|
Post by DKTrav88 on Apr 24, 2018 0:16:23 GMT
www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.htmlThe doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the centuries, even unto today. The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader of the apostles, with the greatest authority, and therefore his successors carry on the greatest authority. The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope. However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Yes, the apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the book of Acts records the apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors. Catholics point to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of apostolic succession. While Matthias did indeed “succeed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas) with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2). In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The Roman Catholic Church claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise (2 Peter 2:1). Admittedly, the lack of “supreme authority” among non-Catholic churches results in many different interpretations of the Bible. However, these differences in interpretation are not the result of Scripture being unclear. Rather, they are the result of even non-Catholic Christians carrying on the Catholic tradition of interpreting Scripture in accordance with their own traditions. If Scripture is studied in its entirety and in its proper context, the truth can be easily determined. Doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture. Alignment with scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church. What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the Word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12). Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 27, 2018 23:56:46 GMT
When people read moses the veil is there. When people read a priest the veil is there. Read Jesus. I said everything correct. This is so stupid
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Apr 28, 2018 0:20:10 GMT
When people read moses the veil is there. When people read a priest the veil is there. Read Jesus. I said everything correct. This is so stupid This text does not say about the apostolic ministry .. this speaks of the non-believe of the Jews in Jesus Christ! This is the main idea of this text .. I did not say that the apostles are like God!
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 28, 2018 3:22:09 GMT
I lost my post twice! I was saying: Fellows, Elizabeth quoted Mark saying to His Apostles:Go and preach the gospel... Well, we don't have Jesus' Aramaic word for it. "Gospel" [God-spell; God-word] is the incorrect translation of Mark's Greek "eu-aggelion" [eu-angelion; evangelium in Latin], which means "good message" or "good news".But that's not the only thing He bade them to do. He also said, heal the sick (as he did, by the laying of hands], exorcize demons (the evil spirits or devils) who possess people, and drink snake poison [which may have referred to some potion which is hallucinogenic and may have produced in Him and in John what is written in the Apokalypse -- the visions that concern the end of the world. Christians today concentrate on learning His message, for those who drink snake poison do not live long enough to tell what it does for them. Does anybody know of the effects of these sacred injunctions? Or must Christians be selective in their following of Jesus? On what authority?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2018 5:22:29 GMT
I lost my post twice! I was saying: Fellows, Elizabeth quoted Mark saying to His Apostles:Go and preach the gospel... Well, we don't have Jesus' Aramaic word for it. "Gospel" [God-spell; God-word] is the incorrect translation of Mark's Greek "eu-aggelion" [eu-angelion; evangelium in Latin], which means "good message" or "good news".But that's not the only thing He bade them to do. He also said, heal the sick (as he did, by the laying of hands], exorcize demons (the evil spirits or devils) who possess people, and drink snake poison [which may have referred to some potion which is hallucinogenic and may have produced in Him and in John what is written in the Apokalypse -- the visions that concern the end of the world. Christians today concentrate on learning His message, for those who drink snake poison do not live long enough to tell what it does for them. Does anybody know of the effects of these sacred injunctions? Or must Christians be selective in their following of Jesus? On what authority? Ha, me too. Two my poat disappeared in two different threads.. wth is happening here?.. It's probably demons obstacle us to conversate about God. Your notification is vwry interesting, but it crashes on a verse in Acts (or Paul's; i dont remember exactly), where there were words: 'youre not of Peter, or Apollo's, of smth, but youre all Christ's followers' l. This was an objection for separation between apostles. Christ's words and this place which is forgotten by me, are tight. If Christ's words would be have more weight then Apostles probably would not try to group together and have the one church.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 28, 2018 5:43:18 GMT
I lost my post twice! I was saying: Fellows, Elizabeth quoted Mark saying to His Apostles:Go and preach the gospel... Well, we don't have Jesus' Aramaic word for it. "Gospel" [God-spell; God-word] is the incorrect translation of Mark's Greek "eu-aggelion" [eu-angelion; evangelium in Latin], which means "good message" or "good news".But that's not the only thing He bade them to do. He also said, heal the sick (as he did, by the laying of hands], exorcize demons (the evil spirits or devils) who possess people, and drink snake poison [which may have referred to some potion which is hallucinogenic and may have produced in Him and in John what is written in the Apokalypse -- the visions that concern the end of the world. Christians today concentrate on learning His message, for those who drink snake poison do not live long enough to tell what it does for them. Does anybody know of the effects of these sacred injunctions? Or must Christians be selective in their following of Jesus? On what authority? The book of Mark isn't the only one that says it but that verse came to mind first so I used it to say we're supposed to preach what Jesus preached since He created Christianity and that we shouldn't read a silly new thing called an apolitical succession nonsense that's not from Christianity. But this snake poison is interesting. Can I get a verse for it because I don't remember it saying to drink snake poison?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 28, 2018 5:44:45 GMT
