The importance of art in Orthodox worship

I have been reading Dostoevsky and it has been really affecting me. I feel the kind of religion he is talking about is very different from the kind I have exposed to. Why/how did orthodox christianity get so different? Any book recs?

>>1835413
Orthodox Christianity didn't get different. Rather, it's the rest of Christendom that did. Orthodox Christianity just didn't change.

Two novels I'd recommend

The Way of a Pilgrim: this is a very mystical novel that was found in a Greek monastery. It is about a homeless wanderer in 19th Century Russia seeking to learn the secret of perpetual prayer, to be able to pray every waking and sleeping second.

Laurus: this is a relatively recent novel from Russia. It's about a man who falls into fornication (monogamous, loving fornication, but still fornication) that leads to catastrophic consequences, and how that in turns leads him to a path of repentance that makes him a holy fool. A holy fool is a special concept in Orthodoxy, here is an example of an actual one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Fool_for_Christ

You're probably familiar with the concept from Dostoevsky. Stinking Lizaveta was seen as a Holy Fool in the Brothers Karamazov, which accentuates the horrific nature of her being raped.

>>1835190
Literal idolatry

>>1835645
No, it's a visual touchstone to heaven, which even the Hebrews of the Old Testament used. It's very important. It's not idolatry any more than the Cross is.

>>1835190
How does hierophany work in Orthodox art?

File: WP_20160626_14_51_33_Pro.jpg (413KB, 1632x918px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1632x918px

>>1835672
Fug.

>>1835664
Radiance and halos
The facial expressions (generally serene, a sign of being like God)
Facial direction. Commonly, holy characters have both their eyes visible even when facing to the side, whereas the wicked characters generally don't (for instance, in pic related, you can easily pick out Judas).

Holy men are generally shown in relatively stationary poses (as opposed to running or walking), which conveys Godliness--since God is serene and unmovable yet does and is.

There's actually a lot more too.

File: Last supper2 Ebay.jpg (434KB, 600x471px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 600x471px

>>1835687
Forgot pic

>>1835672
>>1835674
>>1835677
>>1835684
>>1835690
>>1835694

Beautiful!

What's Jesus sitting on?

I recently read Aquinas' de substantiis separatis, a treatise on the angels. A beautiful work.

Is there an Orthodox treatise about angels?

>>1838332
The Throne of God.

>>1838422
Pseudo-Dionysius wrote quite a bit on them

>>1835190
>I worship art.
>I still call myself a Christian.
>I prefer the Michael that Michelangelo made to the Michelangelo that God made.

>>1838789
>*kek*
>*the David that Michelangelo made"

>>1835441
This is interesting, I will check it out, thank you.

It feels like all Orthodox Christians on this website are very intense about it though. Are there "normal" Orthodox Christians, like ones that go to church, but haven't read any additional texts, confess, pray, believe, but aren't intellectually active? Or is it more of a very intellectually demanding church? I am kind of a dumbfag and I don't really want to get confused.

File: 1471595721404.jpg (178KB, 801x1010px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 801x1010px

Reporting in. Also, does pic related count as sacrilege?

>>1838952
Not in English speaking countries, not really no. And even in Russia, they're very proud of being Orthodox, it's part of their cultural identity, even if they aren't actually devout.

>>1835190
not your blog

>>1835441
Orthodox Christianity didn't get different. Rather, it's the rest of Christendom that did. Orthodox Christianity just didn't change.

You live in a fantasy world

>>1839007
>Just restate the beginning of someones argument and then deny it with an expression of laughter, a smug image, and/or an insulting statement denying their argument, all without any follow up
Two can play at that game; you're mistaken about what constitutes Orthodoxy because you're jaded and set in your ways.

also
>couldn't even greentext properly
It's really not that hard.

>>1839087
I didn't restate an argument, there was none. I copied a statement, one which you will find very few scholars outside the Orthodox church agreeing with.

>>1839175
>an ambiguous appeal to authority
Care to clarify?

The books recommended and their messages reaffirm what he stated. He said something and provided references for what was being said. Of course changes have taken place in the traditions of man, but what constitutes Christianity and holy tradition has not changed.

