as long as our life on Earth.

>>840444

>I pray to God for help, strength and an escape, but it's ultimately up to me to do the work and repent of my sin.I think God will refuse to simply brainwash me into being faithful and sinless just because I asked. It has to come out of my own volition.

Sin is not an action but a tendency or sickness to disagree with the Father. It is wrong to attribute causation like you did when talking about brainwashing since God is both in time and beyond time.

Contemplating the Jesus prayer and that part of the gospel in which the man says 'Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief' has been helpful to me. I hope it shall be for you, too.

>>840452

>>840453

Thank you so so much.

You have no idea how much you helped me. I bow to you.

I'm screenshot-ing the verses and I'll pray them again whenever I get the chance or feel tempted to sin.

I will continue to try much harder than I've been trying until now to abstain from my sin. Every time it has been a huge obstacle in my walk with God. It must end once and for all.

Let's pray for each other's health and salvation. God bless you!

>>840459

>>840463

Thank you very much brothers. I need all the correction and the help possible.

I'll continue my repentance until the day I die

I'm sympathetic to Orthodox but under no circumstance can I accept praying to saints. veneration and worship are the same thing. Yes I know it's "praying with the saints". Most Orthodox and Catholics aren't committing idolatry. but it can easily lead into it. I'm not denying that a case can be made for it, but the case is exceedingly weak.

>>842362

How do you think would proper prayer differ in this sense?

>>842362

>I cannot accept praying to saints

Our Lord sent his Apostles with the words: Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay. (Matt 10:8) And all those who asked the Apostles for help were saved from their afflictions.

Our Lord also said: Have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. (Matt 22:32) And if He is not God of the dead, then His Apostles are not dead but living. And if they are living, then what stops you from asking them for help? Because we don't have problems asking our fellow Christians for their prayers, do we? Aren't you making the God of the Apostles God of dead?

If you honor the Saints, then you are honoring the word of God who said once to Abraham: I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:3) "All peoples on earth" means that you, too, will be blessed through Abraham and through all other Saints of God.

We honor the Saints because our Lord said about his Apostles and with them he said this about all those who belong to his people, the New Israel: The glory that you have given me I have given to them. (John 17:22) The glory of the Saints is not at the expense of the glory of God because our Lord also said I am glorified in them. (John 17:10) It is God the One who brings the Saints to glory and the One who sanctifies them: For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers. (Hebrews 2:10-11)

>veneration and worship are the same thing

When the Orthodox speak about veneration of someone or something, we should know that this word comes from the Latin 'veneratio' which is inexact translation of the Greek word τιμάω (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/τιμάω) and simply means 'to pay honor to, to hold in honor, treat honorably'. One can use this word not only in religious context: if one holds in honor a particular politician, this can be right or wrong, but it is not idolatry. In the Septuagint the Jewish translators used the word τιμάω in the fifth commandment (that is venerate your father and your mother). (Exodus 20:12) In English the word 'veneration' has much stronger meaning than the corresponding Greek and Slavic words (in English you can not venerate a politician).

>>842378

Non of those verses instruct me to pray to saints. You are greatly extrapolating instruction from them. Honoring your and father does not mean you pray to them. You are also told to honor emperor. should you pray to him? We have our intercessory Jesus. THere's no need for lesser ones.

>>842385

It is universally acknowledged by all Christian denominations that there can be intercession by "lesser intercessors". Even by the Protestants who can pray, for example, about a sick brother. It is also universally acknowledged that God can act through the prayers of the Saints: If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life. (1 John 5:16) The Protestants, however, acknowledge only the prayers by Saints who live here on Earth and refuse the prayers by the "dead" Saints who live at the throne of God. The Orthodox, on the other hand, follow the words of Christ that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Prophets or the Apostles is not God of the dead.

Our Lord Jesus Christ has the glory to be our intercessor before God: if anyone does sin, we have an intercessor with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John 2:1) But because the glory that you have given me I have given to them, that is to the Saints (John 17:22), they, too, have the glory to be our intercessors. We need their intercession because God has chosen to act through their intercession, so that we may be one. (John 17:22)

In the Bible there are several examples of interceding righteous people. For example, after his conversion, the blinded Paul prayed in Damascus and there he saw in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight. (Acts 9:12) God didn't heal Paul directly, but through his Saint. “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. (Acts 9:17)

Acts 8:4-25 is another interesting example which also demonstrates the power of the Holy Orders. Philip (one of the 7 deans) preached in a city in Samaria. The crowds paid attention to him and there was much joy in that city'. These Samaritans had everything a Protestant community has and much more, because they were free from any heresy. But this wasn't enough. Therefore, the Apostles sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them'''.

>Honoring your father and mother does not mean you pray to them.

Surely a child can ask for help from his parents , just as a Christian can ask for help from the Saints. If only the word "pray" is what disturbs you, then don't use this word. Apparently, just as the English verb "venerate" is too specific, so is the verb "pray" and this can be confusing. The corresponding word in the other languages usually means simply 'ask, beg, implore' and can be used in non-religious context.

>should you pray to the Emperor?

