You and I both know there are pronouncements that have been made by the Orthodox Church that supercedes the scriptures. The conversation we once had about bishops being married comes to mind.
Eventually, yes they did, but only because those scriptures were in accord with what The Church always and everywhere believed.
Of course. But what that means is there were some things the Church had disputes about. It is these disputed areas that never were meant to be considered inspirational. The reason the Orthodox and eventually the Protestants left was simply because of these disputed areas.
2000, but who’s counting, right?
Well, I took a bit of liberty here but assuming our Lord was crucified around 25AD and the church was formed shortly thereafter, I would suggest I'm a bit closer with stating 2100 years than you are in stating 2000. But I'll split the difference and say 2050 years. ;O)
HD, we wrote the Nicene Creed and recite it as it was adopted by the Council every Sunday. Where did you get this odd idea?
Oh, I thought the fillique was in dispute. Was this resolved recently? ;O) That NT you folks thump was put together by bishops who worshipped God and spoke about and believed about God the exact same way we Orthodox of today do. You people don’t. Now you may believe things about the bible, but you don;t believe what the men who assembled it believed....What I am curious about is WHY that doesn’t bother you.
I would suggest the early western fathers were very much Reformers. After all, I got my views from reading them-not Calvin.
“The reason the Orthodox and eventually the Protestants left was simply because of these disputed areas.”
The Orthodox have never “left”, HD. We’re right where we have been for the past 2050 years. :)
“Oh, I thought the fillique was in dispute. Was this resolved recently? ;O)”
As a matter of fact the filioque is no longer considered “normative” by the Latins. In any event, the filioque was a later Western innovation which you Protestants picked up from your Latin parent. Orthodoxy recites the Creed as the council established it.
“I would suggest the early western fathers were very much Reformers.”
Oh...Greek speaking Western Fathers?
You are mixing discipline with theology. We don't believe God ordained bishops to be celibate based on what St. Paul had to say about chastity. They were his commandments, not commandments of God, in his own words.
The Orthodox did not leave because they changed nothing. They believe what they believed what the Church believed when it canonized the Bible, and they worship how they worshiped when the Church canonized the Bible, 1700 years ago.
Well, I took a bit of liberty here but assuming our Lord was crucified around 25AD and the church was formed shortly thereafter, I would suggest I'm a bit closer with stating 2100 years than you are in stating 2000. But I'll split the difference and say 2050 years
Our Lord was crucified in 33 AD (this is determined by the Jewish lunar calendar), sabbtarian (who believe it was 30 AD by the same method) notwithstanding.
It doesn;t take rocket scientist to figure out that 2008-33 is 1,975 years ago. Even after your "compromise" you are still off by 75 years. the exact 2,000 years will be in 2033.
The Church was formed not "shortly" after that but at Pentecost, 40 days after the Resurrection. The Church taught and preached without the written New Testament. That by itself invalidates "sola scriptura" as pure superstition.
Oh, I thought the fillique was in dispute. Was this resolved recently
The filioque was not an issue until the Photian Council in the 9th century, and that was (eventually) resolved in Photius' favor. Thus the filioque did not become a thorn until it was actually added by the Pope at the insistence of his Frankish protectors in the 11th century.
Again the Orthodox did not add or change anything, save make pronouncements to clarify what the Church always and everywhere believed in the face of heresies and deputes through Ecumenical Councils.
The Church rejected and still rejects the filioque and will forever unto ages and ages reject it as a unilateral change that does not correctly express the divine, and sole origin of the Spirit, as coming into eternal existence from one and only source, the Father.
That's different form rejecting the whole Creed, HD!
I would suggest the early western fathers were very much Reformers. After all, I got my views from reading them-not Calvin.
You are reading them the way Protestants read St. Paul. Orthodoxy is lex orandi lex credendi: we believe how we worship. We have an unchanged divine liturgy dating back to the times when the Church actually canonized the Bible, so we have reliable reference that we can go back to and verify that, 1,700 years ago, the priests were chanting the same service (the fixed part) they chanted every Sunday for the past 1,700 years.
What do you have? KJV?