The Trinity

[InvestigateTruth]

This is because the Father is the Source of the Trinity; Jesus (the Son and Logos) is begotten of Him, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him. We Orthodox speak of the Father as being the arche of the Trinity--that is, its source. We also order the Father as first among the Persons of the Trinity--not in terms of dignity or power or divinity, but in terms of the relationship that exists between the three Persons. The three Persons (Father, Son AKA Jesus the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit) are all coequal in majesty, divinity and power, and co-eternal, yet in terms of the relationship between the three Persons, the Father enjoys primacy of place--not supremacy, but primacy.

If you like, you may continue to attempt and demonstrate this to be the case. All I ask is that you try not to repeat the same tagline over and over, and not re-use evidences and arguments that have already been discussed.

No, our reference is the entirety of the Apostolic Tradition, the teachings of the Apostles that have been handed down both in written form (the Bible), and oral form (the vast majority of the Apostles' teachings and actions that were never written down). If you want to properly understand the Bible, you need to put it in the context of the entirety of the Apostolic Tradition, otherwise you're never going to get it right. The reason Christianity has tens of thousands of denominations is because all the other denominations have rejected the Tradition and invented their own man-made teachings. Only the Church has fully preserved the Tradition without alteration, addition or subtraction.

No it does not. The Liturgy is properly understood by those with an education in the Christian faith. Those without the proper context in the Faith are going to misunderstand it. Just like the Bible; without being properly instructed, you will misinterpret it. It is not a change in God's Divine Essence.
Except, God never ceases to be God. Jesus never ceased to be divine when He became human; he took on our humanity, but didn't stop being God. Your analogy assumes that God ceases to be light when He becomes dark. To modify your analogy, though I would have chosen better terms, Jesus (AKA God the Son) is light, and He becomes incarnate as dark. He unites the nature of light with the nature of dark within His one Person. He is at once both 100% light and 100% dark, by virtue of having these two natures. They do not mix together, but the light and dark (divine and human) natures each retain what is proper to their own natures. Jesus is originally light only, and His becoming incarnate as dark did not change His being light. He remains the same, because Who He is as light (or rather, as God) has not changed.

After these discussions with you, I came to conclude that, I need to understand your point of view, on a couple of things before I can continue farther, otherwise, we would be repeating same things over and over.

One is that, it seems to me that you believe that those famous early Christians, and specially those who you refer to their writings as Apostolic Traditions, were 'infallible' with regards to their understanding of Bible and specially with regards to understanding station of Christ, and the relationship of the Three Persons and that these Apostolic Tradition were preserved accurately and interpreted / translated accurately. The reason I ask this, is because you seem to heavily rely on these. If that is the case, why do you believe so?

The second thing, is, I came to conclusion that the doctrine of Trinity (creed), is based on literal interpretations of the Bible. So, for example, where it says 'the word became flesh', that is taken absolutely literal and according to its apparent meaning. How and who made this conclusion that this is a literal fact? can it not be interpreted in other ways? You sure agree that many parts of Bible are written figurative, and the Bible does not say 'here is a figurative verse', or 'here is a literal verse'. Therefore how did you decide that a literal meaning was intended in this case?

 

[Shiranui117]

After these discussions with you, I came to conclude that, I need to understand your point of view, on a couple of things before I can continue farther, otherwise, we would be repeating same things over and over.

One is that, it seems to me that you believe that those famous early Christians, and specially those who you refer to their writings as Apostolic Traditions, were 'infallible' with regards to their understanding of Bible and specially with regards to understanding station of Christ, and the relationship of the Three Persons and that these Apostolic Tradition were preserved accurately and interpreted / translated accurately. The reason I ask this, is because you seem to heavily rely on these. If that is the case, why do you believe so?

I don't believe any individual Christian is infallible, but I do believe the Church as a whole is infallible, especially in light of these Scriptures:

1 Timothy 3:15 but [a]in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how [b]one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

^I have seen the second word in that verse translated as "buttress", "foundation" and "ground" in various translations. The sense of the verse is that the Church supports the Truth and is foundational for it.

Matthew 16:18 is another good verse:
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[a] I will build my church, and the gates of hell[b] shall not prevail against it.

The gates of Hell will not prevail against Christ's Church. It is the consensus of the Fathers that it is Peter, and more importantly his confession of faith about Who Jesus is (the Christ, the Son of the living God) that the Church is founded upon. Jesus promises that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it ("hell" is a common mistranslation of Hades), meaning that the Church will never perish or be removed from the earth.

