Soloist wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:12 am
Valerie wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:03 pm
ohio jones wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:56 pm
True; maybe we should move it to a new thread.
Honestly i believe it to be futile, unnecessary, and not wanting to stir the pit (again). about icons- no reason
Oh, but to soloist- an explanation regarding your friend with his different icons. When Orthodox person prays they believe they are in the presence of the Lord and surrounded by that great cloud of witnesses. The icons represent those that have gone on before them it's a heavenly pattern of being at the throne when they pray something like that
I was trying to get you to examine the historical record for the things you hold to be true rather then trust a book or someone saying “it’s tradition”
When i study from my Orthodox Study Bible, i learn by their footnotes they possess historical records of so many people in the New Testament & details of their lives that the Scriptures do not elaborate on. So the Orthodox Church was not a new denomination that sprung up centuries later- but founded by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. The Church was growing-
2 Thessalonians 2:15
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, either by WORD or our epistle" (emphasis mine).
The Church from its beginning according to this Scripture held to both oral and written teachings. They were not requiring proof- when i said you can see infant baptism done in every Country the apostles took the gospel, you can go to any orthodox Church and you will see that they baptized both infants and adults that converted to Christianity. Origin was one of the early church fathers who made the statement that the apostles taught to baptize your infants. So I guess the assumption since it wasn't specifically pointed out in Scripture is that it was made up later but that's not definite is it? You want to see Church records on this rather than me quoting some early Church writers which i have read, that may be hard to come by. I have David Bercots "Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" which I actually bought when seeking Anabaptism. Coming from a more Evangelical Pentecostal background, church history like that really didn't matter.
I was reading through the section on baptism this morning and every early church writer that wrote about baptism made it clear it was not sprinkling that was considered baptism. I know I could say that here and would be met with total opposition and not even considered to be the case. This is why I say it's really futile because even when something is shown if it's not something that's ingrained in you from your particular denomination people really aren't open to considering they may have been taught wrong.
