Apostasy from true Christianity

Author: Mopac

Posts

Total: 193
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The western "Christian" world has long since slid into apostasy, that is, has long since abandoned true Christianity. The Christianity that most people are exposed to bears little resemblence to the ancient faith that was passed down from the apostles, through the church fathers, and even preserved today in The Orthodox Catholic Church, which is the living church of Christ.

Most people and even Christians in the west know little to nothing about Christianity as it has been historically practiced and understood. If they have any idea at all, they are taught that Roman Catholicism was the original form of Christianity. They are taught that a thousand years ago, the four patriarchs of the Eastern churches rebelled against the one supreme patriarch of Rome. What they don't know is that the present day Roman Catholic Church cut off from The Orthodox Catholic Church precisely because their church slid into heresy.

Nearly half a millenium later, the Roman Catholic Church's deviation from the faith sparked the reformation which splintered western Christianity into thousands of competing sects that would often time even war against eachother.

That very same deviation from the faith which corrupted Roman Catholicism and spawned protestantism eventually lead to the modern age which has taken the over reliance on rationalism and romanticism that corrupted western Christianity and ran away free with it, ditching Christianity all together. Eventually even abandoning the belief in God, The Truth. What results is an age of nihilism, where every man is their own god. Where supermen like Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and others are able to rise up and cause untold destruction, because having lost God, people no longer are able to discern good from evil, what is real from unreality. The hodge podge has become noise that drowns out truth, and people as a result willingly subject themselves to demons.

Today we live in an age where each individual is their own god, able to reject reality and substitute it with their own fantasy. Because there is no longer a belief in absolute truth or ultimate reality, the masses have been plagued with various psychological maladaptions and emotional instabilities. They have been cursed, and this curse will ultimately lead to their destruction and the destruction of their society. It will be the kind of downfall that will have them all weeping, cursing, and crying in despondancy. Having no discernment, they will consent to the very thing that destroys them. Drunk with their delusion, they will drink to their death, and lament spinelessly as they do so. They will destroy themselves, and curse God while doing so.




According to Abbot Damascene, the book "Orthodox Survival Course" which has gone into this matter with great detail and references should be released hopefully within a year out of St Herman's press. Until then, you can listen to it here...


But while this work chronicles the apostasy of the west, and is eye opening to the things going on today both in the false Christian world and the secular world, recognizing the apostasy is not alone sufficient. Only Christ can save you, and not the Christ of heretics. Orthodox Christianity is True Religion.


Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,704
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
the catholic church is the OG church but the orthodox church i dont mind-
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,704
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
it is wrong that vatican split from the east, it was the other way around
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,704
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Nearly half a millenium later, the Roman Catholic Church's deviation from the faith sparked the reformation which splintered western Christianity into thousands of competing sects that would often time even war against eachother.
that was the protestant reformation

That very same deviation from the faith which corrupted Roman Catholicism and spawned protestantism eventually lead to the modern age which has taken the over reliance on rationalism and romanticism that corrupted western Christianity and ran away free with it, ditching Christianity all together. Eventually even abandoning the belief in God, The Truth. 
any proof that was catholic's fault? this was the work of secularism and militant atheism

Orthodox Christianity is True Religion.
Nope.

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,704
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Mopac
also denominations are mostly based on ethnicity and culture. 
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Mopac
I haven't studied Orthodox Christianity, so I don't really know how to respond to your post. I do see the same results of rejecting God that you see, though. The world needs Christ, but it's made it very clear that it doesn't want Him.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The playlist I posted, the video on the middle ages.

What you will see is that not long after the schism, the Latin church deviated in their understanding of piety from the historical church pretty early on. It shows this through an examination of Francis of Assisi.

There is plenty written on this subject, and I have talked about it at length before. Since being in the monastery, I have heard these accounts from pilgrims who came out of Roman Catholicism...

One went to seminary to become a priest. The reason he is orthodox now has to do with the fact that when he was at seminary, everyone there was homosexual. They even tried to make him one. He protested, and they said to him, and I am quoting him "This is just the way we are".

The last pope Benedict wrote an encyclical even pointing out this problem in the seminaries.

I know another convert, still a catechumen actually, so not a full convert who described to me how the biggest Catholic Church which is in LA holds rock concerts where they parade around the elements while the crowds bounce beach balls and wave gay pride flags.

