Here is an EO apologist and priest going over their objections to the video with sources.



Even better, Craig is interviewing the pastor that made the video to discuss his objections to Orthodoxy on 8/18.2023

Thanks for the short response.

Listen at 2:10:00 but the whole thing is worth it, especially since they contrast a spirit to the individual and the Holy Spirit to the Church.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lord-of-spirits/id1531206254?i=1000582608649

TSJ said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

For the Reformers, they looked to Scripture as the source of authority.

---

I am going to infer scripture=bible.

Which Bible does the Bible say you should use?

Which church does your Bible tell you is the true Church?

What does the Bible teach about abortion or the internet?

And if I get the right answers from my Bible why are there so many people following theirs to completely different ends?

Maybe I am completely ignorant, but I need serious guidance in understanding the most important book I will ever come across.

---

Now you're avoiding your own question!

You claimed you needed to know about "unity of Scripture and tradition."

I pointed out multiple groups claim this unity, is vague and gave reasons.

You want to shift to attacking parts of my argument without really addressing any of it.

TSJ said:

---

Here is an EO apologist and priest going over their objections to the video with sources.



Even better, Craig is interviewing the pastor that made the video to discuss his objections to Orthodoxy on 8/18.2023

---

I saw it and was able to listen to about 50 minutes of it while at work today. As a response, it doesn't do a very good job and so far is grasping around the edges of the main arguments.

For example, they spent time commenting on the accents used to read different Bible verses or Ancient Fathers and trying to draw conclusions about how that was used to bias the listening.

It tends to showcase the strength of the original video (even though there are things I disagree with it on).

For abortion

What about Numbers 5:11-28?

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impureor if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 "'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband" 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse"may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries."
"'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it."
23 "'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 "'This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.'"

I'm not following the logic here. These ceremonies were apart of the ceremonial law pre-Christ.

AgLiving06 said:

---

TSJ said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

For the Reformers, they looked to Scripture as the source of authority.

---

I am going to infer scripture=bible.

Which Bible does the Bible say you should use?

Which church does your Bible tell you is the true Church?

What does the Bible teach about abortion or the internet?

And if I get the right answers from my Bible why are there so many people following theirs to completely different ends?

Maybe I am completely ignorant, but I need serious guidance in understanding the most important book I will ever come across.

---

Now you're avoiding your own question!

You claimed you needed to know about "unity of Scripture and tradition."

I pointed out multiple groups claim this unity, is vague and gave reasons.

You want to shift to attacking parts of my argument without really addressing any of it.

---

Okay, in Matthew 9:14-17 Jesus is asked why his disciples don't fast like John's followers and the Pharisees. Jesus replies that they cant mourn while the bridegroom is present, but there will be a time when the bridegroom is taken away and then they will fast.

What reformed churches follow the tradition of fasting?

TheGreatEscape said:

---

I'm not following the logic here. These ceremonies were apart of the ceremonial law pre-Christ.

---

The Lord has given a law to induce a miscarriage on a cheating spouse.

From your response, does that mean you have a presupposition that the incarnation brought a new law?

TSJ said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

I'm not following the logic here. These ceremonies were apart of the ceremonial law pre-Christ.

---

The Lord has given a law to induce a miscarriage on a cheating spouse.

From your response, does that mean you have a presupposition that the incarnation brought a new law?

---

There are three parts of the law.
The moral law
The judicial law
And the ceremonial law

The Eastern Orthodox Church is stuck in the 2nd Century . And some say proudly so.

TSJ said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

TSJ said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

For the Reformers, they looked to Scripture as the source of authority.

---

I am going to infer scripture=bible.

Which Bible does the Bible say you should use?

Which church does your Bible tell you is the true Church?

What does the Bible teach about abortion or the internet?

And if I get the right answers from my Bible why are there so many people following theirs to completely different ends?

Maybe I am completely ignorant, but I need serious guidance in understanding the most important book I will ever come across.

---

Now you're avoiding your own question!

You claimed you needed to know about "unity of Scripture and tradition."

I pointed out multiple groups claim this unity, is vague and gave reasons.

You want to shift to attacking parts of my argument without really addressing any of it.

---

Okay, in Matthew 9:14-17 Jesus is asked why his disciples don't fast like John's followers and the Pharisees. Jesus replies that they cant mourn while the bridegroom is present, but there will be a time when the bridegroom is taken away and then they will fast.

What reformed churches follow the tradition of fasting?

---

So you're not going to answer your own question?

But to answer yours, Lutheran's specifically call out Gods command for fasting in the Apology article VII points 139 and 143 (for example).

TheGreatEscape said:

---

TSJ said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

I'm not following the logic here. These ceremonies were apart of the ceremonial law pre-Christ.

