melmac Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 I found this interesting, just posting in case someone else might. http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=346 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 I found this interesting, just posting in case someone else might. http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=346 Thank you! What a pertinent post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milovany Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 I found this interesting, just posting in case someone else might. http://www.truthortradition.com/xxxxxxx I'm admittedly having a knee-jerk (negative) reaction to the name of the website ("truth or tradition") so can't bring myself to read the article (or if I did, I probably couldn't put much stock in it). The Orthodox church we are affiliated with had someone put "Truth or Tradition?" message CDs on the windshields during a service recently. After getting past the "What? Why?" thought of one church thinking they need to preach to another, I thought, "What's wrong with truth and tradition?" since the Bible talks about both (and the church has functioned with both for 2000+ years)? I'm not asking you to answer it at all; again just posting knee-jerk reaction as an eastern Orthodox believer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Darla, I can understand your reaction to the website name. The link is to a book called "The Bible, You can Believe it". I will admit that I did not peruse the rest of the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milovany Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Darla, I can understand your reaction to the website name. The link is to a book called "The Bible, You can Believe it". I will admit that I did not peruse the rest of the site. Yes, I believe you! I was just describing my knee-jerk reaction. We are loving the richness and depth of the tradition (there are man-made traditions, and there is holy tradition according to the Bible) we're discovering in the Orthodox church. So it just baffles me that the question that is asked is "truth or tradition?" Why not both? (Again, NOT meant for you or anyone here to answer -- just the question I ask myself.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) I'm admittedly having a knee-jerk (negative) reaction to the name of the website ("truth or tradition") so can't bring myself to read the article (or if I did, I probably couldn't put much stock in it). The Orthodox church we are affiliated with had someone put "Truth or Tradition?" message CDs on the windshields during a service recently. After getting past the "What? Why?" thought of one church thinking they need to preach to another, I thought, "What's wrong with truth and tradition?" since the Bible talks about both (and the church has functioned with both for 2000+ years)? I'm not asking you to answer it at all; again just posting knee-jerk reaction as an eastern Orthodox believer. I had a knee jerk reaction also (we are catechumen), but for another reason on top of that one....the website claims to not affiliate or identify themselves with any particular group. Either they are "lone ranger Christians" (a problem in and of itself) or they aren't telling as a means of deception (aka know that there are those that would not hear them out because of). Personally, if someone wants to truly understand "begotten" as it was written and by who it was written, then an Orthodox would be the ones to go to and hash it out ;) Edited October 4, 2009 by mommaduck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara K Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Yes, they can be a Christian! This has been a painful issue in my experience IRL. There are some ladies in an organization to which I belong who take great delight in declaring who is and is not really a Christian. They are not unique in this area of the world. I was horrified to find myself talking to a friend and being reluctant to say I was a Christian. I ended up saying something like 'yes I am, but not like that'. She had had some very hurtful comments made to her by others. I do have a strong commitment to my faith and I had to resolve to stand up and claim Christ even if I have issues with some of my fellow Christians. (I think this deepened my faith and lessened my connection to religion.) :iagree: This is how I grew up. According to many my Mother is a Christian but I don't qualify. I believe in showing my beliefs with my actions, I want someone to have cause to ask me what gives me such joy, peace, strength etc. The accepted way for others around me is to bombard people with all the reasons they NEED Christ, sort of a scream it from the rooftops approach. This leads to me saying "yes, I am but not like that" a whole lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milovany Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 I had a knee jerk reaction also (we are catechumen), but for another reason on top of that one....the website claims to not affiliate or identify themselves with any particular group. Either they are "lone ranger Christians" (a problem in and of itself) or they aren't telling as a means of deception (aka know that there are those that would not hear them out because of). Personally, if someone wants to truly understand "begotten" as it was written and by who it was written, then an Orthodox would be the ones to go to and hash it out ;) Just wanted to wave and say "hi" mommaduck -- we are catechumen as well (since August 16). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 I'm admittedly having a knee-jerk (negative) reaction to the name of the website ("truth or tradition") so can't bring myself to read the article (or if I did, I probably couldn't put much stock in it). The Orthodox church we are affiliated with had someone put "Truth or Tradition?" message CDs on the windshields during a service recently. After getting past the "What? Why?" thought of one church thinking they need to preach to another, I thought, "What's wrong with truth and tradition?" since the Bible talks about both (and the church has functioned with both for 2000+ years)? I'm not asking you to answer it at all; again just posting knee-jerk reaction as an eastern Orthodox believer. You are not the only one with this reaction. I had exactly the same thought! It has been said that to leave out Tradition is to allow for the tyranny of the living. An interesting idea. BTW, I wondered if you and mommaduck had heard much about the following article. I hope that your knee jerk