Why have the Anabaptists FAILED at Reaching the Masses

[ohio jones]

Indeed. And most sit in churches in the nurseries continuing to drink spiritual milk.

Much better than ingesting the deadly poison that the devil has to offer.

Someone who believes the Orthodox have the answers probably isn’t going to see meat served in a Mennonite church.

Perhaps they would burn us at the steak.

Is joke. Sort of.

[Josh]

Josh, you are naive to the Orthodox. Before you criticize them further, you should learn more about them.

I’m not naive and know plenty about them.

The men and women who are married in the Orthodox church ceremonially are adorned with the "crown of martyrs". This symbolizes the sacrificing of ones own self driven life, and the beginning of a new life together. The priest adorns them, and they don't adorn themselves.

They literally do this one single time during the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. It's not a lifestyle, it's a marriage symbol.

That’s fine.

My point is that their women aren’t practicing the head covering in a church service, including a formal wedding.

I get tired of the fantasies some people have that claim Orthodox do this because they don’t. I have worked with EO people, opened a bar / nightclub with one, been neighbours with one, and generally am not ignorant at all of their lifestyles. The fantasies portrayed on MennoNet get tiresome.

[Josh]

The Orthodox either are defying scriptures directly OR they have more maturity on the teachings of 1 Cornithians 11 than condemning rogue accusers armed with the Bible that the Orthodox church canonized in the first place.

The EO faith is deep. They read the Bible all the time. They are VERY aware of 1 Corinthians 11.

Sounds like you have found a home? Or are you another advocate of the Orthodox while not willing to actually join?

No, I just don't like blatant denial of history and false accusations. It has no place in the Christian faith.

Can you explain us to what is going on with the EOs and Putin?

[Sudsy]

I would like to read more input pertaining to the title of this thread.

[barnhart]

I would like to read more input pertaining to the title of this thread.

What is it that you want to hear.

[Ernie]

I get tired of the fantasies some people have that claim Orthodox do this because they don’t. The fantasies portrayed on MennoNet get tiresome.

This deserves second mention.

[Ernie]

Read the Christian ethereal library. They'll show you the Orthodox bishops voting in the books to canonize your Bible you hold (Well there were 4 more books, but Martin Luther single handed stripped 4 of them from the original canon). This is history. Like it or leave it, but it doesn't change the facts.

Some of us are actually fairly well read and we still disagree with your conclusions as to what the historical record says. You’d have to go back to the Vulgate to find out when this whole controversy really started becoming a controversy. Prior to that there were several lists that didn’t agree with each other.
Either way, when history disagrees with scripture, I know what side is true.

Just because a church sometime in the past selected the books that we now hold, doesn't mean that we have some indebtedness to them for this. The Pharisees were careful to keep alive a belief in the resurrection of the dead, but I don't feel any indebtedness to them for preserving this doctrine. Jesus told the Jews that if they were Abraham's seed, they would do the works of Abraham. Shouldn't Jesus have been giving them credit for all the good teachings they or their grandparents kept preserved?

But for the sake of discussion, let's pretend that the Orthodox church is the church that we should be indebted to for the Bible we hold. That doesn't mean that we should then give them a pass on how they have found a work around for various teachings in the New Testament.

[mrbilliam]

Read the Christian ethereal library. They'll show you the Orthodox bishops voting in the books to canonize your Bible you hold (Well there were 4 more books, but Martin Luther single handed stripped 4 of them from the original canon). This is history. Like it or leave it, but it doesn't change the facts.

Here's the link
https://ccel.org/
Enjoy.

All you are asking for is to fight with your modern interpretation, not a historical and in depth understanding of 1 Cornithians 11.

Some of us are actually fairly well read and we still disagree with your conclusions as to what the historical record says. You’d have to go back to the Vulgate to find out when this whole controversy really started becoming a controversy. Prior to that there were several lists that didn’t agree with each other.
Either way, when history disagrees with scripture, I know what side is true.

Are you speaking of the Latin Vulgate? That's just a translation of the Bible.

