Against Pews and their Lies

You're right, but that's not the verse to use. That verse refers to church discipline.
Sage for off-topic.

Enjoy your tradition of man!

I take my shoes off when I'm at home or in my room. Shoes carry dirt and germs, gum, food and dog poop particles. Of course I see Church as more sacred than my home or bedroom, so taking shoes off is a sign of respect.

My shoes don't carry dirt or gum or food or poop, and your feet probably have more germs anyway. Clean your shoes, kid. Shoes are a sign of respect; no shoes no shirt no service.

Mark 7:7-9
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

The apostolic Church is founded by God, not by men. Were the levites a tradition of man? How about the Holy of Holies before Christ appeared?

I agree

Apostolic faith is not faith of the God of the Bible. The faith founded by God is a different one than one of vain repetitions and pedophiles. There was traditions of men and faith of the Lord before Christ, just like modern day.

no wonder your churches are in strip malls and the priest looks like a car salesman.
so sad, the decay of modernism and liturgy.

Except I never said that, you fool. Show some respect and put something on your stinky feet.

Apostles, disciples and christians existed prior to the NT and prior to its canonization. The Bible is not the only rule of faith. Prior to writing scriptures articles of faith were shared orally. "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."

pic related, yes we've seen what a mess you've done

Attached: prot religion.gif (256x172, 1.46M)

This is what Business demand ^
You're comparing going to Church to going to 7/11

This is what God prefers: "'"Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground."'"

Before we had the NT the holy ghost filled people with the word through the Apostles. Today it doesn't happen because we have the complete word of God. I'm not a "protestant", I don't have a denomination, so don't think I will defend pentecostal fools.

It's a sign of respect for the business, do you even realize what you are posting? And again it's not HOLY GROUND if God is not speaking.

Nope, you're not being specific enough. Here's what happened.

Acts 12:24

Acts 19:20

So we see that they had the same word of God. Not just vague articles of faith, they had the actual literal word of God. That is, if you even believe what Acts says.

This idea isn't biblical or traditional. And it doesn't negate what Paul said in Thessalonians.
This idea isn't biblical.
And the only "complete" word of God is pic related.

You're functionally protestant.

You have no idea of liturgy or sacredness. You're comparing going to church to shopping at 7/11. This is so sad.

He doesn't speak in your heretic churches or wherever you go to worship. But his presence is definitely operative and real in valid churches which actually contain and express the Sacred.

Keep searching, you're obviously lost and confused if you're "non-denominational" whatever that means.

Attached: aac691130ddf049e399f971508505a01.jpg (354x475, 34.59K)

What I mean is that it was never strictly one or the other, but always both.
Timothy might've had some scriptures, some gospels but he also received oral tradition from Paul. And I don't see why the oral tradition would ever disappear because a text itself doesn't interpret itself. So you need some traditions outside the text as guidance.

How is this sad? assembling with believers should be part of your life, not something "special"

No it's not

No you don't, the word of God is perfect and inerrant.

It certainly is biblical, read Acts

The idea that people have the holy ghost today isn't biblical. When someone has the holy ghost they could recite the word perfectly in any tongue. There isn't a single person today who can do this.

You're protestant for ignoring the word and following man's traditions

...

I don't follow denominations, I follow the church Christ started which is clearly stated in the bible and which will never fall, which was and is visible and not just some invisible goobledygook metaphor, experienced by a "random assembly" of "non-denominationl" heretics.

Attached: athos monks.jpeg (1920x1200, 530.69K)

I assemble with members of the church that Christ founded, based on the word of God, unlike the catholics.

if you believed that you wouldn't redact and ignore the meaning of Thessalonians regarding the importance of oral teachings.

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,

I believe Paul, you reject him.

Which church is that? Name? Who were its notable thinkers and preachers and theologians in the 10th century and 5th century?

One that teaches only out of the Bible. We members of Christ's church don't have notable "thinkers and preachers" because we don't idolize men, we worship God alone. For example, we baptize believers by immersion for the remission of sins and don't idolize Mary the mother of Jesus.

