So do you burn incense literally?
Every day we do at evening prayers. Family gathers in front of the icons of Christ and saints in our prayer corner, and we recite some prayers of thanksgiving from the orthodox prayer book and go down the list of people we are praying for. The morning we are technically supposed to do the same but I will admit its a bit more rushed with getting out the door and definitely as each family member gets up on their own.Yukon Cornelius said:
So do you burn incense literally?
Now, granted, I have young children. There are bribes of watching an episode of Bluey if they stand still, face the icon, don't bug their siblings, and recite the Lords prayer when we get to that part. Bedtime kicks off at an exact time every night so its easy to do so.dermdoc said:
I think that is a great way to bring the family together in prayer.
Worship is a very specific terminology. A lot of what a protestant (not saying you are one) considers worship is really just praise. Worship is specifically the act of communing with God. God has outlined how he wants to be worshipped, how he doesn't, and the Church has built upon the second temple practices to reflect the eucharist being available to all peoples.Yukon Cornelius said:
And keeping the sabbath isn't a form of worship? Why do one and not the other?
What part of the 10 commandments or 613 truly given is not fully wrapped up by the two commandments Jesus quotes as the greatest? 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Leviticus 19:18 and 'Love the Lord God fully with all your heart, soul, and mind' Deuteronomy 6:5.?Jabin said:
IMHO, Yukon Cornelius has raised good points that no one has directly or adequately answered. As I understand his question, all Christians believe that they should obey the 10 commandments, except for the one about the Sabbath. Why do we except that one only?
Did the ancient Jews burn incense outside of the Tabernacle or Temple, i.e., in the various synagogues? What historical evidence exists one way or the other?
In general, if we're getting into 'pious obligations' lets take a step back and start with becoming an inquirer at church. At its core, we light incense because this is how God said He wants us to worship Him. So the most full expression of prayer includes incense. Again, you are not bound by the 613 commandments of the Torah as a layperson grafted in. But as a priest to your family, replicating what whatever liturgical practices you can at home - you light incense because the church does and because its part of the fullness of the faith.Yukon Cornelius said:
What obligation do I have for lighting incense? If I'm ignorant of such a command please enlighten me. And to what purpose does it serve?
My understanding the incense is a physical parable of our prayers. All of the rituals were physical/earthly parables of heavenly truths. So I'm not opposed obviously to incense burning but it being some obligations seems incorrect.
I've got to say that my understanding of this is exactly the opposite. Worship is everything in your life that you do to honor and revere God. Praise is the subset of worship that involves prayer, liturgy, and singing. The Eucharist would be it's own category of worship.Quote:
Worship is a very specific terminology. A lot of what a protestant (not saying you are one) considers worship is really just praise. Worship is specifically the act of communing with God. God has outlined how he wants to be worshipped, how he doesn't, and the Church has built upon the second temple practices to reflect the eucharist being available to all peoples.
The idea of 'keeping the sabbath' or keeping any commandments of God isn't worship per se. These are good things that are pious though.
I don't understand your point in the first paragraph. Of course the entire law is wrapped up in the two great commands. But that doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that the 10 commandments are irrelevant.one MEEN Ag said:What part of the 10 commandments or 613 truly given is not fully wrapped up by the two commandments Jesus quotes as the greatest? 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Leviticus 19:18 and 'Love the Lord God fully with all your heart, soul, and mind' Deuteronomy 6:5.?Jabin said:
IMHO, Yukon Cornelius has raised good points that no one has directly or adequately answered. As I understand his question, all Christians believe that they should obey the 10 commandments, except for the one about the Sabbath. Why do we except that one only?
Did the ancient Jews burn incense outside of the Tabernacle or Temple, i.e., in the various synagogues? What historical evidence exists one way or the other?
I think Zobel did do a good job wrapping up why the ten commandments is A) a shortening of the 613 commandments in the Torah and you can't subdivide. And B) the fullness of Christ overflows the whole commandments of the Torah as Christ shows that Torah can only truly be fulfilled when you interpret it inspirationally. No more eye for an eye allowed.
The 10 Commandments were given to the Israelites. Not the Gentiles. To my knowledge, Christ never really stated to keep any commandments except love God and love your neighbor.Jabin said:I don't understand your point in the first paragraph. Of course the entire law is wrapped up in the two great commands. But that doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that the 10 commandments are irrelevant.one MEEN Ag said:What part of the 10 commandments or 613 truly given is not fully wrapped up by the two commandments Jesus quotes as the greatest? 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Leviticus 19:18 and 'Love the Lord God fully with all your heart, soul, and mind' Deuteronomy 6:5.?Jabin said:
IMHO, Yukon Cornelius has raised good points that no one has directly or adequately answered. As I understand his question, all Christians believe that they should obey the 10 commandments, except for the one about the Sabbath. Why do we except that one only?