---

The Lord has given a law to induce a miscarriage on a cheating spouse.

From your response, does that mean you have a presupposition that the incarnation brought a new law?

---

There are three parts of the law.
The moral law
The judicial law
And the ceremonial law

---

That's one way to say Jesus came to abolish the law and not fulfill it.

TSJ said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

TSJ said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

For the Reformers, they looked to Scripture as the source of authority.

---

I am going to infer scripture=bible.

Which Bible does the Bible say you should use?

Which church does your Bible tell you is the true Church?

What does the Bible teach about abortion or the internet?

And if I get the right answers from my Bible why are there so many people following theirs to completely different ends?

Maybe I am completely ignorant, but I need serious guidance in understanding the most important book I will ever come across.

---

Now you're avoiding your own question!

You claimed you needed to know about "unity of Scripture and tradition."

I pointed out multiple groups claim this unity, is vague and gave reasons.

You want to shift to attacking parts of my argument without really addressing any of it.

---

Okay, in Matthew 9:14-17 Jesus is asked why his disciples don't fast like John's followers and the Pharisees. Jesus replies that they cant mourn while the bridegroom is present, but there will be a time when the bridegroom is taken away and then they will fast.

What reformed churches follow the tradition of fasting?

---

All of them?

AgLiving06 said:

---

TSJ said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

TSJ said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

For the Reformers, they looked to Scripture as the source of authority.

---

I am going to infer scripture=bible.

Which Bible does the Bible say you should use?

Which church does your Bible tell you is the true Church?

What does the Bible teach about abortion or the internet?

And if I get the right answers from my Bible why are there so many people following theirs to completely different ends?

Maybe I am completely ignorant, but I need serious guidance in understanding the most important book I will ever come across.

---

Now you're avoiding your own question!

You claimed you needed to know about "unity of Scripture and tradition."

I pointed out multiple groups claim this unity, is vague and gave reasons.

You want to shift to attacking parts of my argument without really addressing any of it.

---

Okay, in Matthew 9:14-17 Jesus is asked why his disciples don't fast like John's followers and the Pharisees. Jesus replies that they cant mourn while the bridegroom is present, but there will be a time when the bridegroom is taken away and then they will fast.

What reformed churches follow the tradition of fasting?

---

So you're not going to answer your own question?

But to answer yours, Lutheran's specifically call out Gods command for fasting in the Apology article VII points 139 and 143 (for example).

---

I think the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church. I think what's documented in the Bible is continued and passed down through to this point in this Church. It is the synthesis of scripture, tradition, and authority.



My Google-fo is not what it should be, can you share a link to those article points? I found a reference pointing to those numbers but not the actual statements.

AGC said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

TSJ said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

I'm not following the logic here. These ceremonies were apart of the ceremonial law pre-Christ.

---

The Lord has given a law to induce a miscarriage on a cheating spouse.

From your response, does that mean you have a presupposition that the incarnation brought a new law?

---

There are three parts of the law.
The moral law
The judicial law
And the ceremonial law

---

That's one way to say Jesus came to abolish the law and not fulfill it.

---

That's not what I meant. No. We don't sacrifice burnt offering and participate in some of the Priestly observances and traditions anymore.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

AGC said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

TSJ said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

I'm not following the logic here. These ceremonies were apart of the ceremonial law pre-Christ.

---

The Lord has given a law to induce a miscarriage on a cheating spouse.

From your response, does that mean you have a presupposition that the incarnation brought a new law?

---

There are three parts of the law.
The moral law
The judicial law
And the ceremonial law

---

That's one way to say Jesus came to abolish the law and not fulfill it.

---

That's not what I meant. No. We don't sacrifice burnt offering and participate in some of the Priestly observances and traditions anymore.

---

These are the words of Christ then? That there are three parts to the law and that some no longer apply? Or the words of the disciples, perhaps? Who split them all up for you and told you what is and isn't valid?

AGC said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

AGC said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

TSJ said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

I'm not following the logic here. These ceremonies were apart of the ceremonial law pre-Christ.

---

The Lord has given a law to induce a miscarriage on a cheating spouse.

From your response, does that mean you have a presupposition that the incarnation brought a new law?

---

There are three parts of the law.
The moral law
The judicial law
And the ceremonial law

---

That's one way to say Jesus came to abolish the law and not fulfill it.

---

That's not what I meant. No. We don't sacrifice burnt offering and participate in some of the Priestly observances and traditions anymore.

---

These are the words of Christ then? That there are three parts to the law and that some no longer apply? Or the words of the disciples, perhaps? Who split them all up for you and told you what is and isn't valid?

---

For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. Heb. 7:12

There must be laws specific to the Levitical priesthood that have been invalidated once the priesthood changed.

