Unstructured Thread...

[Isa_Almisry]

more evidence.

In Isaiah 22

“I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David.” “I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.”

Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister.
When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that’s why Eliakim is called to fill it.

does this ring a bell to you?

John Paul II

“The NT is concealed on the OT. and OT is revealed on the NT.”

the keys of the kingdom could not have been given to all the apostle specially with judas in there.

let me know if you need more light of the truth.

denial does not mean a person doesnt believe, it means only that a person refuse to acnowledge.

.

Ah, yes. Look at your Douay-Rheims official version of the Bible, and its treatment of the passage in question. It was written your church at the time of your Reformation. It says nothing connecting Isaiah to Mattew 16, and specifically indentifies Eliakim as a type of Christ.

I’m not impressed by exegesis that doesn’t predate the Reformation. I’ll stick to that the Ecumenical Fathers passed on.

Btw, look a little further: it says that Eliakim will be a broken off peg. Do you apply that too to the papacy?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

More prove.

At the Council in Jerusalem it is reported that Acts 15:7 "After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them,

“My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe…”
Immediately after Peter gives his decision. "The whole assembly fell silent…

James responded, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name… 19 It is my ** judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.
It was James people who had a problem with the gentiles.

The text does not say that. Look again in Acts, to St. Paul’s return, when St. James has him pay for the fulling of the Hebrews’ vows, for further insight.

 

[wisdomseeker]

wisdomseeker;3278743:

If you would like to start a thread on converts–since you are posting on Soloviev and Chrysostom Frank–go right ahead. There are many Roman and Eastern Catholic converts to Holy Orthodoxy.

you missed the point.
i am not talking about coverts.

Are they lying?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Wow! Many posts since I last visited. I do not indulge in the internet on weekends.

I think I’m going to adopt your wisdom.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yawwwwn!

Good morning people.

Uh…Petros and Petras are modern Greek (not Koine Greek).

Those words don’t appear in The Holy Bible.

Petros is Koine. And it appears several times in the Bible. Off hand I am not sure of Petras.

So, where were we?

Oh yes…where is The Orthodox Church mentioned in history prior to th 11th century?

The Second Ecumenical Council at the latest, as has been proven.

Oh…I STILL “appreciate” this picture!

Who are the hierarchs? Are they those who have already bowed to Rome?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Actually, no.

I had originally used another Augustine quote to replace the last one,
(out of the dozens where he condemns those who leave
The Catholic Church in headquartered in Rome).

But above all of that, I think that this quote is one of the best to truly represent what Christianity has always known.

Don’t you think?

What, not know who your bishops are, as Optatus doesn’t? Not true Christianity at all. As I stated, even your New Advant article on Optatus admits he gives an incorrect list.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

not only that. they have failed to post one single quote of the fathers mentioning anything about the chair of peter being moved from rome to any place else other than rome.

Avignon.

Feast of February 22, pre Vatican II.

 

[2ndGen]

What, not know who your bishops are, as Optatus doesn’t? Not true Christianity at all. As I stated, even your New Advant article on Optatus admits he gives an incorrect list.

Again…“Don’t you think?”

 

[wisdomseeker]

So your are denying the God-bearing Fathers, who were appointed by the Apostles and carried on their mission, and their teachings?

my dear, it truly amazes me your lack of understanding. i simply stated the Words of Jesus Himself.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Are you claiming Soloviev as one of your own? That’s fine.
Check this out.

“In the 1880’s we see a different approach to this question. V. S. Soloviev, who supported the union of Orthodoxy with the Roman Church, desiring to justify the dogmatic development of the Roman Church defended the idea of the development of the Church’s dogmatic consciousness. He argues thus: “The Body of Christ changes and is perfected” like every organism; the original “basis” of faith is uncovered and clarified in the history of Christianity; “Orthodoxy stands not merely by antiquity, but by the eternally living Spirit of God.”Soloviev was inspired to defend the point of view of “development” not only by his sympathies for the Roman church, but also by his own religious-philosophical outlook — his ideas on Sophia, the wisdom of God, on God-manhood as a historical process, etc. Carried along by his own metaphysical system, Soloviev in the 1890’s began to put forth the teaching of the “eternal feminine,” which, he says, “is not merely an inactive image in God’s mind, but a living spiritual being which possesses all the fullness of power and action. **The whole process of the world and history is the process of its realization and incarnation in a great multiplicity of forms and degrees… The heavenly object of our love is only one, and it is always and for everyone one and the same, the eternal Femininity of God.” **(Soloviev’s ideas might be superficially compared to the “women’s liberation” of today, whose latest attempt in religious circles has been to “desex” the Bible and remove all references to the “masculine” nature of God. Today’s movement, however, does not really touch on philosophy or theology, remaining a movement primarily of social “liberation”; whereas Soloviev’s thought is more serious, being a kind of resurrection of ancient Gnostic philosophy. Both of them, however, are equally outlandish in the forms their ideas take, and both are agreed in seeing a necessity to change traditional Christian dogmas and expressions.)

---

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky

Ah, the problems when you don’t examine your sources. Find out who you are associating with first “wisdom.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Mickey;3278765:

you missed the point.
i am not talking about coverts.

Are they lying?

Perhaps the anonymous author of your letter is just misguided.

 

[2ndGen]

Off hand I am not sure of Petras.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Ah, yes. Look at your Douay-Rheims official version of the Bible, and its treatment of the passage in question. It was written your church at the time of your Reformation. It says nothing connecting Isaiah to Mattew 16, and specifically indentifies Eliakim as a type of Christ.

I’m not impressed by exegesis that doesn’t predate the Reformation. I’ll stick to that the Ecumenical Fathers passed on.

Btw, look a little further: it says that Eliakim will be a broken off peg. Do you apply that too to the papacy?

So far you talk about the fathers, which ones? all fathers of the church agree on the Papacy. so i dont know which fathers you are talking about.

 

[2ndGen]

I think I’m going to adopt your wisdom.

youtube.com/watch?v=hMenB9Ywh2Q

 

[wisdomseeker]

Are you claiming Soloviev as one of your own? That’s fine.
Check this out.

“In the 1880’s we see a different approach to this question. V. S. Soloviev, who supported the union of Orthodoxy with the Roman Church, desiring to justify the dogmatic development of the Roman Church defended the idea of the development of the Church’s dogmatic consciousness. He argues thus: “The Body of Christ changes and is perfected” like every organism; the original “basis” of faith is uncovered and clarified in the history of Christianity; “Orthodoxy stands not merely by antiquity, but by the eternally living Spirit of God.”Soloviev was inspired to defend the point of view of “development” not only by his sympathies for the Roman church, but also by his own religious-philosophical outlook — his ideas on Sophia, the wisdom of God, on God-manhood as a historical process, etc. Carried along by his own metaphysical system, Soloviev in the 1890’s began to put forth the teaching of the “eternal feminine,” which, he says, “is not merely an inactive image in God’s mind, but a living spiritual being which possesses all the fullness of power and action. **The whole process of the world and history is the process of its realization and incarnation in a great multiplicity of forms and degrees… The heavenly object of our love is only one, and it is always and for everyone one and the same, the eternal Femininity of God.” **(Soloviev’s ideas might be superficially compared to the “women’s liberation” of today, whose latest attempt in religious circles has been to “desex” the Bible and remove all references to the “masculine” nature of God. Today’s movement, however, does not really touch on philosophy or theology, remaining a movement primarily of social “liberation”; whereas Soloviev’s thought is more serious, being a kind of resurrection of ancient Gnostic philosophy. Both of them, however, are equally outlandish in the forms their ideas take, and both are agreed in seeing a necessity to change traditional Christian dogmas and expressions.)

---

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky

no i am not. i am showing your guys what his desires were to unite the churches.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So far you talk about the fathers, which ones? all fathers of the church agree on the Papacy. so i dont know which fathers you are talking about.

Yes, the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council all agreed on the papacy.

They just don’t agree with you ultramontanists.

 

[2ndGen]

So far you talk about the fathers, which ones? all fathers of the church agree on the Papacy. so i dont know which fathers you are talking about.

If you can pry that out of them, I will :bowdown: to you!

I feel like a dentist over here!

 

[2ndGen]

Yes, the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council all agreed on the papacy.

They just don’t agree with you ultramontanists.

Where!



You “allude” to that, but quote no specific proclaimaton.

Again! Where?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear to pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that “we are members one of another?” Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, “Woe to that man [by whom offences come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones. Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth.”
Clement of Rome[regn c.A.D. 91-101],To the Corinthians,46(A.D. 91),in ANF,I:17-18

 

[wisdomseeker]

“See that ye follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father.”
Ignatius of Antioch,To the Smyrnaens,8:2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

I think he is talking about one person not many bishops. lets see could be the Pope?