I believe the whole Bible, and there's nothing in Thessalonians that says you should add unto the word.

I'm not sure whether you're an actual baptist or a troll

Ok
Not surprising since you lack a real Church.
There's nothing in the bible that says scripture is the only rule of faith. There is something in the bible that says you ought to accept what the apostles and disciples teach by letter or by word

The only rule of faith the Bible describes is scripture

No, there isn't. If you are thinking of Matthew 16 have a little thought about what a key is rather than how man told you to interpret this.

It's not a "feeling or something", it's the word of God, our trace of faith is to Jesus Christ rather than "history", and we do have a name that is actually found in the Bible unlike the Catholics or the Baptists, check Romans 16:16.

False, that's a lie. It never says the only rule of faith is scripture alone.
However it does say the exact opposite:
"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." 2 Thess 2:15.

Good luck.

Attached: ortho.jpg (680x510, 63.77K)

Re-read what I said
Wrong again. First of all the KJV doesn't say "spoken" word, just word. 2nd Thessalonians is an end times prophecy, and verse 15 is just telling you to follow God's word which this epistle is of. The traditions of the Lord are obviously not the traditions of man, but what is not the word is of man.

And how about you just praying, attending liturgy and focus onto God instead of seeking through vanities?

What is liturgy? I can't find it in my Bible

...

Friend, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 doesn't prove there was a secret gnostic tradition that was to be spoken only and never written down. What you are saying is absurd on its face.

This is what they actually think, Paul had a top secret doctrine or set of doctrines that required a higher level of clearance so it wasn't allowed to be written down and the only mention of it is in this one verse in 2 Thessalonians.

Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says, (Acts 7:48)

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,
(Acts 17:24)

...

in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

(Mark 7:7-8)

They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.'"

(Matthew 15:9)

Attached: 1477224408602.png (666x590, 602.96K)

you sound like a heretic.

It's not secret when its free and open to the public. Nice try.
Printing texts was expensive, and most people were illiterate. The importance of oral tradition is paramount. Plus it's important for correcting improper interpretations of scripture. Stop being deceptive. Christianity existed before the NT.

Acts 20:29-32
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

You were saying that there was certain specific doctrine that is explicitly labeled as "oral only" and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 proves it. That is absurd as the reason he said it was to prove that the word of God can be spoken or written equally well, not to prove that there are some doctrines that must be written only and others that must be spoken only. That is absurd, yet that is what you are saying it means.

Quoting Acts won't save you wolves from the heresy of rejecting Paul's teachings on accepting oral traditions past through the Church.

No one said "oral only"
No scripture says oral only or scripture only. The rule of faith is not either/or.
It's both.
I have scripture to support my stance.
You have nothing but hand waving.

No you don't, you have one verse saying by word or epistle against the man of sin.

The pharisees said the same.
No, you're just privately interpreting it to say that Paul taught that there were some doctrines that aren't allowed to be written down and this is the place where he warned people to follow those special "oral only" doctrines that he is saying he isn't allowed to write. This is a mirror image of what the pharisees claimed with their "oral tradition" which Jesus denounced as "making the word of God of none effect" through your tradition, therefore Mark 7 and verse 13 suits you. Also, it's funny how even you realize the scam and so you are subconsciously trying to find a verse in Scripture to justify your own laying aside the scripture and nullifying it, making it of none effect.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col 2:8)

Kek. Nice projection coming from a protestant who only has private interpretation to go by, since he has no church to get guidance from.

Paul says to hold to the traditions we are taught by speech/word (logou) or by letter/epistle [epistolēs].
If oral traditions were so dangerous then this verse should be omitted and the opposite should have been stated. But that didn't happen, Paul and the apostles thought it was worth adding for all generations to read because Sola Scriptura is not even a biblical teaching, let alone a Church teaching.

Paul's oral tradition is not the tradition of men, but comes from the Word of God. Christianity and the Church precedes the NT.

The verse is used as contrast for those who follow not the word of God. It's following the word of God rather than those who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

You're right and this is very important. You admit that that verse was referring only to the word, then, and not men. We still have that now through sermons but with the complete word of God we can read it all ourselves without an apostle saying it to us or through a letter.

