Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (12926)	6/7/2007 6:37:35 PM
From: Cyprian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

Cyprian, thanks again for your explanation of what is a very complex subject especially to someone like myself who now begins to understand a little about it for the first time. The key to it all is, of course, the split which occurred in the Church of Rome around 400 AD with one branch going off to Constantinople. That branch as I understand it is the root of the Orthodox Christian movement. Dear Mr. Sennett, No, I am afraid you are still mistaken. 1) There is no such thing as an Orthodox Christian "movement". The Orthodox Catholic Church is the Church of the New Testament. No other body calling itself the "Church" can make this claim with any validity. Christ said, "I will build my Church" (singular). He did not say, I will build my "Churches" (plural). There can only be One true Church of Christ. As I said, all true Christians who are orthodox and catholic in their belief must adhere to the Holy Creed, where we confess (in part): "In one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:4-6) The trumpet of God, the holy Apostle Paul, says without equivocation: "There is one body" (Eph 4:4) What does the mouthpiece of God St. Paul say in his Epistle to the Colossians? "And He is the head of the body, the Church" (Col 1.18) St. Paul says that there is ONE body. Then he says that the body is the Church. Therefore he is saying that there is ONE Church (body). If Christ is the head of the body, how can there be two bodies? One head for two bodies, three bodies, four bodies? Whoever heard of such a thing? One head for One body. The Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Creed are explicitly clear. There is ONE Faith -- not two, or three, or four, or four thousand different denominations and sects all calling themselves the Church. One Faith means that the Church cannot have opposing doctrines within it. Christ's Church is "a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing" and is "holy and without blemish." So all these thousands of denominations and sects which do not agree on doctrine or practice of the Faith (such as the hundreds of organic members of that Antichrist organization styled the "World Council of Churches"), cannot be the true Church.

To: sea_urchin who wrote (12926)	6/7/2007 7:25:12 PM
From: Cyprian	Respond to of 22250

The key to it all is, of course, the split which occurred in the Church of Rome around 400 AD with one branch going off to Constantinople. That branch as I understand it is the root of the Orthodox Christian movement. Christ's Holy Church cannot be split or divided, for: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" (Matthew 12:25) No Christian would ever proclaim that Christ's Holy Church will ever be brought to desolation or fall. Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers tried to say that Christ's Church had fallen, but they were not Christians, but enemies of Christianity. Christ's Church abides forever. For Christ our true God promises us: "I will build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it." and... "lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the age. Amen." Christ will never abandon his Church. Therefore She never needs "reforming" like that heresiarch Martin Luther supposed and all those Protestants who follow his delusions. The Roman Empire was already divided into East and West at the time Constantine the Great was proclaimed Caesar of Gaul and Britannia. It was in 324 A.D. that he was made sole Emperor over the Roman Empire, and subsequent to this he chose to shift the seat of the Empire from Rome in the West to Byzantium in the East. "polis" means city in Greek, so Constantinopolis means the "city of Constantine". Indiana-polis obviously would mean the city of Indiana. Another example would be the word "Metro-polis". In English we simply shorten it a bit and say Constantinople. The fact that the seat of the Roman Empire changed did not mean the Faith changed in any way. Christ's Holy Church was in existence long before the time of St. Constantine, and will abide forever. As I said, Rome was Orthodox and Catholic for several centuries after Constantine the Great died. There are many Orthodox Popes all the way up to the 11th century. This does not mean that every Pope is automatically Orthodox until the 11th century. There have been many heretical Patriarchs/Popes throughout the history of the Church, from both East and West. Nestorius was a famous heresiarch who was Patriarch of Constantinople in the 5th century. He was deposed and anathematized. The pseudo-Patriarchs of the Oecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), have all been heretics for the past 80+ years. The holy Emperor Constantine went to his blessed repose in 337 A.D. on the day of Pentecost. He was buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles.