You know the 8th ecumenical council? We accept the one that was held a few years after that abrogated the robber council they accept. For hundreds of years they accepted the same council as us.. why did they revert to the previous council? Because the proper 8th council makes it clear that altering the creed independently of an ecumenical council was considered an act of schism. Filoque.

The church has never accepted Papal Supremacy. We never will either. If the Pope really wants to reunite our churches, he will have to humble himself and abandon the idea that he is king of all Christendom. 



Protestantism and secularism came from Rome's embrace of scholasticism, an over reliance on reason. What did the protestants do? They went by the pope's example and became their own popes. Eventually the very reasonable protestants who abandoned church tradition abandoned Christianity and became deists. Then the deists abandoned God all together.


Denominations or sects are not simply based on ethnicity and culture. A denomination or sect is by definition not Catholic because it lacks the completeness of the church. It is at best incomplete, and at worst heretical.


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,674
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac


apostasy of the west,


I did a thread on the decline of the Christian church and it members a while back.

Christianity won't be # 1 much longer.

 Of course I had the deniers refusing every word I had said and refusing to even entertain the evidence which included the concerns  that  church leaders from around the world themselves have about rate and speed at which it was declining .


 I am of the belief that the cause of this decline & apostasy is the New Testament and probably the way it is taught.. 

 Would you say  that the New Testament is reliable concerning the birth,  life and death of The Christ ?



Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,704
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Mopac
the videos were incorect
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
I would say that the bible as interpreted by The Orthodox Church is what is essential. There is kerigma which is what is publically taught to everyone, and there is mystagogy which is taught to those in the church. Much in the same way, Christ taught in parables to the masses, but explained the parables to his disciples. In my experience, protestants have little to no understanding of the concept of mystagogy.

Protestants all have their own interpretations, often times even denying that they are interpreting. Sola Scriptura is somewhat silly, because there is always an interpreter.

In my experience, protestants have little to no understanding of the concept of typology. Yet, the historical church has always understood the scriptures typologically. St Greggory of Nyssa's book on the life of Moses would be a fine example of this. By no means a lone example either! The early church tended to rely heavily on typological interpretation of scripture. Not exclusively, but to compare, this aspect is largely absent from protestant style bible studies.
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Mopac
if someone asked you for a proof that the orthodox church is the one true church, what would you say? 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,674
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
There is kerigma which is what is publically taught to everyone, and there is mystagogy which is taught to those in the church.

Well the Christ does admit to purposely  speaking in riddles to those outside of his circle. And I expect when in the earshot of the Romans.   "Let he with ears" etc etc.Matthew 11:15 . Not to mention the many coded expressions & names given in the NT scriptures.


Much in the same way, Christ taught in parables to the masses, but explained the parables to his disciples.

 Yes I think you mean the "mysteries of the heavens" that he spoke about.  But as far as we know, he didn't quite get around to teaching them  about the heavens. This would be the mysteries as in astronomy I believe:

as in - “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.Matthew 13:11    Although he did give them a heads up on what "signs" to look for  at the end of the age. 


Sola Scriptura is somewhat silly, because there is always an interpreter.

 But you all claim to have the right version or interpretation don't you, while all the time conveniently forgetting that Jesus was a Jew and king of the Jews and never once even mentions the words Christian or Christians. Indeed he makes it more than clear about who he has come to save, doesn't he:

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." Matthew 15:24 .  Now considering that there were no Christians in Israel at the time of Jesus nor for years after, I think it is pretty clear who and only who, he had in mind when he spoke those words.

And didn't his brother James "The Just"  Jew  take over the leadership of the Jerusalem church after the death of both the  so called "pillars" : John the Baptist and Jesus?


In my experience, protestants have little to no understanding of the concept of typology.

 And I am sure they will say the same about you and your particular flock. 


You didn't answer my question.  Would you say  that the New Testament is reliable concerning the birth,  life and death of The Christ ?



Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
The correct understanding is with The Orthodox Church. Any interpretationthat contradicts the teaching of the church is heretical and not even Christian.

I am sure you have no problem admitting that you are not a Christian. 

That is your answer. Believe it or not, that is the case.



Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
I would say that proof is by definition an evidence that leads to one changing their mind. I can present evidences, but unless you make the choice to be convinced by that evidence, it cannot be proof.

Nihilists in response to question of God's existence love to say, "Aha! There is no proof!".

This statement they make is true, and is perfectly in line with the arbitrary nature of their world view. It only takes a stubborn refusal to change one's opinion to be able to mock triumphantly, "I see no proof!"

Evidence though? The best evidence is church history. It's hardly debatable that The Orthodox Catholic Church has been around since the start. Our spirituality is pure and practical. It works. No one else has such a thorough understanding of spiritual delusion. No one else knows how to wage spiritual warfare like us. The Church understands psychology better than anyone. That is a claim I make, but how could I demonstrate it? It is proven in practice. The lives of many saints also act as evidences.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,674
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac

You appear to be evading the question. So you are saying then that this..............>>> 

Mopac wrote: The correct understanding is with The Orthodox Church. Any interpretation that contradicts the teaching of the church is heretical and not even Christian.

.....................answers this question>>   Would you say  that the New Testament is reliable concerning the birth,  life and death of The Christ ?

Well it clearly doesn't  and you know it doesn't. I am simply asking you if the New Testament conveys to us a true and reliable account  of the Birth, life an death of Jesus and your none answer seems only to be saying that ONLY "the Orthodox Church has the correct interpretation".


Any interpretation that contradicts the teaching of the church is heretical and not even Christian.
Ok then,  does, for example, the King James  (authorised version) bible of 1611 tell a reliable story concerning the birth,  life and death of The Christ ?

The lives of many saints also act as evidences.

Would this include Saint Teresa of Calcutta the Indian Albanian born Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu ?


I am sure you have no problem admitting that you are not a Christian. 

I am not a practicing  Christian.  Christianity was forced on me without my knowledge as it is on many of those born to Christians in the west.  And according to Muslims, anyone  born in the west is a filthy Kufar Christian, especially if they are white. 

 Anyway. I can see you fear to commit yourself to my question for reasons only you know.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
Sliding into apostasy....Sounds fun....Is that a bit like mixed naked mud wrestling?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
No true scotsman falacy.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Hi Mopac, nice to see you back.

The western "Christian" world has long since slid into apostasy, that is, has long since abandoned true Christianity. The Christianity that most people are exposed to bears little resemblence to the ancient faith that was passed down from the apostles, through the church fathers, and even preserved today in The Orthodox Catholic Church, which is the living church of Christ.
The Holy Spirit alone has preserved his people in his church. It is not exclusive to the walls of the Orthodox denomination. (Denomination used advisedly) I think it is unfair and incorrect to say that the church bears little resemblance to the faith that was passed from the Apostles.  In fact I would take the position that there is much in common.  A different culture and time admittedly, but much in common otherwise. 


Most people and even Christians in the west know little to nothing about Christianity as it has been historically practiced and understood. If they have any idea at all, they are taught that Roman Catholicism was the original form of Christianity. They are taught that a thousand years ago, the four patriarchs of the Eastern churches rebelled against the one supreme patriarch of Rome. What they don't know is that the present day Roman Catholic Church cut off from The Orthodox Catholic Church precisely because their church slid into heresy.
It matters little really whether many people know little to nothing about early Christianity.  People often do things without knowing why they do it. I don't hold to the view - as many Protestants don't - that the Catholic church was the original form of Christianity.  In fact, that is typically something RC's teach and also that OC teach but does not have a consensus within Protestantism. I agree with the position that the 4 Patriarchs were excommunicated and I think for good reason. They took the position that the reconciliation of Christ was not a sufficient reason to live in peace with the Western part of the church and refused to reunite. It is appropriate for the church to cut off those that teach heresy and division. 

Nearly half a millenium later, the Roman Catholic Church's deviation from the faith sparked the reformation which splintered western Christianity into thousands of competing sects that would often time even war against eachother.
Again, it was the Holy Spirit who sparked the Reformation. True the RC had fallen into error in some of the most fundamental aspects of its theology. Yet the Reformation did not split the church - this was never an intention. Luther, the so called father of the Reformation, sought to reform from within. It is too bad that the Orthodox Church has never had similar persons to help to purify it. The Orthodox Church has long devolved into superstition rejecting the doctrines of faith and the authority of the Scriptures.  The Protestant Churches are in agreement with over 95% of their teachings. There are only very few which are in disagreement - and none which prevent the Christian churches from meeting in worship together in liberty. 

