Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Eastern Orthodox Church Claim to Be Jesus Christ Church.


Recommended Posts

    Recently I have been on Christianity vrs Mormonism Facebook page and one of the individuals who was born Catholic but never really attended, then years later became Protestant [ Was and now still is an active anti LDS ] and now after his investigation is now Eastern Orthodox and is boldly now making the claim that the True Church continues with no break from Pentecost to Antioch where the authority lies from the soil of the old world and no need of any restoration in England or America or anywhere. Is there any links/sites that I can read concerning this topic ?. I have a # of Eastern Orthodox friends whom I have a great relationship with. , however this individual states that his claim cannot be refuted from history. Any comments/links with addresses would be of help. Side note -[ I Love going to Orthodox Festivals going into there churches for tours, reading there literature, watching them dance with one another, but the best part is THE FOOD ! ]. Thank you in advance for any help.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

He Died To Make Man Holy

Anakin 7

Edited by Anakin7
Response
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Anakin7 said:

Recently I have been on Christianity vrs Mormonism Facebook page

There is such a page?   In the past I've avoided Facebook like the plague, but maybe now that we have our own real life plague I might need to change that.  Our ward and missionaries do a lot of communicating through Facebook now that we can't meet face to face.

As to your question, I also have a few Eastern Orthodox friends and I really appreciate and respect their point of view.   I don't have any desire to attack another person's faith, so I try to never take that approach.  But if another person asserts a claim as to why my faith cannot be valid, then it may be worth exploring the question, especially if the other person is interested in exploring the topic with you.  

It all comes down to how you evaluate and interpret the things that happened in Christian history.  For example, Clement of Rome in his epistle to the Corinthians, provides historical support for the fulfillment of Paul's warning in Acts 20:28-31 about men coming in to the church and taking over the office of bishop (this was talked about in a post I made previously here and here).  And one could argue that specific doctrines and teachings changed over the years in the early writings of the Christians.  I made a list of some of the ones that I have noticed in a previous post on the apostasy here.   But it's hard to argue what doctrines have changed unless you have an idea what the doctrines were to begin with.  So everyone has their own idea on that sort of thing.  It makes for interesting discussion and there are a lot of fun things to learn, but in the end those aren't the kinds of things that change someone's mind about their faith.  But I will say that the views of the restored church are quite well supported, in ways that I don't think Joseph Smith could have ever made up or imagined.

Edit:  I forgot to comment about the food.  Aren't Latter-day Saints well known for having good refreshments?  (No green jello comments, please.)

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment

They are very close to us, and their arguments are persuasive, especially the Coptic Orthodox.

Historical arguments are irrelevant though, only testimony counts.

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I see a conversion to Buddhism for this individual soon. 🙁

Buddhism has had its own apostasies. It all but died out in India where it began, to be 'restored' by westerners in the late 19th century. There are some older lineages in Sri Lanka and SE Asia, but like many Christian denominations, they struggle to trace their authority back to the founder(s). There's no clear line to the Buddha that doesn't involve some hard-to-believe story.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

Eastern Orthodox and is boldly now making the claim that the True Church continues with no break from Pentecost to Antioch where the authority lies from the soil of the old world and no need of any restoration in England or America or anywhere. 

The Christian churches of India claim their lineage goes back to the first century, and they have some strong arguments to back up their claims. The Eastern Orthodox church came to them much later and they were not convinced.

The Christianity practiced in souther India by these ancient lineages is quite special. They still speak a form of Aramaic. And their churches have an altar placed in front of a large veil covering the eastern section of the hall, the room on the other side of the veil represents heaven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians#/media/File:A_Syro_Malabar_Catholic_Church_or_Nasrani_Palli.JPG

Link to comment
6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

They are very close to us, and their arguments are persuasive, especially the Coptic Orthodox.

Historical arguments are irrelevant though, only testimony counts.

 

 

Historical arguments matter for those who care about them.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

    Recently I have been on Christianity vrs Mormonism Facebook page and one of the individuals who was born Catholic but never really attended, then years later became Protestant [ Was and now still is an active anti LDS ] and now after his investigation is now Eastern Orthodox and is boldly now making the claim that the True Church continues with no break from Pentecost to Antioch where the authority lies from the soil of the old world and no need of any restoration in England or America or anywhere. Is there any links/sites that I can read concerning this topic ?. I have a # of Eastern Orthodox friends whom I have a great relationship with. , however this individual states that his claim cannot be refuted from history. Any comments/links with addresses would be of help. Side note -[ I Love going to Orthodox Festivals going into there churches for tours, reading there literature, watching them dance with one another, but the best part is THE FOOD ! ]. Thank you in advance for any help..........................