>>1839236
He sighted to novels, not histories. I might as well site Dante's inferno as proof that the Catholic church's enemies are in hell.

File: yusuf.jpg (98KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 480x640px

>>1838996
where im from the orthodox greeks just shitpost eachother coz they really dont like church and get fed up but they have to because they love being greek.

they also shitpost the turks alot and evangelists.

>>1839236
Also your statement is a tautology. If these scholars believed the Orthodox church preserved and passed on the holy tradition of the apostles then they'd probably strive to be Orthodox. Essentially what you're saying is that you only accept non-orthodox opinions on orthodoxy, so you're ruling out orthodoxy because you only trust critics. Applying that same reasoning, you can say most non-catholic scholars don't agree with stances of Catholicism and you can apply this to any stance or world view. It has to be one of the most foolish criticisms of any idea to say that you are against it because people who are against it are against it.

>>1839264
The fiction conveys ideas which are unique and important to the orthodox worldview as it relates to holy tradition, ideas and perspectives which aren't found outside of Christianity. Since when can fiction not convey a stance which a reader might find to be true and unique in it's origin? Ultimately of course, it's not in fiction that these truths originate, but in the body of the church itself. These types of people, these stances, these moods and ways of looking at the world are a historical reality. You may as well reject the truth of a parable simply because it's not a literal explanation.

>>1839236
>>1839175

http://catholicbridge.com/orthodox/has_the_orthodox_changed_any_teaching_or_doctrine.php

some good catholic shitposting

>>1839322
>Since when can fiction not convey a stance which a reader might find to be true and unique in it's origin?

Of course it can, but no novel can be an authoritative source on how things were a thousand years or more in the past. that is not how the historical method works.

> If these scholars believed the Orthodox church preserved and passed on the holy tradition of the apostles then they'd probably strive to be Orthodox.

We are talking about history. If no scholar outside the Morman church takes claims of reformed Egyptian or chariots in America seriously, then that is still the consensus and Mormon's do not get a pass for their batshit insane theories

Of course 1st century Christianity is a far more contentious field, however a consensus has emerged that the apostles were never united in one set of dogma, and the churches that came in the generation after them certainly were not.

>>1839402
Okay if there is this consensus that the apostles weren't united by any core ideology, where does it come from? On what grounds is this statement made? Just as there is no pass for Mormons making claims, there is no pass for you or your unnamed scholars. The traditional view is that they were united through the holy spirit and their shared experience of the living God.

>>1839322
>If these scholars believed the Orthodox church preserved and passed on the holy tradition of the apostles then they'd probably strive to be Orthodox.
Not necessarily. For example, they might believe that the Orthodox traditions most closely resemble those of a theoretical early church, but may not believe that those original traditions actually contain any supernatural insight. Or, from the opposite angle, you have secular scholars analyzing the political, social and religious conditions of Roman Judea and come to the conclusion that Yeshua would have preached a form of apocalyptic reform Judaism, without they themselves believing in apocalyptic reform Judaism.

>>1839323
>straw manning the stance on contraception
There isn't some new support for contraception urged by modernism. I don't know where this idea even comes from.
Have the latins even looked into the Orthodox stance?
>"there used to be heretics in the east and our ancestors had to bring them back so it's okay for us to be heretics now"
Wow, you weren't kidding about this being shitposting.

>>1839481
That's why I used the term holy tradition, referring to the greek term paradosis, which has little to do with the historical interpretations of modern intellectuals. If they don't accept that there was a paradosis to begin with, they are most likely at that distance where they aren't themselves wholly capable of seeing Christianity for what it is, and it is not a series of rituals or stances which resemble those of the early followers of Christ.

>>1839615
>and it is not a series of rituals or stances which resemble those of the early followers of Christ.
Do orthodox "rituals and stances" closely resemble those of the early followers of Christ or not? Yes or no?

>>1839477
>The traditional view is that they were united through the holy spirit and their shared experience of the living God.

The traditional view, having come from Acts and church tradition is immediately suspect. We know that there were sects of Chiristans that rejected the "consensus" put forward in Acts, and others have raised serious questions about the traditional narrative concerning Paul.

Given this, and keep in mind the same thing would apply to any traditional narrative, given the circumstances, it is more likely that the consensus was an invention of later Christians rather than something that existed between the apostles.

