/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>(since I am considering conversion to Orthodoxy from Southern Baptist)

I guess soteriology isn't even part of the question to you huh

>is going against the teaching of Jesus Christ necessary?

Heavens no I sure hope not!

>>9413

If only there was a "priest" who stood central above all in our faith… If only…

>>9413

Central Figured in Orthodoxy is Jesus Christ, not some guy with magical hat on magical throne.

There is kind of "Prime Minister" ex officio, which was at first, Bishop of Rome (Pope) Before schism and now its Bishop of Constantinople. But every major matter is decided by council and every bishop is equal, at the end. Patriarchs and heads of autocephalous churches have this title ex-officio (usually by being Bishop of the capital city of country), it doesnt make them superior to other bishops and administrative and other matters are decided by synod.

>>9423

Anon, she was mentally ill. She hit her head pretty hard as a kid. The kinds of visions she had are identical to those when someone is have an epileptic seizure.

>>9427

Nonsense, we are just as legitimate Christians as you guys. We have a flag on this Christian board for Pete's sake.

>>9414

>>9423

>>9429

Why are you whining about SDAs and not the ELCA or UMC, which openly ordain fags and trannies? They have flags here too you know

>>9413

>How do Orthodox defend against Catholic charges that in order for there to be unity in faith there needs to be a central figurehead, like the Pope, to keep the Church united.

Vid related is a start. This notion of the pope laying down unambiguous rulings is simply wishful thinking by people that don't know just how complex the "magisterium" is. Then they have the audacity to go on and accuse the EO system of being circular:

https://youtu.be/gctqqTK-puM

Nevermind that a decentralized system is mathematically proven to be more resilient than a centralized system, because of its built-in redundancy, just like how things like DNA, blockchains, and cloud computing work. If God wanted a natural surefire way for the gates of hell to never prevail over his church, a redundant, fault-tolerant distributed system would be the best way to go. Because if (God forbid) something ever happened to the Vatican, the RCC as we know it would be completely destroyed. Meanwhile, if anything were to happen to Constantinople, it would be unfortunate, but Orthodoxy would just continue on as always.

Secondly, the whole idea of unity existing as a byproduct of being under a single permanent primacy as a part of some "universal church", is a uniquely western conception that didn't even begin to form until ~300AD at the earliest. Prior to that, churches simply were not "united" in the modern authoritarian way Rome likes to imagine. Even Protestants with sketchy understandings of early church history tend to know that churches were quite diverse back then. In early church history, "unity" meant simply being in communion with each other, through a shared understanding and celebration of the eucharist. Ecumenical councils later articulated the requirements for communion more clearly, but the fundamental understanding of what "the church" was, never changed. That is until the bishop of Rome began demanding universal authority under pressure from the Frankish empire, which ultimately led to it schisming from the East:

https://youtu.be/DyuvkoiYlYk

https://youtu.be/Bqm8pt21cYg

https://youtu.be/SvEX15vd82w

https://youtu.be/fwr-jpj-JXM

http://www.golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/texts/Bulgakov_VaticanDogma.html

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

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf

Catholics always put up a smokescreen about this and tell people that the schism was simply due to the East over reacting to to the filioque and that it was really just all politics, but they never actually go into any of the political details of the situation, nor why the EO viewed the filioque as a big deal. Even Popes were hesitant about adding it to any official inscriptions of the nicene creed, because the Councils had already clearly ruled that it was correct and was to remain unaltered. But of course, the filioque on its own wouldn't have been that big of a deal if it weren't for all their other shenanigans they did:

https://youtu.be/V_1QYoALyMU

https://youtu.be/R7RSd5kLd2w

>>9413

Jesus made Peter his first pope. During Pentecost Peter and the other disciples spoke in tongues and Peter converted 3000 people to the church.

Peter ended up going to Rome to start a branch of the church. He ordained Pope Linus and the line has continued ever since. To be against the idea of a Papacy is to be against the Church that Jesus founded and is a serious error.

>>9446

>Muh see of Peter

Thank God we are in communion with church of Antioch then.

>>9446

>Peter ended up going to Rome to start a branch of the church.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/papismos/dogma/petros_rwmi1.htm

>>9446

Peter wasn't the only apostle to receive the Keys directly from Christ.

>>9447

Peter was last in Babylon (Rome). His apostolic authority transferred to there.

There are various arguments used against the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18, but all are difficult to argue in favor of.