And John 14, the promising of the Holy Spirit:

15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper,[f] to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be[g] in you.
. . . 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would always be with us and would always lead the Church to the Truth, and would always keep the Church on the way of Christ.

Luke 24:44-49
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and[c] forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”


In other words, Jesus enabled the Apostles to understand the Scriptures (which at this time consisted only of the Old Testament. The first books of the New Testament would not be written for another thirty years, and the NT wouldn't be considered Scripture for at least another 150 years, and we wouldn't have a somewhat set canon of NT books for at least another 400 years. So the Apostles were given all this understanding of the Scriptures after Christ's resurrection, and they handed on that understanding to their students and congregations. They also wrote what would later become the books of the New Testament, but most of their teaching was from the pulpit and encapsulated in the Liturgies, homilies, practices and prayers.


Moreover, what all Jesus taught the Apostles about Himself from the Old Testament is largely absent in the Gospel accounts. The Bible mentions that Jesus taught His disciples about Who He was and what was prophesied about Him, but the Gospels don't go into much detail about that. Look at Luke 24 again, earlier in the chapter:

And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.


Now, seven miles is not a short, five-minute walk. It would take roughly two hours. We can safely assume that He was teaching them for most of the journey about the things in the Old Testament concerning Him. What all did Jesus tell them? We don't know, the Bible doesn't say. Yet the teachings of the Church in later decades and centuries give us a good indication.



And this concept of an Apostolic Tradition ("Tradition" here meaning that which is handed down) is referenced in the Bible itself. Have a look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.


As you can see, not all of the Apostles' teaching was through letters or other writings. A lot of it was handed down from teacher to student. We see evidence of this in the writings of Papias:

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

Notice how Papias mentions hearing from the presbyters (meaning, "priests") what the various Apostles said--Philip, Thomas and Andrew were named explicitly, and none of their teachings are contained in the Bible, yet they were preserved in the oral tradition of the Church. The extra-Biblical teachings of the Apostles shaped our understanding of the Faith; the New Testament is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of all what the Apostles taught and did.

So then, how do we know if the Apostolic Tradition is being preserved faithfully by the Church? Each church was taught the same things about Who Christ was, and each Apostle had more than one student; St. John, for instance, taught both St. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp. If all the students agree about what their teacher said, then we know for a certainty what they were taught. If two students disagree, we can look at what other students said, and what other teachers have said to establish which of the two conflicting students is right. This same technique applies as students become teachers and take new students, etc. This is the way that entire books had been transmitted in the past; the Old Testament Scriptures were certainly transmitted orally for hundreds of years in some cases before being written down.

Plus, some Fathers of the Church would write down what they had learned and passed on, or have their sermons and speeches transcribed, or write letters to other churches and people that contain some of what they had learned as part of the Tradition. We can reference these writings and compare them to earlier and later writings. What we see is a remarkably consistent narrative about the Faith and about Who Christ is. We have been able to trace heresies back to individual people at specific points of time, and we know that their heresy did not reach back further, because what they wrote conflicts with previous teachers and students.

While individual Christians can and have made mistakes in their teaching, we still have a clear consensus from the early Christians about the Tradition that they had received from the Apostles, and they all agree on doctrine. The consensus of the Fathers of the Church is a reflection of the Apostolic Tradition, and the position and view and belief and teaching of that consensus has never changed throughout history.

 

[Shiranui117]

The second thing, is, I came to conclusion that the doctrine of Trinity (creed), is based on literal interpretations of the Bible. So, for example, where it says 'the word became flesh', that is taken absolutely literal and according to its apparent meaning. How and who made this conclusion that this is a literal fact? can it not be interpreted in other ways? You sure agree that many parts of Bible are written figurative, and the Bible does not say 'here is a figurative verse', or 'here is a literal verse'. Therefore how did you decide that a literal meaning was intended in this case?

