By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[Dimi95]

I was brought up in a Roman Catholic church and was taught in the 1950s that Protestants all went to hell.

Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A rejecting B does not make A correct. They are both wrong.

I am not interested talking about who will go to "hell".
That's topic for guys like you.
That is your ocuppation , not mine.
I have never ever said about any person of another denomination what 'they' taught you.

Matthew 7:2
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

What i know is that the Orthodox Churches, were and still are involved in the activities pertaining to the ecumenical movement: they promote open dialogue with all the Christian Churches, as well as members of other faiths, be they Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists. The ecumenical dialogue of the Orthodox Churches communicates a profound awareness and a deep concern for the multifaceted religious experiences of man.

We in Orthodox are more focused on theosis(if you know what that means).

 

[Dimi95]

According to Yeshua, per Matthew 11:25, your "intelligent" scholars don't know what they are talking about.

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, “I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes.

Of course that you will quote this , because this is your tactic , to attack the Son.

Matthew 7:2
"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love."

John 10:22-30
"Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade.The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.

Jesus answered, 'I did tell you, but you do not believe.' The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.I and the Father are one."

I don't use your pathetic tactic , I don't have problem to quote 'greater then all' as i don't have problem quoting 'I and the Father are one'.
It is you who go from one to another passage and mixing them up.

 

[2ndpillar]

IYO, but you ain't the final answer.

BTW, I'm much more impressed with those who actually act with love and compassion as Jesus taught versus those who are so arrogant they think they know-it-all. Maybe reread Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats, and just a reminder that the "Goats" believed about Jesus but not in him.

It is the Judas goat which leads the sheep to slaughter/destruction. The goat generally refers to the leaders/shepherds, those who think they are "intelligent" and "wise", who wind up leading the sheep to destruction, and according to Ez 34, do not feed, tend, or heal the sheep, and will be dealt with with "destruction" (Ezekiel 34). The "shepherds" of Ezekiel 34 ate the fat of the fat sheep, consumed their wealth, but did not feed the hungry sheep, nor did they heal them. Sounds like a lot of preachers/shepherds I hear on TV. What Yeshua said was one was to heed his message, or they would "fall" (Mt 7:25-28). Your George Bush type of compassion was accompanied by several wars. Maybe God wants "righteousness" and "Justice" versus your woke self-complimentary compassion.

 

[Dimi95]

It is the Judas goat which leads the sheep to slaughter/destruction.
The goat generally refers to the leaders/shepherds, those who think they are "intelligent" and "wise", who wind up leading the sheep to destruction, and according to Ez 34, do not feed, tend, or heal the sheep, and will be dealt with with "destruction" (Ezekiel 34). The "shepherds" of Ezekiel 34 ate the fat of the fat sheep, consumed their wealth, but did not feed the hungry sheep, nor did they heal them. Sounds like a lot of preachers/shepherds I hear on TV. What Yeshua said was one was to heed his message, or they would "fall" (Mt 7:25-28). Your George Bush type of compassion was accompanied by several wars. Maybe God wants "righteousness" and "Justice" versus your woke self-complimentary compassion.

Maybe God wants something else , and you simply don't get it.

This reminds me of something that i saw somewhere:
"Because of 'teachers' like you he was crucified.Teachers who claimed to know the law and Scripture."

 

[2ndpillar]

Of course that you will quote this , because this is your tactic , to attack the Son.

You are going off the track. How have I attacked the "son of man" by quoting how he says understanding goes to the babes and not those who think they are intelligent. (Matthew 11:25) Those going down the broad path to destruction, while being among the "many" leads to "destruction" (Matthew 7:12), but also to lack of attachment to reality.

It is the Judas goat which leads the sheep to slaughter/destruction. The goat generally refers to the leaders/shepherds, those who think they are "intelligent" and "wise", who wind up leading the sheep to destruction, and according to Ez 34, do not feed, tend, or heal the sheep, and will be dealt with with "destruction" (Ezekiel 34). The "shepherds" of Ezekiel 34 ate the fat of the fat sheep, consumed their wealth, but did not feed the hungry sheep, nor did they heal them. Sounds like a lot of preachers/shepherds I hear on TV. What Yeshua said was one was to heed his message, or they would "fall" (Mt 7:25-28). Your George Bush type of compassion was accompanied by several wars. Maybe God wants "righteousness" and "Justice" versus your woke self-complimentary compassion.

