The story of Jesus was made up by the Roman Empire

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah. We're schismatic 'cuz you're heretics.

In teaching Petrine Primacy? That's a schismatic dispute, not heretical. If it's the Immaculate Conception - what does Othodoxy teach of Mary's sinlessness?

[Ben Kenobi]

As for translating the bible into a language the common people could actually understand, well how much more heretical can you get?

There is irony in Luther's opposition to the Vulgate of all things. If it's about the translation, why toss out books?

[Elok]

In teaching Petrine Primacy?

The Catholic conception of it (with the Pope as a despot above all others) is uncanonical. Admittedly, the Patriarch of Constantinople was at times little better, but we're far more egalitarian than the Pope is now. And the notion of his being infallible, under any circumstances, is absurd.

That's a schismatic dispute, not heretical. If it's the Immaculate Conception - what does Othodoxy teach of Mary's sinlessness?

We generally call it the Immaculate Deception. AFAIK, we revere her as a righteous woman, the best who ever lived--but she was not born free from Original Sin (which we understand quite differently anyway).

Also, the filioque is a blatant deviation from received tradition. And hairsplitting legalism over the exact nature of things like transubstantiation does more harm than good. That's the big stuff. You could also stand to stop keeping married men out of the clergy--that rule was only put in place to keep medieval priests from trying to make their offices hereditary. But that's not a huge deal, and the differences in liturgical practice are relatively trivial. We have Western Rite parishes whose worship is hardly different from Catholics' or Anglicans'.

[molly bloom]

Between the two of us, one of us has a history degree and one of us is claiming the other is an 'uneducated fool'.

One of us thinks that England was a theocracy, that the Dutch Republic in the late 17th Century was a feudal state, and that the Dutch 'conquered' the English, despite losing two wars and New Amsterdam amongst other things, to them. All without a shred of proof, evidence, or the flimsiest of support from historians.



And it ain't me.

[molly bloom]

Again, you prove just how clueless you are. Thanks for that.

It's really groovy with Sister Bendy- he tries so hard to make himself look an idiot (and succeeds) that unlike when arguing with informed, rational intelligent people, I put in next to no effort, except in correcting his many factual mistakes.

He's a giver, but not consciously.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It seems strange to me to assert that Paul created Jesus to further some religion he founded. After all, that requires interpreting the New Testament as a bunch of book written by Paul and no one believes that these days. Paul writes a lot of the Epistles, to be sure, but plenty of others wrote things about Jesus in the NT as well - and not just the Gospel writers. One also wonders why numerous folks were willing to die for the Gospel of Jesus if Paul simply made him up. There are more holes in that theory than the alternate (Jesus of Nazareth actually lived).

[Ben Kenobi]

The Catholic conception of it (with the Pope as a despot above all others) is uncanonical.

Catholicism teaches that Papal infalliability is an extension of magisterial infalliability, among the collegium of all the bishops. Which, last I checked, include your bishops too.

Admittedly, the Patriarch of Constantinople was at times little better, but we're far more egalitarian than the Pope is now. And the notion of his being infallible, under any circumstances, is absurd.

Constantinople isn't even the most ancient eastern see. Antioch and Alexandria have far better claims than Constantinople. The unfortunate part is since the Turk overran you - that leaves Peter's see in Rome. Again, I don't see the teaching that the pope is the Bishop of Rome is so much a doctrinal one, but one of organization and tradition. It could conceivably change without altering the religion. As for infalliability, and ex-cathedra, it applies very infrequently, the last being the immaculate conception. It's an extension of Magisterial infalliability, something you folks share although I don't believe you teach it with the same terminology.

We generally call it the Immaculate Deception. AFAIK, we revere her as a righteous woman, the best who ever lived--but she was not born free from Original Sin

So how does one explain Christ's sinless human nature?

Also, the filioque is a blatant deviation from received tradition.

Proceedeth from the Father and the Son, with the Father and Son, received and glorified? Things I hear on this side that it's not significant enough to warrant continued division with the East.

And hairsplitting legalism over the exact nature of things like transubstantiation does more harm than good.