As I said, the Gospels and Epistles weren't the only things the Apostles left behind. The Gospels were merely a quick summary of what the Apostles experienced of Jesus and what He had taught them; the rest of their teaching was transmitted orally. Taking in account this oral teaching of the Apostles, we can be sure that they commented on what they meant when writing certain parts of the New Testament, or how they interpreted parts of the Old Testament. St. John, for instance, wrote a Gospel, but also had personal students, at least two of whom we know by name. What they teach and agree on is a reflection of what St. John taught them, and the teaching that the Holy Spirit had safeguarded. So we know what is literal and figurative in the New Testament because of the extra-Biblical teachings of the Apostles that were handed down as Tradition to their students, and their students, etc. The Church has, of course, also always had the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth. So we know how to interpret, for example, John 1:1 and John 1:14 because of the rest of what St. John taught, and because of what his personal students tell us, and because of the Holy Spirit safeguarding the Truth.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I don't believe any individual Christian is infallible, but I do believe the Church as a whole is infallible, especially in light of these Scriptures:..........................

So, when you say the Church is infallible, what do you mean by church?
Is it the building with a cross on it that makes it infallible?
Or Is it the particular Christian denomination that is infallible?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

As I said, the Gospels and Epistles weren't the only things the Apostles left behind. The Gospels were merely a quick summary of what the Apostles experienced of Jesus and what He had taught them; the rest of their teaching was transmitted orally. ...

If I understand what you say correctly, you are saying when the New Testament was written, the interpretations of it was orally transmitted by the Authors of Gospels, such as Paul, Mark, John, Luke and Matthew. Is this right?

 

[Shiranui117]

So, when you say the Church is infallible, what do you mean by church?

I mean the Body of Christ, (1 Corinthians 12) and the community of believers gathered together in Christ.

Is it the building with a cross on it that makes it infallible?

Absolutely not. In the early days we worshipped in synagogues, in homes, in caves and in catacombs. There's an old Russian proverb: The Church is not in the logs, but in the ribs.

Or Is it the particular Christian denomination that is infallible?

The Church existed before denominations, though I know that Orthodoxy is typically called a "denomination" of Christianity. The Faith is infallible, and by extension, so is the Church which is united in that Faith and in the Eucharist. So, to use your language (not mine), it is the particular "denomination" of Holy Orthodoxy which is infallible, meaning, our Faith and our Tradition and our Church. These are infallible.

 

[Shiranui117]

I mean the Body of Christ, (1 Corinthians 12) and the community of believers gathered together in Christ.

Absolutely not. In the early days we worshipped in synagogues, in homes, in caves and in catacombs. There's an old Russian proverb: The Church is not in the logs, but in the ribs.

The Church existed before denominations, though I know that Orthodoxy is typically called a "denomination" of Christianity. The Faith is infallible, and by extension, so is the Church which is united in that Faith and in the Eucharist. So, to use your language (not mine), it is the particular "denomination" of Holy Orthodoxy which is infallible, meaning, our Faith and our Tradition and our Church. These are infallible.

If I understand what you say correctly, you are saying when the New Testament was written, the interpretations of it was orally transmitted by the Authors of Gospels, such as Paul, Mark, John, Luke and Matthew. Is this right?

Correct. The Apostles taught their students and their congregations, who in turn taught those who came after. The Holy Spirit safeguarded the Tradition against being altered, as Christ promised He would. This is why there is consistent agreement on what the Faith is and what the correct interpretations of Scripture are, and this is why the Orthodox Church has not changed her faith or her teaching for 2,000 years.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I mean the Body of Christ, (1 Corinthians 12) and the community of believers gathered together in Christ.

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." 1 Corin. 12:27

Who is this verse referring to? Who is 'you' in this verse? Is it all the Christians of the World? Is it limited to only the 12 apostles of Jesus? Who exactly and precisely?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Correct. The Apostles taught their students and their congregations, who in turn taught those who came after. The Holy Spirit safeguarded the Tradition against being altered, as Christ promised He would. This is why there is consistent agreement on what the Faith is and what the correct interpretations of Scripture are, and this is why the Orthodox Church has not changed her faith or her teaching for 2,000 years.

So, you are saying the 12 apostles taught the interpretation of every single verse of Bible, and said which one is 'literal' and which one is 'figurative' and if it is figurative / symbolic, what is the meaning of the symbols and figures in those figurative verses?

 

[Shiranui117]

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." 1 Corin. 12:27

Who is this verse referring to? Who is 'you' in this verse? Is it all the Christians of the World? Is it limited to only the 12 apostles of Jesus? Who exactly and precisely?

If you're familiar with the Epistles, then you'll know that this is St. Paul addressing this to the Christians living in the city of Corinth. The Apostles were the leaders of the Church, but they were not its totality. At the time, this verse meant all Christians of the world; since all believed in the same Faith and heresies had not yet arisen (aside from the Judaizing heresy, which didn't even concern Who God was or Who Jesus was, but how Christians should live), all Christians were part of the Church, which is the Body of Christ. Schisms and heresies arose later.