Surely you should. :) "I pray, sir, hear me" (John Webster, The Duchess of Malfi). Few centuries ago even in English the verb "pray" could be used in non-religious context. In fact, in Legal English this is so even to this day. "Respected Jury and dearly beloved Ozma, I pray you not to judge this feline prisoner unfeelingly. I do not think the innocent kitten can be guilty, and surely it is unkind to accuse a luncheon of being a murder." (L. Frank Baum: Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz)

>>842399

What you are saying does not follow from John 17:22. And furthermore it tends to idolatry, as the Roman imperial pantheon was transmuted into patron saints. There is no connection with real Christianity in these acts of misdirected worship to false, created aspect deities.

But lest we neglect to produce a true Biblical basis for this in response, see the following statement which upends the entire idolatrous exercise.

Psalm 65:1-2

> 1 Praise waiteth for thee, O God, in Sion: and unto thee shall the vow be performed.

> 2 O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.

So we see that the one who hears prayer and is omnipresent, always near unto those that call upon him (Psalm 145:18 - "The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth."), is the Living God, and Jesus Christ is always ready to hear and intercede for we his saints. As the writer in the epistle to the Hebrews states, "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

And lest we forget the instruction of the Apostle Paul, he says in 1 Timothy 2:5,

> 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

And again from the Apostle John,

> 9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

So then we ought to worship God with our prayers and not man, seeing as the Bible says of the Lord Jesus, "he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."

So then all these things being true, the argument you make does not hold in the least, but rather it tends to idolatry and vain superstition, following the commandments and fables of men, cunningly crafted and designed to ensnare the souls lest they would turn to God and away from all the vain, lifeless idols of the world. Idols which neither hear, nor see, nor speak, nor is any life in them whatsoever. Have an excellent day, my friend.

>>842442

Paul is talking about how only Christ is the God-man, however. He says the Spirit is an intercessor for all saints in Romans 8:26-28 also. Are there two intercessors? Absolutely not!

The Spirit intercedes for all who partake of Christ and thus communicate with the Father though him.

I don't see how your alienation is biblical at all.

>>842442

As it has been pointed out in >>842399 , all Christian denominations acknowledge that Saints can intercede and all Christian denominations acknowledge that we can ask the Saints to pray for as. The main difference in this respect between Protestants and Orthodox is that the Protestants allow for prayers only by Saints living on Earth while the "dead" Saints don't pray to God (Or they do? I am confused here about the Protestant doctrine.) This anti-Biblical discrimination is the matter of dispute here.

In your post, however, you (it seems) are trying to prove that when a Protestant in need asks for the prayers of his church, then apparently he is exercising idolatry. Because only One is our mediator between God and men, isn't He?

>>842409

I am not sure about the answer of your question. This is a spiritual matter and it should be consulted with a spiritual tutor.

In the very early process of becoming orthodox bros. Was previously hegelian eastern mystic type, vaguely daoist in my views of life and death. I started watching father bailey spyridon's videos and other various ortho youtubers and was intrigued, started reading Damascene's Christ the Eternal Tao and I'm getting pretty convinced the ancient Church is the objective view of reality. I'm still yet to be baptized and the only eastern church in my area does its liturgies in Serbian (which as an american, I do not speak). Where do I go from here besides just reading books and watching youtubers? I have a pretty sinful past and I'd like to be baptized into the church but I dont know if I should keep researching or just go for it.

>>843199

I think the mysteries of Christ cannot be seen from outside, one needs to partake in them. I highly recommend you go to your local parish, your progess will be stunted otherwise.

I highly doubt the entire liturgy is in Slavonic, since diaspora usually does not speak the languages anymore, and there will, for certain, be a booklet with the English so people can keep up.

Meeting an Orthodox priest this week to talk about starting Catechism

>>843209

honestly enjoy their aesthetic and message. I haven't gotten my hands on physical copies but digital download on their website has all of the issues I'm pretty sure or are there a bunch more?

>>844752

Don't feel like Judas. One should have thoughts like yours only BEFORE the sin, only while he is still in the flock. But not after that. Now you should feel like a lost sheep, wandering in the wilderness. A sheep, who is about to be found by the good Shepherd, our Lord. Once again. Because even if you think that you do not deserve to be saved, in this particular case God doesn't care what you think.

Don't feel like violator of the law of God. This a wrong way of thinking. Each time you feel like betrayer of Christ you can remember the words of Paul: All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. (1 Cor. 6:12) In Christ we are free from the law. You are not violator, you are not offender, you are not transgressor of the law because we are not bound by the law.

When you sin you do not betray Christ, you betray only yourself. You do not fail him repeatedly, you fail only yourself. The idea that the sin is a violation of the law of God, a violation deserving punishment, spread in the Western Christianity in about 12th century. The idea of God, bound by the necessity to be just, who sacrifices his own Son in order to satisfy the need for justice, is so far away from anything we can find in the original Christianity.

The law of God is not a list of rules you are bound to. The law of God is like prescription given to you by a good Doctor. If you do not follow the prescription, you do not betray the Doctor, you only make your illness worse.