That very same deviation from the faith which corrupted Roman Catholicism and spawned protestantism eventually lead to the modern age which has taken the over reliance on rationalism and romanticism that corrupted western Christianity and ran away free with it, ditching Christianity all together. Eventually even abandoning the belief in God, The Truth. What results is an age of nihilism, where every man is their own god. Where supermen like Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and others are able to rise up and cause untold destruction, because having lost God, people no longer are able to discern good from evil, what is real from unreality. The hodge podge has become noise that drowns out truth, and people as a result willingly subject themselves to demons.
There is a humanistic spirit which arose during the Renaissance - a throwback to ancient Greek theology, to a polytheistic understanding of the world and philosophy.. This has led in part to the theories of relativism which form part of the modern psyche and which is opposed to all forms of Christianity and indeed religions that promote or endorse Monotheism.  What you fail to comment on is the anti-Christian sentiments that attack the very Christianity you think was already in apostasy. If your opening line was correct then the new theology - of the relativistic Greek religions - would endorse the American and Western religions, not seek to destroy it. And yet - your own words betray you. If your position is correct - then the new views would not be embracing Orthodox Religion - but be attacking it - just like they do with the Western Churches. The Orthodox church is very easily able to adapt to the modern worldview because the OC is into superstition, polytheistic teaching, and tradition.  It like the modern worldview of the Atheists are in bed together with their rejection of the authority of the bible. 


Today we live in an age where each individual is their own god, able to reject reality and substitute it with their own fantasy. Because there is no longer a belief in absolute truth or ultimate reality, the masses have been plagued with various psychological maladaptions and emotional instabilities. They have been cursed, and this curse will ultimately lead to their destruction and the destruction of their society. It will be the kind of downfall that will have them all weeping, cursing, and crying in despondancy. Having no discernment, they will consent to the very thing that destroys them. Drunk with their delusion, they will drink to their death, and lament spinelessly as they do so. They will destroy themselves, and curse God while doing so.
Again this is why the OC is able to connect with the modern masses.  The people of the world are able to embrace a bible which does have a truth - so far as you can simply find the truth for it in symbols - but not the words themselves. 


According to Abbot Damascene, the book "Orthodox Survival Course" which has gone into this matter with great detail and references should be released hopefully within a year out of St Herman's press. Until then, you can listen to it here...


But while this work chronicles the apostasy of the west, and is eye opening to the things going on today both in the false Christian world and the secular world, recognizing the apostasy is not alone sufficient. Only Christ can save you, and not the Christ of heretics. Orthodox Christianity is True Religion.
There is only ONE true church - and that is the church of which Jesus Christ is the Head of it. It has many members - or denominations. 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,674
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Jesus was a Jew. when are you going to accept that fact. king Of the Jews He wasn't a spirit and he wasn't a Christian and he certainly wasn't a monk!
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Mopac
the orthodox church actually runs into the same problem that the roman catholic church does. both churches have to argue that their authority was implied in the early church, cause it sure wasn't explicitly taught by anyone. where is are the writings that say the orthodox church cannot teach error? that their psychical organization is the one true church? you dont find that sort of teaching in either roman or orthodox churches. (but i agree it's most definitely silent in the early church on anything resembling infallibility of the pope)
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Jesus was a Jew. when are you going to accept that fact. king Of the Jews He wasn't a spirit and he wasn't a Christian and he certainly wasn't a monk!
I really do not understand your point here. I have said over and over again that Jesus was a Jew.  I have never denied it. If you think I have - find it please and post a link to it. Otherwise stop telling lies.  I have no issue calling Jesus the king of the Jews.  I have never denied this either. Again I request that you find a post where I have done so - and make a link to it. Otherwise STOP TELLING LIES. I never said Jesus was a Spirit. Find a post where I say he was a spirit. Post a link. OTHERWISE STOP TELLING LIES. 

Where have I ever said Jesus was a Christian? I make the claim, that he was the head of the church. I make the claim that he was the saviour and redeemer of all nations - not just the Jews. I make the claim that he is the second person of the Triune Godhead. I have never claimed he was a Christian. He is the father of the church. He is its head. Christians name themselves after Jesus.  