So, you are saying the 12 apostles taught the interpretation of every single verse of Bible, and said which one is 'literal' and which one is 'figurative' and if it is figurative / symbolic, what is the meaning of the symbols and figures in those figurative verses?

They taught us all that we needed to know about interpreting the Bible. Everyone knew what verses in the Gospels were literal, because the Apostles talked about their eyewitness experience--Jesus rose bodily and physically from the dead, for instance. As CG Didymus pointed out, a literal understanding of John 1 is fundamental to the whole Christian message. The Apostles didn't sit down, point to every verse and say "This is how you interpret it." Rather, they quoted the Scriptures as part of their teaching and explained the meaning, showing how the passages can be understood and ought to be understood, and how they should not be understood. We can understand the Bible when it is taken in context of the rest of the teachings of the Apostles. Fun fact: Were every copy of the New Testament to disappear from existence five seconds from now, we could collect almost every single verse of the New Testament from the writings of the Fathers of the first few centuries of Christianity.

The Apostles showed us how to interpret the prophecies in the Old Testament about Christ, yes, and the churches (small c, not big C) which had epistles addressed to them by the Apostles of course knew how to interpret that which had been sent to them. Keep in mind that neither the Gospels nor the Epistles nor Revelation were considered Scripture in the early decades and centuries of Christianity, and that different people had different lists of books that they thought were the New Testament Scriptures. But even despite the differences in the lists of NT books, the early Christians all shared the same Faith.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

They taught us all that we needed to know about interpreting the Bible....

How do you know that they taught All we need to know about interpreting the Bible. You know, 'ALL That We need' is a bold claim. So, you are saying the 12 apostles did not go through every single verse of Bible to explain in details the interpretations of each verse or determine which verse is literal and which verse is figurative, and what is the meaning of the symbolic verses. But instead, they taught 'how to interpret'. In another words they taught 'the principle of correct interpretations', instead of explaining every single verse.
If I understood you correctly, then I would have two questions now.
Firstly, are there recorded evidence based on witnesses that these apostles sat down with early Christians explaining the proper way of interpretations? So, that we can establish that indeed the apostles taught how to interpret Bible (Hebrew + NT)
Second question, suppose they taught such principles for correct interpretations of the verses as you say it "They taught us all that we needed to know about interpreting the Bible". What proof or guarantee is there that these principles were applied correctly by Christians to ensure correct interpretations? In another words, suppose the disciples taught such knowledge, but what guarantee is there that the Christians were good students 'to learn them without misunderstanding and to apply them correctly to interpret New Testament?'.

The Apostles didn't sit down, point to every verse and say "This is how you interpret it." Rather, they quoted the Scriptures as part of their teaching and explained the meaning, showing how the passages can be understood and ought to be understood, and how they should not be understood.

I am not sure if I understand what you are saying here when you wrote "Rather, they quoted the Scriptures as part of their teaching and explained the meaning".
Do you mean to say that the 12 Apostles quoted the verses of New Testament somewhere else and explained their meanings? So, are you saying that the 12 apostles in addition to writing New Testament, have another set of Books, in which they quoted the verses of New Testament and explained their interpretations?

We can understand the Bible when it is taken in context of the rest of the teachings of the Apostles.

Who (which person(s)) has the Authority in Christianity to claim that he can understand the teachings of the Apostles without errors and perfectly?

If you're familiar with the Epistles, then you'll know that this is St. Paul addressing this to the Christians living in the city of Corinth. The Apostles were the leaders of the Church, but they were not its totality. At the time, this verse meant all Christians of the world; since all believed in the same Faith and heresies had not yet arisen (aside from the Judaizing heresy, which didn't even concern Who God was or Who Jesus was, but how Christians should live), all Christians were part of the Church, which is the Body of Christ. Schisms and heresies arose later.

Thanks. Let's not discuss heresies, because each group of Christians may accuse another group for heresies. So I don't want to get into that, at this point. But let's go step by step. Again going back to the subject of interpretations....as you said the apostles did not write interpretations to explain every single verse of Bible, but instead they taught how to interpret. Then over the course of time, the Christians used this knowledge to write interpretations and explanations. For how long the Christians developed the interpretations and explanations of Bible until it was completed without anything else left?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So, when you say the Church is infallible, what do you mean by church?