There must be laws specific to the State of Israel that have been invalidated once that state ended, more specifically when the gospel was preached to the gentiles and God's people were not limited to one state.

Thank you, Martin.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AGC said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

AGC said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

TSJ said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

I'm not following the logic here. These ceremonies were apart of the ceremonial law pre-Christ.

---

The Lord has given a law to induce a miscarriage on a cheating spouse.

From your response, does that mean you have a presupposition that the incarnation brought a new law?

---

There are three parts of the law.
The moral law
The judicial law
And the ceremonial law

---

That's one way to say Jesus came to abolish the law and not fulfill it.

---

That's not what I meant. No. We don't sacrifice burnt offering and participate in some of the Priestly observances and traditions anymore.

---

These are the words of Christ then? That there are three parts to the law and that some no longer apply? Or the words of the disciples, perhaps? Who split them all up for you and told you what is and isn't valid?

---

For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. Heb. 7:12

There must be laws specific to the Levitical priesthood that have been invalidated once the priesthood changed.

There must be laws specific to the State of Israel that have been invalidated once that state ended, more specifically when the gospel was preached to the gentiles and God's people were not limited to one state.

---

That's where we get into the whole 'fulfill' really means 'abolish' issue and why I brought it up. It's problematic when you start parsing everything out and picking and choosing what to observe and what not to.

Christians still went to the temple up until it was destroyed. But if it's as simple as no longer needing sacrifices or the priesthood (outside Christ) why'd they do it?

A simpler example would be Christ offering himself as the sacrifice, thus when we partake in the Eucharist we've not abolished anything. It is a deeper meaning of sacrifice rather than a simple one time event that means nothing applies except this loose moral framework of the two greatest commandments that we're wrestling with all the time.

Quote:

---

Christians still went to the temple up until it was destroyed. But if it's as simple as no longer needing sacrifices or the priesthood (outside Christ) why'd they do it?

---

Transitioning a millennia+ old priesthood takes time. Hence why the entire book of Hebrews was written.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

Christians still went to the temple up until it was destroyed. But if it's as simple as no longer needing sacrifices or the priesthood (outside Christ) why'd they do it?

---

Transitioning a millennia+ old priesthood takes time. Hence why the entire book of Hebrews was written.

---

Shifting gears a bit, I believe in the general equity of the Judicial Law. It formed much of English Common law, which has a huge influence in our law today.

For instance, there are laws in the Old Testament like this one
Deuteronomy 22:8 (ESV)

8 "When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.

Now most of us don't have a roof that we go out and relax on in the cool of the night, for example.
But if we did then we would be responsible by the law to
build rails around it . That way people don't fall off and break
their neck or leg or something. Liability…

And the Moral Law is summed up in the Ten Commandments that still stand.

Yes, I think Paul makes the same argument about paying ministers using the law to not muzzle an ox while working.

That's correct.

I think in this discussion understanding nomos as law is probably really misleading. Torah means teaching, nomos means mode of living or way of life or culture. It absolutely includes laws in the modern narrow sense but is more expansive than that. When the priesthood change, the teaching must change would be a literal reading if you substitute "nomos" for "torah" and translate it directly. The correlate is the way of life.

Understanding it as law, as in rules set down by legislative body, I think misses it.

Y'all are correct in understanding that aspect of it as casuistic - case-based statements that can be applied or extrapolated as principles to other circumstances. As St Paul does with the cattle.

Semantics

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

Christians still went to the temple up until it was destroyed. But if it's as simple as no longer needing sacrifices or the priesthood (outside Christ) why'd they do it?

---

Transitioning a millennia+ old priesthood takes time. Hence why the entire book of Hebrews was written.

---

Paul literally went to the Temple, affirmed the offices of the priests and was willing to sacrifice animals and take a Nazarite Vow to refute this idea. Not really sure how anyone can attribute any thoughts about the passing away of the old sacrificial system to Paul. The early Christians stopped sacrificing because the Romans made it impossible. They destroyed the Temple so there was nowhere on Earth where someone could actually offer a sacrifice. Julian the Apostate tried to rebuild the Temple and all sorts of natural disasters prevented it. My understanding is that all the OT ceremonies are still valid. But they are just impossible to carry out, just as they were after the Babylonian conquest. I think the natural disasters that prevented Julian from rebuilding the Temple shows that God doesn't want us to carry out those ceremonies. Whether that will change in the future, who knows? Temple worship isn't critical to the Christian faith, but it's not like it timed out or something.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

Christians still went to the temple up until it was destroyed. But if it's as simple as no longer needing sacrifices or the priesthood (outside Christ) why'd they do it?

---

Transitioning a millennia+ old priesthood takes time. Hence why the entire book of Hebrews was written.