reaction to this article is a good one, but I know that not everyone will feel positive about this. I think it is some of the only good news I have read in the world for a long time. I am a little vague on what is okay and what is not okay to link to, but his is should be okay. Just positive intentions with this post, not meant to derail the conversation. http://www.ncregister.com/daily/catholic-orthodox_unity_in_sight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 You are not the only one with this reaction. I had exactly the same thought! It has been said that to leave out Tradition is to allow for the tyranny of the living. An interesting idea. BTW, I wondered if you and mommaduck had heard much about the following article. I hope that your knee jerk reaction to this article is a good one, but I know that not everyone will feel positive about this. I think it is some of the only good news I have read in the world for a long time. I am a little vague on what is okay and what is not okay to link to, but his is should be okay. Just positive intentions with this post, not meant to derail the conversation. http://www.ncregister.com/daily/catholic-orthodox_unity_in_sight We had already discussed this with our priest and it does not look at near or as plausible as the article made it sound...particularly as the pope would have to be viewed on equal, not higher, level as the rest of the patriarchs. Something that was not addressed in the article. There are also some things that are done differently that contradict with Orthodoxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 We had already discussed this with our priest and it does not look at near or as plausible as the article made it sound...particularly as the pope would have to be viewed on equal, not higher, level as the rest of the patriarchs. Something that was not addressed in the article. There are also some things that are done differently that contradict with Orthodoxy. I know. *sigh* I am well aware of the issues and the problems. I agonized about them for so long, I ache for them even now. But a girl can hope, can't she? Blessings in your journey, and have a great week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 (edited) I found this interesting, just posting in case someone else might. http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=346 I had a knee jerk reaction also (we are catechumen), but for another reason on top of that one....the website claims to not affiliate or identify themselves with any particular group. Either they are "lone ranger Christians" (a problem in and of itself) or they aren't telling as a means of deception (aka know that there are those that would not hear them out because of).Melmac, I was glad to find a book that was not written by a Jehovah's Witness that some who have questions about the Bible's authenticity can go to. It is good to have it for comparison and for those who will not read books by the Witnesses. Not a biggie that catechumen don't like the website/book. They already have that question answered kwim? Personally, if someone wants to truly understand "begotten" as it was written and by who it was written, then an Orthodox would be the ones to go to and hash it out ;) And here #221 it is! We had already discussed this with our priest and it does not look at near or as plausible as the article made it sound...particularly as the pope would have to be viewed on equal, not higher, level as the rest of the patriarchs. Something that was not addressed in the article. There are also some things that are done differently that contradict with Orthodoxy. I have no idea what the differences are between the Catholic and Orthodox church. I would like to know. Maybe I should get that via PM though? Is that the implication above? Edited October 5, 2009 by Lovedtodeath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Okay. I don't think it was, because God gave him a name about every other name. In order to give a name, that name can't have been there since the very beginning. Also, Jesus is the name Joshua tranlated into Greek and then anglicized; there have been many Joshuas and many Jesuses. It's not the name Jesus in and of itself that is the name above every other name. I have been thinking about it. Maybe this scripture is comparable to the prince or king leaving for war and when they come back they are given more praise because of their mighty deeds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I have no idea what the differences are between the Catholic and Orthodox church. I would like to know. Maybe I should get that via PM though? Is that the implication above? No, it wasn't an implication. But the main crux of the Great Schism is as I mentioned. Beyond that, it's simply changes that occurred after the Schism within the Roman Catholic Church (marital status of the clergy, who could and could not be baptised, statuary vs icons, purgatory, etc). Others may be better versed than I though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 No, it wasn't an implication. But the main crux of the Great Schism is as I mentioned. Beyond that, it's simply changes that occurred after the Schism within the Roman Catholic Church (marital status of the clergy, who could and could not be baptised, statuary vs icons, purgatory, etc). Others may be better versed than I though. Well you gave me some key words to search. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonygirl Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 :tongue_smilie:I am no thelogian (can't spell that) I just want ed to say what I think. Doesn't reading your bible bring yo closer and closer to Jesus? It is God's word speaking to you IMO personally. I think that is what it is all about the Personal relationship with Jesus he is our friend faher in heaven our savior. To me I belive the bible only by faith no logic and faith comes from reading His Word (I need to improve there). I have to trust that what is in the bible is true because it is God's Word it is our how to book or life. I still get real lost in soem of teh Old Testment but to my understanding all those old laws about what to eat and things I think they were Jewish law were no more when Jesus died on the cross for our sins. I am sorry I am rambling. Teresa:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) I have been thinking about it. Maybe this scripture is comparable to the prince or king leaving for war and when they come back they are given more praise because of their mighty deeds? It's the name of Jesus as the Messiah that is the name above