I am not interested talking about who will go to "hell".
That's topic for guys like you.
That is your ocuppation , not mine.
I have never ever said about any person of another denomination what 'they' taught you.

Matthew 7:2
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

What i know is that the Orthodox Churches, were and still are involved in the activities pertaining to the ecumenical movement: they promote open dialogue with all the Christian Churches, as well as members of other faiths, be they Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists. The ecumenical dialogue of the Orthodox Churches communicates a profound awareness and a deep concern for the multifaceted religious experiences of man.

We in Orthodox are more focused on theosis(if you know what that means).

The Roman Catholic church is just as wrong as the Orthodox church, which has made Constantine (the beast with two horns like a lamb), the guy who murdered his wife and son, a saint. Hell comes from the word Sheol (abode of the dead) which means the grave. No one escapes death (Jeremiah 31:30). Paul may have told you that you will not "sleep"/die, but I am saying the Word of God, says you will die, and your Orthodox church and its dogmas will not save you. The "ecumenical movement" was started around the 1960s and is an assimilation of the lawless/wicked. Being among the "many" (Matthew 7:12), is not going to help anyone. It puts you among the likes of the Bahas, who are just a socialist version of Islam, who assimilate with other religions, with truncated rites of passage, but based on the same false precepts.

 

[2ndpillar]

Maybe God wants something else , and you simply don't get it.

This reminds me of something that i saw somewhere:
"Because of 'teachers' like you he was crucified.Teachers who claimed to know the law and Scripture."

According to "Christian" dogma, Yeshua was "crucified" for your sins. Yeshua's claim regarding the "Law and the prophets" was that he came to "fulfill" them, and as of today, he isn't finished (Mt 24:29-31).

 

[YoursTrue]

The dogma of papal infallibility is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy.

I'm not speaking of papal infallibility. Obviously there are many who are not Roman Catholic and go by other precepts, But let's discuss, if possible, peacefully more about the point Jesus was making when he said he would build his church upon "this rock." Which rock was that, one might ask. “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18, Douay Version) It is rightful to ask if Jesus meant that Peter is the rock on which His church is built? We weren't there when Jesus said this, so we might imagine Jesus was pointing to a rock or person. But how? Was Peter the first pope? There are other questions about this that perhaps we can discuss...peacefully, if possible.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Dimi95 We should note that the church of Christ is not a literal building of stone, for, as Paul told the Athenians, God “does not dwell in handmade temples”. (Acts 17:24 "The God having made the world and all things that are in it, He being Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in hand-made temples,") How do you feel about that so far as it may relate to Jesus' words?

 

[Dimi95]

You are going off the track. How have I attacked the "son of man" by quoting how he says understanding goes to the babes and not those who think they are intelligent. (Matthew 11:25)

You are so obvious
You ignore the verses before as you ignore those after.What you do is quote one verse so it can fit into your understanding.

Those going down the broad path to destruction, while being among the "many" leads to "destruction" (Matthew 7:12), but also to lack of attachment to reality.

Matthew 7:12
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Many here have tried to reason you , but you refuse.

The Roman Catholic church is just as wrong as the Orthodox church

Which of course you can't prove without your obvious tactic.
This is your agenda , to accuse , rather then learning.

, which has made Constantine (the beast with two horns like a lamb)

There have been many attempts to explain who the beast is , but those are just people who are focused on the beast.

From where i come we say : What you sow, that you will reap.

, the guy who murdered his wife and son, a saint.

Which you know nothing about.

Hell comes from the word Sheol (abode of the dead) which means the grave. No one escapes death (Jeremiah 31:30). Paul may have told you that you will not "sleep"/die, but I am saying the Word of God, says you will die, and your Orthodox church and its dogmas will not save you.

This is evidence plus that you don't know in what we belive.You don't even understand what is Orthodox and what is Christianity!
Are Orthodox Catholics?

The "ecumenical movement" was started around the 1960s and is an assimilation of the lawless/wicked.

Which for certain is not true.
Orthodox Church has been the only defender of the poor and the week in the East , which you know NOTHING about.

Being among the "many" (Matthew 7:12), is not going to help anyone.

It will help you , if you read it and not use it for accusation.