I said Word of God (capitals) i.e Christ.
Paul and the other apostles were instructed by Christ. They spread their traditions by word/speech((logou)) and by letter/epistle [epistolēs].
Paul reminds us to accept the traditions of the Church whether they are found in speech or letter.
Your problem is you have no Church, so of course you have to use the bible alone and your own internal interpretation of it.

Except that verse never talks about traditions of "the Church", and somehow you extend this to traditions that came about long after the apostles even though God specifically warns against that.

The Apostles traditions are Church traditions, whether they come by speech or by epistle.

Catholic traditions don't come from the apostles

They used to, until they schismed.

Attached: 155436.p.jpg (550x733, 78.17K)

It was long before that

Actually, in John 16, this is said:

So the fact is that the Holy Spirit is the guide and not you. The catholic so-called "priest" places himself as a cheap substitute. But he knows nothing, or else he would be following scripture instead of literally substituting himself for God. There is no act of vain pride so great as that.

1 Corinthians 2:9-14
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

John 14:16-17
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

2 Corinthians 1:21-22
Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Revelation 1:5-6
Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

You are not supposed to do these things.

OP is a Russian OrthoLARPer and doesn't know that other Orthodox churches have pews too.

Let's make people stand for two or more straight hours, I'm sure that will fix declining church attendance.

Standing up for a couple hours isn't hard, Amerifats do it all the time when there's a shopping sale, a new hollyjew movie or a concert.

not Russian my dude. vast majority of our churches only have a couple pews in the back for the weak/pregnant/old/etc.

Attached: concert.jpg (613x467 102.88 KB, 59.53K)

How come nobody mentions, no pants?

laughingputin.jpg

Every Romanian and Russian parish I've gone to had no pews.
But every Greek and Antiochian parish I've gone to had pews.

Liturgy means "work of the people", it's not a show the priest puts on for you to watch.
I mean, even Catholics spend a significant part of the Mass just standing. I don't know what you have in mind.

Well I'm romanian and ive mostly gone to russian churches. I'm not used to seeing pews or people in flip flops

...

I'd say only Greek and Antiochian, and not even all of them

There are women who can't grow hair longer, the African females for example. The ones you see with long hair have weaves.

People like (((you))) are the reason, why Orthodoxy is viewed as LARPing on this board

You mean the word that God has spoken according to John 12:48. Well it turns out we have that. So here you are just trying to redefine things in a way they were never meant to be. And you have no right to, considering you admit no authority whatsoever to do so. I don't even understand what makes you think you have the right to post here, and contradict and speak against what Scripture actually says. By posting at all, you are acting inconsistent to your own ideology. As you admit you have no understanding of these things.
Where does Paul say that? You're making stuff up now, and what gives you the right to do this. There is no gnostic oral tradition passed down under orders not to be written. That's not what it means. That's not what he's talking about. It's satanic I tell you, the whole concept.

He is talking about the fact the word of God can be spoken or written, thereby proving that we have always had it even before anyone compiled it into a physical book. It's the same whether written or spoken, that's the distinction. Not that there is some doctrine that is not allowed to be written. So then it wasn't like the first time someone put all scripture into a single book at that moment it magically became true, no, it always was true from the moment it was first spoken or written— either one. Always true and never changed, unlike someone who I'm replying to. And if anyone gives a gospel contrary to what we know they wrote, let them be accursed, that's what it says in Galatians 1. You go against scripture, so I know this applies.

See now you're just making desperate accusations. All tradition has been safeguarded and conserved by the churches in the word of God. Your innovations have never made it in, because they are manmade. Just admit the fact you're in a modernist church that reinterprets itself and changes doctrine with the political winds because you don't use Scripture. You simply make the word of God of none effect through your tradition which YOU have delivered. And by your own admission you shouldn't even be here since you yourself lack understanding of these things.

