Who cares? All that shit is made up anyway so just do whatever.

Are there really no Orthobros on /his/?

DIVINE IRONY THAT THE HETERODOX ARE UNIVERSALLY REFERRED TO AS «ORTHODOX».

>>18648775
Explain how they are 'heterodox'
also
>Roman Catholic Church
>praying to statues
>adding the filioque
>Donation of Constantine document being a forgery to power grab the papal states
>indulgences
>annulments
>Vatican II
>Novus Ordo
>Pope saying muslims worship same deity
explain yourself

>>18648123
FPBP
I'm still asking for a religion and spirituality board so that they can go proselytise somewhere else.

>>18648867
Humanities includes religion and spirituality.

The vast majority of conflict between Catholics and 'orthodox' is no more than language issues and old political fighting.
This treatment of making the See of Rome and the See of Constantinople into protestant sects is idiotic. 'Catholics' are Orthodox, and 'Orthodox' are Catholic: the same church, in schism.
I do not doubt that the promotion of this radical division is a tool by the evil one to prevent a resolution to the schism from ever taking place - a union between Russia the select countries which are still Catholic would be so powerful as to wipe out the modern secularist states.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!

>>18648841
Tell me you're a recent online convert to 'the orthodoxy' without telling me you're a recent online convert to 'the orthodoxy'

>>18648086
>pre-eminent authority of Rome
Not in the way Catholicism practices it
>bulk of Eastern Orthodox theology/mysticism is founded on questionable forged writings
Questionable by what standards? The saints seem to have made great use of them.
>controversial modern things like the Orthodox allowing remarriages
Without calling them annulments? That's a major one.


Setting this one apart as this actually could have substance:
> alleged controversy surrounding the 'holy fire miracle' at the Jerusalem sepulcher
What is the controversy? And how can a controversy be "alleged" lol?

>>18649020
>Not in the way Catholicism practices it
St Irenaus describes it like this
>But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition
>Against Heresies III

He goes on to list the succesion of the bishops of Rome to his present from Peter. There isn't any way to read this other than to think he thought Rome wasn't just 'first among equals' but in charge and the other bishophrics all have to be in communion with Rome, and agree with them.

>Questionable by what standards?
the writings of 'Dionysus the Areopagite,' which became popular in the Byzantine empire and heavily influenced Eastern Orthodox theology/thought (e.g apophatic theology, Christian mysticism, the ascent of the soul etc), are known to have been psudeonymously written and copied from a neoplatonic pagan writer (Proclus)
>Without calling them annulments?
apparently

>What is the controversy? And how can a controversy be "alleged" lol?
I'm talking about this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6cowtwedvU
this isn't the only video I've seen on this but supposedly the fire that appears in the sepulcher at Jerusalem is actually lit by a sacristan inside the tomb before the priest gets there but they let the laity think it's a miracle. Pretty troubling if true.

>>18649077
meant for
>>18649035

>>18649020
you can't just dismiss issues like Vatican II and Novus Ordo as if they don't need defending
>Donation of Constantine document being a forgery to power grab the papal states
this is pretty egregious to just ignore too

>>18649077
>have to be in communion with Rome
Yeah each patriarchate has to be in communion with each other. Rome went quite a bit further than that.
>psudeonymously written
So they're not questionable as to their content, but their formal presentation? If that is what you're seeking in spirituality, Orthodoxy might not be for you, yeah.
>copied from a neoplatonic pagan writer (Proclus)
Hahaha yes, I fear even things like "essence" and "hyposthasis" were copied from pagans. Christian theology makes great use of pagan ideas. If that is an offense to you, then perhaps not just Orthodoxy, but Christianity altogether might be disagreeable to you.

>supposedly the fire that appears in the sepulcher at Jerusalem is actually lit by a sacristan inside the tomb
Surely there's more to controversy around a miracle than someone alleging it's fake?

>>18648962
I think realistically there should be a history board separate to the humanities board.

my understanding of orthodox christianity is:
>once upon a time there wasn't a pope but instead like 5 big guys in charge of an area where christians were
>the areas were, uh
>egypt?
>constantinople?
>rome?
>???
>???
>anyway one day the one in rome decides he's the top dog and the others can all go fuck
>the others were all either already in land controlled by muslims, or happily fucked off
>orthodox is the old "like 5 or 6 big guys" system, catholicism is the one big guy system

File: proclusVSpsuedodionysius.png (176 KB, 834x692)

