2,929 reputation
52566
bio website
location Taiwan
age
visits member for 4 years
seen 27 mins ago

I often chose best answers not because they are the best, but because I have to choose a best answer. Please, don't take offense to it.


Jun
3
comment Evidence that Ignatius of Antioch was ordained by the Apostles
Thank you. I DID read Wikipedia prior to asking this question and I DID get familiar with all the resources that you have "tracked down for me". All of them come from people that are set apart from Ignatius by more than two centuries. They themselves never saw Ignatius in person and couldn't have physically communicated to him face to face or through epistles. Therefore, they are all merely references, but hardly be classed as evidence. What I need, however, is the evidence, that is, some materials contemporary to Ignatius' life.
May
30
comment Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that there are other Apostles?
This title seems to be non-correlating to a position in Church hierarchy as some on the list are bishops, some are political figures, and some are just common people. Also, the list stops on Nicholas of Japan who died in 1912. Does that mean that nowadays there is no one equal to the Apostles in the Orthodox Church?
May
28
comment Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that there are other Apostles?
"Arggh, I mis-read the question. I thought he was referring to the seventy as "other than the 12" - Which is exactly what I meant in my question - meaning that those 70 were other than the 12 - so you didn't mis-read it.
May
28
comment Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that there are other Apostles?
"So not just Orthodox but also Catholics and Protestants believe there were other apostles and disciples besides "the Twelve" - Perhaps, I am wrong, but as far as the Eastern Orthodoxy is concerned, I see them today have and use such titles in their hierarchy as "deacon", "priest", "bishop", "metropolitan" and "patriarch", but never "apostle".
May
25
comment What is the scriptural basis for a monarchical episcopate?
"So Judas wasn't even an Apostle when he was alive?" - Yes, he was. But he was not among those Apostles who, according to that article, became qualified to be bishops after the Lord's mission was accomplished.
May
25
comment What is the scriptural basis for a monarchical episcopate?
"Do you doubt Matthias, who replaced Judas, was a bishop?" - I'm just trying to follow the logic of the definition in the article that you have cited. That article asserts the idea of apostles being bishops with a definition of apostles being the ones whom Jesus sent to teach and baptize all the nations after Jesus' mission was accomplished. Based on Acts 1:21 we can tell for sure that Matthias was among those sent ones, and, therefore, following the logic of the article, he is a bishop; however, Judas Iscariot was not among those whom Jesus was sending - he was already dead by then.
May
25
comment What is the scriptural basis for a monarchical episcopate?
"** Yes, the Apostles were bishops...**" - That article, the link to which you have provided, basis the idea of Apostolate-episcopate on the definition of the Apostles: "sent into the world a body of teachers and preachers after Jesus' mission was accomplished", however, Judas Iscariot was never among those whom He sent to teach all the nations baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
May
25
comment What is the scriptural basis for a monarchical episcopate?
I don't understand. Peter applies these words to Judas Iscariot. Does this mean that Judas was a bishop?!
May
20
comment Do the Orthodox pray to John the Baptist?
Can you, please, provide some sources.
May
20
comment Do the Orthodox pray to John the Baptist?
@curiousdannii - I don't have any quotes or references. I just saw them pray to many different saints, yet have never seen them pray to John the Baptist. This was all that prompted my question.
May
19
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
But... isn't it like all the early Church Fathers, when speaking about the story of presentation of Mary draw that story from the Protevangelium?
May
19
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
@MattGutting - "The belief is buttressed by its presence in the Protevangelium, but that doesn't mean they accept the book as a whole as part of their tradition" - In other words, they have some other sources besides the Protevangelium that tells them about that story, right?
May
19
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
@MattGutting - "It sounds as if you're asking how these churches decided to choose books for their canon" - No. Apocrypha are by definition not part of canon. I am asking about how they decide which Apocrypha they still keep as a part of their tradition, and which Apocrypha they don't consider to be a part of their tradition.
May
19
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
You might want to expand on your answer - I just edited my question. My original intention in it was not to ask about what an Apocrypha is, but rather about what Apocrypha are the part of the Catholic or the Orthodox traditions and which ones are not.
May
19
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
Ah, I got it now. Thanks for the clarification.
May
18
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
So where in my words have you seen my "historic relativism"? And what did you mean by saying "I raise you one Council of Nicaea"? Did you mean to say "I refer you to the Council of Nicaea"?
May
18
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
I see your historic relativism and raise you one Council of Nicaea - What do you mean?!
May
17
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
"Each church decided which books were going into their bible, and if they didn't, the book is not holy to them by definition" - Well, this is at least not true about the Orthodox Church. They consider many books outside of the canon to be the part of their Holy Tradition and believe whatever is written in them and don't question the validity of the events described in them.
May
16
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
@Steve - "If the works are not considered part of their canon, then they are by definition not Apocrypha" - I am quite confused by this statement. Do you mean to say that the cannon is consisted only of Apocrypha?! "Perhaps you are asking whether there are any more holy or inspired works than those in the Catholic Bible?" - I am asking about if there are any Apocrypha (like "Acts of Andrew", "Gospel of Mary", etc.) that are not considered by Catholics and the Orthodox to be part of their canons and yet are considered by them to be the part of their holy tradition.
May
16
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
@kutschkem - "By apocrypha, do you mean those that are in the bible?" - No. I mean those that are NOT in the Bible.