Paul continues: All things are lawful for me, but I will not be dominated by anything, that is I will not be dominated by any vice, bad habit, etc. Now we are released from the law, so that we can serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. (Rom. 7:6) But the law of God is still good, because I would not have learned what sin is if it had not been for the law, that is I would not have learned what is harmful and bad for my spiritual and physical health.

>>844922

I think Ecumenical Patriarchate, whom I'm under, should stop larping as Byzantium and estabilish Turkish speaking parishes, given that there is only 1 of them, and you should stop fantasizing about wordly politics and become orthodox.

>>844976

Watch this.

>>844976

Also, any modest clothing is fine.

>>844976

https://babylonbee.com/news/wear-church-handy-guide-denomination/

Seeing as you are coming from presbyterian or reformed background to the Orthodox Church I recommend a three-piece suit with chest-length beard and top hat but lose the monocle.

In all seriousness I personally wear my suit. It's good to dress well for church even if there is no need to be over the top or judge those who are more casual. IMO if I show respect by wearing my best to a wedding or job interview then it makes sense to do so for the Royal Wedding. Most men don't wear suits to parishes I have visited.

You can also get a better idea of Orthodoxy by reading up on what our tradition thinks of various protestant doctrines. Fr. Josiah Trenham's Rock and Sand has some good content: https://invidiou.site/piVdrtgo7Xw

You can also get the book "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: Finding the Way to Christ in a Complicated Religious Landscape" by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick. The Five Solas (Chapter 3) are probably where you want to start.

"In some ways, Orthodoxy agrees with all of these "solas", but also differs from them in important ways…"

"Sola Scriptura…

The Reformers were seeking to address what they saw as the abuses of Rome, most especially what they regarded as a vast accumulation of un-Christian doctrines and practices in the name of "Tradition"…

Luther's insistence that the Bible is above councils and popes, that he rejects councils and popes for the sake of Scripture, leaves an important question unanswered: What if the pope or the councils are using Scripture in their pronouncements…

But most parties to Christian disputes are all using the Bible…Johann Eck, Luther's Catholic opponent…knew this. He responded…that Luther's approach was "to attach more weight to one's own interpretation of Scripture"…

Orthodoxy, by contrast, holds the Scripture in extremely high regard, but holds it to be a book written as part of the life of the Church…

Sola scriptura is the most important defining and distinctive doctrine for all of Protestantism. With this principle, any doctrine or practice may be "proven" from Scripture, depending on how one reads it…"

The quotations above are already long enough so I'll stick to just the most important sola for now.

>>845028

They seem too preoccupied in wordly affairs in my view. Not that lately orthodox authorities haven't degenerated, but I pray for it to pass.

The Way to the Father is by partaking in his Love, because the power of love is for the lover to take the characteristics of the beloved. The love God had for man allowed Christ to partake in what is ours, even death, through the grace of love we may partake in what is God's, even eternal life.

>>845028

All of them are heretical. They are not the way, but we do not condemn those people who find themselves outside of the Orthodox Church. Instead we pray for them. We must share the truth with them and live an orthodox life, which is after all the best witness we can give. We must trust God's Grace to help them come into the Church if they are willing. Even if they never do we should not judge them ourselves but rather entrust them to the fairest of all judgement–that of the Lord.

Pray for them, including the deceased. Even though they are no longer here with us and are already experiencing a foretaste of eternity the day of Final Judgement has not yet arrived and it may have a positive effect. Just as when they were in this life, when our prayers could not override their own free will but could nevertheless help them draw closer to God. I will not claim to know in what exact way prayer is helpful to them; it is sufficient to know from experience that prayer is helpful in all matters.

If even pagans not knowing the law nevertheless did the things of the law written in their hearts and were thus a law unto themselves, as the apostle writes, then we have every reason to hope that some who knew not the fullness of the Orthodox faith but nevertheless received a portion of the Gospel and followed it to the best of their knowledge might yet be allowed into the Church in heaven.

>>845051

If a Church Believes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but they aren't Orthodox, how are they Heretical?

>>845061

The Orthodox Trinity is different from the Western. All besides Orthodox don't acknowledge a genuine person-essence distinction and Divine transcendence. We believe the Son and Spirit serve the Father without being ontologically inferior.

In practical terms, our view says subordination in personhood does not imply ontological inferiority.

>>845064

Could you simplify that? I have bad reading comprehension.

If I understand what your saying is that all three parts of the Holy Spirit are equal. Yes?

>>845065

No. By "personal servitude does not imply ontological inferiority" I mean that although the woman is to submit to the man, she is not lesser or less human, although the laity is to submit to the bishop, they are not lesser, etc. An analogy can be made with the Son and the Holy Spirit regarding the Father. They submit to the Father in person, though they are not lesser in nature.

Roman Catholicism (and most Protestants) deny a real distinction between person and nature, while Orthodoxy affirms it. They do it because they don't believe God is beyond simplicity.

>>845069

Oh I see. The Son and The Spirit Answer to the Authority of the Father but they are on the same in terms of Godliness (Because they are God).

Where do we Humans fall into that? Because From what I've read in the bible we are Lesser than God. Not to say we can't approach him. That's what prayer is for.

>>845076

Yes, we are lesser. I did not mean God and man were in the same level.