Attached: BibleKJV.PNG (320x240, 132.7K)

Yes very interesting. Let me break it down for you.
Christ started a Church.
The apostles grew that Church.
Paul told his disciples to hold onto the traditions they learned orally and by epistle.
This is what the Orthodox Church has been doing, scripture and tradition are in harmony.
You can omit it and do whatever you like, you think the Holy Spirit makes you the final authority on scripture, okay cool, go and omit 2 Thess 2:15, or butcher it with your strange interpretation. But I come from a different perspective. So we're just talking past each other.

Attached: Monk Praying in Sunset.jpg (602x471, 31.46K)

Is standing for a prolonged period really a "work"? I think it would just be slightly annoying to people to have to stand the entire time, and possibly distract them from what they actually came to church for.

2 Thess 2:15 is very clear, you're the one who's trying to fit scripture to your worldview. Nowhere does the Bible ever say to follow the traditions of a Church. You inserted that yourself.

The Church teaches the traditions of the apostles/prophets, that are disseminated by speech or by epistle. That's it. Simple.

I'm sorry you don't actually belong to the tradition of the apostles and prophets, you don't have the Church Christ started, so you don't understand what the oral tradition in 2 Thess 2:15 even refers to. What oral traditions is Paul referring to? You don't know, because you don't belong to the apostolic and prophetic tradition that God protects, that the Church transmits to believers.
:/
Cheers.
Peace.

Please, delete this picture right now and do not attach any images like this in the future.

traditions—truths delivered and transmitted orally, or in writing (2Th 3:6; 1Co 11:2; Greek, "traditions"). The Greek verb from which the noun comes, is used by Paul in 1Co 11:23; 15:3. From the three passages in which "tradition" is used in a good sense, Rome has argued for her accumulation of uninspired traditions, virtually overriding God's Word, while put forward as of co-ordinate authority with it. She forgets the ten passages (Mt 15:2, 3, 6; Mr 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13; Ga 1:14; Col 2:8) stigmatizing man's uninspired traditions. Not even the apostles' sayings were all inspired (for example, Peter's dissimulation, Ga 2:11-14), but only when they claimed to be so, as in their words afterwards embodied in their canonical writings. Oral inspiration was necessary in their case, until the canon of the written Word should be complete; they proved their possession of inspiration by miracles wrought in support of the new revelation, which revelation, moreover, accorded with the existing Old Testament revelation; an additional test needed besides miracles (compare De 13:1-6; Ac 17:11). When the canon was complete, the infallibility of the living men was transferred to the written Word, now the sole unerring guide, interpreted by the Holy Spirit. Little else has come down to us by the most ancient and universal tradition save this, the all-sufficiency of Scripture for salvation. Therefore, by tradition, we are constrained to cast off all tradition not contained in, or not provable by, Scripture. The Fathers are valuable witnesses to historical facts, which give force to the intimations of Scripture: such as the Christian Lord's day, the baptism of infants, and the genuineness of the canon of Scripture. Tradition (in the sense of human testimony) cannot establish a doctrine, but can authenticate a fact, such as the facts just mentioned. Inspired tradition, in Paul's sense, is not a supplementary oral tradition completing our written Word, but it is identical with the written Word now complete; then the latter not being complete, the tradition was necessarily in part oral, in part written, and continued so until, the latter being complete before the death of St. John, the last apostle, the former was no longer needed. Scripture is, according to Paul, the complete and sufficient rule in all that appertains to making "the man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2Ti 3:16, 17). It is by leaving Paul's God-inspired tradition for human traditions that Rome has become the forerunner and parent of the Antichrist. It is striking that, from this very chapter denouncing Antichrist, she should draw an argument for her "traditions" by which she fosters anti-Christianity. Because the apostles' oral word was as trustworthy as their written word, it by no means follows that the oral word of those not apostles is as trustworthy as the written word of those who were apostles or inspired evangelists. No tradition of the apostles except their written word can be proved genuine on satisfactory evidence. We are no more bound to accept implicitly the Fathers' interpretations of Scripture, because we accept the Scripture canon on their testimony, than we are bound to accept the Jews' interpretation of the Old Testament, because we accept the Old Testament canon on their testimony.