Why would I call him a monk? 

You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God.   

Your lies just get worse and worse. 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,674
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
u going to accept that fact. king Of the Jews He wasn't a spirit and he wasn't a Christian and he certainly wasn't a monk!
I really do not understand your point here.

 I am not surprised.




I have said over and over again that Jesus was a Jew.  I have never denied it. If you think I have - find it please and post a link to it. Otherwise stop telling lies. 

Strawman. I have never said that you have denied Jesus was a Jew and  think you aught to show some evidence for YOUR accusation of me telling lies.


I have no issue calling Jesus the king of the Jews.  I have never denied this either. Again I request that you find a post where I have done so - and make a link to it.



 You are attempting to create a strawman. I have never said you have denied Jesus was Jew or king of the Jews, so why are you creating an argument around something that I have never said. You do this with the scriptures too. 


Otherwise STOP TELLING LIES. I never said Jesus was a Spirit. Find a post where I say he was a spirit. Post a link. OTHERWISE STOP TELLING LIES. 

 That is three times you have accused me of lying in three short lines. I think it is time that you offered up some evidence for these accusations that you appear so damn sure of.




Where have I ever said Jesus was a Christian?

Strawman. I don't know, where have you said that?  I haven't ever said you have said that, so who was it?




I make the claim, that he was the head of the church.


The Christian church? Did he know this?



I make the claim that he was the saviour and redeemer of all nations - not just the Jews.

Yes and you have never proven that. You Christians may well have made Jesus  "your saviour", but the scriptures make it clear who he came to save , don't they. do you need reminding , here you are: 

He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."Matthew 15:24. Tell me, who were those lost sheep?  Christians? 


I make the claim that he is the second person of the Triune Godhead.

According to Christians maybe. And again no evidence for that claim.  But I reckon that is to say - ASSUME -  if Jesus were here today  he'd regard you Christians as Pagans and be appalled that a whole  new religion had sprang up in his name and years after he had died. 


I have never claimed he was a Christian.

 And  I have never claimed that you did .   




He is the father of the church.

Yes you have said that twice now. And I take it you mean the Christian church and not the Jewish church?   What church did Jesus mean when he said to Peter that he will build his church?  Matthew 16:18 


He is its head. Christians name themselves after Jesus.  

Which means what? 


Why would I call him a monk? 



 I didn't say you did.   So I don't know why you would call him a monk, did you call him a monk? . My you are getting all confused and pants tied aren't you.



You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God. 
Your lies just get worse and worse. 

 That's plural. Your accusations are becoming more frequent and a little too often now . I suggest you start offering up some proof of my lies or simply stop.

Oh and just to leave you with something to ponder, the whole nation of IS-RA-EL was gods "son".  And oddly he also called them His "first born".  I told you, you simply do not understand your own fkn scriptures. 

"Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn" 

 Why do I feel a biblical re-write coming on.




Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
u going to accept that fact. king Of the Jews He wasn't a spirit and he wasn't a Christian and he certainly wasn't a monk!
I really do not understand your point here.

 I am not surprised.




I have said over and over again that Jesus was a Jew.  I have never denied it. If you think I have - find it please and post a link to it. Otherwise stop telling lies. 

Strawman. I have never said that you have denied Jesus was a Jew and  think you aught to show some evidence for YOUR accusation of me telling lies.


I have no issue calling Jesus the king of the Jews.  I have never denied this either. Again I request that you find a post where I have done so - and make a link to it.



 You are attempting to create a strawman. I have never said you have denied Jesus was Jew or king of the Jews, so why are you creating an argument around something that I have never said. You do this with the scriptures too. 


Otherwise STOP TELLING LIES. I never said Jesus was a Spirit. Find a post where I say he was a spirit. Post a link. OTHERWISE STOP TELLING LIES. 

 That is three times you have accused me of lying in three short lines. I think it is time that you offered up some evidence for these accusations that you appear so damn sure of.




Where have I ever said Jesus was a Christian?

Strawman. I don't where have you said that. I haven't ever said you have said that, so who was it?




I make the claim, that he was the head of the church.


The Christian church? did he know this?



I make the claim that he was the saviour and redeemer of all nations - not just the Jews.