I meant by analogy that the way we understand our human relationships should be an image of how we understand how the Son relates to the Father. For example, a wife submits to the authority of the husband without being less human or worthy because of it.

>>845088

Thank you I ha e a better grasp of Orthodoxy now I think I'll check out that Church 20 minutes from my house.

>>843209

>deathtotheworld.com

They can be found here. You are welcome. http://www.desertwisdom.org/dttw/links/index.html

I am drunk, and I have localized epilepsy; I'm not sure if it's the right translation, but what I mean is i don't lose consciousness, but all of my senses are distorted. In these moments, I have some kind of clarity and focus. Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner. Fellow believers, pray. I pray every day. I pray the Lord's prayer, and the Jesus prayer. Recently though, my prayers were weak, i know this. And my spirit was therefore weak. Please, forgive me for my selfishness, for my ignorance, for my arrogance. Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Please, forgive me. I have sinned so many times, masturbating, acting selfishly, lying to my family, even though they love me and forgive me, I continue to lie to them, although more rarely as time goes by, thank you, God, for giving me strength. Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

How do you guys feel about the vaccine? Should we refuse it?

>>848897

Prayed for you anon. God bless.

Catholic considering converting here, I want to talk to a priest and seek some spiritual counsel. Can anyone recommend me an Orthodox church in the Chicago area? I have thought about visiting the monks at St. Sava, but I am not sure if that is the right thing to do.

Please pray for me and my family

https://t.me/joinchat/GrK4t608YVV4vtfK

If you guys are interested in an orthodox groupchat please join.

>>852224

Botnet

Orthobros, do you have any orthodox theology resources for a former Catholic?

>>852227

It's not botnet, just a communal space for Christians, don't post anything personal or incriminating on it then, it's not a hard concept.

>>852283

The platform is closed source. Its made by Russian a social media company. Its a botnet.

Make an xmpp or matrix group or something

>>852237

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_rc.aspx

(Trying too see if this is the URL being blocked)

Book: Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: Exploring Belief Systems through the Lens of the Ancient Christian Faith – Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick

https://www.youtube.com/c/OrthodoxChristianTheology/videos

https://www.youtube.com/c/therealMedWhite/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=136Djf4gfbk

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoLizi-JGA6F1rhVCLUqbCw/playlists

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjJEXmzbyxxXgs5uhiSGEggXhfqfi54nV

>>851465

This person is not orthodox, we don't wipe the spoon at all.

>>829259

https://legacyicons.com/content/didache.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

This pic is btfo by the didache

>>833264

The Christians killed were generally those who were in the White Army or did counter-revolutionary work. My great-grandfather was an NKVD officer in the 20s and he was Christian. My grandfather from my fathers side and my father were all Christianised in the Soviet Union. Stalin himself brought back the Patriarch.

Also don't compare Nazi imagery and Soviet imagery… I would not say having Nazi imagery in a Synagogue is the same as having Soviet symbols in a Russian Church. Maybe you say that Russia is a Christian nation, third Rome and all of that, but Putin still has some anti-church policies, although in the grand scheme of things much better then the secular West, North and Central Europe and the Americas; and so this very Christian nation cannot have these "anti-Christian" symbols, but it is a part of history undisputedly, even without going into whether it was good for her or not. I guess those who won write who was bad and who was good but the ethnic genocide by Germany and other war crimes are atrocious, the Nazi ideology is very morally bad, nothing in the USSR compares. Not much to say, except lots of the Civilian population and some parts of the Heer weren't aware of the atrocities, and I believe it would have been very easy to choose Hitler as a leader, I believe there were studies that replicate this and show how easy it is.

Ukraine are back stabbing NATO c- s- Banderavtsi' pieces of s. It's funny how "Nazi" is being pulled left and right by Jews but they supported Ukraine, it's so funny as I really don't see a more "Nazi" nation. It is crazy how they were always and still are "Nazis", and how Russia helped them before the collapse of the USSR and some of the other Nations, and they still back stabbed her. Ukraine did not suffer much in the 90s, why? Because Russia was generous. And now they want in the EU or NATO, not realising they are being used and brought to destruction, now they are destroying their economy and electing clowns. Russians are the same as Ukrainians as we are all Rus, same with Belarus, in-fact the Kiev was the center of the Rus people, but why are they are so go— stupid?

>>853630

I wish we keep politics out of this thread (when possible).

There are thousands of New Martyrs who were not in the White Army and never did counter-revolutionary work.

https://www.academia.edu/10194273/THE_HOLY_NEW_MARTYRS_OF_EASTERN_RUSSIA

http://www.orthodox.net/russiannm/index.html

>>853630

>Also don't compare Nazi imagery and Soviet imagery…

Doesn't matter whether one kind of "socialist" dictatorship or another. It is all the same.

All of you are going down as antichrist. You cannot hide from that past with propaganda.

My engagement recently ended with a woman with Russian Orthodox heritage. We both decided to become catechumens since her family was non practicing but now I've got nothing tying me to the Russian Orthodox church anymore. I still want to become an Orthodox Christian, but I am not sure which parish I should go to in order to complete the process. I live in a majority protestant country in Europe, and the church I was going to with her where she lived is two hours away. I am thinking of joining a Greek Orthodox parish which is only an hour away from where I live now, but I am unsure. What should I do? What are Greek Orthodox churches like compared to Russian ones?