It puts you among the likes of the Bahas, who are just a socialist version of Islam, who assimilate with other religions, with truncated rites of passage, but based on the same false precepts.

Well , i have been talking to Bahas here, and they seem like kind persons.Because we have different belief , that does not mean that we should send each other in "hell".
That is your thing..

 

[Dimi95]

According to "Christian" dogma, Yeshua was "crucified" for your sins. Yeshua's claim regarding the "Law and the prophets" was that he came to "fulfill" them, and as of today, he isn't finished (Mt 24:29-31).

Oh , so now he is here to fulfill them and he is not "The Law and the Prophets" as you previously claimed.

Tik-tok , tik-tok....

 

[Dimi95]

I'm not speaking of papal infallibility. Obviously there are many who are not Roman Catholic and go by other precepts, But let's discuss, if possible, peacefully more about the point Jesus was making when he said he would build his church upon "this rock." Which rock was that, one might ask. “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18, Douay Version) It is rightful to ask if Jesus meant that Peter is the rock on which His church is built? We weren't there when Jesus said this, so we might imagine Jesus was pointing to a rock or person. But how? Was Peter the first pope? There are other questions about this that perhaps we can discuss...peacefully, if possible.

Who spoke on the day of Pentecost?
You are giving less importance to the Pentecost and more on the Pope.

Pope is just a title the Roman Bishop claimed.

 

[Dimi95]

@Dimi95 We should note that the church of Christ is not a literal building of stone

Nor do i see it as such

, for, as Paul told the Athenians, God “does not dwell in handmade temples”.

And i agree with that.
What is your argument?

(Acts 17:24 "The God having made the world and all things that are in it, He being Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in hand-made temples,") How do you feel about that so far as it may relate to Jesus' words?

Again , i agree
What made you think that i see it otherwise?

 

[YoursTrue]

Who spoke on the day of Pentecost?
You are giving less importance to the Pentecost and more on the Pope.

Me? I'm going over the idea some have about that and showing eventually what the words refer to.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nor do i see it as such


And i agree with that.
What is your argument?


Again , i agree
What made you think that i see it otherwise?

Just going over it

 

[Dimi95]

Me? I'm going over the idea some have about that and showing eventually what the words refer to.

It was not litteraly reffered to you , i apologize if you understood it as such.

For me , that is the meaning of the 'rock'.
The day of Pentecost has a great importance in Christianity.That is where Peter stood up , the very begining.

Maybe Matthew 19 will help with - the first and the last.

 

[Dimi95]

Just going over it

When i say Church i mean community.
Just to be clear.

 

[Sargonski]

Job 1:6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD< Satan also came among them".

This is to indicate that Satan was also a son of God. As for the demons being the spirits of the dead Nephelium, sons of the watchers, you should read Enoch and find out. You seem to feel you are superior to Enoch, well, then please tell us the source of the demons in Rev 16:13 who are from the "false prophet" and the "beast", or those being cast of the swine by Yeshua? And there is nowhere stating that the "watchers" married the daughters of men. It said they came into them, such as had intercourse with them. According to the law, if a man raped a single woman, there was a price to be paid (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Apparently, the angel of the LORD sat down and had dinner with Abraham as well (Genesis 18:8). "The sons of God" liked what they saw and took them as wives, whomever they chose. There was no asking their fathers for permission or paying a marriage dowry. Also, the "watchers" who watch men, are angels (Rev 1:20-2:1 & 5:6), and according to Yeshua, do not marry (Mt 22:30). The 7 eyes (Rev 5:6), the watchers "are the seven spirits of God, sent out into all the earth" to "scan the whole earth" (Zechariah 4:10), as in watching the whole earth. As for your "Bible", and its canon, that was of man, particularly Athanasius, in 367 A.D. and is nothing but a mix of the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil" and the "message" of the "son of man" in the same "field" (NT book) (Mt 13:25-49). As for "Revelation" it spans from Nebuchadnezzar, the first head of the 7 headed beast, to the last head of the beast, the 7th head (Revelation 17), who was the heir of Julius Caesar (5th head), Constantine, the "beast with two horns like a lamb", the "two horns" being the Christlike leaders of Constantine's Roman church, those being Peter and Paul, for whom Constantine glorified by building them both a basilica, which is a church in the shape of a pagan cross, in line with Paul's false gospel of the cross/grace/lawlessness. We are now in the era of the 8th head of the beast, one of the 7 (Rev 17). We are also at the end of the 6th millennium, so the day of the LORD, the day of rest, the 7th millennium of rest, is just behind the door (Mt 24:29-31). Your "heroes of renown, are the gods of old, with Satan/dragon, the "ruler of the world", being the authority of the "beasts"/kings (Rev 13:4). Examples of the gods and their worship is seen in the modern-day names of the days of the week, such as Wednesday for the god Woden (Mercury), and Sunday, for the day of the sun, that being Sol Invictus.