You need to read HOW the books were canonized. At one time there were many bishops, and many books, who voted in and left out books that are in the Bible.

Those Bishops were part of the church of a combined Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church called "The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". (You can see it referenced in the Nicean Creed).

The Ante Nicean Christians understood the metaphors used in 1 Cornithians 11 switch back to the hair and physical covering. They also understood what the spiritual authority on a head meant.

Who is pictured on an Orthodox Bishops (Byzantine Traditional) covering? His spiritual authority.


Again I am not Orthodox. I just don't like false things flung at religions people don't understand.

[mrbilliam]

Read the Christian ethereal library. They'll show you the Orthodox bishops voting in the books to canonize your Bible you hold (Well there were 4 more books, but Martin Luther single handed stripped 4 of them from the original canon). This is history. Like it or leave it, but it doesn't change the facts.

Some of us are actually fairly well read and we still disagree with your conclusions as to what the historical record says. You’d have to go back to the Vulgate to find out when this whole controversy really started becoming a controversy. Prior to that there were several lists that didn’t agree with each other.
Either way, when history disagrees with scripture, I know what side is true.

Just because a church sometime in the past selected the books that we now hold, doesn't mean that we have some indebtedness to them for this. The Pharisees were careful to keep alive a belief in the resurrection of the dead, but I don't feel any indebtedness to them for preserving this doctrine. Jesus told the Jews that if they were Abraham's seed, they would do the works of Abraham. Shouldn't Jesus have been giving them credit for all the good teachings they or their grandparents kept preserved?

But for the sake of discussion, let's pretend that the Orthodox church is the church that we should be indebted to for the Bible we hold. That doesn't mean that we should then give them a pass on how they have found a work around for various teachings in the New Testament.

You misinterpreted my point though. I don't say we have an indebtedness to them. I'm saying that the Orthodox have a immense depth and history along with a RADICAL amount of time and fully understand 1 Corinthians 11. They are not purposely disobeying the Bible.

What is happening is cultural Mennonites and modern protestant viewpoints of "we know better than them because ah-ha look what he's doing" is a false way to condemn somebody else. Understand what the Orthodox teach on it first. I can't condemn this.

Most Mennonites will even call the covering a "headship veil" or "kapp". They do it because of 1 Cornithians 11, with a lot of awkward teachings about it. It's just an immature depth and understanding.

I know this conjoins my other thread, but 1 Corinthians 11 is treated like "LAW" in Menno churches, but Menno churches forget quickly about verse 16. This isn't a hard line rule, it's just a beautiful custom, tradition, and symbolic spiritual garment. It's good to do it, but not a "salvation issue". Mennos will even withhold communion to somebody unwilling to do something where there is "no such requirement". The EO church many women cover in many churches, and many do not in other churches. But it is pretty much "LAW" in a Menno church.

But Matthew 28's Great Commission is NOT LAW, and is ignored, BARELY brought to cities, when it is a direct command of Jesus after he declared all of Heaven AND Earth to be under his authority. He said "Go ye therefore...".

That all being said, it sounds that the general consensus is the Menno church will not go after a woman to work her, only if the woman is not submitting to her husband, and going to the Mennos for counseling and advice.

[mrbilliam]

Sounds like you have found a home? Or are you another advocate of the Orthodox while not willing to actually join?

No, I just don't like blatant denial of history and false accusations. It has no place in the Christian faith.

Can you explain us to what is going on with the EOs and Putin?

Putin is part of the Russian Orthodox church. The man with the flowers is Patriarch Kirill. Basically he is the Patriarch of Moscow and all of Russia. He would be one of the bishops needed if the EO and RC church ever reunited to have a full Ecumenical council. He has MILLIONS of people under him. Basically the RC church calls their top Bishop a "Pope". This guy would be the "Pope" of Russia. Originally the churches were the same church all with an even vote between bishops. Then the Great Schism happened..... And because we all have a life, and that is a subject of vast reading, I'll stop there.

But yeah, Kirill is a very important figure in Russia, and Putin knows it, and he would be Putin's top Bishop.