What do I do if I can't attend a church currently because my parents won't let me? I will be leaving this year for university so then i will be able to go to church but I want to become a catechumen already :(

>>853072

was it tiggerkiller1488?

>catechumens, depart!

>not even a catechumen myself just visiting

>ask person sitting next to me if I should go

>no it's fine

>apparently this is rarely if ever actually enforced

>following prayers and hymns are all directed as if everyone is receiving and in accord in faith

>feel like I'm burning alive for the next 30 minutes for being in the same room

Is this extremely scrupulous autism or valid feelings?

>>657770

I am an American from a 'culturally Christian' background interested in Orthodox Christianity.

Were should I go for more information on the beliefs, structure and central tenets of the Orthodox faith?

>>854555

orthodoxwiki

>>854780

I am Catholic and this is orthodox thread, but WHY… do that? You are not merely doing yourself a disservice, but you are lying before Almighty God.

Do not go into detail in confessing carnal acts, lest you become a traitor to yourself.

St. John Climacus, "The Ladder of Divine Ascent," Step28: On Holy and Blessed Prayer, the Mother of Virtues, and on the Attitude of Mind and Body in Prayer

During the time of one’s confession not only the person who makes his confession is judged, but the confessor as well. In the past, confessors were practical. They did not judge on the basis of the seriousness of a transgression, but rather on the intent. They did not concentrate so much on the sins being confessed as on thinking of how to treat the repentant person’s soul.

An Athonite Gerontikon by Archimandrite Ioannikios (Kotsonis)

If you want cure your soul, you need four things. The first is to forgive your enemies. The second is to confess thoroughly. The third is to blame yourself. The fourth is to resolve to sin no more. If we wish to be saved, we must always blame ourselves and not attribute our wrong acts to others. And God, Who is most compassionate, will forgive us.

Modern Orthodox Saints I, St. Cosmas Aitolos).Dr. Constantine Cavarnos., INSTITUTE FOR BYZANTINE AND MODERN GREEK STUDIES., Belmont, Massachusetts., pp.81-94

Let us not wait to be convicted by others, let us be our own examiners. An important medicine for evil is confession, and care to avoid stumbling.

St. Gregory Nazianzen (On His Father's Silence no. 17)

Let us then not be ashamed to confess our sins unto the Lord. Shame indeed there is when each makes known his sins, but that shame, as it were, ploughs his land, removed the ever-recurring brambles, prunes the thorns, and gives life to the fruits which he believed were dead. Follow him who, by diligently ploughing his field, sought for eternal fruit: "being reviled we bless, being persecuted we endure, being defames we entreat, we are made as the offscouring of the world." If you plough after this fashion you will sow spiritual seed. Plough that you may get rid of sin and gain fruit. He ploughed so as to destroy in himself the last tendency to persecution. What more could Christ give to lead us on to the pursuit of perfection, than to convert and then give us for a teacher one who was a persecutor?

St. Ambrose of Milan, Concerning Repentance

Our sins are forgiven us at each confession, but we must remember that there is the "Great Forgiveness," which consists in this, that by God's mercy, we unconsciously stop committing certain specific sins, such as sinful acts. words, deeds and thoughts, but at the same time we continue to feel and be aware of our profound sinfulness. The most perfect man is the one who, precisely as he is a man, sincerely feels that he is a great sinner. An example of this was St. Seraphim of Sarov.

Metropolitan Vitaly, Paschal Encyclical, 2001 (http://www.orthodox.net/pascha/2001-pascha-vitaly.html)

The proof of authenticity of the spiritual condition of a father confessor is, that while he is very strict with himself, he is very lenient with others and does not use the canons of the Church like cannons against them.

Elder Paisius of the Holy Mountain (+July 12, 1994)

Two factors are involved in man's salvation: the grace of God and the will of man. Both must work together, if salvation is to be attained.

Repentance is a Mysterion through which he who repents for his sins confesses before a Spiritual Father who has been appointed by the Church and has received the authority to forgive sins, and receives from this Spiritual Father the remission of his sins and is reconciled with the Deity, against Whom he sinned.

Repentance signifies regret, change of mind. The distinguishing marks of repentance are contrition, tears, aversion towards sin, and love of the good.

"Modern Orthodox Saints, St. Nectarios of Aegina", Dr. Constantine Cavarnos, Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Belmont, Massachusetts., 1981., pp. 154-187

When you go to your spiritual father for confession, do not bring yourself as an accuser of other people, saying, "he said this," and "so-and-so said that". . . but speak about your own doings, so that you may obtain forgiveness.

Elder Daniel of Kantounakia

You are, I am sure, aware that for you penitence is now no longer limited to disclosing your sins to your confessor, but that you must now bear your sins in mind always, until your heart nearly breaks with their ugly load; and would break, were it not for your firm faith in the mercy of our Lord."