all names (Jesus Christ; you'll see in Acts that that's the name that was used in miracles most, if not all, of the time eg. When Peter healed, by the power of God, the lame man. He said "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth." The Nazareth part wasn't needed, but often it was a humility check, so to speak, since the Galileans were looked down on by most. Edited October 7, 2009 by Karin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) I had a knee jerk reaction also (we are catechumen), but for another reason on top of that one....the website claims to not affiliate or identify themselves with any particular group. Either they are "lone ranger Christians" (a problem in and of itself) or they aren't telling as a means of deception (aka know that there are those that would not hear them out because of). Personally, if someone wants to truly understand "begotten" as it was written and by who it was written, then an Orthodox would be the ones to go to and hash it out ;) I didn't post the link, but I do know things about the organization who runs the website Truth or Tradition. They're nondenominational, but their teachings aren't lone wolf teachings, since there's nothing they teach that I know of where I don't know of at least half a dozen or more organizations (and, not all the same for each teaching) who teach the same things. Perhaps their complete set of beliefs is unique to them, but you can say that about any group, whether denominational or nondenominational. I've heard that teaching before. I know people involved with this group, which is how I first heard about them. Although I am not affiliated with them, I know for a fact that their clergy meets at least annually with clergy from other organizations not affiliated with them. At least one of them went to a Trinitarian seminary. I don't agree with all of their theology. However, for those who are sola scriptura this is important, since we want to go by Scripture first. This teaching, and I've heard others like it from totally different groups, basically demonstrates how you can get to the accuracy of the original scriptures due to the vast number of manuscripts, the statistically few variations, etc, etc. There is more to it than that. This is not the only organization that teaches this type of thing ( Tradition may or may not line up with the Bible. And, given the history of the inquisitions, there are some who feel that relying solely on a church with a lot of traditions can be very oppressive.) I, for one, celebrate a holiday at Christmas, but I don't for a minute think that that's when Christ was born. Tradition put it that way, but it was done in order to line up with a pagan holiday that already existed on Dec 25. This has been documented. If you study church history, you'll see that many times things were done to win more pagan converts, and that included inculcating pagan celebrations into Christian events. Why else is the resurrection of Christ, which I believe happened, called Easter? None of us knows all of the truth or has all the right answers, because none of us has full knowledge or is perfect. That said, I believe that God looks on the heart (that's in the Bible--God is the searcher of all hearts,) and I cannot say that someone who follows all those tradiditions is not a Christian or does not love God, even if I don't think it's Biblically correct. While it's interesting to read what others believe, I resent it when people tell me that I have to do the same. If you can show me in Scripture, and it lines up with the entire context of the Bible, etc, then I'll gladly admit my doctrinal error. If not, I respectfully agree to disagree and move on. Edited October 7, 2009 by Karin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 None of us knows all of the truth or has all the right answers, because none of us has full knowledge or is perfect. That said, I believe that God looks on the heart (that's in the Bible--God is the searcher of all hearts,) and I cannot say that someone who follows all those tradiditions is not a Christian or does not love God, even if I don't think it's Biblically correct. While it's interesting to read what others believe, I resent it when people tell me that I have to do the same. If you can show me in Scripture, and it lines up with the entire context of the Bible, etc, then I'll gladly admit my doctrinal error. If not, I respectfully agree to disagree and move on. That is true, but so many times this is used as an excuse to not change our views. The scriptures speak of the light getting brighter for the righteous one. They also make it pretty clear that many who believe they are Christians will not be accepted by Christ. There are just as many scriptures condemning tradition as there are scriptures praising it, so we need to be selective in which traditions or teachings we accept. 1 John 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:21 2 Timothy 3:15-17; All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." This scripture does not make sense to me if oral traditions are necessary for being fully equipped as a Christian. If you can show me in Scripture, and it lines up with the entire context of the Bible, I had to copy this because I could not agree more. I have to say hearing you saying that and believing that Jesus Christ did not exist before his birth as a man is perplexing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 If you can show me in Scripture, and it lines up with the entire context of the Bible, I had to copy this because I could not agree more.I have to say hearing you saying that and believing that Jesus Christ did not exist before his birth as a man is perplexing. Ah, but I used to believe in the Trinity. I grew up in a very tradition-oriented, trinitarian church. The Anglican church, in fact. It was this very principal that ended up convincing me otherwise. However, that took time and involved a lot of teaching and study. Others have come to the same conclusion, even the popular E.W. Bullinger, who was too old by that point to rewrite all of his trinitarian books. The Anglican church is quite liberal now, at least in Canada based on things my mother tells me, but I think they still have a lot of tradition in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I didn't post the link, but I do know things about the organization who runs the website Truth or Tradition. They're nondenominational, but their teachings aren't lone wolf teachings, since there's nothing they teach that I know of where I don't know of at least half a dozen or more organizations (and, not all the same for each teaching) who teach the same things. Perhaps their complete set of beliefs is unique to them, but you can say that about any group, whether denominational or nondenominational. "Non-denominational" also is open-ended and runs the gamut. If you know of the affiliated organisation, would you please share, otherwise I don't bother to waste my time with those that hide their affiliations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 "Non-denominational" also is open-ended and runs the gamut. If you know of the affiliated organisation, would you please share, otherwise I don't bother to waste my time with those that hide their affiliations. Truth or Tradition website is run by Spirit and Truth Fellowship Ministry, which is an international ministry. http://stfonline.org They also sell a number of books and seminars, including some books by mainstream Christian authors such as Gary Smalley. I'm not sure what you mean about hiding affiliations, exactly, since you can call them and ask them, I suppose (the phone number is on the bottom of the homepage.) fwiw, the clergy from other groups they meet with are from different churches/ministries in separate organizations. This whole tangent started, not to argue with you or cause you stress, but because we were discussing just who is a Christian and various POVs have been asserted. Some were saying that you can be one if you call yourself one, others stated that you really need to believe the Bible, and it moved onto opinions as to the veracity and authorship of Scripture, etc. If you choose to dismiss this group that I don't even belong to or associate with, that's no skin off my back. But to dismiss a whole teaching on the integrity of scripture full of points that I have heard from some mainstream, Trinitarian protestants is rather offensive to those of us who don't agree, but don't argue with you about your choosing to agree, that church traditions prevent oppression, etc., particularly in light of church history (the inquisitions, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I haven't had time to read this thread,but intend to. I just have one comment though. How can a thread like this one with such a pot stirring title manage to exist for 2 months, have 272 posts none of which are deleted while "Obama Wins Peace Prize" is deleted in a (record?) 30 minutes. Seriously. Scratching my head here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I haven't had time to read this thread,but intend to. I just have one comment though. How can a thread like this one with such a pot stirring title manage to exist for 2 months, have 272 posts none of which are deleted while "Obama Wins Peace Prize" is deleted in a (record?) 30 minutes. Seriously. Scratching my head here. I'm not sure, either. I do know that politics has been banned and that, so far, things have been polite here overall, even if not everyone has agreed. Also, this thread was silent for some time during the 2 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I'm not sure, either. I do know that politics has been banned and that, so far, things have been polite here overall, even if not everyone has agreed. Also, this thread was silent for some time during the 2 months. Oh politics is banned again? I'm clearly out of the loop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 You didn't stress me. As for "hiding affiliations", chalks up to the same as not being fully upfront about their affiliations in my books (as in WHAT KIND of theological stance they are coming from...aka, SDA, JW, LDS, Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinist, Lutheran, Pentacostal, Holiness, Anabaptist...even non-denominational churches fall under some of those types) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 You didn't stress me. As for "hiding affiliations", chalks up to the same as not being fully upfront about their affiliations in my books (as in WHAT KIND of theological stance they are coming from...aka, SDA, JW, LDS, Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinist, Lutheran, Pentacostal, Holiness, Anabaptist...even non-denominational churches fall under some of those types) Perhaps. I'm not sure which one my church falls under, though. We're charismatic, but not exactly Pentecostal (I've visited a Pentecostal church and we have some big differences theologically--but then, there are charismatic movements in a number of different groups.) We don't believe in infant baptism, so we could be called Anabaptists, but we don't fit with the Amish and aren't pacifists the way the Mennonites are. I'd say Protestant is the safest label, and would put that group we discussed under the Protestant label based on their statement of beliefs (I couldn't find it on their site but I read it when I was first checking them out.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Oh politics is banned again? I'm clearly out of the loop. Were they allowed again? If so, then I'm the one out of the loop ;). I haven't been on the General Forum often for a few months as it was taking way too much of my time (fun, but too much time). Last I knew, American politics were banned, but not Canadian (mostly because there aren't a lot of Canadians and they were being so polite.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Perhaps. I'm not sure which one my church falls under, though. We're charismatic, but not exactly Pentecostal (I've visited a Pentecostal church and we have some big differences theologically--but then, there are charismatic movements in a number of different groups.) We don't believe in infant baptism, so we could be called Anabaptists, but we don't fit with the Amish and aren't pacifists the way the Mennonites are. I'd say Protestant is the safest label, and would put that group we discussed under the Protestant label based on their statement of beliefs (I couldn't find it on their site but I read it when I was first checking them out.) Protestant would be a misnomer also ;) Charismatic says a lot (and that would, in most cases, fall under credo-baptism...credo-baptism does not equate anabaptism :) ). (for those wondering...credobaptism=believer's baptism; paedobaptism=infant/covenantal baptism....anabaptism was a term given to specific groups, not all, in specific areas for their rejection of Catholic and Protestant paedobaptisms and insisted upon rebaptising members. However, there are other baptist and baptistic groups that are not called anabaptists, for other theological reasons, that did the same). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts