You did not respond to anything I said (although you did misquote me and respond to the misquote) and I do not know what your line of questioning even means.

I tried your suggestion on your test. This is what I find - there is no objective evidence to conclude that the only source of legitimate knowledge of religious belief is objective information. Exclusive reliance on objective information is a subjective standard. So I decided I would try another method. I would take the beliefs of religion and science seriously and apply all the possible ways of knowing things. This includes learning about the texts and traditions of the religion. Beyond that the history and physical evidence (courtroom level evidence not just science level evidence) from the real world. Personal experience will also play into this because religions usually address the real problems of real people. In the end I will follow the evidence (all the evidence not just the pre-selected categories of evidence) wherever it leads. As for brainwashing, my kids are my responsibility so they will follow me on my path. Forgive me for bringing up a reference to scripture but I will not leave them in Egypt without me, and I will not let them stay in the dry bed of the Red Sea (to be drowned). They are going to wonder in the wilderness with me because I am responsible for them and I love them. I will not leave them on there own. As someone said earlier, there is no room for love in objective study. The ability to go beyond the objective is what separates us from the animals and even the neanderthals - they only dealt with the objective observable world around them. Humans have the amazing ability to go beyond the objective.

I have some friends who are in a church that has been studying a possible anabaptist link to the early church outside of the Catholic and Orthodox lineage. This is my understanding of their link: Priscillian from Spain in 375 to about the 500's. Paulican in Arminia around 668-872. Bogomils in Macedonia from the 900's. Albigensians in France from 1100's to the 1200's Waldensian in Lyon 1170 Lollards in England from around 1381 Marovian in the Czech Repiblic from around 1457 Anabaptist in Germany from around 1525 The groups after 1054 are from the west and are not of much interest on this thread about Orthodoxy. My understanding of the first three groups (coming mostly from the online encyclopedia Britannica) is: Priscillian is a dualistic (possibly gnostic) belief system that "outlawed sensual pleasures, marriage and the consumption of wine and meat." Paulican is also a dualistic religion with an Evil God (the Hebrew OT God) that rules the world now and a Good God that will rule the world that is to come. According to the them, Jesus is not the son of Mary because the Good God could not take on flesh (because it is of this evil world). Therefore, a gnostic system. Bogomils are again a dualistic belief. They reject the incarnation of Christ. They also reject baptism and the Eucharist. I am not saying this is the lineage referenced (in the quote) above but just a lineage I have heard. On salvation, it is up to God if we are saved. Our job is to become like Christ.

The Orthodox never officially closed the cannon. It is what all Orthodox everywhere and at all times have agreed upon (about 77 books in the Old and New Testaments). :) When I was in Egypt I went to an old Bedouin's house (hut). He was over 100 years old. He had a wife who was 27. It is common for a very old man, living in the desert, to take a young wife who would function as his nurse. In this case the couple had a baby son who was under 2 years old. :0 This is the most common understanding of Mary (the Mother of God) and St Joseph's relationship that I have heard. But the story of Jesus is the Gospel. And the story of his mother is not the Gospel, so it does not really matter. First time in a long time post. I was on here a few years ago (before the format change) as "Father of Pearl."

No Christian group that I know of believes that man became more like God at the fall. People had free will before the fall. According to the story they were free to name the animals on there own. People are free to sin or not to sin. They are also free to make cars or not make cars. God did not create evil anymore than He created cars. Man is responsible for both.

Of course becoming like Christ is from God (that is why he came and showed us what it looked like) but we have free will and we play a big part in becoming like Christ. The Lord's Prayer is Matthew 6:9-13. The very next two verses (Matthew 6:14-15) say "For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." From the context it looks like our pray is to have God forgive us in the same way we forgive others.

Salvation comes from God. All we can do is become more like Christ. The Lord's Prayer has a line that says "Forgive us our trespasses (debts, sins) as we forgive those who trespass (have debts, sin) against us". I really think this may be a standard that we will be held to, especially if we tell God to hold us to that standard every time we say the Lord's Prayer.