St. Makary of Optina

My child, do you want to crush the head of the serpent? Openly reveal your thoughts in confession. The strength of the devil lies in cunning thoughts. Do you hold on to them? He remains hidden. Do you bring them to the light? He disappears. And then Christ rejoices the prayer progresses, and the light of grace heals and brings peace to your nous and heart.

Monastic Wisdom: The Letters of Elder Joseph the Hesychast

It is necessary and beneficial for a general self-examination to take place from time to time, remembering all former sins.

Elder Amphilochios Makris - http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/makris.htm

If you wish to make a blameless confession to God do not go over your failings in detail, but firmly resist their renewed attacks.

Saint Kosmas Aitolos +1779

Is making a pilgrimage to a Catholic place as an Orthodox believer allowed?

I was thinking about visiting Santiago de Compostella since I'm not too far away.

St. James the Apostle is supposedly buried there, so it would be venerating a pre-schism saint, right?

Also what is it with the nightmare difficulty of these captchas?? I've been trying to post this for 15 minutes now

>>854868

I can't imagine why it'd be an issue if you did not participate in communion or other services and it's for the veneration of a pre-schism saint.

But what do I know? I'm a Catholic.

>>854315

Helpppp

Can't really ask a priest

>>854892

Wouldn't it be an issue for you to participate in the pilgrimage and prayers of Muslims who go to a site of Theotokos? (Yes, there are some Shia Muslims who do this.)

Of course, I am exaggerating here. I am just illustrating how such things can be an issue.

As for participation in communion and prayers, the Orthodox canons specifically forbid this. The Orthodox Christians are the light of the world. With love, kindness, modesty, strength and self-sacrifice they ought to bring the message about the good news of our salvation – a message which can not be spoken in words but only shown in Spirit. A participation in communion or other services with outsiders destroys this duty. With such an act you either say "turning to God is a human deed, we can do it together", or you say "I am saved, they are not, and I don't care about them". In both cases you are not in truth.

>>854903

>as for participation in communion and prayers, the Orthodox canons specifically forbid this.

Of course. Which is why I said do NOT participate.

>muslims

Not even going to bother addressing this.

>>855410

Also forgive me if this is a stupid question I'm very new to Orthodoxy and I'm looking forward to converting.

Come out of her, ye who have an ear to hear. Obey the Gospel and be saved. Today is the day of salvation.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." - Acts 2:38-39

>>855410

The rite – western or eastern is unimportant. There is only one thing you should care about: the true Orthodox faith. If the church follows the Orthodox faith, then there you will find the people of God.

See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today? (Deuteronomy 4)

If, however, the church doesn't follow the Orthodox faith, then this is a fake church. Notice that there are some "churches" who claim to be "orthodox", while in reality they don't follow the Orthodox faith (some of them are Monophysite, there are even some Protestants who claim to be Orthodox).

And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, addressed Ezra: “We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the Law. Arise, for it is your task, and we are with you; be strong and do it.” Then Ezra arose and made the leading priests and Levites and all Israel take an oath that they would do as had been said. So they took the oath. (Ezra 10)

>>854315

what is the problem here? Just study the bible on your own, or read books recommended by your priest. If you don't have one just read basic ones, buy IMO you should read the bible first

https://cooperscorner338720667.wordpress.com/2021/05/14/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence-origens-exegesis-and-the-eucharist/

Check out my exposition of Origen's Biblical hermeneutics and Eucharistic theology here

>>855497

I belive the Orthodox church is true but can't go go a church due to familial problems. What do?

Greek or Russian orthodox? What's the difference? Tbh as far as I know Russian orthodox church is a tool of Russian government and doesn't enjoy a very good reputation. Besides, like 90% of the parish are crazy old babushkas. Now I know absolutely nothing about the Greek church but I'm not sure, should I give it a try?

>>855535

The only difference between Russian, Serbian, Greek, or any other Eastern Orthodox church is the Language. Other than that they wre mostly the same.

What's the right way to use prayer beads or ropes? Catholics have a very clearly defined routine of praying the rosary but is there such a thing in orthodoxy? Or do you just say some variation of the Jesus prayer with each bead?

>>855528

Woah how did you discover orthodoxy being a Baptist

How did you tell your parents that?

I tell you about my experience, my parents are evangelical and since I was a teenager I saw orthodoxy with good eyes so I grabbed my mother by the shoulders and told her that I wanted to be orthodox and that days ago I was congregating in that church of course she took it I am very badly the first-born of the family so imagine my father on the other hand he told me not to bring heresies in his house I had an orthodox wooden cross in my room he grabbed it and destroyed it then he took all my things off my computer, All I had cell phone was very painful for me to see them that way they forced me to give "sermons" in Protestant groups of adolescents, to always sit first in the "cults" but I felt empty the only thing that connects me with orthodoxy is a cell phone that I had hidden on the roof of the house I always take it out at night and start to see and listen to the liturgy, now I am going in my last year of my studies so soon I will go to work and leave my parents' house to be able to be in communion with the church

>>855607

Also I think the first time I ever heard of Orthodoxy was the Begome ordodogs meme and the Chant let my Prayers arise.

>>855660

Repent

>>855661

I'll consider it

>>826912

brother why are you dating with a atheist?