176 KB PNG

>>18649094
>psudeonymously written
>So they're not questionable as to their content, but their formal presentation?
I dunno, piggybacking literal pagan theology and theurgy on top of the gospel/Biblical word and then building your entire tradition and understanding of God/salvation/sacramental life etc out of it seems pretty unsettling at face value
this doesn't quite just feel the same as the early church fathers explaining things like the Trinity and the Incarnation using borrowed Greek terms, we're talking about the actual life and thinking of the church itself and its ritual traditions being founded on pagan philosophy and ritualism, essentially
>Surely there's more to controversy around a miracle than someone alleging it's fake?
apparently the sacristan was interviewed admitting they actually light the flame and some members of clergy admitted it and stopped officially saying it was a miracle after a journalist wrote a book about it, but still tell/let the laity think it's a miracle

saying that God has his church built on copied pagan philosophy and ritualism, writings lying about who wrote them and questionable miracles annd half-truths and that this is somehow fine because God has underhandedly 'repurposed it' or something seems like a pretty dodgy stance to take. God doesn't ever work like this in the Bible itself, it's always straightforward and clear, and faith isn't described as being built on things like this. I'm really troubled by it and the Orthodox approach of 'our tradition supercedes the Bible itslef' feels wrongheaded and like a cope. Tell me how it isn't.

>>18649270
>piggybacking literal pagan theology
You might be misunderstanding neoplatonism quite seriously. Pagans don't own the license to any part of it, any more than they own the idea of hyposthasis, which completely predates Christianity not just as a term but as an integral piece of god manifestation and worship in Egypt. If you're worried about "ritualism" and "pagan philosophy" contamination, Christianity is altogether not passing your purity test.
>apparently the sacristan was interviewed admitting they actually light the flame
>some members of clergy admitted it
Is there any publication to any of this?

As to your summary:
>pagan philosophy and ritualism --- MISLEADING
>writings lying about who wrote them --- UNIVERSAL TO CHRISTIANITY
>questionable miracles --- UNSUPPORTED
>half-truths --- UNSUPPORTED
>God has underhandedly 'repurposed it' --- UNIVERSAL TO CHRISTIANITY

>God doesn't ever work like this in the Bible itself
He works like this (in the parts you did actually manage to characterize correctly) in Christianity. If you only have a problem with Orthodoxy, that is your own bias to carry.

>>18649104
you're basically right

>>18649294
>If you're worried about "ritualism"
I worried about are the liturgies and sacraments themselves in the Orthodox church re-appropriated pagan ritualism based on the re-named/re-contextualized pagan neoplatonic theurgy such as the ascent of the soul
did the liturgies and sacraments already exist and pseudo-Dionysius rip-off Proclus to theologically comment on them and explain them, or were the liturgies and sacraments actually *developed* in response to this neoplatonic mysticism becoming popular in the Byzantine empire?
Because if it's where the liturgies the Orthodox are doing daily in their churches are actually pagan theurgy rituals (which have no actual Biblical basis or origin in reality) but just 'redirected towards Christ' then that's pretty alarming. Basically, was the Byzantine Liturgy invented AFTER these writings and neoplatonic mysticism and theology became popular and was based on it?

>any more than they own the idea of hyposthasis, which completely predates Christianity not just as a term but as an integral piece of god manifestation and worship in Egypt
this is neither here nor there, as I said, the early church fathers simply using such terms to explain the Christian concepts is fine
>He works like this (in the parts you did actually manage to characterize correctly) in Christianity
when does God ever work like this in the Bible itself?

>>18649294
>writings lying about who wrote them --- UNIVERSAL TO CHRISTIANITY
the gospels really were written by the disciples, if that's what you're getting at. St Irenaus explains where and when they were written and Clement and Ignatius seem to be aware of the gospel writings while the disciples were still alive, in their own writings.

>Is there any publication to any of this?
it's just what I've seen in videos. Here, for example, apparently the sacristan admits it in an interview
https://youtu.be/Q1LZun4WpkA?t=1233

the book about it is called Redemption – The Case of the Holy Fire (Λύτρωση - Περί του Αγίου Φωτός), the journalist's name is Dimitris Alikakos. I'm just telling you what I've seen claimed and how it has been characterized, not saying that I know the full truth or details about it. Keep in mind that YouTube video is from a Catholic but you can see the video evidence for yourself.

>>18649335
*The thing I'm worried about is: are the liturgies and sacraments themselves in the Orthodox church re-appropriated pagan ritualism based on the re-named/re-contextualized pagan neoplatonic theurgy such as the ascent of the soul?

>>18648775
>>18649020
at least the Orthodox anons actually defend their tradition, no response to things like the Donation of Constantine document or defending Vatican II? Really?

>>18649335
A perfect example:
>ascent of the soul
>pagan
If you can read the Bible without walking away with the image that your soul is supposed to ascend towards the heavens, I want to sit down and read it with you aloud. Especially passages like that the sould must be "born again from the spirit" (spirits being symbolically upwards) and "seek things that are above" or becoming "part-takers of the divine nature". Furthermore, even Aquinas and by extension Catholicism would become pagan because the soul's elevation to God is mentioned by him explicitly. You have made a beautiful case for the inefficiency of your purity tests, Bible and Christianity in general do not pass. It's intuitive to try to test for pagan contamination. It's also intuitively obvious when they are inefficient.

>early church fathers simply using such terms
You're free to use mild rhetoric, but it does not pass your purity test because a theological concept and a centre-piece of pagan ritualistic practice became a centre-piece of Christian dogma. That is the exact trajectory that your methods mark as pagan contamination.
>when does God ever work like this in the Bible itself?
That is up to interpretation, for example in Exodus he commands the Jews to take Egyptian gold and I've heard it interpreted as taking Egyptian wisdom, the OT contains lots of wisdom that is common to the region, down to God's names. Scholars also found the so-called Baal cycle, which the OT adapts to make a point that God is Lord and not Baal.

>>18649368
>the gospels really were written by the disciples, if that's what you're getting at.
No. I'm getting at people not uncommonly signing their works by older authors' name as an expression of humility and owing the kernels of their writings to their predecessors.
>the sacristan admits it in an interview
Not a word about it being fake. But I'll look into it.
>I'm just telling you what I've seen claimed
I know, but certainly you can understand how weak this critique is.

>>18649381

>at least the Orthodox anons actually defend their tradition [...] [SIC]

I. THERE IS NO «THEIR TRADITION», NOR «OUR TRADITION»: THERE IS THE TRADITION.

IF THE HETERODOX PRESERVED TRADITION, THEY WOULD NOT BE IN SCHISM, AND WOULD BE ORTHODOX.


II. WE, CATHOLICS —ID EST: CHRISTIANS—, DO DEFEND TRADITION; NOT ONLY DO WE DEFEND IT: WE ARE ITS SOLE PRESERVERS.


>[...] no response to things like the Donation of Constantine document or defending Vatican II? Really? [SIC]

WHEN YOU PROMPT SOMETHING THAT IS WORTHY OF A RESPONSE, I WILL RESPOND.

>>18649382
>If you can read the Bible without walking away with the image that your soul is supposed to ascend towards the heavens, I want to sit down and read it with you aloud
>even Aquinas and by extension Catholicism would become pagan because the soul's elevation to God is mentioned by him explicitly
fair enough, I guess the thing is I'm put off by the idea of using pagan theology to explain how the soul gets there, if that is indeed what Psuedo-Dionysius is doing
>Furthermore, even Aquinas and by extension Catholicism
I'm not a Roman Catholic trying to debunk Orthodoxy or something if that's what you think I am at a crossroads between trying to figure out which version of Christianity is actually true/the real church and between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I was almost certain of Orthodoxy but then started leaning towards Catholicism (simply based on how the early church fathers seem unambigious in the pre-eminence of Rome) but now I don't know since both sides seem to have questionable aspects to them. Protestantism doesn't have any apostolic succesion so doesn't seem to make sense on a surface level, and there isn't much immediate theological depth and spirituality to it (although the protestant zeal for the Bible itself and the exact word is appealing and is seemingly lacking in both Catholic and Orthodox)
> it does not pass your purity test because a theological concept and a centre-piece of pagan ritualistic practice became a centre-piece of Christian dogma
only if you define Christian dogma as 'either Catholic or Orthodox tradition' by default. You wouldn't necessarily assume this is what the church is meant to look like from a plain reading of the Bible itself or the writings of the early church.

>>18649382
>That is up to interpretation, for example in Exodus he commands the Jews to take Egyptian gold and I've heard it interpreted as taking Egyptian wisdom
according to who? some secular scholar?
>the OT contains lots of wisdom that is common to the region
like what?
>down to God's names
etymology isn't quite comparable with traditions and theology having some non-biblical/Christian source
>Scholars also found the so-called Baal cycle, which the OT adapts to make a point that God is Lord and not Baal
...you do think all of the old testament actually happened, right?
>No. I'm getting at people not uncommonly signing their works by older authors' name as an expression of humility and owing the kernels of their writings to their predecessors
you don't mean the authors of the books of the Bible though, do you?

>Not a word about it being fake. But I'll look into it.
I've seen the argument put forward that the miracle actually is real but doesn't happen if the patriarch that goes to the sepulcher is unworthy. Something to think about.
Who knows how much of what the journalist reported is true though. I would prefer to believe it isn't fake. Miracles are obviously real.