First of all, Jesus had just gathered all His disciples, and He chose to change Peter's name alone, (Abraham also had his name changed, and he was also called called the "rock" (Isaiah 51:1-2)–one argument used against Peter being the foundation of the Church is how 1 Corinthians 3:11 refers to Jesus as the foundation. This is false precisely because the Apostles are also called twelve foundations (Apocalypse 21:14). What this means is that all authority comes from Christ, the Church itself comes from Christ. Well, Peter's authority comes from Christ. He established these things on Peter, so what's setup on Peter is a foundation on Christ, that does not mean He didn't establish an office which would be the rock on which the Church is built. He gives His keys (Apocalypse 3:7, Apocalypse 1:18) to Peter, as it was prophesied in Isaiah 22:22. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, (John 10:14) but He gives that responsibility to Peter also (John 21-15-17), to say that he then points to Peter and calls him "little rock" (Petros is the masculine version of Petra, the reason Petros is used and not Petra (In Aramaic it was "thou art Kephas and upon this Kephas) is to preserve the play on words, not to indicate that Jesus called him little rock) and point to Himself and says "upon this rock" makes no sense, as right after, He gives Him the keys which He possesses (Apocalypse 3:7, Apocalypse 1:18, Apocalypse 9:1, Apocalypse 20:1, prophesied in Isaiah 22:22), and if you pay attention to the wording, it's indicating an office that is established, not something that passes away with Peter. Understanding what the Keys are and Isaiah 22:22 indicate infallibility, and, again, we literally just have to point to early Popes like Leo the Great to see what Papal infallibility/Supremacy is. And you completely ignore the fact that Luke 22 is about which Apostle is the greatest, and Jesus affirm Peter, and He prays for Him alone. That's not a mistake. There's a strife among the Apostles as to who is the greatest, Jesus responds by saying His Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles, describing its structure. He says that Satan has desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) but He has prayed for Peter (singular, also the person who has the Keys), alone, that his faith fail not. This is the unfailing faith of the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel. Whatever He binds on Earth, obviously cannot be false in Heaven, therefore, someone in Peter's Chair cannot make a false teaching Ex Cathedra. And do you believe that those who wrote the Bible wrote infallibly? If so, it's not far-fetched to say He can give the Prime Minister infallibility under certain circumstances.

Enjoy your sacramentally ordained female deacons, contraception, divorce, Kabbalistic + polytheistic Essence/Energy "distinction" (it's literally the Sefirot) and perpetual schism, Turkodox.

>>9452

ebin copypasta

Upvoted, my fellow 9gager

>>9453

You didn't refute anything he said.

>>9453

The Turkodox has no argument. You're mewling about 'Latin' 'Scholastic' 'legalism' and 'rationalism', in other threads, but here you fall silent.

>>9452

gr8 b8 m8. i rel8 str8 appreci8 nd congratul8. i r8 dis b8 an 8/8. plz no h8, i'm str8 ir8. cr8 more cant w8. we shood convers8 i wont ber8, my number is 8888888 ask for N8. no calls l8 or out of st8. if on a d8, ask K8 to loc8. even with a full pl8 i always hav time to communic8 so dont hesit8. dont forget to medit8 and particip8 and masturb8 to allevi8 ur ability to tabul8 the f8. we should meet up m8 and convers8 on how we can cre8 more gr8 b8, im sure everyone would appreci8 no h8. i dont mean to defl8 ur hopes, but itz hard to dict8 where the b8 will rel8 and we may end up with out being appreci8d, im sure u can rel8. we can cre8 b8 like alexander the gr8, stretch posts longer than the nile's str8s. well be the captains of b8 4chan our first m8s the growth r8 will spread to reddit and like reel est8 and be a flow r8 of gr8 b8 like a blind d8 well coll8 meet me upst8 where we can convers8 or ice sk8 or lose w8 infl8 our hot air baloons and fly tail g8. we cood land in kuw8, eat a soup pl8 followed by a dessert pl8 the payment r8 wont be too ir8 and hopefully our currency wont defl8. well head to the israeli-St8, taker over like herod the gr8 and b8 the jewish masses 8 million m8. we could interrel8 communism thought it's past it's maturity d8, a department of st8 volunteer st8. reduce the infant mortality r8, all in the name of making gr8 b8 m8

>>9454

Everything in the there basically hinged on this line:

>Peter was last in Babylon (Rome). His apostolic authority transferred to there.