---

Paul literally went to the Temple, affirmed the offices of the priests and was willing to sacrifice animals and take a Nazarite Vow to refute this idea. Not really sure how anyone can attribute any thoughts about the passing away of the old sacrificial system to Paul. The early Christians stopped sacrificing because the Romans made it impossible. They destroyed the Temple so there was nowhere on Earth where someone could actually offer a sacrifice. Julian the Apostate tried to rebuild the Temple and all sorts of natural disasters prevented it. My understanding is that all the OT ceremonies are still valid. But they are just impossible to carry out, just as they were after the Babylonian conquest. I think the natural disasters that prevented Julian from rebuilding the Temple shows that God doesn't want us to carry out those ceremonies. Whether that will change in the future, who knows? Temple worship isn't critical to the Christian faith, but it's not like it timed out or something.

---

God made it impossible.

Matthew 24:2 (ESV)

But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."

And we also know that God tore the temple veil into two.

"And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. " (Matthew 27:51)(NASB)

TSJ said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

TSJ said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

TSJ said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

For the Reformers, they looked to Scripture as the source of authority.

---

I am going to infer scripture=bible.

Which Bible does the Bible say you should use?

Which church does your Bible tell you is the true Church?

What does the Bible teach about abortion or the internet?

And if I get the right answers from my Bible why are there so many people following theirs to completely different ends?

Maybe I am completely ignorant, but I need serious guidance in understanding the most important book I will ever come across.

---

Now you're avoiding your own question!

You claimed you needed to know about "unity of Scripture and tradition."

I pointed out multiple groups claim this unity, is vague and gave reasons.

You want to shift to attacking parts of my argument without really addressing any of it.

---

Okay, in Matthew 9:14-17 Jesus is asked why his disciples don't fast like John's followers and the Pharisees. Jesus replies that they cant mourn while the bridegroom is present, but there will be a time when the bridegroom is taken away and then they will fast.

What reformed churches follow the tradition of fasting?

---

So you're not going to answer your own question?

But to answer yours, Lutheran's specifically call out Gods command for fasting in the Apology article VII points 139 and 143 (for example).

---

I think the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church. I think what's documented in the Bible is continued and passed down through to this point in this Church. It is the synthesis of scripture, tradition, and authority.



My Google-fo is not what it should be, can you share a link to those article points? I found a reference pointing to those numbers but not the actual statements.

---

That's an opinion you're certainly able to have. But to your original question, there are many groups (Rome and Protestant alike) that offer a historic tradition that many believe fits the same criteria as you've used.

In terms of a high level, this is what one of Lutheran's core Confessional documents say on fasting.

This is point 139: "[139] Lombard's statement about remitting a part of the punishments referred to canonical penalties, part of which pastors remitted. To be sure, we hold that repentance ought to produce good fruits on account of the glory and commandment of God and that good fruits, such as true fasting, true prayer, true almsgiving, and the like, have God's command."

This is point 143:
[143] Moreover, true prayer, true almsgiving, and true fasting possess God's command, and where they have such a command they cannot be omitted without sin. But those works, insofar as they are not commanded by God's law, but derive from a humanly made prescription, are works that belong to human traditions about which Christ says [Matt. 15:9*], "In vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines." Works such as certain fasts were established not to restrain the flesh but, as Scotus says, to honor God and to compensate for eternal death.355 The same is true when a fixed number of prayers or certain acts of charity are rendered in such a way that they become a form of worship that ex opere operato gives honor to God and compensates for eternal death. For they attribute satisfaction to these ex opere operato, because they teach that they even have value for those living in mortal sin. [144] Now some works stray even further from God's commands, like pilgrimages, of which there is a great variety. For one person makes the journey in full armor and another with bare feet. Christ calls these useless acts of worship, and so they do not serve to conciliate God's displeasure, as the opponents claim. Nonetheless, they adorn these works with distinguished names. They call them works of supererogation and give them the honor of being the price paid in lieu of eternal death. [145] Thus, these works receive preference over the commandments of God. In this way the law of God is obscured in two ways: first because they suppose that they satisfy the law of God through external and civil works; and second, because they add human traditions, the performance of which receives preference to works of the divine law.

Fasting is seeing as a command from God, but differentiation (which the EO would agree with) need be made between a fast done as a demand or to "earn" something vs doing a fast to try and draw close to God.

Thank you for the quotes!

I think I am in agreement with you. Fasting to flaunt in front of others or to be forced into does no favor.

TSJ said:

---

Thank you for the quotes!

I think I am in agreement with you. Fasting to flaunt in front of others or to be forced into does no favor.

---

Or forced…is right.
Jesus didn't force his disciples to fast and was criticized for it.

Matthew 9:14 (ESV)


Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"

Yet, it is recommended by some that one fast every Wednesday and Friday?