>>18649428
>I'm put off by the idea of using pagan theology to explain how the soul gets there
I am too. Luckily, neoplatonism is no more pagan than books or shaking hands.
>I'm not a Roman Catholic
That's fine my point is that a purity test that rejects 99.9% of Christianity is likely a poor test.
>only if you define Christian dogma as 'either Catholic or Orthodox tradition' by default
Hypostasis is a fairly early dogma, I'm not even sure an organization can be officially considered Christian if they deviate from the dogmas or symbol of faith. That's why they exist to begin with, right? But yes, I agree the purity test has slightly flexible limits. If that's a bug or a feature is up for discussion.
>You wouldn't necessarily assume this is what the church is meant to look like from a plain reading of the Bible itself or the writings of the early church.
No, but if you read the Old Testament and you can gradually guess what the faith is about to look like in the following book from having read the previous ones, you are one of a kind. Kingship comes by surprise. The temple comes by surprise. Levitical-Deuteronomical law revisions contain like a 100 curve-balls. I would love if the Bible gave me a coherent detailed picture of what worship and liturgical life looks like at any given time, but it doesn't do that in the OT, it doesn't do that in the NT and I'm not sure the Early Church writings are any more exhaustive than that...

But here I'd like to address a pattern I'm seeing itt and many other places - your task isn't to return to a historical sweetspot between paganism and secularism or to find an institution that's frozen in time since this exact moment. Those are secondary variables. The key one is encounter with the living God. He is alive today, not by reference to 1st century Palestine, but right here right now. Seek that and all the institutional and philosophical questions will fall into place. I gotta run, God help you, Anon.

>>18649464
Thank you, I'll consider your responses and think them over then. God bless you, anon.

>>18649410
I. was the Donation of Constantine document a forgery, in order for the papacy to grab power, yes or no?
II. in your opinion, does this invalidate the legitimacy of the papacy in any way and if not, why not?

File: byzantineliturgy.png (289 KB, 1401x577)

289 KB PNG

>>18649335

>>18649483

>I. was the Donation of Constantine document a forgery, in order for the papacy to grab power, yes or no?

A FORGERY BY SOME OBSCURE MEDIEVAL AUTIST; NOTHING MORE, NOR LESS.


>II. in your opinion, does this invalidate the legitimacy of the papacy in any way and if not, why not?

NO.

THE ECCLESIAL AUTHORITY OF THE PONTIFEX MAXIMVS IS NOT CONTINGENT TO ANY SPECIES OF TEMPORAL POLITICAL AUTHORITY; THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IS GIVEN BY CHRIST.

>>18649294
>Pagans don't own the license to any part of it
Yes they do, reason and by extension human civilization are fundamentally pagan constructs. Philosophy was far too embedded in paganism to be separated from it. Plato was a zealot polytheist who affirmed Zeus as the god of gods and outlined in his Republic that impiety towards the gods should be punishable, meaning that any Christian who calls Zeus a false god or demon would face imprisonment or execution in Plato’s ideal society.

The only way to truly reject paganism is to live like savages since Genesis itself calls all cities on earth a corrupting influence and explicitly states that the “ideal” state of mankind is when we were dumb cavemen no smarter than an animal with shit hanging out of our asses

>>18649381
People make too much of a deal out of the Donation of Constantine - it was simply realpolitik. The eastern empire could not provide the protection which it had in the past, and the people of the city of Rome did not want the Franks (Carolingians) to be their masters but needed their protection. The Donation made this possible.
It was also crucial to ensure the Franks, and any other western kingdom, would not try to overstep and rule over the Pope (there is a difference between the so-called 'caesaropapism' of Constantine or Justinian versus Philip IIII or Henry VIII).

>>18649533
> and explicitly states that the “ideal” state of mankind is when we were dumb cavemen no smarter than an animal
no. In Genesis, Adam (Man) has authority over the animals and names them and commands them and his role is to be in perfect communion with God and tend His garden (the perfect creation). Cavemen and 'living like savages' is a result of the Fall and is what being outside of Eden first looks like for humans; living in danger off the land, in a state of survival, labor and toil.
>reason and by extension human civilization are fundamentally pagan constructs
human civillization is a result of a push-pull between humans trying to reach back to God and trying to make it on their own without God, through their own efforts. Reason is a faculty given by God to rational Man that places him above the animals and is part of him being made in God's image. Reason and morality are only possible because of God.

>>18649565
>God's church uses realpolitik
this a stronger and more serious and troubling claim than you think, given what the nature of God is and what His church is supposed to be like

>>18649589
1) I am a simple anonymous 4chan poster: nothing I say is some kind of blanket dogmatic statement like you make it seem in your quote.
2) Is your definition of realpolitik different? I describe what was done with the Donation with that word because, yes, ideally Rome is WITH (not below) the emperor in Constantinople along with the 4 other heads of the Church. However when on one hand Constantinople is knee deep in heresy and failing to provide support and on the other hand the Franks could easily overwhelm the sovereignty of the Seat of St. Peter what other option is there?
3)
>this a stronger and more serious and troubling claim than you think, given what the nature of God is and what His church is supposed to be like
I cannot read your mind, elaborate

>>18648086
>what is the best case for the Orthodox church still having legitimacy
After the Corpus Dionysus was proven to be a forgery, they lost all legitimacy frankly. Their most inspired works of philosophy from 6th century CE are dishonestly presented christianized-Neoplatonism.
>Is there any historical basis or theological explanation that counters or nullifies all of these issues?
As I just mentioned: the pseudonymous "Dionysius the Areopagite" is a fictional author who has never been mentioned a single time by any church father *before 6th century CE*. However Thomas Aquinas cites "Dionysius the Areopagite" and "Corpus Dionysus" as a main source of philosophical inspiration, almost more than he mentions scripture itself. In scripture, "Dionysius the Areopagite" is merely mentioned 1 single time...
Church fathers & the bible never provide historical context for how privately held church-politics alters the whole religion, even as it's being remodeled by the church fathers themselves.

