Free Republic

I don’t think James White makes that argument. I think he makes the argument that it is a medieval insertion into some Greek Manuscripts *based* on the Vulgate. If you have a video in which he says something to the contrary, post the link, but I have listened to him talk about many times, and don’t recall him disputing that it goes way back in the Latin tradition.

St. Paul doesn’t talk about it in relationship to childbirth in this passage either, because that is not the question being addressed.

We first find the statement that the people of God are a kingdom of priests in the Old Testament: “And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:6). And yet this did not mean that there was not a distinct early priesthood with unique duties that others could not take on themselves. The first Baptists we find in Scripture are Dathan and Abiram:

“They gathered together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”” (Numbers 16:3).

See the rest of that chapter to see how that turned out.

And here is the specific quote from St. Ignatius on the Eucharist:

“6:2 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine
touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us,
how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They
have no care for love, none for the widow, none for
the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the
prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain
from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they
allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our
sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up” (To the Smyrneans). http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html

I am aware of the use the terms bishop and presbyter in the New Testament, but it is still a fact that you clearly have three levels of authority in the Church in the New Testament (Apostle, Presbyter/Bishop, Deacon) and you clearly have three levels of authority in the post Apostolic Church — only that the successors of the Apostles did not take the title “apostle” to themselves, but the term bishop came to be applied exclusively to the first level of authority, and “Presbyter” came to be applied exclusively to the second level. The functions, however, remained unchanged.

In the New Testament, the terms “bishop” and “Presbyter” (”priest” being nothing but an English derivation of “Presbyter”) are often used in more loose terms. For example, St. John the Apostle refers to himself as “The Elder” (Presbyter). But there were clearly three levels of authority in the Church: 1. Apostles; 2. Presbyters/Bishops; 3 Deacons. By the time of St. Ignatius (who was disciple of the Apostle John, and who was martyred in 112 a.d.), the terminology crystalized to the forms we now know them. The term bishop was already being used exclusively for those who were successors to the Apostles, and who had the highest level of authority, then you had Presbyters, who function like sub-bishops. Their primary role is to serve as representatives of the bishop, in the bishop’s absence, but when the bishop is present, their roles (both liturgical and administrative) are greatly reduced and subordinated, and then you still have the deacons.

If you read St. Ignatius’ Epistles, this is very clear. These epistles were considered Scripture by many in the early Church, and so are very important, even if they eventually were not included among the books of the New Testament. He was the first bishop of Antioch after the Apostles, and that city was the first center of Christianity after Jerusalem, and so his position in the early Church was highly regarded.

You will also find that he clearly states that the Eucharist really is the body and blood of Christ, and that no group can be call a Church if it does not have a bishop, with priests and deacons. Furthermore, he says that no one who follows another into a schism will inherit the Kingdom of God, and no one who follows heretical doctrine’s is “on the side of the Passion.”

The Church has Christ as its head, and the Holy Spirit as its guide.

The Church on earth is the visible continuation of that body which Christ established, and which has a shared faith and whose members are in communion with one another. It has Bishops, priests, and deacons which guide it, and it upholds the Apostolic Faith and Tradition. It is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

And actually, the treatise I linked to does define the Church, but you do have to read it. There is a lot more here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_church.aspx

Actually, I have studied Hebrew, and I can assure you that you don’t know what you are talking about. But you could educate yourself a bit, if you would read what is found on this page: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/prostration_heb.aspx

Actually, Protestantism is the flip side of Papism. It is democratic papism. Yes, we both agree that there is only one Church, and disagree on which one is that Church. Perhaps you have to decide whether you think Papism is more likely to be that Church. I think not, and the fact that Papism spawned Protestantism is evidence that supports my conclusion.

So you apparently think that authority and organization in the Church perished with the last apostle. The Church, on the other hand, believes that the Apostles appointed successors — namely, the Bishops, and that these bishops continued to have authority over the Church. You can read about this in the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John. And for my on my view of the Church, see “On the Unity of the Church,” by St. Cyprian of Carthage, who was martyred in about the year 258:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html

This picture of the pope is a picture of something that Orthodox Christians do not do.