The christian teaching is that the supernatural became natural (in Jesus). He really came to earth (and there is a lot of evidence of that) and what he did here was falsifible and testable. If the first carbon dating is accurate then the shroud is fake. What claims are you talking about? Are you saying that no religion has ever provided any evidence for any of its claims? The existance of four books about Jesus is definitely evidence that he existed. This is the kind of thing I am concerned about on this thread. Scientists are making up agruments with no evidence just to prove a point. I am here as a religious person arguing that we should follow the data where ever it leads and the scientists are saying we cannot do that because it might lead to something that is supernatural. Here is an experiment that you can do that is reproducible, testable, and falsifiable. It is on this podcast (the last of a 17 part series). It will take about an hour to listen to. http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/darwin_and_christianity_-_part_17_the_final_chapter

To me it is not about whether the shroud is authentic or not. It is about the current scientific philosophy. Specifically, I am bothered by the idea that some scientist could never accept the shroud as authentic no matter what the evidence says and to a lesser degree the idea that the burden of proof does not lie with the skeptic (it seems like the burden to provide evidence should be born by anyone making a statement about a subject, in this case if the shroud is not authentic, what is the evidence?). This combination is a conversation stopper. I am all in favor of following the evidence but we should follow it wherever it leads.

It sounds like you are saying that the shroud is not authentic because there is no consensus that it is authentic. And, there is no way to have a consensus that it is authentic, because science excludes the possibility of coming to the conclusion that the shroud is authentic, regardless of any evidence. In short it is not authentic and we do not need to do any experiments to show that because that is how science works. I hope I am wrong. The shroud is one of the most studied pieces of cloth in the world, so there is evidence of it's origins. I want to know where the evidence leads. My perspective, as an Orthodox Christian, is that Jesus always fit into the following definitions of natural (from your source). Natural 2 - a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature 7 : having a specified character by nature It is natural for God to have power to: give life, heal, feed (feeding of 5,000), control nature (calm storms) and conquer death. If the classification is God, then this is what nature looks like. You can call it supernatural if you want but it is not contrary to the dictionary definition of "natural" to say the resurrection of Jesus is natural.

I disagree. If there is evidence bust the myth. If the shroud is fake it should not be hard. Some Christians believe the shroud is evidence (but not proof) of the resurrection. So, what experiment would provide acceptable to show that the Shroud of Turin is authentic? Is there anything that would convince you that the shroud is real? If you think it is the burden of the religous to prove the shroud is authentic but you would never touch any theory that showed it to be authentic then what is the point? You have already decided regardless of the evidence. From my point of view the resurrection is not supernatural. If there is a God that came down as a human and dwelt among us without sin, it would be natural for that God to rise from death. It is your bias that stops you from seeing that as a possibility. There is zero evidence that this hypothesis is true. There is no reference to this in history. It is just made up as a red herring to detract from the the facts that we know about If we look at all of the studies on the shroud (it's history, the geography of the it's history, botony along the trail the shroud took through history, human biology, crimanology studies of the crucifixion.....) we find that there is evidence about origins of the shroud. Let's use that evidence to come up with a reasonable hypotheses instead of making up scientific fairy tales.

My understanding is that the ark is a type (although a weaker type) of the church. Any church (Eastern Orthodox, RC or Protestant) follows this type because it is were we go when the storm of life is raging all around us. The ark is a refugee and so is the church. But like the ark , with all those animals, the church is not always pleasent to be in.

I should really stay out of this because it is a classic case of "I do not believe in the God you do not believe in either." The Orthodox believe there are two kinds of things in this world "created things and uncreated things." There is only one uncreated thing that is God. One of the things that is created is time. It does not matter if Jesus comes before, after or during someones life time. God is not subject to time. What knowledge? Abraham did not know what the plan was. He just knew he was to be the father of a people that would bless the whole world. Where is the evidence? I do not even know what that means in this context. Do you want me to go and proof text the Bible for you? The Bible is not a science book. Justified and saved are not the same thing. Salvation comes when Christ goes into the tomb and brakes its bonds to free the captives or at the judgement day. It is something God does.

Abraham worshiped Jesus. The Orthodox believe the Hospitality of Abraham is the only icon that can really show the three Persons of the Trinity. Jesus did not just start existing at his birth. Why would any of the OT fore-fathers be excluded from justification ?

Who says this? I do not think any major Christian tradition would say that it is impossible for Abraham to be justified.