>>18648086
It's Based and Christpilled

>>18648775
>>18649410
>>18649523
When you accept Vatican II, then you can call yourself catholic and call others to become catholic, until then your are just a lebfrevian, not very different from lutherans in matters of obedience.

>>18648086
1. Jesus never commanded his disciples to write down everything. Every word of the gospels and the New Testament is written by the early church disciples and fathers who wrote them with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but then their writings are also important and a part of Sacred Tradition inspired by the Holy Spirit, insofar as their writings all make sense under religious exegesis.

2. All testimonies and rituals within church tradition are all still valid insofar as they agree with the literary exegesis performed on the writings of the Fathers, including the Bible written and accepted by them. This is a version of Lutheran (and only Lutheran) Sola Scriptura, except "Scriptura" is extended to include all of Church Fathers' writings put under exegetical scrutiny, not just the Bible.
3. The aesthetics. There is clear archaeological and historical textual precedent for the architecture, art, dress, and other factors present in Orthodox churches, rituals, and other aspects. They all imply a Greek, Turkish and Levantine origin, all areas the apostles visited time and agian.
4. The churches in the Bible and early church writings are not fully subordinate to Rome, Rome is always a convenient meeting ground. This is the meaning of "first among equals". It does not imply the infallibility of the Patriarch of the Roman Church, or the Pope as he is more commonly known.
5. Jesus spoke to an audience who practiced Second Temple Judaism, which in turn had Hellenic influences, particularly Hellenic philosophy like that of Plato. When Jesus speaks of the soul, he is referring to the Hellenic Judaic version, or the Platonic version. At no point does he correct this to say he means anything else. At no point does he or his disciples attempt to say they are speaking of anything other than the Hellenic meaning, which in the larger picture means the Platonic meaning. Therefore, Plato, even if he wasn't a Christian, had made a philosophy the Messiah himself used.

>>18648775
>>18648841
Both of you fags are going to Hell, by the way.

>>18649692
>Is your definition of realpolitik different
realpolitik is where morality/ethics don't matter, only strategy and pragmatism i.e. the truth doesn't matter, the ends justify the means
>I cannot read your mind, elaborate
the Donation of Constantine was not actually written by Constantine, it was a forgery, they lied. How could the power of God's church be built on lies?
>what other option is there?
faith in God
>Constantinople is knee deep in heresy
what do you mean by this?

>>18650103
>Jesus spoke to an audience who practiced Second Temple Judaism, which in turn had Hellenic influences, particularly Hellenic philosophy like that of Plato. When Jesus speaks of the soul, he is referring to the Hellenic Judaic version, or the Platonic version
really good point. Paul does reference the Greek stoics in his epistles, afterall.

>>18650103
>The churches in the Bible and early church writings are not fully subordinate to Rome, Rome is always a convenient meeting ground. This is the meaning of "first among equals".
how do you reconcile this with St Irenaus' view on the pre-eminence of the bishop of Rome?

>>18649705
the relevant question about this is; does the theology and philosophy presented by pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagie contradict that of the Bible itself in any way?

>>18649094
>Christian theology makes great use of pagan ideas
No, it doesn’t. Neoplatonism is fundamentally a pagan philosophy at its core and cannot truly be understood without accepting the premise that there are many gods and that Zeus is the god of gods, not Yahweh. Christian theology is incoherent because it tries to incorporate a system that was incompatible with Christianity from the start. The gods of the platonic tradition are purely transcendent, so the idea that any god, much less the first cause, would incarnate as a man of flesh and blood and allow himself to die in a humiliating manner is downright degrading.

