Replies

Well, it seems to be you that is moving all over the place

Really? Because I never did I suggest the scriptures were generated ar random or had no purpose? That really makes lot of sense (not!).

So Chrysostom is incorrect?

In his assertion that "In holy Scripture we read the words of the Prophets and Apostles precisely as if we were living with them ..." — yes.

Each man was revealed what happened by the Holy Spirit and wrote under His inspiration

The favorite "escape clause" when logic fails, isn't it?

You just reject the Inspiration of Scripture

Only when it is used by others as an excuse to "prove" their point.

Christianity does not depend on oral tradition...

Wrong again. Christ didn't write anything (except in the sand), and His disciples preached for many years before anything was written down by them (take +John, he wrote at the end of the 1st century, and all this time he had to have preached by word of mouth only). I would call that "oral tradition."

We are not discussing what he regarded as scripture, only that scripture were to be trusted as the perfect revelation of God.

The revelation may be perfect, just like the soul God gives us is flawless. Somewhere along the line it becomes "less flawless."

We were not talking about Chrysostom in that regard, we are talking about the theologians who made up your Catechism which I cited

Every Orthodox so-called 'catechism' I read was different. The EOC does NOT have an official 'catechism.'

Chrysostom was a bible-believer who believed that God had given us Scriptures that ought to be believed and obeyed. That is something that you clearly reject

I reject robotoic obedience to something that was obviously havily tainted with human fancy, agendas, and errors. If we had the originals, that would be a different story.

I reject robotoic obedience to something that was obviously havily tainted with human fancy, agendas, and errors. If we had the originals, that would be a different story.

I know Quix pointed this out earlier, but that is funny coming from a Catholic. You see the Scriptures tainted with human fancy, but not the oral traditions that you base your worship on.

I realize that I jumped into this discussion late, so I may be missing some key arguments. I find it amazing for anyone who has ever played "telephone" to place more faith in oral traditions over the written word that strengthened the first Christians.

Without the Scriptures as the base for our beliefs, then you have to rely on man's (even if it's a group of men over time) intuition. Man's idea's of what is right changes with time.

You may feel fine with standing before God and saying something like, "I didn't believe the earliest writings (Scripture) were good enough to base all my beliefs in. Rather, I found that writings hundreds of years later, that were passed down orally, were better." I certainly won't go that route.

Sincerely

I reject robotoic obedience to something that was obviously havily tainted with human fancy, agendas, and errors. If we had the originals, that would be a different story.

Perhaps I'm beginning to get a glimmer of something.

Earnest efforts at faithful obedience to Scriptures God has clearly protected SUFFICIENTLY for our fruitful edification is slavish mindless robotism.

But rote, lock-step, often obviously very slavish and mindless unquestioning robotism . . . reading preprinted magicsterical prayers, preprinted, predigested everything-- IN THE SERVICE OF THE MAGICSTERICAL and TRADITIONS OF MEN is pretty good alright--even elevated holy and super righteous compared to those evil idiot mindless robot Protesties.

ROTFLOL BLTTM [Belly Laugh To The Max] FOMCLOL [Falling Off My Chair Laughing Out Loud] ROTFLMHO [Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Head Off] ITTM [Incredulous To The Max] GTTM [Guffaws To The Max] SHSMEACAB [Shaking Head So Much Ears Are Creating A Breeze] SHSMIHCBFMLN [Shaking Head So Much I Have Cheek Bruises From My Long Nose]

Sometimes, it seems like the MAGICSTERICAL has destroyed all it's mirrors and erased the whole notion of personal insight from it's rubber dictionary and from it's experience. Then it's rushed out and mind melded that reality on all the serfs. Amazing. Yet the Protesties are the robots. GTTM! SHSMIHCBFMLN

I thought parochial schools taught logical thinking. Maybe they gave it up for lent. LOL.

Sigh.

Well, it seems to be you that is moving all over the place Really? Because I never did I suggest the scriptures were generated ar random or had no purpose? That really makes lot of sense (not!).

Well, if God gave the Scripture and they are not the inventions of men, they ought to contain that same authority as God Himself.

So Chrysostom is incorrect? In his assertion that "In holy Scripture we read the words of the Prophets and Apostles precisely as if we were living with them ..." — yes.

Well, then don't go around citing Church Fathers as authority equal to Scripture then since they are all wrong about something!

Each man was revealed what happened by the Holy Spirit and wrote under His inspiration The favorite "escape clause" when logic fails, isn't it?

What logic have you displayed?

I see a lack of faith, but no logic.

The Scripture itself says that is 'given by Inspiration of God (2Tim.3:16) see also 2Pe.1:21 and Heb.4:12.

You just reject the Inspiration of Scripture Only when it is used by others as an excuse to "prove" their point.

What point is that-that they are from God?

Christianity does not depend on oral tradition... Wrong again. Christ didn't write anything (except in the sand), and His disciples preached for many years before anything was written down by them (take +John, he wrote at the end of the 1st century, and all this time he had to have preached by word of mouth only). I would call that "oral tradition."

What God wanted for the generations following the Apostles, He made sure got written and that is why we don't depend on 'oral tradition' for anything.

We have it in writing.

You just use 'oral tradition' as an excuse to reject what is written.

We are not discussing what he regarded as scripture, only that scripture were to be trusted as the perfect revelation of God. The revelation may be perfect, just like the soul God gives us is flawless. Somewhere along the line it becomes "less flawless."

Not if God promised to preserve it (Ps.12:6-7)

We are born in corruption, the word was given as pure and preserved even though sinful men attempted to corrupt it with false texts (Aleph and B) and the LXX.

We were not talking about Chrysostom in that regard, we are talking about the theologians who made up your Catechism which I cited Every Orthodox so-called 'catechism' I read was different. The EOC does NOT have an official 'catechism.'

It shows that the Orthodox theologicans disagree among themselves on the subject of scripture so stop throwing out your red herring nonsense about 'Protestant bias'.

Chrysostom was a bible-believer who believed that God had given us Scriptures that ought to be believed and obeyed. That is something that you clearly reject I reject robotoic obedience to something that was obviously havily tainted with human fancy, agendas, and errors. If we had the originals, that would be a different story.

Which means you have no authority except your own opinion which makes you a god in your own eyes. (Gen.3)