I mean the Body of Christ, (1 Corinthians 12) and the community of believers gathered together in Christ.

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." 1 Corin. 12:27

Who is this verse referring to? Who is 'you' in this verse? Is it all the Christians of the World? Is it limited to only the 12 apostles of Jesus? Who exactly and precisely?

If you're familiar with the Epistles, then you'll know that this is St. Paul addressing this to the Christians living in the city of Corinth. The Apostles were the leaders of the Church, but they were not its totality.

Then from above discussion I understand that you believe the Christians living in the city of Corinth, were infallible. I am not sure how you can conclude they were infallible, but assuming true for now.
But those people died long time ago. Do you think their infallibility continued from generation to generation until today?

 

[icebuddy]

[FONT=&quot]God has no beginning (Psalm 90:2) - Jesus had a beginning (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:31-35)[/FONT]

These Passages Talk about Jesus' birth on Earth. Even Jesus say he existed before this...?

[FONT=&quot]God cannot die (1 Timothy 1:17) - Jesus died (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)[/FONT]

The Trinitarian God did not Die... Also Jesus only experienced Death in the Flesh, for even he says his Spirit went to be with the Father at the 1st death, and Jesus also says he raised his own Body. How can Jesus raised his own body if Dead as you know it. (Non-Existing)

[FONT="]God cannot be tempted (James 1:13) - Jesus was tempted (Hebrews 4:15)[/FONT]

For some reason the Bible says God was Tempted(Tested) at PS 106:13-15 by his people in the Desert, yet we read God isnt Tempted... As for Jesus, Jesus could not Sin, for he is the Image of God, doing only what he sees the Father Doing (Jn 5:19-30) God was able to know our pains without being compromised.

[FONT="]No man or woman has ever seen God (1 John 4:12) - Jesus was seen by both men and women (John 1:29)[/FONT]

Jesus emptied or Veiled his Glory (Phil 2:6). Jesus also cannot be seen in all his Glory (Acts 9:3, Rev 1:17, Is 6:5) We also must note that the word for "Seen" God means to Behold, Perceive, learn by looking. Can anyone Behold God or Jesus? Not the same words being used either... Yet Ex 24:9-10 says Moses and Arron w/70 others saw God. So is Jehovah not God by this same thinking? We cannot Behold God

[FONT="]God is not a man (Numbers 23:19) - Jesus was and is a man (1 Timothy 2:5)[/FONT]

This is posted out of context. Jesus is also not a Man that lies. This passage in no way should be used for this connection... BTW, Jesus wasnt a Man anyways when this was written... Again, Jesus is not a Man that lies or sins...

[FONT="]God does not ever need to learn (Isaiah 40:28) - Jesus had to grow and learn (Hebrews 5:8-9)[/FONT]

Jesus is in a humbled state. Why many people focus on Jesus' humbled state to zero in on who Jesus really is, I will never understand. This is what most Christians see as Jesus' greatest strength (for its hard to humble oneself) and others continue to point to these things as a weakness...?

[FONT="]God does not need to be saved (Isaiah 45:7; 43:11) - Jesus needed salvation (Hebrews 5:7)[/FONT]

Same, the Eternal word is humbled to even death. What one needs to look at is "who was Jesus before he humbled himself". Thats where the focus should be

[FONT="]God cannot grow weary (Isaiah 40:28) - Jesus grew weary (John 4:6)[/FONT]

Humbled...

[FONT="]God does not sleep (Psalm 121:2-4) - Jesus slept (Matthew 8:24)[/FONT]

Humbled...

[FONT="]God's power is unlimited (Isaiah 45:5-7) - Jesus was limited in his power (John 5:19)[/FONT]

humbled...

[FONT="]God knows all (Isaiah 46:10) - Jesus had limited knowledge (Mark 13:32) [/FONT]

humbled...

Again, who was Jesus before he humbled himself? Lets focus there

 

[icebuddy]

When reading these translations we see that it is referring to God and not Jesus. I will highlight what I mean.

You missed the whole point. Jesus is the Jehovah in which is sent. Jehovah is sending Jehovah to save us... Mat 3:3 - Prepare the way for Jehovah. Jesus is Jehovah 1 Cor 10:1-5... Hebrews 1:10-12

In Love

 

[icebuddy]

All true, and all granted. But the fact is that no one who would attempt to call themselves Christian has any right to call the Cross of Christ "pagan" or a "table of demons". To do such a thing would be to insult what Christ did for us. I'm fine if unbelievers do that, but to see those who claim to believe insulting the means that Christ chose to redeem us, calling it pagan and demonic, now that is sad.