Yes and you have never proven that. You Christians may well have made Jesus  "your saviour", but the scriptures make it clear who he came to save , don't they. do you need reminding , here you are: 

He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."Matthew 15:24. Tell me, who were those lost sheep?  Christians? 


I make the claim that he is the second person of the Triune Godhead.

According to Christians maybe. and again no evidence for that claim.  But i reckon  if he were here today  he'd regard you Christians as Pagans and be appalled that a new religion had sprang up in his name. 


I have never claimed he was a Christian.

 I know. I have never claimed that you did .   




He is the father of the church.

Yes you have said that twice now. And I take it you mean the Christian church and not the Jewish church?   What church did Jesus mean when he said to Peter that he will build his church.  Matthew 16:18


He is its head. Christians name themselves after Jesus.  

Which means what? 


Why would I call him a monk? 

 I didn't say you did.   So I don't know why you would call him a monk, did you call him a monk? . My you are getting all confused and pants tied aren't you.

You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God. 
Your lies just get worse and worse. 

 That's plural. Your accusations are becoming more frequent and a little too often now . I suggest you start offering up some proof of my lies or simply stop.

Oh and just to leave you with something to ponder, the whole nation of IS-RA-EL was gods son. His "first born".  I told you, you simply do not understand your own fkn scriptures. 

"Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn" 

 Why do I feel a biblical re-write coming on.

Here is your proof.

 Jesus was a Jew. when are you going to accept that fact. king Of the Jews He wasn't a spirit and he wasn't a Christian and he certainly wasn't a monk! https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4953/post-links/210684

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,674
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Here is your proof.

 Jesus was a Jew. when are you going to accept that fact. king Of the Jews He wasn't a spirit and he wasn't a Christian and he certainly wasn't a monk! https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4953/post-links/210684


So now you have  accepted the fact that Jesus was a Jew NOT A CHRISTIAN! . Good for you, about time too.  But this doesn't show where I have accused you of  denying Jesus was a Jew , does it? 


Will you now accept also the he wasn't king of the Christians either? 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Mopac claims that only eastern orthodox Christians are "true Christians" and that all others are guilty of apostasy (presumably this means less moral than those who are not guilty of apostasy). Apparently Christian =/= a single objective standard of morals.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
This entire thing is a long no true Scotsman fallacy.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen

I am not avoiding the question. My answer is yes, at the exclusion of your interpretation of things.

Teresa of Calcutta is not an orthodox saint.

You were not raised Christian, because you were not raised orthodox. The only Christianity that was "forced on you" was heresy.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
If you read the writings of the early church, even the earliest surviving writings like those from St Ignatius of Antioch, going up to Nicea and beyond, it was clear that the Orthodox Catholic Church was partially identified by apostolic succession. This was essentially to distinguish the true church from the multitude of heresies that existed even in the early days. You are wrong to say there is only implication, because the church fathers are very clear. Papal claims of supremacy on the other hand are made by implication as well as taking quotes from church fathers out of context. They like to ignore instances in church history where the rest of the church would rebuke Rome for acting outside its jurisdiction. They like to ignore popes who denounced the filoque. They like to ignore the popes who claimed that the title of supreme pontiff was a forerunner to anti-christ. There was a time when Rome was orthodox. Then they elevated their patriarch to be able to depose bishops at will, and he totally corrupted the church in the west, invalidating their apostolic succession.

Someone can't be a bishop without apostolic succession, and a presbyter must be made so by a bishop. That in itself disqualifies all protestant denominations from being the church.

There are no church fathers who were not recognized as such without qualifications. When it comes to matters of what constitutes true Christianity, what the church teaches is innerent. That doesn't mean priests or bishops can't be wrong about things. There is a consensus of the church. We have taught the same doctrine since the start. There is a consistency in what we call Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition is the teaching passed down from the aposyles and through the church. Among the different churches, you will see variation of customs. Protestants a lot of time equate all tradition with custom. Then they are surprised when their children abandon the tradition of their faith and embrace worldliness. They were only following the example of their parents who claimed to reject traditions of men! There is a difference between tradition that we are supposed to keep, and customs which are cultural.

Holy Tradition is the faith itself, of which The Orthodox Catholic Church is the rightful guardian of. We have been around since the start. No protestant church can make this claim.