Did the ancient Jews burn incense outside of the Tabernacle or Temple, i.e., in the various synagogues? What historical evidence exists one way or the other?
I think Zobel did do a good job wrapping up why the ten commandments is A) a shortening of the 613 commandments in the Torah and you can't subdivide. And B) the fullness of Christ overflows the whole commandments of the Torah as Christ shows that Torah can only truly be fulfilled when you interpret it inspirationally. No more eye for an eye allowed.
And I disagree with your opinion on Zobel's effort of dismissing the 10 commandments. They didn't shorten the 613. As Yukon has repeatedly stated, the 10 commandments preceded the 613. And B) comes across as nice sounding words without any meaning or support. Additionally, he and you keep referencing the Torah when Christ seemed to have meant the Levitical law.
Regardless, everyone keeps dodging Yukons central point, which is that we all agree that we should try to keep the 9 of the 10 commandments, not as a necessity for salvation, but out of love. Why only 9?
Of course not. Paul talked specifically about that. We are under the covenant of grace and have been quickened or born again. We do not think like that anymore.Jabin said:
So it is now okay to worship false idols and to dishonor one's mother and father?
Nobody. I never said that either. In fact, I stated how I kept the Sabbath.Zobel said:
Where did I dismiss the ten commandments?
Who said you shouldn't remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?
Zobel said:
Is it ok to have multiple wives? Why or why not?
Why? Where is the scriptural prohibition? Why did you ask the question?Zobel said:
The answer is "No". Polygamy is not right.
Nice mini-sermon, but those aren't the issues raised. No one is arguing that one must keep the Torah in order to be righteous.Quote:
But the point is right and wrong precede the Torah and even go beyond it. You can keep the Torah and still be unrighteous! And you can NOT keep the Torah and be righteous! Both of these are in the scripture.
So no, worshipping demons is wrong, and dishonoring your father is wrong. But so is incest or bestiality, which isn't in the Ten Commandments but IS in Leviticus as sexual immorality. And they were wrong before the Torah was given to Moses.
Brother, you said - "So it is now okay to worship false idols and to dishonor one's mother and father?" The answer is "no" and it never was, even before the Torah was given. To illustrate this point, I showed you that there is right and wrong before the Torah, and in addition to what is explicit in the Torah. To make an exhaustive list of evil would take more ink and electronics than exist in the world.Quote:
Nice mini-sermon, but those aren't the issues raised.
no? What are we talking about then??Quote:
No one is arguing that one must keep the Torah in order to be righteous.
The word for "Law" comes from the Latin "Lex". In Greek it is "nomos". In the Greek OT everywhere the Hebrew word "Torah" is used the word "nomos" is used to translate it. When you see "Law" you need to read "Torah". The Torah is the first five books of the bible, as the Lord described it "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms" that is to say the whole of the scriptures.Quote:
he and you keep referencing the Torah when Christ seemed to have meant the Levitical law.
Well, someone is confused then I suppose.Quote:
And you seem to be contradicting yourself. At one point, you were apparently conflating the 10 commandments and the Torah in rejection of Yukon's point that they're not the same, that the 10 Commandments preceded the Torah. Now, you seem to be arguing Yukon's very point.
Jabin said:Why? Where is the scriptural prohibition? Why did you ask the question?Zobel said:
The answer is "No". Polygamy is not right.
This is the teaching of the church. You're begging the question about who has scriptural authority here. The orthodox church is the teaching and practice of the early church that emerged unexcommunicated from the counsels and remained in communion with one another after the bishop of Rome declared anathema. From Zobel and my perspective they are The Church and they have authority to look at the entirety of the commentary on polygamous marriage in the bible and say, 'this is not good, this doesn't bear fruit, it was one man and one woman in the beginning for a reason.'
Or are you now the Supreme Pontiff with the authority to simply declare right and wrong?
See above note. Zobel is just informed of the teachings of the Orthodox church and relaying them to you. You should thank him, reading his posts are worth a couple of sessions in catechesis class.Nice mini-sermon, but those aren't the issues raised. No one is arguing that one must keep the Torah in order to be righteous.Quote:
But the point is right and wrong precede the Torah and even go beyond it. You can keep the Torah and still be unrighteous! And you can NOT keep the Torah and be righteous! Both of these are in the scripture.
So no, worshipping demons is wrong, and dishonoring your father is wrong. But so is incest or bestiality, which isn't in the Ten Commandments but IS in Leviticus as sexual immorality. And they were wrong before the Torah was given to Moses.
Its all interconnected.