Originally Posted by Jensen
It wasn't the weapon of Christ's death that is the victory over sin, and death....It was Christ himself and that he died for our sins so that we can have the hope in the New Kingdom. Regardless of what weapon had been used, it wasn't the weapon, it was Christ and his death that is important.

Christians and the Cross - The Christian isnt worshiping or idolizing the cross itself. The Whole reason anyone wears a cross or looks to the cross is because of Jesus Christ and what he did for us upon it. Never to forget such a moment and in a sense we are carrying our cross too (Lk 14:27)

the Cross was our High Priests(Jesus) altar (Eze45:19) Jesus sprinkled blood on all 4 Corners. (Thorns on head, Hands, and feet) And he was the sacrifice without sin

 

[icebuddy]

I quote from Baha'i Scriptures for you:

I read that, very nice writing, but do you believe the bible as Christians know today is Gods word?

In Love

 

[Shiranui117]

How do you know that they taught All we need to know about interpreting the Bible. You know, 'ALL That We need' is a bold claim. So, you are saying the 12 apostles did not go through every single verse of Bible to explain in details the interpretations of each verse or determine which verse is literal and which verse is figurative, and what is the meaning of the symbolic verses. But instead, they taught 'how to interpret'. In another words they taught 'the principle of correct interpretations', instead of explaining every single verse.

They explained the verses that really mattered, but also gave us exegetical techniques. But more important is that they explained to us the meaning of the Scriptures, especially the Old Testament prophecies about Christ.

If I understood you correctly, then I would have two questions now.
Firstly, are there recorded evidence based on witnesses that these apostles sat down with early Christians explaining the proper way of interpretations? So, that we can establish that indeed the apostles taught how to interpret Bible (Hebrew + NT)

We know from tradition that Sts. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp both learned from St. John.

Second question, suppose they taught such principles for correct interpretations of the verses as you say it "They taught us all that we needed to know about interpreting the Bible". What proof or guarantee is there that these principles were applied correctly by Christians to ensure correct interpretations? In another words, suppose the disciples taught such knowledge, but what guarantee is there that the Christians were good students 'to learn them without misunderstanding and to apply them correctly to interpret New Testament?'

Because the Apostles didn't just teach exegetical techniques, they taught the correct ways to view and understand the Scriptures, that is, what the Scriptures meant. And the Apostles of course did the same thing with their own writings that later became the New Testament. When the Apostles sat down and taught their students, their students also learned all of what the Apostles had learned. St. John lived for 60 years after the death of Christ, and his two students died maybe 20 or 30 years after St. John. Ignatius of Antioch was a personal student of St. John, and became bishop of the church at Antioch which St. Peter established, so he had contact with numerous Apostles.

I am not sure if I understand what you are saying here when you wrote "Rather, they quoted the Scriptures as part of their teaching and explained the meaning".

What I mean is, when they taught people, they quoted the Scriptures and expounded upon their meaning during their sermons.

Do you mean to say that the 12 Apostles quoted the verses of New Testament somewhere else and explained their meanings? So, are you saying that the 12 apostles in addition to writing New Testament, have another set of Books, in which they quoted the verses of New Testament and explained their interpretations?

Not books, no. Like I said, this stuff wasn't systematically written down like the Gospel accounts, and if you remember Papias whom I quoted, Christians (as did all people back in those days) trusted oral tradition more than the written word. Anyone could write something down and slap someone's name on it; this was the case with the Gnostic writings. Gnostics wrote down their teachings, and wrote the name of one of the Apostles on it in an attempt to give it some credibility. Writing is anonymous and untraceable, but with oral tradition, you know who your teacher is, and who they were taught by, and you have ways to make sure that what you're getting hasn't been changed by your teacher.

The extra-Biblical teachings were passed down from the Apostles to their students, who in turn taught it to the next generation, etc. Some of these things were eventually written down when a certain Father wanted to send a letter to a person or to a congregation, or when he wanted to make a treatise to defend the Faith against heresy. We have these writings of the Fathers today, and if you look at what was being taught in the first century, it's no different from what was being preached in the 300's, in the 600's, in the 1200's, or in the 1800's. The only thing that has changed is the language used to express it as time has gone on. None of the content of our Faith has changed; we have merely hit on more refined and clear ways to express it.