There is no gnostic, "oral only" teaching being referred to here. That idea is satanic in origin, and anyone adding their own word to God's word is satanic.

This is your brain on "personal interpretation of scripture"

I'm out
God help you.
I'm out.

Attached: DL6R9ooUIAELB_h.jpg (500x357, 24.63K)

I said "oral only" because supposedly this one verse proves Paul specified certain things that are not allowed to be written, they MUST be spoken by word only, and this is the only place he ever mentions it. Honestly you make even less sense after claiming this. Especially considering, you don't even have the right to tell anyone what scripture means in the first place. So yeah, you best stay quiet from here on out.

Because you can't face the reality of the text you inserted "only" to make a straw-man.
straw-man again.

There is no where in scripture that says the only rule of faith is scripture alone. Scripture actually says the opposite of what you wish it said. And you can't handle this. And you wonder "what oral teachings??" But you have no answer because you aren't part of Christ's Church. That's why protestant services are so profane in comparison to ours. Why you have so many denominations each with their own heresies and relativist interpretations—of course all claiming assistance via the Holy Spirit. Give me a break.

The oral traditions just like the epistles are preserved and compiled and taught by the Church, the one Church Christ started, you don't understand this verse because you don't belong to Christ's actual Church, you only have the book we compiled. These aren't secret spooky gnostic teachings, they are available to everyone freely, and are explained by the church fathers in various writing already and by learned, living clergy. This is what Christ wanted, an actual visible, living Church with a historic presence. Not some mysterious invisible secret club that appears randomly, here and there, under different names and basically never existed until 500 years ago.

"upon this rock, I shall build my church"

People come to Church to worship God and offer the Eucharist, which requires effort. Standing, bowing, prostrating, kneeling, doing the sign of the Cross, etc. is what people come to Church for. Do you not show respect toward the presence of the King?

Yes, and that church was not apostolic churches but the one of the Bible.

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:”
My church is in the Bible and does not claim assistance of the holy ghost after the NT. You think you "understand" this verse because your buddies specifically try to find something to uphold your heretical traditions of man.

Protestants don't understand what going to Church means and entails, they lost the sense of the sacred; they think it's like watching a show, the pastor gives a lecture about gays and sola scriptura, they nod and clap and go home. And so they lack spiritual food.

Attached: flat,800x800,075,f.u4.jpg (600x800, 80.79K)

"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it"
Don't take away the oral tradition mentioned in 2 Thess 2:15.
You do this because you don't understand what it is, so I forgive you.

And the oral tradition does not add to the prophecy in the book of Revelation, so there are no problems here. Orthodoxy treats Revelation very carefully.
Oral tradition comes into liturgical practice and informs how we should interpret scripture so its in line with what the apostles and saints and early christians taught and transmitted, not what heretics invent and believe 1500 years later in their made up denominations, from luther to calvin to joseph smith and pastor anderson and john hagee and every nut ball inbetween who twists scripture by his sinful power while imaginging the Holy Spirit is in agreement.

There is no oral tradition mentioned in 2 Thess 2:15 read it again

Attached: chanface.png (542x512, 51.94K)

read it again

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. [kjv]

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. [esv]

Clearly the context is speaking of two modes of tradition, one in speech/word (logou) and one in letter/epistle [epistolēs]. The juxtaposition implies spoken word tradition or written epistle tradition. The apostles provided both oral and written teachings to the bishops and laity. Christianity and the Church existed BEFORE the NT. And the oral/spoken tradition became part of the teachings of the church, a guide to interpret scripture, a guide to do liturgy, etc…written down by the Church fathers and saints and some parts ratified at ecumenical councils.

Christs' Church is actually visible, he is a personal God who reveals himself, he had real apostles. Our Church lasts through history, yours is nothing, invisible, emotional feelings and only appeared 1500 years later created by some catholic apostates.

word means spoken, speech, oral, verbal
epistle means letter, written, document

the context and juxtaposition requires this difference. It makes no sense for him to say "whether by text or by epistle" if that's what you're implying. Of course you can't even read simple english properly. lmao