You are not getting the message You are not allowed to use material written centuries later to tell us what religious beliefs of someone living in the time of King Solomon

OK .. U Understand ? a Moabite living in 900 BC .. did not have Revelations .. nor Enoch . nor any NT scripture telling him what "Sons of God" in Genesis means .. K ? KK ?

Stop posting from Revelations as if it has relevance to the conversation .. because it does not at this point in time.. Yer Not Getting it ?

We can talk about the thoughs of the 3rd century writer on 9th century religious beliefs .. but FIRST - we have to understand what 9th century religious beliefs were .. for those comments to make an sense what so ever.

For example .. you are talking about Sons of God -- in Job same as Psalm 82. Which God are you talking about ? .. Son's of which God ?

How can you make any sense of Revelations or Enoch if you don't know the Name of the God being Referenced ..

 

[2ndpillar]

@Dimi95 We should note that the church of Christ is not a literal building of stone, for, as Paul told the Athenians, God “does not dwell in handmade temples”. (Acts 17:24 "The God having made the world and all things that are in it, He being Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in hand-made temples,") How do you feel about that so far as it may relate to Jesus' words?

You are not getting the message You are not allowed to use material written centuries later to tell us what religious beliefs of someone living in the time of King Solomon

OK .. U Understand ? a Moabite living in 900 BC .. did not have Revelations .. nor Enoch . nor any NT scripture telling him what "Sons of God" in Genesis means .. K ? KK ?

Stop posting from Revelations as if it has relevance to the conversation .. because it does not at this point in time.. Yer Not Getting it ?

We can talk about the thoughs of the 3rd century writer on 9th century religious beliefs .. but FIRST - we have to understand what 9th century religious beliefs were .. for those comments to make an sense what so ever.

For example .. you are talking about Sons of God -- in Job same as Psalm 82. Which God are you talking about ? .. Son's of which God ?

How can you make any sense of Revelations or Enoch if you don't know the Name of the God being Referenced ..

Well, Revelations shows that the 7 angels are the "7 eyes (watchers), which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out to all the earth" (Revelation 5:6). Revelation 1:20 reveals that the 7 angels are the angels of the 7 churches, which apparently, they (churches) are all in bad shape, except for one, who is hanging on by a thread (Rev 2 & 3). As for the Moabites of 900 B.C., they are all dead and buried. As for the Moabite who was Mose's wife, and an angel was able to communicate with her, and she became a child of Israel, by an action of faith, and saved her husband for not performing an action of faith. As for Enoch, he walked with God (Genesis 5:24). According to your false prophet Paul, Enoch did not die (Heb 11:5) which according to Jeremiah 31:30, meant he didn't sin. Being righteous, as with Moses, and Elijah, Enoch could therefore communicate with God directly, or as noted by James, have his prayers heard and answered. Something sinners cannot do, for God does not hear the prayer of sinners. The oldest surviving original written scripture comes from Qumran and was only discovered in the mid 20th century. Where did you get your information, and when was it dated? I kind of think you are being double minded. Surprise, Surprise. And which god are you to say what "written material" I can be allowed to use. Maybe you can get your wife to bow down to you, which I doubt, but that doesn't go over well in an open society. I hear humanist/Marxist socialism in your comments, but since I have no real contact with the eastern church, I don't really know where it is coming from. I have to assume your viewpoints have been created by academia, with a hint of clergy inoculation.