Who (which person(s)) has the Authority in Christianity to claim that he can understand the teachings of the Apostles without errors and perfectly?

No one. We are not Catholics who claim that there is one person who speaks infallibly. We are Orthodox who recognize that the Church is an infallible body filled with infallible people. Each of the Fathers agreed on all the major points of the Faith, like the Trinity and Christ being both truly God and truly man, and that Christ rose physically from the dead. At the same time, they may have disagreed on the little and inconsequential things, like whether the Nephilim were the offspring of human women and angels, or whether they were the offspring of the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain.

Thanks. Let's not discuss heresies, because each group of Christians may accuse another group for heresies. So I don't want to get into that, at this point. But let's go step by step. Again going back to the subject of interpretations....as you said the apostles did not write interpretations to explain every single verse of Bible, but instead they taught how to interpret. Then over the course of time, the Christians used this knowledge to write interpretations and explanations.

Not what I meant. Yes, there is a tradition in Orthodoxy of how to do Biblical exegesis. But the Apostles also gave us proper interpretations of the most important passages in the Bible, as well as what interpretations we are to draw about the New Testament and how it should be explained.

For how long the Christians developed the interpretations and explanations of Bible until it was completed without anything else left?

The thing is, the meaning of the Bible can never be exhausted. Yes, there are right and wrong ways to interpret and explain the Bible, and the Apostles did teach us right interpretations and explanations of the various books of the Bible, and pointed out some wrong understandings of the Bible, and their students continued to do likewise, and this pattern continues down the line right up to today. We Orthodox still reference the writings of the Fathers from the first centuries of Christianity when looking at how to interpret the Bible--and when I say "how" to interpret the Bible, I don't mean just the exegetical techniques, I also mean the correct understandings of the passages in the Bible and how they all fit together.

Then from above discussion I understand that you believe the Christians living in the city of Corinth, were infallible. I am not sure how you can conclude they were infallible, but assuming true for now.
But those people died long time ago. Do you think their infallibility continued from generation to generation until today?

Not in Corinth specifically, but the entirety of the Eastern Orthodox Church found worldwide--not just in Corinth, but also in the rest of Greece, in Russia, the Middle East, the Americas, Romania, Serbia, etc, etc, etc. The infallibility of the Church as a whole has continued from then to now, unbroken. As I said, no individual person is infallible in Orthodoxy, but the Faith and the Tradition as a whole is infallible.

 

[icebuddy]

you just twist what is being said-- Is Jehovah God? Hebrews doesn't say that Jesus is Jehovah--verse 9 teaches Jesus has a God. Jehovah doesn't have a God--Jesus does= reality.

If Jesus is Not God, then why even have New Testament Writers quote OT passages of Jehovah and apply them to Jesus? Why even Call Jesus Mighty God, or First and Last, our Rock, and all the hundreds of things only said of God? Why even mention it?

1 Cor 10:1-4 tells us not to be ignorant. If i told a Jew this passage, he would know exactly what is being said. He wouldn't believe it, but he would know...

I know God Well

What does that mean that you Know God well?

In Love

 

[Shiranui117]

Christians and the Cross - The Christian isnt worshiping or idolizing the cross itself. The Whole reason anyone wears a cross or looks to the cross is because of Jesus Christ and what he did for us upon it. Never to forget such a moment and in a sense we are carrying our cross too (Lk 14:27)

the Cross was our High Priests(Jesus) altar (Eze45:19) Jesus sprinkled blood on all 4 Corners. (Thorns on head, Hands, and feet) And he was the sacrifice without sin

Agreed on all counts.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

How do you know that they taught All we need to know about interpreting the Bible. You know, 'ALL That We need' is a bold claim. So, you are saying the 12 apostles did not go through every single verse of Bible to explain in details the interpretations of each verse or determine which verse is literal and which verse is figurative, and what is the meaning of the symbolic verses. But instead, they taught 'how to interpret'. In another words they taught 'the principle of correct interpretations', instead of explaining every single verse.
If I understood you correctly, then I would have two questions now.
Firstly, are there recorded evidence based on witnesses that these apostles sat down with early Christians explaining the proper way of interpretations? So, that we can establish that indeed the apostles taught how to interpret Bible (Hebrew + NT)
Second question, suppose they taught such principles for correct interpretations of the verses as you say it "They taught us all that we needed to know about interpreting the Bible". What proof or guarantee is there that these principles were applied correctly by Christians to ensure correct interpretations? In another words, suppose the disciples taught such knowledge, but what guarantee is there that the Christians were good students 'to learn them without misunderstanding and to apply them correctly to interpret New Testament?'.