It's important that it be understood that the body and blood is the true body and blood of Christ. Moreso with heresies that we deal with much frequently. That it's treated as a symbol and not a change in the actual substance is why that stuff is there. We could live with, "we're not sure we understand exactly how it happens", if that wasn't interpreted as, "believe however you believe, you don't have to believe that it's the true body and blood of our Lord and Saviour. Seems more a terminology dispute than an actual deviation on theological principles. We use the substance/accident language because it makes the theology somewhat understandable with analogy to other Aristotelian principles. But the doctrine doesn't rely on the constructions.

That's the big stuff. You could also stand to stop keeping married men out of the clergy--that rule was only put in place to keep medieval priests from trying to make their offices hereditary.

Any union would be accompanied with the preservation of the Byz rite (and the other rites as well). Yours are as, if not more ancient than our own and it makes little sense to export the Latin rites.

But that's not a huge deal, and the differences in liturgical practice are relatively trivial. We have Western Rite parishes whose worship is hardly different from Catholics' or Anglicans'.

Same, we're pretty big on letting the rites perform their own liturgical rules for the most part. By the same token it means that the rules wrt Latin rite remain the same. I actually think it's rather freeing - the less the Latin rite gets burdened with the demands of folks for this and that as accommodation - we can move away from the Vernacular and back to the latin.

[Elok]

BK, do you know how much authority the Patriarch of Constantinople has over the Patriarch of Russia? The answer is zero. The EP, in keeping with ancient canon law, has no power to order around any other bishop on his own authority. He may issue orders to bishops under his authority--I'm not sure if the Turks have left him any, but he could--provided he got a Synod of all of those bishops to agree to his orders. Outside his own see, he would need to call an ecumenical council to impose his will on another Orthodox bishop, and even there he would have about as much formal power as the Vice President has over the Senate in the US. How well do you think the modern Papacy fits in with this approach? Because it's the original mode of organization, and we're not changing it. Jesus is without sin because He's God; He could incarnate Himself as a full-grown man at the bottom of the ocean, with no mother at all, if He pleased. Oh, and the satisfaction doctrine, I mentioned that to you once before; many Orthodox bishops are unaware of it, but when told they think it's some kind of weird joke by the person telling them. In general, the whole Roman attitude of centralized power and rigid scholasticism is a departure from the ancient way.

It seems strange to me to assert that Paul created Jesus to further some religion he founded. After all, that requires interpreting the New Testament as a bunch of book written by Paul and no one believes that these days. Paul writes a lot of the Epistles, to be sure, but plenty of others wrote things about Jesus in the NT as well - and not just the Gospel writers. One also wonders why numerous folks were willing to die for the Gospel of Jesus if Paul simply made him up. There are more holes in that theory than the alternate (Jesus of Nazareth actually lived).

Particularly absurd, in this case, is the idea that the Romans invented Jesus. Which is like suggesting we could defang al-Qaeda by inventing and propagating a pansy version of Islam--only sillier, because Christian and even post-Christian Westerners differ less from Islam than the pagan Romans differed from Judaism. To the Romans, Jews were absurd bumpkin zealots from the back-end of nowhere; they had far less incentive to understand them than we have to understand Islam, and as a rule we don't understand Islam at all.

[Berzerker]

where'd Jesus claim to be sinless? he committed suicide by cop, isn't that a sin in christianity?

[Elok]

Do I need to link to the Wikipedia article on "Martyrdom" for you? I'm too lazy to be snarky just now...

[Berzerker]

Ah martyrdom, like a Buddhist monk torching himself in protest? Its still suicide and using a cop to do the deed for you seems like it'd be sinful for Christians

But I could be wrong, there were some Christians way back then who would waylay travelers trying to provoke people into killing them so they could be like Jesus. Was that martyrdom too? Its ironic for a religion to condemn suicide when their religion is based on one.

[giblets]

No, not like a Buddhist monk torching himself in protest since Jesus merely played a passive, not active, role in his own death by not activating his super powers and melting the Romans with his heat vision.

[Berzerker]

dont mean to offend Christians, but the slavery thing and suicide by cop just seem out of place with other teachings

[Imran Siddiqui]

Calling Jesus's death "suicide by cop" is one of the strangest things I've read outside of Ben's posts. As gribbler points out, Jesus didn't stand in the middle of a Roman army and start killing them - He preached the Good News and the Romans decided that's enough of that and strung him up.

[regexcellent]

Nailed him up, but I'm nitpicking.