I especially like the Eastern Orthodox traditional belief in apotheosis (deification of members).  However, any historical POV can be refuted by someone who does not share a particular POV.  The only safe bet is the Holy Spirit.

Link to comment

No question, history is on the side of the Catholic church as presently constituted as far as having the Authority from God.  Protestant offshoots much less so.

The LDS Church has asserted that basic Doctrines and Practices have changed and that this more or less happened coincidentally with the loss of Authority from God.  The Authority generally being lost when the Apostles died, leaving no structure with which to pass authority onward.

So, yes it's a matter of faith to believe in a Restoration.  There is a lot of circumstantial evidence for the Restoration, including the fact that it's mentioned in the bible. 

The Catholics would likely argue that this is what happened (a restoration)  during their "reform" period following the Middle Ages.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Historical arguments matter for those who care about them.

Sure as long as you have a testimonial predisposition to thinking they are important.  

History is poetry just like everything else.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Calm said:

Historical arguments matter for those who have a testimony of them. 

Dang it!!!! 

I swear I did not even see this before I wrote the above! 😜

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Spammer said:

Hi everyone.  I've pretty much ended my participation in online conversations due to family reasons, but still check in from time to time.  The history of ancient Christianity is fascinating, so I thought I'd add a few points I hope are helpful.

It's not commonly understood that all of the churches in the list below should be grouped under a single umbrella - the ancient orthodox Catholic Church that comprised the majority at the 325 ad Council of Nicea.  This is the one Catholic Church of the martyrs that rejected Arianism and produced the Nicene Creed.  The liturgical practices of this ancient church are rooted in the liturgy of the First Temple in Jerusalem (atonement, consumption of bread and wine, altar, veil, vestments, ritual washing and anointing, incense, candles, chanting of the Psalms, bells, etc.). All of the churches in the following list collectively ARE THAT CHURCH. All of them trace the lineage of their bishops in unbroken succession back to the apostles (the Apostolic Succession). They have the same priesthood and hierarchical structure (bishop, priest and deacon), share the same liturgical form of worship, and recite the Nicene Creed on Sundays (Rome has added the filioque clause, a point of controversy with the others). All of these churches believe in the deification of humans (apotheosis) and (unlike most Protestants and LDS Christians) believe that Jesus is fully present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist after the consecration by the priest:

Eastern Orthodox

Coptic Orthodox

Ethiopian Orthodox

Eritrean Orthodox

Syrian Orthodox

The Church of the East (Assyrian Christians; the church of Persia outside the limits of the Roman Empire)

Malabar Christians (Thomas Christians in India, some of whom are Church of the East; others are in communion with Rome)

Armenian Orthodox

Malankara Christians (Lebanon)

Roman Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic church is still in communion with elements of every other church on the list, which is why the Roman Catholic Church is comprised of 23 individual churches.  The majority Latin Church is just one of the 23.  The remaining 22 are Orthodox Christians who either never left communion with the Bishop of Rome or returned to communion in recent centuries.

All of Protestantism is a minority protest against the Roman branch of the one ancient Catholic Church at Nicea.

What separates these churches currently are ancient disputes over papal supremacy and Christology:

325 ad: the Council of Nicea

431 ad: the Assyrian Church of the East breaks from the majority (the Nestorian controversy)

441ad: the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syrian, Armenian) break from the majority (the Monothelite controversy)

At this point in history, what's left  from the original majority is the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, still the majority and still in communion with each other.

1054 ad (more or less): the final split between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox over papal supremacy and the filioque clause that Rome added to the Creed.

So, it's all well and good to look at the liturgical practices and theology of the Roman Catholic, Coptic and Orthodox churches, and compare with LDS temple theology and practices, but it's important to keep in mind all of the above when doing so.  Every church on the list above belongs to the ancient orthodox Catholic Church.  The Christological and papal supremacy issues could be ironed out via church councils and the status quo ante in 430 ad would return.  All of these churches would once again be a big, fractious orthodox Catholic family.  If that were to happen, any parishioner in any of the churches could validly receive the Eucharist in any of the others (as it is today in the 23 churches that comprise the Roman Catholic Church). And all of them would exclude Protestants and LDS Christians from communion.