>>18650720
>God who can do anything wouldn't be able to incarnate himself because... because he just couldn't ok??!
>God doesn't fit my human worldly ideas of self-importance and 'transcendence' (read: being like a wordly human world leader) therefore he wouldn't do something I consider undignified
lolno
>Neoplatonism is fundamentally a pagan philosophy at its core and cannot truly be understood without accepting the premise that there are many gods and that Zeus is the god of gods
nah

>>18650562
>does the theology and philosophy presented by pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagie contradict that of the Bible itself in any way
Yes it contradicts a lot in the OT scripture. Moses gave stricts laws (OT commandments) to obey, and Jesus reaffirmed the idea that everyone in the world should follow those laws only by having faith in him as the messiah prophet. The Corpus Dionysus introduces concepts which the church fathers of 6th century never contemplated before, and there are no historical mention of the philosophy laid out in Corpus Dionysus within the church before 6th century. The church fathers remodeled the definition of "christian" from that point on, re-writing traditions and customs inside the church, so that they could politicize (church council final decision) & cover up the massive contradictions + the evidence of plagiarism. It's how modern christians inherited the tradition of saying "well the old testament doesn't count, only what Jesus says in the new testament matters!". Church fathers remodeling the religion through privately held council-politics are responsible for quite a dishonest legacy, Im afraid.

Real spiritual philosophy and Semitic-scripture are mutually exclusive. Semitic-scripture by design is the inverse of spiritual philosophy; psychologically programmed belief.

>>18650759
you don't sound like you've ever actually read the gospels based on your posts

>>18650897
Which version of the gospels are you referring to, from which century/church?

>>18650906
the gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the first century, which were the foundation of the church.

>>18650931
I've read them. Every one was written after the death of their messiah, which is why they aren't entirely consistent with each other. What about it? Also why not include the other gospels?

File: jesus&apostles.png (624 KB, 797x925)

624 KB PNG

>foundation of the church
Happened in Jerusalem btw; first churches ever built in 1st century were in Jewish community private homes.

>>18650956
of course. And?
>>18650947
>Every one was written after the death of their messiah, which is why they aren't entirely consistent with each other
*death and resurrection of the Messiah
and they are still true even if written afterwards
>What about it?
if your conclusion from reading the gospels was that Jesus' mission was to tell people that the whole world should strictly follow the Mosaic law and that this was the way to be saved then you didn't understand them
>Also why not include the other gospels?
the 'other' gospels (such as gnostic and apocryphal) are so divergent as to be obviously not accurate and were written far later by people who were not even there

>>18650752
A perfect being is purely transcendent. To incarnate in a body of flesh and blood means they are no longer perfect. Thus Jesus cannot be a god, this is Platonism 101

>>18651458
>of course. And?
Christianity is discredited by the fact that its originators were Jews, a worthless race who never achieved anything worthwhile, and by the fact that Christians treat the OT with reverence instead of throwing it into the trash where it belongs.

>>18651612
this is an arbitrary definition of perfect. Why can't flesh and blood be perfect?

>>18651612
>A perfect being is purely transcendent
why?

>>18648123
Thanks for the tip, tranny

File: the_holy_bible.jpg (3.2 MB, 2298x2297)

3.2 MB JPG

>>18648841
They are heterodox because of innumerable, even fundamental departures from the religion of the holy scriptures
>worship of various idols (pictures, dead bones, even literal animal sacrifice, etc)
>denial of scriptural authority in favor of traditions of men
>so drunk on mysticism taken from pagan India that it doesn’t even understand, much less believe, the gospel
>human philosophy leading them to exalt human free will and denigrate divine grace
>various heretical teachings about God and Christ i.e. essence/energies distinction, denial of filioque etc.

File: zoomer tradcath.jpg (54 KB, 680x516)

54 KB JPG

>>18649020
>The vast majority of conflict between Catholics and 'orthodox' is no more than language issues and old political fighting.
Not even remotely true

>>18652505
>even literal animal sacrifice
what are you talking about?
>human philosophy leading them to exalt human free will and denigrate divine grace
I thought the emphasis on free will was more of a western Christianity thing, no? Or are you referring to their idea of theosis?
>denial of filioque
I'm not saying I don't believe the filioque but what would you say are the best scriptural arguments for it?
>so drunk on mysticism taken from pagan India
what do you mean by this? Isn't the mysticism from Palamas and the writings of psuedo-Dionysius the Areopagite?

>>18651458
>and resurrection
Hebrew scribes saying it happened, and people who believe in their writing doesn't prove a resurrection happened.
>and they are still true even if written afterwards
How would you verify that? We only have their word as "proof" and that's no proof at all.
>the 'other' gospels (such as gnostic and apocryphal) are so divergent as to be obviously not accurate and were written far later by people who were not even there
>written far later by people who were not even there
All of the gospels were written far later by people who were not even there. If they were all there, they would have all written as first-hand witnesses. The gospels you care so much about are not all written as first-hand witness accounts. Some of them include details that are missing in others, which doesn't make sense too if they were all there at the same time and witnessed the same thing.
>ackshually you just dont understand the gospels because you dont share my subjective interpretations of them
I appreciate you are psychologically conditioned to think that way. It's tragic though.