And that was already refuted by >>9448

Meanwhile, everything else was already pre-empted by >>9445

Maybe gadoligs should try responding to Orthodox arguments for a change, and stop pretending that naively asserting copypasta statements over and over is some kind of argument.

The problem with having a Pope is he can forbid marriage to all the priests under his control and then 500 years later there's a Protestant revolt and less than 1000 years later a bishop commits simony by selling ecclesiastic office for sodomy and people say it's donatism to think priests shouldn't be sodomites. So no, the papacy didn't keep everyone together.

1 Tim 4

> Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

and 1 Tim 3

> 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

>>9413

Orthodox (and prots) can simply point to the current state of the Roman church. If a central authority can't keep satanic heretics like James Martin out of the priesthood and continues to allow them to speak for it, what good is it?

>>9429

I consider SDA Christians, but you promote an odd sectarian belief that your founder was a prophet. There is no proof she was a prophet, and a lot of her teachings were doctrinally unsound like replacing Sunday worship with Judaized Sabbath only worship. Most Christians do not consider Ellen G. White to be a prophet except you guys.

>>9414

Tell me about Ellen G. White why did she change the day of worship?

>>9453

>9gager

Well it is summer

>>9464

He's not really an Adventist, he's just trying to cause strife

>>9413

Why convert? Do you really need to shackle yourself to worldly authority so badly? Jesus is the only authority you need.

>>9466

are you baneposting

>>9460

The problem is it's following the fallible manmade traditions that some man-made state church devised and subordinating the word of God. See Mark 7:7-13.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That's also why you have subversion of the gospel, subversion of the two ordinances, subversion of the organization of the church, open idolatry, and the list goes on. And fulfilling 1 Timothy 4:1-4 as you noted.

>>9885

>1 Cor 3:11

There are various arguments used against the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18, but all are difficult to argue in favor of.

First of all, Jesus had just gathered all His disciples, and He chose to change Peter's name alone, (Abraham also had his name changed, and he was also called called the "rock" (Isaiah 51:1-2)–one argument used against Peter being the foundation of the Church is how 1 Corinthians 3:11 refers to Jesus as the foundation. This is false precisely because the Apostles are also called twelve foundations (Apocalypse 21:14). What this means is that all authority comes from Christ, the Church itself comes from Christ. Well, Peter's authority comes from Christ. He established these things on Peter, so what's setup on Peter is a foundation on Christ, that does not mean He didn't establish an office which would be the rock on which the Church is built. He gives His keys (Apocalypse 3:7, Apocalypse 1:18) to Peter, as it was prophesied in Isaiah 22:22. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, (John 10:14) but He gives that responsibility to Peter also (John 21-15-17), to say that he then points to Peter and calls him "little rock" (Petros is the masculine version of Petra, the reason Petros is used and not Petra (In Aramaic it was "thou art Kephas and upon this Kephas) is to preserve the play on words, not to indicate that Jesus called him little rock) and point to Himself and says "upon this rock" makes no sense, as right after, He gives Him the keys which He possesses (Apocalypse 3:7, Apocalypse 1:18, Apocalypse 9:1, Apocalypse 20:1, prophesied in Isaiah 22:22), and if you pay attention to the wording, it's indicating an office that is established, not something that passes away with Peter. Understanding what the Keys are and Isaiah 22:22 indicate infallibility, and, again, we literally just have to point to early Popes like Leo the Great to see what Papal infallibility/Supremacy is. And you completely ignore the fact that Luke 22 is about which Apostle is the greatest, and Jesus affirm Peter, and He prays for him alone. That's not a mistake. There's a strife among the Apostles as to who is the greatest, Jesus responds by saying His Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles, describing its structure. He says that Satan has desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) but He has prayed for Peter (singular, also the person who has the Keys), alone, that his faith fail not. This is the unfailing faith of the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel. Whatever He binds on Earth, obviously cannot be false in Heaven, therefore, someone in Peter's Chair cannot make a false teaching Ex Cathedra. And do you believe that those who wrote the Bible wrote infallibly? If so, it's not far-fetched to say He can give the Prime Minister infallibility under certain circumstances.

>>9890

>St. Basil of Cesarea (322-379AD)

Looks likes pedos have infiltrated the church for a long time. To bad they are not dealt with as swiftly in certain denominations