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Only back temporarily. Then gone for good. This is the only monastery I have been at with cell reception. I still have been using my phone to coordinate travel arrangements and talk to my councils. I am eager to finally be able to put it down. Since I am about to become a novice, that time is soon. I figure I could at least share here some before then. Being in monasteries this whole time has helped me to mature pretty quickly. A healthy monastery is a good place for healing. Maybe polemics isn't the best thing for me to go off with, but Hopefully it will be edifying.

The Orthodox Catholic Church is not a denomination. The creed professes One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That being the case, a denomination is by definition not catholic. A denomination is by definition a division. Catholic means whole, complete, without division. A schism doesn't divide the church. Schismatics leave the church. The church is unharmed.

If you read what the ancient church fathers write about what the church looks like and how it operates on Earth, the only church that even resembles this is one church. Protestants don't even have the same understanding of salvation as the historical church. They don't have the same understanding of grace. Why, protestants don't even have apostolic succession, something the ancient church pointed to as onenof the identifying marks of the church. Where are the bishops? Where are the priests? Even the denominations that have them lack apostolic authority. Even the form of worship is alien to the ancient church. How many of these churches even have altars? How is it that when one reads the canons of the ecumenical councils, it becomes clear that no protestant church meets even the basic qualifications to be considered a church?

The fact of the matter is, protestants are playing pretend church. Most of my life was spent in protestant/evangelical Christian world. I am familiar with it. You are not familiar with Orthodox Christianity. After tasting the real thing, I could never go back. It is not possible for you to understand what you are missing, because you don't have the real thing to compare what you have to.

You say it matters little that people know next to nothing about early Christianity, but this is a ridiculous thing to say. It is important because it destroys the protestant narrative and makes it clearer that the way the ancient church fathers understood the church is in line with how we, The Orthodox Catholic Church do. Why is that? Because it is the same church.

The Orthodox Church did not break away from the Roman Church. It wasn't that we couldn't live in peace because we couldn't reconcile in Christ. You don't know the history behind what happened. Why am I Orthodox instead of Roman Catholic? Because when I started to serious study church history on my own it became clear that what I was taught beforehand was wrong. Rome was unambigiously on the wrong side of the issue, and they were the ones who broke away from the church. This happened because even back then they were heretics. After the schism, the rate at which they innovated only accelerated.

I suggest you listen to the playlist in the OP as the first part of it shows how quickly Roman Catholicism deviated from the common piety of the church of the first millenium.

Luther was a heretic who violated his vows of monasticism, married a nun, made corrupt translations that altered what scripture said in order to back his bad theology, and if he were alive today to see the state of the church that bears his name, he would be LIVID. His only saving grace is that he was right about one thing... Roman Catholicism had slid into heresy. That is why they aren't Orthodox! John Calvin is even worse, he was a monster who believed in a monster God!

The Orthodox Church does not reject the authority of scriptures, in fact, we read a great deal more bible in our church than any protestant church I have ever been to. We are supposed to read the bible every day. If you read a pamphlet on confession, not reading the bible everyday is even something to confess! The monks at the monastery I am at now are required to at least a chapter of the New Testament a day, not including what is read in church. In the course of a week, we go through the entire book of psalms in church. The bible was also compiled by us. If it wasn't for The Orthodox Church, you would not have a bible.

The Protestant Churches do not all agree on things. Such an opinion only comes from a lack of attention to detail. They can't even agree on fundamental things like the nature of the eucharist, or whether we have free will or not. The one thing they have in common? They are all heterodox, and none of them is the historical church.

You are correct in identifying this humanistic spirit. You are also correct that a longing for classical age of past helped fuel this. What you don't see is that all of this resulted from the deviations that the Latin church had made from Orthodoxy. An over reliance on reason and romanticism. All of this is shown and traced through the playlist I posted in the OP.

Where did the anti-Christianity come from? Eventually reason and romanticism detached itself from the heretical form of Christianity that held it back, eventually even rejected God. Anti-Christianity in the modern sense comes from an apostasy from Christianity. The seeds of this apostasy were sown in the forms of Christianity that these currents ultimately ended up rejecting. The playlist I posted goes through the history of this very well.