And you seem to be contradicting yourself. At one point, you were apparently conflating the 10 commandments and the Torah in rejection of Yukon's point that they're not the same, that the 10 Commandments preceded the Torah. Now, you seem to be arguing Yukon's very point.
In Leviticus, Moses comes down from the mountain the first time with way more than just the ten commandments. Its a huge ream of law. The second time he goes back up, when getting new tablets, God shares about the coming covenant. So to say that God delivers the 10 commandments at a different time than the rest of the law would be a misunderstanding. The sections of law deliverance are different than the lines you're drawing.
At the end of the day this whole conversation is about church authority or not. Does the orthodox church have the authority to interpret scripture? Yes, because they are the apostolic (both priest office and teaching) continuation of the early church and everyone else has to jump across some schism to get to their own claims. So when the this thread starts jumping into why you have to do X, why can't you reduce it to Y (like incense in prayers) its an inversion of where you stand in your schisms. You can't come from an interpretation that has cut cut cut, and then ask why add add add? You've got to start at the founding of the early church by Christ, walk through the counsels, see the practices being performed, and then see the history of why some practice has been done some way.
Again, I'm not appealing to authority for the sake of my argument or Zobel, I'm saying its you versus the church, not you vs me, and you have no standing because you are outside the church. The orthodox church is the only church that can say, 'trace your roots from Peter to your beliefs without crossing a schism.' And the east west schism reached it crescendo in 1054, the protestant reformation isn't for another 500 years jack.Jabin said:
I do not accept that the EO has any authority. So your appeal to its authority is far from persuasive.
And the schism may have occurred centuries prior to the Reformation. The schism may have occurred when the EO, and any other man-made church, decided that it had authority equal or superior to that of Scripture. Rather than being schism, the Reformation, as its name states, was God's work to reform his church and restore God's authority within it.
You guys can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Every church claims to trace its roots back to the apostles without crossing a schism.Quote:
The orthodox church is the only church that can say, 'trace your roots from Peter to your beliefs without crossing a schism.'
You seem emotional, and I'm not sure what your point is in response to mine.Quote:
And the east west schism reached it crescendo in 1054, the protestant reformation isn't for another 500 years jack.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.Quote:
We are at an impasse and everything is permissible. Please pass the pope hat when you are done using it.
The Bible never condemns polygamy (despite its near universality in the OT), so why are we adding yet one more rule or sin?ramblin_ag02 said:
Just an FYI, one of the more common Jewish interpretations of Lev 18:18 is as a broad prohibition against polygamy. Sister is interpreted in the universal sense and not necessarily the blood sibling sense. Taking any additional wives would make the the wives into sisters in this sense. We use the same terminology, for example the show "Sister Wives". So the prohibition against polygamy is plausibly explicit in the Torah. Not that the point is any less valid. The Torah is not in any way a fully comprehensive accounting of all possible sins
Jabin said:You guys can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Every church claims to trace its roots back to the apostles without crossing a schism.Quote:
The orthodox church is the only church that can say, 'trace your roots from Peter to your beliefs without crossing a schism.'
That is not true. Even the Catholic church now correctly admits they started the schism. And the protestant reformation was about being able to elect themselves in charge of the church away from the bishop of Rome. The orthodox wouldn't even have such a question because there isn't one man in charge of theology. And the church counsels did a good job excommunicating those who believed they had that type of authority. See the first counsel.You seem emotional, and I'm not sure what your point is in response to mine.Quote:
And the east west schism reached it crescendo in 1054, the protestant reformation isn't for another 500 years jack.
Your point was that you didn't know when the schism was and it was before the reformation. I'm outlining, yes it was way before.
You guys like to call all others "schismatic", but as they say in most divorce cases, "it takes two to tango." In other words, almost always both sides have blame.
Are you divorced? You either leave or your don't. The bishop of Rome, after a 1000 years, decided that they had sole authority, the other patriarchates didn't agree. The orthodox remained unchanged in the face of the bishop of Rome's changing demands. Rome decided to leave. The our four ancient churches remained and still do to this day. The orthodox beat the drum that the rest are schismatics because they are. This is the root claim of Orthodoxy that all other forms of Christianity resent because they can't make the same claim. Of your denomination, who first makes the claims you believe? Are they original church fathers? Do you hold to the same practices as the church fathers? If you believed the church fathers and you held the same liturgical practices - you'd be, at worst, opining between orthodoxy and a flavor of traditional catholicism here. The protestant reformation and its descendants wouldn't be an option.I have no idea what you're trying to say here.Quote:
We are at an impasse and everything is permissible. Please pass the pope hat when you are done using it.
You are interpreting scripture for yourself as you see fit. You are assuming the role the Pope first took that caused the initial schism.