>>18652879
>what are you talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kourbania
>I thought the emphasis on free will was more of a western Christianity thing, no?
No, every one of them I’ve dialoged with or heard about was extremely man-centered and synergistic. This began with Origen, and was solidified by men like John Damascene and Gregory Palamas. I’ve even seen some of them defend Pelagius and insult Augustine, showing what we should think of their claim to be the ancient Church.
(1/5)

>>18652879
>I'm not saying I don't believe the filioque but what would you say are the best scriptural arguments for it?
First, I would want to place the theological controversy in its historical context. It was taught explicitly by high authorities in the faith, such as Athanasius and Augustine, that the Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. This was part of their high Trinitarian theology and served to emphasize the equality of the Father and the Son over against the Arianism that was so common in their day, although it was not placed into the Creed. It was first added to the Creed by the Franks in the early middle ages (so as an aside when you hear people say we don’t really use the Nicene Creed but the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, they’re wrong, we really use the Frankish revision) in order to combat Semi-Arianism (the idea that the Son is God but not equal to the Father) in their day. To this the Greeks of their time objected, and continue to object to this day. But on what basis? They say that the filioque is to be rejected because it impugns the “monarchy of the Father”, that it infringes on the Father’s sole and unique metaphysical province for the Son to spirate the Holy Spirit. They further say that the Father alone is properly God, while the Son is only the Son of God, and the Spirit is only the Spirit of God, which they justify by reference to Paul who normally refers to the Father simply under the name of God, while Christ is called Lord. So you see the question at issue is not so much whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but whether the Son is really and truly equal with the Father, or only very similar?
(2/5)

>>18652879
Now, we may first of all protest that the Father is not uniquely God according to the scriptures, even in the language of Paul. For he declared that God had purchased the Church with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Likewise, we reject their “monarchy of the Father”, since the scriptures compel us to recognize the full and complete equality of the persons, as our Lord prayed on the eve of His betrayal, “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” (John 17:5) He says He shared the very same glory with the Father, and that from eternity. And as the Son possesses the divine essence, “θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”, He must be equal with the Father and autotheos, and not any kind of lesser being.
Second, as the matter of the Spirit’s procession from the Son specifically, He is explicitly named Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9). Now if they were to object that this does not mean He proceeds from the Son, we might likewise conclude He does not proceed from the Father either, since in the same text He is called Spirit of God. Second, the Son of God promised that He would send the Spirit to His disciples (John 14:7). They object, that this only refers to His being sent in time. It is true, but the persons only send those in time who are derived from them in eternity. It was not the Son who sent the Father, nor the Spirit who sent the Son, but the Father who sent the Son and the Father and the Son who sent the Spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. There is more that could be said, but for now this is sufficient.
(3/5)

>>18652879
>what do you mean by this? Isn't the mysticism from Palamas and the writings of psuedo-Dionysius the Areopagite?
Palamas was only defending pre-existing practices, and while Pseudo-Dionysius was undoubtedly highly influential he cannot account for all of it, especially the differences from western mysticism (on which he was at least equally influential). I conclude the modern eastern churches have been deeply influenced by Indian religion for two reasons, 1. The doctrine itself 2. The historical fact of Indian influence on their religion. In the first place, they have not only denied the gospel to be Christ satisfying the wrath of an indignant God for the saints, they have removed the very context in which that is intelligible. They say that sin is not lawlessness but only disease, and a sinner is not an offender who has merited the eternal wrath of God, but only a sick person in need of healing. Corresponding to this they say that salvation is not the appeasement of an angry God, but only the application of medicine to the sick, and that the damned do not suffer in hell because God executes a just sentence against them but that they in common with the elect are received into the presence of God, but experience it as torment because of their sickness. What part of this could not be learned by any Hindu guru? This is a great difference from Rome which must be explained, since for their faults the Romanists recognize sin to merit death and that God must be propitiated, to the point that they teach God is wrathful even to the justified and make the Lord’s Supper into a continual propitiation.
(4/5)

>>18652879
Second, there are documented and indisputable cases of Indian religious fables being re-told in Greece. Such is the story of Barlaam and Josaphat, which was originally a story of the Buddha, but was transformed into a story of Christian saints by the eastern Christians, and now these men have canonized these fictitious characters as saints! This is indisputable proof that the influence of Indian religion on Greek religion in the middle ages did in fact occur.
(5/5)

Sorry that this was so long. It wasn’t really that long, it’s just that 4chan’s character limit is unsuitably short.

>>18648086
The fract that people like Jay Dyer are always isolated and irrelevant in the Church overlal despite their audiences and loud voices.
Clearly there's supernatural deep care.