The Orthodox Church is easily the most conservative church there is, we still practice a liturgy that is well over a millenium and a half years old. Have you ever been to an Orthodox Church? There is absolutely no adapting to the modern age, rather, the modern age has produced more martyrs of the church than all of the rest of history combined. To add insult to injury, protestants not only aren't with the chirch but arrogantly try to prosletyze us like to count our martyrs and slain as their own. Yet secretely they hate us. The proof is in how many converts have been disowned by their friends and families simply for becoming Orthodox. Even I have been through this! It is very common. I lost almost all my old church friends. Not even for anything I have done. My brother has disowned me. For what? Because they all hate Orthodoxy. It is not unlike those people who say, "I have no problem with such and such lifestyle", but as soon as their child gets into it, oh no!

Considering The Orthodox Church all but did away with the polytheism of the ancient world, having cast out the demons of ancient Egyptian and Greek religion, your claim that we are polytheists is laughably stupid. We are not polytheists. This is a ridiculous and ignorant claim. Christians were accused of being atheists, and were slain for it. Who accuses us of being polytheists? Muslims. Why do they do this? Because they in their ignorance take our Trinity as being 3 Gods. The Church fathers write quite a bit about how this is a mistaken belief, even before the rise of Islam.

The Orthodox Church is the church that remembers, honors, and studies the church fathers. We know what the early church taught because we are that same church! The oldest protestant church hasn't even been around but for a few hundred years. They have no memory of history. They in vain try to reconstruct the church from the crumbs that manage to fall of the church's table. Not only is what they do vain and impossible, but they in turn end up being used as a tool for Satan to act as a stumbling block for those who would otherwise find The Church. Protestants are the reason we have atheists in the modern age. Listen to the playlist! It shows a very clear tragectory that is the natural consequence of western Christianity's deviation from the true faith. Everything about what is going on today could have been predicted at the time of the schism, because there is a natural path these things take!

Now look, Nihilism has overtaken the world, and where are it's roots? The apostasy of western man from Christianity caused by an over reliance on reason, frivilous romanticism, and PRIDE.


Where do you get this idea that Orthodoxy connects with the modern masses? Ours is the only viable worldview that stands in opposition to modernism.

Why are you offended at how we interpret the bible? You can find typological interpretation of the Old Testament even in the new. The interpretations we have for the bible come from the ancient church. This is how they interpreted the bible. Oh, not exclusively. But you don't really know how we use scripture, because you are not Orthodox. Neither have you ever been catechuminized. If you get your information from heretics, do you really think it is possible for you to come to truth? Of course not.

Who is the head of The Orthodox Catholic Church? Jesus Christ. Why is it that the Roman Catholic Church is in heresy? Because they made the bishop of Rome head of the church! If you read the writings from the time of the schism, this is one of the reasons why the schism happened!

Protestants? They aren't in the church, therefore the head of their faith isn't Christ. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Make no mistake, we do not share the same faith. Protestants don't even share faith. It is a house divided against itself. Look at those churches who pray with Muslims, who embrace sodomy, who think worship is throwing a rock concert, who have disgarded the altar for a pulpit. A total mockery of real Christianity. You share faith with these people? Protestants don't even know how to pray. There are some who babble in gibberish and call it speaking in tounges. Like some atheist's parody of my faith!

When you protestants debate atheists, you use the same reasonings your ancestors used that created modern atheism in the first place! These atheists can't tell the difference between real Christianity and heresy. To them, heterodox and orthodox are the same.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
@Tradesecret
@Theweakeredge
Look, Merlin up there and the weaker edge are so confused he says I committing a no true scottsman fallacy. He doesn't understand that you aren't a Christian if you aren't in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Any claim is just as valid as any other! That is where we are now. Self identification is proof of identity. To say no true doctor lacks a doctorate is a fallacy. To say no true man has a uterus is a fallacy. This is the age we are in now. It is absolutely the result of western Christianity's apostasy. Because once God is dead, I am God! Reality is what I can get away with! There is no absolute truth! The age of Nihilism is here! Absurd, isn't it?

There was a time when there was no confusion about this. To the question, "Are you a Christian?" The first in response would be "Where you baptised and/or Chrismated into the the church?" If the answer is "no" that means you are not a true Christian.


Protestant ecclesiology is an outright attack against the church. They are working for anti-Christ without even knowing it.