>>855607

thats so sad im gonna pray for your family

>>856139

Every Saint slays dragons. In the realm of spiritual warfare.

So that story is true in its meaning.

>>856139

The earliest stories about St. George killing a dragon are from 11th century. In fact, between 10th and 14th centuries stories for several other saints killing dragons appeared. The crusaders brought these stories to the West.

The Greek word drakon means serpent, not dragon. Very often, however, in the medieval times this word was used figuratively like the English word beast. For example a rapist can be drakos=beast or any violent animal killing people could be a "dragon". In some stories about saints killing a dragon, the saint prays to God to save His creature (a girl) from the devil who uses "this dragon (=serpent/beast) as an instrument" (like the serpent in Genesis 3).

Some of the stories about "dragons" remind the the pagan custom of human sacrifices. Imagine a Syrian commune suffering from some calamity (starvation, locusts, etc.). The leader of this commune decides to sacrifice his daughter to some "god", that is to the devil (=the dragon/serpent). Suddenly a Christian preacher comes, who enlightens these people and saves the girl from imminent death. It seems such human sacrifices were popular in the Middle East. In the book of Judges we read about the judge Jephthah who presided over Israel and who sacrificed his only daughter.

I'm not orthodox yet but I'm considering going to Ostrog Monastery in Montenegro to see if God can cure me of my mental ailments. If he can heal physical ailments why not disease of the mind?

>>856318

>The Eucharist cannot spread disease.

Giving thanks, which is the original meaning of that word, cannot spread disease. A physical object can.

And I am not one of these people who is trying to shut down churches, that is just a fact. It's similar to how you have people doing all these strange things at mosques, where they all commonly lick metal bars or whatever. The Christian man or woman should indeed place trust in God higher than any vaccination or other considerations. That's not in question. But at the same time, maybe consider whether or not your activities are actually glorifying to the Lord or serving some other, worldly, manmade-religion purpose that isn't supported by anything in the Bible. The reason I say this is because nowhere in the New Testament, with the church, is anything like what you described taking place.

>>856335

>A physical object can spread disease.

There was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd to touch his garment and get cured. But then she hesitated, “This Jesus surely is a physical object, so he can spread disease. If I touch even his garments, I will get corona.” And she departed from Jesus for she was seized with great fear.

>manmade-religion purpose that isn't supported by anything in the Bible

"And all the crowd sought to touch him, for power came out from him and healed them all." (Luke 6:19)

>>856342

Hi anon.

>But then she hesitated, “This Jesus surely is a physical object, so he can spread disease.

Where are you getting this? And why are you quoting from the ESV, isn't that a modern version?

>>856335

>>856345

Damn the Baptist Church, they don't even have a sound coherent doctrine it's the anarchist ideology of Christianity. Any yahoo can start his own baptist church and spout anything he wants. Especially with self Interpretation of the bible.

There must be an Objective Outside standard for everything or otherwise it all falls apart. I spent most of my life in the Baptist church and I'm not going back.

Many Baptist churches are just Businesses with a cross on it's building.

>>856335

>The Eucharist isn't supported by anything in the bible.

Is this really the state of modern prots?

>>856345

>But then she hesitated, “This Jesus surely is a physical object, so he can spread disease.

>Where are you getting this?

"And the Word became flesh" (John 1:14) is one evidence (among many others) that our Lord Jesus Christ was a man. But I think the baptists do not deny this so I am unsure what you are asking here. Men have flesh and the flesh is a physical object.

>>856355

>There must be an Objective Outside standard for everything or otherwise it all falls apart.

:)

In fact, "Objective Outside" is a guarantee for falling apart.

In the 19th century the Catholics were falling apart (even if still strong). As a rescue-remedy the Jesuits invented the doctrine about the papal infallibility. The Pope became the "Objective Outside". At the time they hoped the pope could guide the thoughts of the more liberal Catholics but now it is obvious know misguided this hope was. How could the pope guide the thoughts of the Catholics when his statements are so often contrary to the Catholic doctrine? In result the "Objective Outside" of the Catholics became "if you are with the pope, you are free to believe and worship however you like".

The Protestants have the Bible as "Objective Outside" and they are falling apart in thousand sects.

And we, the Orthodox, have God. But God is not an "Objective Outside". Many (most?) of us can tell moving stories about how God revealed Himself to them, how He guided them. But even if He shows Himself to us, He remains indescribable, ineffable, unimaginable. And this is so because God is not Objective, He is beyond and above any Objectivity. Moreover, He is nowhere and his actions are everywhere, so he is not Outside of us but with us. Just as the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, so we are one in them. (John 17:21)

>>856359

Huh? What are going on about the Baptist Church does communion too.

>>856360

The point being is that the Orthodox Church does not change at the whims of a pope like the Roman Catholics or change church doctrine at the whims of culture like the Protestants. What I meant by Objective Outside standard was God because he is outside the Influence of man and he is Objective because is Unchanging.

Why are you anons bothering with a Baptist? They are unteachable and sick with pride.

>>856363

Yes, of course.

>>856364

>I never said that all physical objects spread disease.