I am not sure if I understand what you are saying here when you wrote "Rather, they quoted the Scriptures as part of their teaching and explained the meaning".

Not books, no. Like I said, this stuff wasn't systematically written down like the Gospel accounts, and if you remember Papias whom I quoted, Christians (as did all people back in those days) trusted oral tradition more than the written word. Anyone could write something down and slap someone's name on it; this was the case with the Gnostic writings. Gnostics wrote down their teachings, and wrote the name of one of the Apostles on it in an attempt to give it some credibility. Writing is anonymous and untraceable, but with oral tradition, you know who your teacher is, and who they were taught by, and you have ways to make sure that what you're getting hasn't been changed by your teacher.

The extra-Biblical teachings were passed down from the Apostles to their students, who in turn taught it to the next generation, etc. Some of these things were eventually written down when a certain Father wanted to send a letter to a person or to a congregation, or when he wanted to make a treatise to defend the Faith against heresy. We have these writings of the Fathers today, and if you look at what was being taught in the first century, it's no different from what was being preached in the 300's, in the 600's, in the 1200's, or in the 1800's. The only thing that has changed is the language used to express it as time has gone on. None of the content of our Faith has changed; we have merely hit on more refined and clear ways to express it.

No one. We are not Catholics who claim that there is one person who speaks infallibly. We are Orthodox who recognize that the Church is an infallible body filled with infallible people. Each of the Fathers agreed on all the major points of the Faith, like the Trinity and Christ being both truly God and truly man, and that Christ rose physically from the dead. At the same time, they may have disagreed on the little and inconsequential things, like whether the Nephilim were the offspring of human women and angels, or whether they were the offspring of the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain.

Not what I meant. Yes, there is a tradition in Orthodoxy of how to do Biblical exegesis. But the Apostles also gave us proper interpretations of the most important passages in the Bible, as well as what interpretations we are to draw about the New Testament and how it should be explained.

The thing is, the meaning of the Bible can never be exhausted. Yes, there are right and wrong ways to interpret and explain the Bible, and the Apostles did teach us right interpretations and explanations of the various books of the Bible, and pointed out some wrong understandings of the Bible, and their students continued to do likewise, and this pattern continues down the line right up to today. We Orthodox still reference the writings of the Fathers from the first centuries of Christianity when looking at how to interpret the Bible--and when I say "how" to interpret the Bible, I don't mean just the exegetical techniques, I also mean the correct understandings of the passages in the Bible and how they all fit together.

Thanks!. Speaking of all those writings Other than New Testament, which you call them 'Traditions', it seems to me it is your 'belief' that, those are really what apostles taught, rather than something that can be established with clear evidences and documents 'beyond reasonable doubt'. As I said, even if the apostles taught more than what is written in NT, it was still conditional upon understanding them correctly and transmit them accurately by those early generations until it was finally written. Because when something is not written directly by Apostles, then it is only a belief that this is what the apostles taught us and has reached us today. It is not like apostles wrote it down and signed it as a way to document that is what they taught. Now, the thing is that these documents you refer to as 'Traditions', are not even written as quotes that someone heard the apostles said so and so. But they are usually the understandings of the individual writer(s) of those traditions.

The point is, when doing debates, I don't think it is sound to refer to these traditions as an Authoritative source and consider them inspired by God, for the reasons that I noted above.

But the New Testament itself is subject to interpretations. Again there is no evidence in New Testament that the apostles said everything we wrote in New Testament are to be taken literally at face value. On the contrary, in New Testament itself, there are so many verses that shows the Scriptures have certain hidden meanings written in parables and figurative language.

Is this a fair position above?

...We are Orthodox who recognize that the Church is an infallible body filled with infallible people....

This is something that you need to prove and establish based on facts beyond reasonable doubt. For example, if Christ said in NT that the Orthodox Church shall be filled with infallible people forever and ever more', then I take that as an evidence and proof, otherwise it is only a claim. Anybody can claim such things, and in fact, there has been financial scandals in Orthodox Church.
All you have shown is, writings of Paul referring to some people in those days as 'body of Christ'. Now, even if we take this verse to mean they were infallible (which to be fair, it doesn't necessarily mean that), then still, I haven't seen any scriptural proof that, such infallibility will continue forever.