>>18653261
>>18653263
>>18653266
>>18653267
>>18653269
thank you for your replies anon, much to think about
this though
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kourbania
>sacrificing animals TO SAINTS
>sacrificing animals DURING THE DIVINE LITURGY/EUCHARIST
I'm sorry but WTF
this is seriously alarming
what in the idolatry is this?? Does this still happen now??
I wonder who many western convert Orthobros even know about this? No Orthodox has ever spoken to me about it before

>rest of your posts
you make a good case for the Filioque here. What are your thoughts on icons then, given that they are defended by the 7th ecumenical council and technically approved of by the RCC? Are you a Roman Catholic yourself? (if you are then I am going to ask you to defend various things about the RCC; if not, then I will ask you how your version of Protestanism possibly makes sense with no apostolic succession)

>>18653358
>What are your thoughts on icons then, given that they are defended by the 7th ecumenical council and technically approved of by the RCC? Are you a Roman Catholic yourself? (if you are then I am going to ask you to defend various things about the RCC; if not, then I will ask you how your version of Protestanism possibly makes sense with no apostolic succession)
I am strictly opposed to icons and any other form of religious iconography. I am Reformed, but I am highly familiar with Romanist theology as well, including where we agree and disagree with them. The reformers clearly saw themselves in the same stream of tradition not only of the church fathers, but even of the medieval church, and readily adopted medieval categories and certain medieval developments were accepted as having passed the test of scripture (e.g. the Lombardian formula of the atonement, that the death of Christ is sufficient for all men, but efficient only to the justified), especially by the Reformed scholastics.
(cont.)

>>18653358
With regard to “apostolic succession”, I think this is about the least useful, most ambiguous term in all of theology. What does that mean? In the Romanist context, it means there is a special class of Christians called priests who have an indelible mark placed on their souls which enables them to perform the miracle of transubstantiation and gives them the authority to offer Jesus Christ in sacrifice to God the Father for the sins of the living and the dead. A concept which is both clearly unbiblical and totally irrelevant to every other group which claims to possess “apostolic succession”. Now, to exposit this in an orthodox way, apostolic succession has value inasmuch as unlicensed ministers are not to work without a call, but they are to be trained and receive a call from the pre-existing Church. This means that every minister of the word and sacrament ought to have an ordination which traces back to the apostles. And we may assert that we possess this succession, since the first reformers, such as Luther and Zwingli, were all ordained priests under the church of Rome, which traced its succession back to the apostles. Therefore, either we possess apostolic succession, or Rome does not possess apostolic succession. They cannot deny this logic without appealing to the aforementioned priesthood, which besides being viciously circular reasoning would be to object nothing besides that we practice only that religion which God once delivered to man, instead of the impious inventions of men and demons which came long after. I think that any concept of apostolic succession which would not be intelligible to the apostles themselves should be discarded.

>>18653804
>>18653805
what are your beliefs on the Eucharist (and how is it celebrated in the Reformed church)? And how do you explain the idea that the church that Jesus himself founded on Peter/the apostles (the catholic/orthodox church) somehow fell away into error and needed to be reformed by some other guys over a thousand years later?
>apostolic succession
my understanding of it was that it was about the fact that the church could be traced in a direct line back to the apostles, that the church is the same one they founded, as well as that the clergy/ordination is a linear descent from the apostles themselves

How do you also make sense of all of the early church fathers like Irenaus insisting on the pre-eminence of Rome and maintaining communion with Rome and the other bishoprics established by the apostles?
Also, since I assume you believe in Calvinistic predestination, how do you reconcile this with Jesus having been crucified for ALL of humanity's sins and Jesus presenting and talking about following him as if it is a choice and that there are commandments to be followed? How does free will make sense in this scenario, and what is even the Biblical/scriptural basis for predestination?

>opposed to icons
if you do not accept the validity of one of the 7 ecumenical councils, how or why then do you accept previous ecumenical councils, such as Nicea I and the Nicene creed? How can one council be valid but not another and how can you determine this and know better than the early church fathers? And how could they have been mistaken and fallen into error if they were elect and guided by the Holy Spirit?

>>18654728
You can find all our doctrines laid out in the Westminster Confession of Faith
https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-westminster-confession/
For an accompanying defense/explanation of our doctrines as well as comparison with Romanism I recommend William Perkins’ “Reformed Catholic”
https://www.monergism.com/reformed-catholic-ebook
Of course, there is also much more that could be said than just these. I would also recommend Calvin’s apologetics works (Reply to Sadoleto, Necessity of Reforming the Church, Antidote to the Council of Trent), and his Institutes of the Christian Religion for a more detailed and thorough account of our theology.

>>18648724
>Are there really no Orthobros on /his/?
that's surprising. I guess the converts must've moved on to the next LARP already

>>18648841
>>18649020
>>18649077
>>18649092
Daily reminder that nobody in real life takes Orthotrannies seriously, nor do they even know that an Orthodox church exists
>>18653326
trvke

>>18653267
>What part of this could not be learned by any Hindu guru?
this feels like a tenuous connection.
>they believe something about sin that is vaguely similar to something a Hindu guru might say therefore their doctrines and liturgical practices are somehow Indian mysticism
what?