To: sea_urchin who wrote (12926)	6/7/2007 8:01:28 PM
From: Cyprian	Respond to of 22250

That branch as I understand it is the root of the Orthodox Christian movement. Jesus Christ is called "the Branch" (c.f. Zechariah 3.9). He is also the root of the Church, not some sort of "movement". The ancient holy Fathers used to refer to Christ's Holy Church both as "orthodox" (right-believing) and "catholic" (lacking nothing/universal). They are both Greek words that are used to describe the nature of Christ's Church. Both appellations apply only to Holy Church. The Papists have no right to being called "Catholic", because they do not hold to the universal teaching of Christ's Holy Church, and to be "catholic" means to be lacking nothing. Well after the Latins departed from Christ's Church they are lacking EVERYTHING, because they no longer have Christ as their Head, but rather have substituted a "vicar of Christ" the Pope in his stead. Christ said, "without me ye can do nothing." Well the Papists do not have Christ, therefore they can do nothing pleasing to God. Therefore they are lacking everything, and are not catholic. The only reason you won't hear many Orthodox call themselves Catholics is because they don't want to confuse anyone and cause them to believe we have anything to do with the Satanic Papacy of nearly the last 1,000 years. The Jews have attempted to usurp the term Orthodox for themselves as well. The Greek word "orthos" means upright, straight, true, or right. As in an Ortho-dontist makes your teeth true or straight or upright. An Ortho-pedic surgeon attempts to straighten children's bones to make them stand upright or straight. "Doxa" in Greek means "glory" or "praise" or "confession". So Orthodoxia could be said to mean "upright glory", "true praise", "right confession" or something akin to this. An Orthodontist tries to "correct" the crookedness of your teeth. An Orthopedic surgeon tries to "correct" the crookedness of a child's bones or spine. Orthotics which people put inside their shoes try to "correct" a problem with the curvature of their feet. So in a sense it could also be said that Orthodox could be said to mean "correct belief", "correct glory", "correct confession", "correct praise". However you wish to render this compound Greek word into English, none of this applies to the Christ-denying Jews. There is nothing correct or upright about their confession or praise or glory, seeing how they deny the Son of God. So the Papists have no right to call themselves "catholics", and the Jews have no right to the term "orthodox". Only Christ's Holy church is Orthodox and Catholic. One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Amen.

To: sea_urchin who wrote (12926)	6/7/2007 8:25:03 PM
From: Cyprian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

I can see now why Orthodox Christians regard the other "Christians" as imposters and I can also see how, once the church has meddled in the "official" doctrine there's no end to it as we see, for example, with the Zionistic Scofield Bible and with homosexuals and women being ordained as priests. In this you are quite correct. Once you deny the universal tradition which serves as the basis for the belief of the Church, there is no end to the splits, divisions, arguments, and changing of doctrines to suit one's self. True Orthodox Christians are very jealous of Holy Tradition, and will zealously defend the teachings passed down to us by our forefathers. Christ's Church does not need reforming. Christ set it up perfectly at the start. "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 1.3) The Faith was delivered perfectly once to the saints nearly 2,000 years ago. Nothing was lacking in Christ's Church and no secret doctrines needed discovering by innovative-minded people. What is needed is to preserve the traditions that were given by Christ to the Holy Apostles, not invent some new-fangled doctrine or interpretation that no one had held before. The Papists changed or perverted the traditions, much like the Pharisees had done. Protestants developed an irrational and thoughtless response to these false traditions introduced by the Papists. Over time many of them have denied Holy Tradition all together. They have thrown out the baby with the bath water so-to-speak. Others have simply replaced false Papist doctrine with their own man-made traditions. When Martin Luther became disillusioned with the new and innovative traditions of the Papists (he was right about that much), he was in contact with the Orthodox. Instead of returning to the bosom of Holy Church and her God-ordained traditions, he chose to follow a different path. "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:30) Instead of humble submission to the true Church, Martin Luther spoke perverse things so that he could draw away disciples after himself, and make his name great. Well people still call themselves Lutherans to this day, testifying of themselves that they follow Luther and not Christ.

To: sea_urchin who wrote (12926)	6/7/2007 8:33:47 PM
From: Cyprian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

It also stands to reason that the non-Orthodox "Christians" must regard the Orthodox as threats to their existence and I'm sure that over the years they must have tried to persecute them. It's also clear to me that the non-Orthodox "Christians" are always ready to change their principles in order to participate in the power politics of the day as we see for example in Britain, with the Anglican Church, and in the US, with the Evangelists. You are right about all this as well. The Orthodox have been persecuted by Jews, Mohammedans, Pagans, Papists and Protestants over the last 2,000 years. Satan will use any tactic he can to try to destroy all of mankind. Stirring up evil-minded men to create false religions so as to cause conflict is his modus operandi. But pious Orthodox Christians (which I am not) don't mind persecution! Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. --2 Timothy 3:12-13)