Yet you said that Christ can spread disease. You have the words of our Lord "this is My body" and "this is My blood" (Luke 22:19-20) and yet, you are implying that in the Eucharist we are eating simple bread and drinking simple wine. You claim the baptists have true and correct biblical doctrine and yet, you disregard the warning "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you". (John 6:53) Why? Because you are imposing your personal interpretation upon the biblical text.

In the Eucharist we use one bread and one chalice. (1 Cor 10:16,17,21) It is important that they are ones. All Christians partake in this one chalice and for many centuries the Christians actually drank from it. Later on, the spoon was introduced for practical purposes. (And the Catholics introduced many breads and removed the chalice but this is another story.) And if I am allowed to speak foolishly, I can say that the use of one spoon is more hygienic than the original Christian custom. Because when you drink from one cup you share some saliva on the outside surface of the cup and when you use one spoon, the spoon is immersed in the cup with alcohol – I speak foolishly – so it is disinfected.

>God is not Objective. I'm not sure how this makes sense

Disregard this. I was writing to the other anon. This was some apophatic theology. (St. Gregory Palamas: "God doesn't exist")

>This is the heresy of pantheism.

Pantheism is when you equate God and the world and this is not the way the Orthodox think about the world. Imagine some simple, cheap object, say a pencil. If this pencil is given to you by a person you love, say a girl you are in love with, then suddenly this cheap pencil becomes priceless to you. This is how the Orthodox look at the world which is not a cheap shopping but His own handwork and given to us by God with Whom we are in love.

>>856366

Unteachable? Heh, the other anon here is a former baptist. :)

The good thing about the baptists is that they are not lukewarm. "They have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge, for not knowing the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God." (Romans 10:2-3)

>>856367

>The good thing about the baptists is that they are not lukewarm. "They have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge, for not knowing the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God." (Romans 10:2-3)

I kind of see your point. If you think it's worth your time, don't let me stop you. I'm just more concerned about you all than them. Sometimes you just have to walk away and shake the dust off your feet, as the Lord said. At this point, this Baptist anon is acting in bad faith. Now he's calling other Christians pantheists. This isn't someone who really wants to engage others in the Church. He hates Christians. It's not worth your time, if you ask me.

>>856369

> Obviously, I never said that.

Yes, obviously.

However, in all your posts you imply that Christ can spread disease. To this I replied with "And all the crowd sought to touch him, for power came out from him and healed them all." (Luke 6:19)

You don't get this because you don't believe that in the Eucharist we have the real body and the real blood of Christ. The body that was hanging on the cross and now sits at the right hand of the Father, the blood of the New Testament that was shed for us. You don't believe the words of your Lord: "This cup is the New Testament with my blood which is shed for you." Notice: not just "blood", not just "my blood" but "my blood which is shed for you". It would be difficult to invent more naturalistic expression in order to prove that this is not some "symbolic" blood only-in-name.

>As to the explanation we have received for John 6:53, just read what the Lord tells us in verse 63.

Ok, let us review the contents of John 6. Below the numbers in brackets are verses of John 6.

In the beginning of the chapter [1-13] we are at the shore of the Sea of Tiberias. There Jesus does the miracle with five loaves and two fishes. Everyone is given bread and fish, as much as they want, everyone is filled. [11] They are astonished and say "This is truly the Prophet who is coming into the world!". [14] The crowd is so excited that they want to seize Him in order to make Him king. Jesus, therefore, retires to the mountain alone. [15]

The rumor about the miracle spreads quickly. Many people come with boats to the place of the miracle where the bread was eaten. [23] The disciples of Jesus were like abandoned by their teacher, surrounded by demanding mob, by people who ask for earthly things – more bread, eartly kingdom of Israel. By the evening Jesus is still not there, His disciples flee into a boat and go down to the sea. [16]

But to no avail. Darkness came, great wind blew, the sea being raised, the disciples – in fear. And then behold: Jesus walking on the sea! They receive Him into the boat and immediately the boat comes to the land they were going. [17-21] The disciples are convinced that their teacher is their only salvation in the wild sea of this life. In their hearths they sing:

"He sent out from on high, and he took me;

he took me to himself out of many waters.

He will rescue me from my powerful enemies

and from those that hate me,

because they were too stout for me." (Psalm 17:17-18)

On the next day, the multitude looks for Jesus and His disciples, but no, Jesus is not here, the disciples are not here. Where are they? An investigation is in order. Hmm, the disciples went into a boat alone but Jesus was not with them. And only one boat is missing! Let us enter our boats and let go to the other side of the sea to see what is going on. [22-24]

There they find Jesus and they say "Rabbi, when did you come here?". [25] They want to know "how" but they ask "when". But in reality it is neither "how", nor "when" what they need to know. Something more important is about be revealed to them by our Lord.

So instead of answering their useless question, He starts with an accusation: "Amen, amen I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and you were filled." [26] They think "Ups, He is not going to give us food. This is not good. He says the miracles are more important than the food."

He continues: "Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you." [27] They think "Ah, great! We will get food after all! We worked for food that perishes but He wants us to work for food which endures to eternal life. And it seems He is promising to give us such food." They ask Him: "What works do you want us to do in order to be given this food?" [28]

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?