I lost my post twice! I was saying: Fellows, Elizabeth quoted Mark saying to His Apostles:Go and preach the gospel... Well, we don't have Jesus' Aramaic word for it. "Gospel" [God-spell; God-word] is the incorrect translation of Mark's Greek "eu-aggelion" [eu-angelion; evangelium in Latin], which means "good message" or "good news".But that's not the only thing He bade them to do. He also said, heal the sick (as he did, by the laying of hands], exorcize demons (the evil spirits or devils) who possess people, and drink snake poison [which may have referred to some potion which is hallucinogenic and may have produced in Him and in John what is written in the Apokalypse -- the visions that concern the end of the world. Christians today concentrate on learning His message, for those who drink snake poison do not live long enough to tell what it does for them. Does anybody know of the effects of these sacred injunctions? Or must Christians be selective in their following of Jesus? On what authority? Ha, me too. Two my poat disappeared in two different threads.. wth is happening here?.. It's probably demons obstacle us to conversate about God. Your notification is vwry interesting, but it crashes on a verse in Acts (or Paul's; i dont remember exactly), where there were words: 'youre not of Peter, or Apollo's, of smth, but youre all Christ's followers' l. This was an objection for separation between apostles. Christ's words and this place which is forgotten by me, are tight. If Christ's words would be have more weight then Apostles probably would not try to group together and have the one church. In which threads? And what were they about? I could try to find out what happened to them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2018 7:22:30 GMT
Ha, me too. Two my poat disappeared in two different threads.. wth is happening here?.. It's probably demons obstacle us to conversate about God. Your notification is vwry interesting, but it crashes on a verse in Acts (or Paul's; i dont remember exactly), where there were words: 'youre not of Peter, or Apollo's, of smth, but youre all Christ's followers' l. This was an objection for separation between apostles. Christ's words and this place which is forgotten by me, are tight. If Christ's words would be have more weight then Apostles probably would not try to group together and have the one church. In which threads? And what were they about? I could try to find out what happened to them. Oh, I'll explain later, now I have no time, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 28, 2018 14:55:27 GMT
I lost my post twice! I was saying: Fellows, Elizabeth quoted Mark saying to His Apostles:Go and preach the gospel... Well, we don't have Jesus' Aramaic word for it. "Gospel" [God-spell; God-word] is the incorrect translation of Mark's Greek "eu-aggelion" [eu-angelion; evangelium in Latin], which means "good message" or "good news".But that's not the only thing He bade them to do. He also said, heal the sick (as he did, by the laying of hands], exorcize demons (the evil spirits or devils) who possess people, and drink snake poison [which may have referred to some potion which is hallucinogenic and may have produced in Him and in John what is written in the Apokalypse -- the visions that concern the end of the world. Christians today concentrate on learning His message, for those who drink snake poison do not live long enough to tell what it does for them. Does anybody know of the effects of these sacred injunctions? Or must Christians be selective in their following of Jesus? On what authority? The book of Mark isn't the only one that says it but that verse came to mind first so I used it to say we're supposed to preach what Jesus preached since He created Christianity and that we shouldn't read a silly new thing called an apolitical succession nonsense that's not from Christianity. But this snake poison is interesting. Can I get a verse for it because I don't remember it saying to drink snake poison? I was not very accurate in my reference to snake poison. Mark 16:14-18 in my "The Unvarnished New Testament" (trans. by Andy Gaus, a new translation from the original Greek) says, "... The faithful will be attended by the following signs: In my name they will throw out demons; they will speak new languages; they will take snakes in their hands, and even if they drink the poison it won't hurt them; and they will put their hands on sick people, and they'll be well again." [That's what the true believers will be able to do.]
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on May 9, 2018 3:56:29 GMT
The book of Mark isn't the only one that says it but that verse came to mind first so I used it to say we're supposed to preach what Jesus preached since He created Christianity and that we shouldn't read a silly new thing called an apolitical succession nonsense that's not from Christianity. But this snake poison is interesting. Can I get a verse for it because I don't remember it saying to drink snake poison? I was not very accurate in my reference to snake poison. Mark 16:14-18 in my "The Unvarnished New Testament" (trans. by Andy Gaus, a new translation from the original Greek) says, "... The faithful will be attended by the following signs: In my name they will throw out demons; they will speak new languages; they will take snakes in their hands, and even if they drink the poison it won't hurt them; and they will put their hands on sick people, and they'll be well again." [That's what the true believers will be able to do.]
Sorry for the late reply to this. But I had to make sure that I didn't overlook any snake verses before replying. Ok so...this is the verse you arw referring to I believe.... Mark 16 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” So let's break it down into different parts of what it's saying here. 1. One must believe and then be baptized to be saved. Believe+baptism=saved. One obviously cannot be baptized without believing. 3. Then their will be signs that show if they're saved. So, some type of evidence. And Jesus lists some things that these believers who are saved can do. Some of the things He listed are (1) cast out demons (2) speak with tongues/languages (3) they will be safe from things like serpents (4) poisons will not harm them (5) they can heal. Now let's see what it doesn't say. It doesn't say that all believers will be able to do all of those things. Just says believers can have such powers which can be any of those things. So who does what? Well....if you look at this verse to find out... 1 Corinthians 12 4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. So we can see that it isn't just limited to the 5 Jesus listed. Jesus just made a list with some examples. Paul in Corinthians made a longer list mentioning same and adding more examples that believers can do. So everyone has their own unique gift of proof or things or talents to use or to offer after they believe, get baptized, and become saved. So ways they serve God
|
|
KGrim
Full Member
Coming back to Arktos...for a little while anyways...just to see how things are doing.