I hope that provides some helpful historical context for the OP's question about Eastern Orthodoxy.

And it even gets more complicated with the different "Rites" such as the Byzantine Rite with which I am most familiar, which are fully a part of the "Roman" Catholic church though they differ markedly in the external appearance of their liturgies etc.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

So, yes it's a matter of faith to believe in a Restoration. 

Just as it is to believe in any religious belief.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And it even gets more complicated with the different "Rites" such as the Byzantine Rite with which I am most familiar, which are fully a part of the "Roman" Catholic church though they differ markedly in the external appearance of their liturgies etc.

Yes, exactly, and all are ‘Catholic’ and licit in the eyes of the pope. Including the Coptic Orthodox rite you admire. The exact same rite is celebrated by the minority of Egyptian Copts (one of the 23 churches) who are in communion with Rome.

Edited by Spammer
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

OF course, but you didn't bother to list them in your detailed list.

No need. I also didn’t mention the Greek and Slavic churches. Eastern Orthodox covers them all. Each of them refers to themselves by their national and common appellation.

I did add mention of them to my original post for clarity. Thanks for the suggestion.

Edited by Spammer
Link to comment

Depends on who you ask, from what i've read their lineage was part of the original church, back when the Bishop of Rome was just that, another bishop.  Then, the schism happened.  Fun fact, good reason why the crusades failed was at least one just pillaged Constantinople on the way to the Holy Land.  By the time the Ottomans sacked it, it already had issues with their defense.  And, of course, the Northern Crusades which in the end gave us Prussia (Gott Mitt Uns!)  Fun fact, Luther traveled quite a bit and met some of the Coptic Orthodox big wigs, was also a huge fan of the Orthodox Church.  I'm partially a fan because they allow clergy to get married.  I get the whole trying to curtail power thing but still think clerical celibacy is a bad idea. 

Dunno, six of one half a dozen of the other.  The Orthodox I knew IRL were either Greek or Russian, they never had this axe to grind that Americans seem to have over religion.  I ask myself, what would Jesus have to say about all this?  I'm somewhat sure among many things he'd facepalm and shake his head....

Anyway, if you're curious your best bet is to just call up an Orthodox Church in your area and ask to talk to a priest, they'd be happy to help you and are usually thrilled to get western folks to set foot in their doors.  Going to guess one of the first things they'll mention is St. Herman of Alaska.  Just did a search on their site, the Orthodox Church that's like 10 min from my house shows up so they're legit.  Hope this helps!

https://www.oca.org/parishes

 

On 4/22/2020 at 1:37 AM, Rajah Manchou said:

Buddhism has had its own apostasies. It all but died out in India where it began, to be 'restored' by westerners in the late 19th century. There are some older lineages in Sri Lanka and SE Asia, but like many Christian denominations, they struggle to trace their authority back to the founder(s). There's no clear line to the Buddha that doesn't involve some hard-to-believe story.

Old expression, it doesn't matter which teaching looses to which, it's all to the shame of the Buddha. Don't say that to some sects esp. the Japanese ones, thems fightin' words lol.  As a kid when a lot of my friends were from the same side of the tracks I was, the Asian kids would tend to have one point that would bring their petty gang fights to a point of agreement, Buddhism.  We'd have a few pure land, be it Chinese or Vietnamese, some who belonged to a Pure Land school (The Buddhist Churches of America are the biggest pure land group in the USA, mostly Japanese American.  They really have their act together, met a few of moms cousins there during festivals) and other groups like the Soka Gakkai. 

To tie this back in with the OP, I'd be curious about the debate on who is true or not.  Orthodox, like many non US Christians don't get into those debates, they do their thing and that's that.  Something I learned a short while ago, many of the Orthodox Churches here are not in communion with the Russian and Greek bodies.  They're not like say, the Catholic nor LDS church organization wise.  I could be wrong on this, if I am someone please feel free to correct me. 

On 4/22/2020 at 1:07 AM, mfbukowski said:

They are very close to us, and their arguments are persuasive, especially the Coptic Orthodox.

Historical arguments are irrelevant though, only testimony counts.

 

 

So, feelings > Agreed historical facts?  Not trying to start an argument here (for once), just asking.  I know testimony and emotion are a huge thing to many here hence why I'm asking.  Thanks.

Edited by poptart
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...