 

[Sargonski]

Well, Revelations shows

You missed the part about Revelations friend - das ist verboten

 

[Sargonski]

Well, Revelations shows that the 7 angels are the "7 eyes (watchers), which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out to all the earth" (Revelation 5:6). Revelation 1:20 reveals that the 7 angels are the angels of the 7 churches, which apparently, they (churches) are all in bad shape, except for one, who is hanging on by a thread (Rev 2 & 3). As for the Moabites of 900 B.C., they are all dead and buried. As for the Moabite who was Mose's wife, and an angel was able to communicate with her, and she became a child of Israel, by an action of faith, and saved her husband for not performing an action of faith. As for Enoch, he walked with God (Genesis 5:24). According to your false prophet Paul, Enoch did not die (Heb 11:5) which according to Jeremiah 31:30, meant he didn't sin. Being righteous, as with Moses, and Elijah, Enoch could therefore communicate with God directly, or as noted by James, have his prayers heard and answered. Something sinners cannot do, for God does not hear the prayer of sinners. The oldest surviving original written scripture comes from Qumran and was only discovered in the mid 20th century. Where did you get your information, and when was it dated? I kind of think you are being double minded. Surprise, Surprise. And which god are you to say what "written material" I can be allowed to use. Maybe you can get your wife to bow down to you, which I doubt, but that doesn't go over well in an open society. I hear humanist/Marxist socialism in your comments, but since I have no real contact with the eastern church, I don't really know where it is coming from. I have to assume your viewpoints have been created by academia, with a hint of clergy inoculation.

This is a strange strange post ... first you fail to grasp that we are talking about the religious beliefs people living in and around Canaan in 1800 BC if we are talking Abe .. ~1000 BC if we are talking the Israelites at the height of empire.

This is not about the religious beliefs of someone in the 3rd century BC .. The information for those beliefs comes to us from various sources both Biblical and Extra Biblical .. none of which can be found in the New Testiment .. which tells us nothing about the beliefs of these "Moabites" 900BC who you write off as dead and buried.. when these are the people we are talking about ??

Obviously Enoch mentioned in Genesis is useful information .... the mention of Enoch in Hebrews is not .. as it does not tell us that this is what the Moabites in 900BC believed - it is what some early Christian living 1000 years after the fact believed about the Enoch mentioned in Genesis.

What this has to do with my wife -or Marx, socialism or humanism ? This is loopy doopy deflection on your part .. some kind of desperate Ad Hom fallacy.

The sources I use are dated all over the map .. just because something was dug up 10 years ago does not make it a 21st century source ? We can date sources friend .. some of the sources I use come from1800 BC and earlier. The Ugarit library .. only 10% of which has been translated .. is from 1400-1250 BC .. huge amounts of information on the beliefs of the peoples in the region at the time .. Biblical material such as Psalms - many of which purport to be written by David .. and others around the time of David. ~900-1000 BC. These were the hymns sung in Church .. At one of YHWH's numerous Temples throughout the land of Israel.

What do you know about the religious beliefs of the Moabites in 900 BC from a mention of Enoch in Hebrews ? Almost nothing if not Nothing. I will tell you what we do know from Hebrews that may shed some light on religious beliefs of the past .. as that is what the text is addressing directly when it refers to Jesus as a Priest Forever in the Order of Melchi-Zedek.

This Order is mentioned numerous times throught the Bible .. an order that existed at the time of Abraham -- for 800 years in Jerusalem until David .. then for centuries more after David who was himself a priest in this Order.

This priestly order presumably existed until the end of Israel in the 8th century BC when Assyria showed up but no further mention in the OT

Now .. Hebrews does not tell us much about the religious beliefs of the Israelites in 900 BC other than to quazi confirm that there was such an order .. and that in the grey period from 700 BC to 100 AD - this order may well have still continued as a going concern .. or at least the idea of this order.

Part of the problem of using Revelations --- aside from the aforementioned - that it tells us nothing about the Religious beliefs of the Israelites in 900 BC -- is that it paints a different picture of Ha Satan than what is depicted - believed in 900BC. These are not the same individuals being discussed.... and this is a huge problem for our Quest .. not jiving with the rest of the story .. begging the question that the analogies have been misinterpreted in that part which we do take this apocalyptic dream seriously

Which God do you worship ? If you do not know the name .. perhaps the God you are worshiping is Lord Satan .. or the demiurge named Jealous. Who is the God of Jesus "The Father" -- "Hallowed be thy name"

If you don't know that name .. then you don't know which God you pray to .. might as well be Baalezebub for all you know.