Posts: 442
Likes: 238
Country: USA
Region: South East
Location: East Texas
Ancestry: Scotch-Irish
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Hero: Jesus
Age: 33 soon to be 34
Philosophy: Hesychasm
|
Post by KGrim on Nov 7, 2019 1:45:23 GMT
www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.htmlThe doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the centuries, even unto today. The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader of the apostles, with the greatest authority, and therefore his successors carry on the greatest authority. The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope. However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Yes, the apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the book of Acts records the apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors. Catholics point to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of apostolic succession. While Matthias did indeed “succeed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas) with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2). In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The Roman Catholic Church claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise (2 Peter 2:1). Admittedly, the lack of “supreme authority” among non-Catholic churches results in many different interpretations of the Bible. However, these differences in interpretation are not the result of Scripture being unclear. Rather, they are the result of even non-Catholic Christians carrying on the Catholic tradition of interpreting Scripture in accordance with their own traditions. If Scripture is studied in its entirety and in its proper context, the truth can be easily determined. Doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture. Alignment with scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church. What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the Word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12). Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession. You think that the church must be based on the bible, but as an Orthodox Christian I know that the Bible is based on the Church, because it was the Church that wrote the Bible. Even Paul agrees when he says "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15) Note that he did not say that the bible was the pillar and ground of the truth, but that the church was.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 7, 2019 3:41:00 GMT
www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.htmlThe doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the centuries, even unto today. The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader of the apostles, with the greatest authority, and therefore his successors carry on the greatest authority. The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope. However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Yes, the apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the book of Acts records the apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors. Catholics point to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of apostolic succession. While Matthias did indeed “succeed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas) with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2). In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The Roman Catholic Church claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise (2 Peter 2:1). Admittedly, the lack of “supreme authority” among non-Catholic churches results in many different interpretations of the Bible. However, these differences in interpretation are not the result of Scripture being unclear. Rather, they are the result of even non-Catholic Christians carrying on the Catholic tradition of interpreting Scripture in accordance with their own traditions. If Scripture is studied in its entirety and in its proper context, the truth can be easily determined. Doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture. Alignment with scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church. What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the Word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12). Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession. You think that the church must be based on the bible, but as an Orthodox Christian I know that the Bible is based on the Church, because it was the Church that wrote the Bible. Even Paul agrees when he says "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15) Note that he did not say that the bible was the pillar and ground of the truth, but that the church was. The Orthodox Church didn't write the Bible. If the Bible is based on the Church then that means the Church is God and the sole Authority. I expect those who value traditions over scripture to take this position though as it is the same that the pharisees did. A false church cannot cannot be a pillar of truth.
|
|
KGrim
Full Member
Coming back to Arktos...for a little while anyways...just to see how things are doing.
Posts: 442
Likes: 238
Country: USA
Region: South East
Location: East Texas
Ancestry: Scotch-Irish
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Hero: Jesus
Age: 33 soon to be 34
Philosophy: Hesychasm
|
Post by KGrim on Nov 7, 2019 4:04:46 GMT
You think that the church must be based on the bible, but as an Orthodox Christian I know that the Bible is based on the Church, because it was the Church that wrote the Bible. Even Paul agrees when he says "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15) Note that he did not say that the bible was the pillar and ground of the truth, but that the church was. The Orthodox Church didn't write the Bible. If the Bible is based on the Church then that means the Church is God and the sole Authority. I expect those who value traditions over scripture to take this position though as it is the same that the pharisees did. A false church cannot cannot be a pillar of truth. The Church didn't write the Bible? Then Paul was never part of the Church. Throw all the Epistles out the window.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 7, 2019 4:08:52 GMT
The Orthodox Church didn't write the Bible. If the Bible is based on the Church then that means the Church is God and the sole Authority. I expect those who value traditions over scripture to take this position though as it is the same that the pharisees did. A false church cannot cannot be a pillar of truth. The Church didn't write the Bible? Then Paul was never part of the Church. Throw all the Epistles out the window. Paul wasn't a part of the Orthodox Church.
|
|
KGrim
Full Member
Coming back to Arktos...for a little while anyways...just to see how things are doing.
Posts: 442
Likes: 238
Country: USA
Region: South East
Location: East Texas
Ancestry: Scotch-Irish
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Hero: Jesus
Age: 33 soon to be 34
Philosophy: Hesychasm
|
Post by KGrim on Nov 7, 2019 4:13:20 GMT
That church that was in the beginning, the church of Christ and the Apostles including Paul is the Orthodox Church.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 7, 2019 4:54:15 GMT
That church that was in the beginning, the church of Christ and the Apostles including Paul is the Orthodox Church. Did your church tell you that?
|
|