Sometimes people are loose in the way they speak about such things, but no Orthodox Christian believes that they can ask an icon to do something. They can ask the person depicted in the icon to do something, and that is what they in fact do.

It is clear that you have never studied Hebrew, and don’t know how to access lexical resources that would explain the meaning of the word in question. Because it literally means “to bow”. It is often translated as “worship”, but this is really a looser translation of the word, though depending on the context, it may or may not be a bad way of putting it into English.

The Church has preserved Apostolic Tradition. Furthermore, the Scriptures make no claim that Scripture alone is authoritative, and so to assert the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is to assert a doctrine that contradicts itself.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word [i.e. oral tradition] or our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15).

The word here translated “traditions” is the Greek word paradosis — which, though translated differently in some Protestant versions, is the same word that the Greek Orthodox use when speaking of Tradition, and few competent Bible scholars would dispute this meaning. The word itself literally means “what is transmitted.” It is the same word used when referring negatively to the false teachings of the Pharisees (Mark 7:3, 5, 8), and also when referring to authoritative Christian teaching (I Corinthians 11:2, Second Thessalonians 2:15). So what makes the tradition of the Pharisees false and that of the Church true? The source! Christ made clear what was the source of the traditions of the Pharisees when He called them “the traditions of men” (Mark 7:8). Saint Paul on the other hand, in reference to Christian Tradition states, “I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and hold fast to the traditions [paradoseis] just as I delivered [paredoka, a verbal form of paradosis] them to you” (First Corinthians 11:2), but where did he get these traditions in the first place? “I received from the Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to you” (first Corinthians 11:23). This is what the Orthodox Church refers to when it speaks of the Apostolic Tradition — “the Faith once delivered [paradotheise] unto the saints” (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all that He said and did, which if it all were all written down, “the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowledge to the entire Church, and the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became “the pillar and ground of the Truth” (I Timothy 3:15).

The testimony of the New Testament is clear on this point: the early Christians had both oral and written traditions which they received from Christ through the Apostles. For written tradition they at first had only fragments — one local church had an Epistle, another perhaps a Gospel. Gradually these writings were gathered together into collections and ultimately they became the New Testament. And how did these early Christians know which books were authentic and which were not — for (as already noted) there were numerous spurious epistles and gospels claimed by heretics to have been written by Apostles? It was the oral Apostolic Tradition that aided the Church in making this determination.

I’ve given you the evidence. You just don’t seem to be willing to be swayed by Scripture. There is no question that the Scriptures speaking of bowing before the Ark, and people prayed before it. It’s in the Bible.

You have a confused understanding of the Church. Christ taught that if you had ought against your brother, you should ultimately take it to the Church. If you are Protestant, what Church would that be? How would that work when everyone does what seems right in their own eyes? Why would the Apostle John be under the impression that local Churches had to recognize his authority, and could not just do whatever the hell they wanted to, if there is no visible, united, authoritative Church?

I am not a Roman Catholic. I don’t know about them, but the clergy venerate the Gospels several times at just about every service. The people venerate the Gospels at Sunday Matins.

The Israelites bowed before the Ark because it was the footstool of God’s feet. That’s what the Bible tell us.

A ridiculous claim. There was a time when the vast majority of people were illiterate, and iconography was especially instructive for such people.

Also, I see no evidence in Scripture that only Scripture is authoritative. In fact, I see evidence in Scripture of just the opposite. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2, which both speak about Christian Tradition as being authoritative, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 specifically endorses oral Tradition.

By the way, further proof that Psalm 99 is talking about the Ark is found in Psalm 132:7-8:

“We will go into his tabernacles: we will worship at his footstool. Arise, O LORD, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength.”

We tell people in the Church to repent all the time, but the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is its head. The gates of hell cannot prevail against it, and so the Church is infallible by virtue of the fact that it is Christ’s body and is guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures tell us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth.

So if it is not idolatry, then what is your problem with it? Clearly the problem with those who were rebuked was not with the bowing, but with erroneous beliefs that needed to be corrected.