I suppose not... surely we are not far though?

‘In the collapse of all values a Kind of madness gained hold.’

Let’s say I have a right to be happy. This entails a duty upon every other human being not to inhibit my happiness. But this means that I have a right against every other human being not to say or do anything that makes me unhappy. And also, if governments exist to punish people who violate my rights, then the government has a duty to punish anyone who makes me unhappy. This, my dear friends, is why freedom is diminishing: because we are foolish, narcissistic, and spoiled enough to believe in a right to happiness. No such right exists.

Smells real good...

-Probably about 700-750ml olive oil. -prob had around 3kg cherry tomatoes.
-drizzle olive oil over tomatoes
-pan roasted for about 25-30mins.
-rest of olive oil went in the stove pot, browned onions and garlic. On medium/high heat.
-add roasted tomatoes and their juice.
-add herbs and spices as seen above. (Cajun, clove, sweet paprika, salt, pepper).
-I put 5tbs raw sugar.
-good splashing of ACV.
-simmer for another 30 mins on low.
-blend to whatever you want.
-can/bottle.

Pretty cool.

Ancient Chinese Records on the Birth, Death and Resurrection of Jesus— Source

May this never be us. May we always reject the world system and embrace the values and morals of Jesus and place our faith in God, not the world. We have a kingdom in heaven, where the ruler is just and merciful. May it be said of us, as it was said in The Holy Scriptures, "of whom the world was not worthy.

No Collapse Is The Real Dystopia— Read More

I have found the book, "Arise, O God" by Fr Andrew Stephen Damick, to be a good short read. In short it is a book about what the 'gospel' really is. I learned from it the history of the term evangelion, its usage and meaning before the NT period, and how that greatly contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as spoken of in the NT 'gospels.'

Also thrown in is some information about the 'divine council' worldview and Jesus' mission having not just to do with the redemption of man from sin, but of all creation from the fall and the various effects of the fall, including demons, possession, and sickness.

There is also information about the EO perspective of Theosis, which we, as Protestant heritage believers, do not have a direct equivalent for. Our notions of Justification and Glorification are distinct from Theosis and I think there is much to contemplate here.

It's a short and easy read, hard to find anything disagreeable...

I came across this, a very recent video, and I think it perfectly describes the strong arguments for scriptural authority as well as oral tradition as authority in interpretation of scripture, but with some counterpoints also.

This doesn't have to be your interest or enquiry, as it is mine, but if you are intrigued, then feel free to watch. You are probably busy, and this is potentially a rather deep hole to navigate. So be warned. However, failure to investigate could be damning.

https://www.youtube.com/live/j5qCMheSxpM?feature=share

In further defence of my statements earlier, (perhaps you like to take your time in digesting things) I think you'll agree that the eastern orthodox position is totally sound and reasonable in comparison to any Prot position I know of, when it comes to scripture and oral tradition.

Regarding whether I'm reading the other side: I certainly have been exposing myself not just to EO literature but teachings and teachers from that ilk. Listening to debates/conversations like the above also helps to contextualise the issue and discover where the differences are and the ramifications of those differences.

I talk to my father often, as well as others, but I'm at a point where I am beginning to be quite persuaded by, at present, 2 arguments. Which have pretty significant implications.

1. The church is a specific and real body (people) of believers. Not just anyone anywhere who's professed/confessed Christ Jesus. (Not everyone who claims to be Christian is indeed a Christian.) This requires a correct confession and profession. Correct understanding of God, the Trinity, the work of Jesus and its broader significance, His death, burial, and resurrection, and correct methodology of repentance, etc.

&

2. What the Holy Scriptures are and how they are interpreted correctly is the responsibility of The Holy Spirit working through The Church, the Church being the pillar and ground of truth.

(1 Tim 3:15) for church being pillar and ground of truth.

(Acts 15:27) The Council of Jerusalem decides that 2 men should go and tell of the decisions of the council by word of mouth, even though others are sent out with letters.

(1 cor 15) Pretty much the whole chapter emphasises that Paul preached and spoke, and that was good enough for them. Remembering that letters were written not because they were to be esteemed as better than oral transference of teachings but because Paul was imprisoned and unable to be there himself. What would you rather? Speak to Paul himself and learn straight from the 'horses mouth,' or only believe that which is written down?

Remembering that much of the NT scripture, which took nearly 100 years to be written, at the latest, after Christ's death, was only formulated into 'scripture' bible Canon hundreds of years later by individuals with whom protestants of today have little similarity doctrinally speaking.

There are so many references to oral preaching in the NT and the command to follow it. Letters were written out of necessity but were not written under the protestant presumption of 'Sola Scriptura.' The presumption of the NT writers seems pretty clear, and that is that there were oral teachings that preceded the written epistles and gospels of the NT, and many of these teachings are not fully explicated in scripture alone. Their derivation is from scripture but not fully explicated by scripture. An oral tradition was the necessary and typical format for teaching and preaching.

It seems the best solution for all this is not to diminish scripture and its infallibility, but rather to elevate the tradition of history found in the early church and, therefore, preserve it and follow it.

Doing this requires the belief that the church is a real body of people whom the Holy Spirit enabled and directed to preserve and explicate the truth of the gospel and the word of God.

Further to this, it's fascinating to read Iranaeus because he presents the gospel as it was understood at the time, purely from the old Testament, given the NT Canon was not yet available. Really cool stuff.

Good works, living out the commandments of Jesus Christ, are a means to acquire the saving grace of God, for Jesus Christ Himself is revealed to us and shares Himself with us through the commandments. On the other hand, sinfulness— works of darkness (whether manifested in thoughts, words, or deeds)— are clouds over the soul, inhibiting the rays of God’s grace from shining into the heart, and out from the heart to the entire human person. As Clement of Alexandria affirms, “Into the impure soul, the grace of God finds no entrance.” 10 Again, immorality is sinful because it blocks grace from penetrating the human soul, making a person less than human. The same is true of pride, envy, hatefulness, and all other sins.

Know The Faith. - M. Shanbour.

Question: What are everyone's thoughts about guardian angels?

Jesus says in Mat 18:10: "Take heed that you do not desire one of these little ones, (children) for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost." Brackets, mine.

Angels are seen throughout scripture, doing God's bidding: overseeing, protecting, fighting, relaying messages, reporting events, etc.

If it is true that all children have angels in Heaven, do we suppose that those angels go away once a child reaches a certain age? Or, do we suppose that our 'guardian angels' are always 'with' us throughout our lives?

Fantastic series. Ensure you listen to each parts in order.