>>1839651
Yes, because they were preserved since the days of the church fathers and the holy synods which were guided by the same holy spirit which guided the apostles in their decisions and teachings. I've seen nothing to the contrary in this thread besides unsupported vague statements of a supposed consensus about historical conditions 2000 years ago, and a hypothetical statement about the ability of non-Christians to speak of things they don't understand.

>>1839689
The existence of heretics doesn't make charismatic truth suspect. Those sects deviated from the truth by way of their own misinterpretations, and were often acknowledged and reproached in ecumenical councils, just as the apostles counseled together.

>>1839747
>Yes,
In what way would this similarity be invisible to an independent observer?

>>1839747
>The existence of heretics doesn't make charismatic truth suspect

That statement of course, is begging the question. what made some groups heretics and another group pure. It only holds up if you see them as heretics, that is break away, rather than a competing tradition with roughly the same claims to legitimacy.

To take Orthodox writings and traditions on the matter at face value would be an abdication of the historical method, which calls for skepticism of all uncorroborated claims

>>1838789
That's Catholic, not Orthodox. It's a fine work of art, but a gross violation of the guidelines of Orthodox art

>>1839824
There is a visible similarity but the actual material objects present aren't necessarily perfect replicas of things used in the first century. The important similarity is spiritual. You cannot see the spiritual world, and icons are written as representations of these things which are invisible. The rituals themselves are often rightfully termed mysteries for a reason.

>>1839883
The word Charismatic is the difference;they did as their predecessors because they were guided in the same way, while the many early heresies, the followers of Arianism, Gnosticism and so on, did not. Substantiate just one of their unique claims to be traditional if you claim their stance is equally so; I don't think you can. Be skeptical as you will of course.

>>1840039
I am willing to have this conversion with you. if you can promise me you can temporarily at least look at the issue from a non Orthodox perspective, that is a perspective of a modern academic historian with or without religions beliefs of their own

>>1839918
>a gross violation of the guidelines of Orthodox art
Why? I thought it was orthodox until you said it.

>>1840039
>but the actual material objects present aren't necessarily perfect replicas of things used in the first century
Of course, but that's not the issue here. Are the reasonably-accurate replicas of objects used in reasonably-accurate replicas of of early Christian rituals to affirm reasonably-accurate versions of their dogmas? If an independent observer were to view a current Orthodox service and view the evidence for what existed in early Christian communities, they would call the current one a reasonable approximation? Or would there be something preventing that conclusion?

>>1840085
I'm not him, but I will give you some examples. In ancient Christianity, from the earliest times, the priest faced to the East with the rest of the congregation. This has changed with all Christians, but Orthodox still adhere to it. Here is another example: incense, as you probably know, was used in Judaism even before Christianity, and the Orthodox use it with all our services, as well as an alter an a partition around that alter, as the Temple had. This is all witnessed in the New Testament and the Church Fathers. Now the incense used by the Orthodox is a combination of the two oils given by the Magi to Christ, and these oils always had very strong meaning among Christians: frankincense is the oil that was used to anoint kings, and myrrh was the oil used to anoint the dead, and you can see why these are both strongly linked with Christ. Here is another thing: praying with your hands clasped, sitting down, was something that a firm innovation of the West. In Orthodoxy, you pray either standing or kneeling, and either with your hands at your side, or uplifted; we also do prostrations (but not on most Sundays, since they are an expression of remorse), and these are a big thing in prayer in both the Old Testament and the New, but no Christians besides Orthodox still use prostrations in prayer.

>>1840096
No, no, absolutely not. The Orthodox never use statues (because they are evocative of idols), or depict nudity graphically (that is, where nudity is depicted, as with Adam and Eve, the genitals are not expressed). Also Orthodox art does avoids realistic depictions, since that changes the art from a mystical symbol into a carnal imitation.

>>1840137
of course none of that has anything to do with questions regarding the beliefs of the apostles, whether they were united as Acts and some early texts assert, Or if the modern historical idea that Christianity was divided into various sects from nearly the start is true.

I am not disputing that the Orthodox church took steps to at least minimize changes at least since the so called Golden era of Christianity.

>>1840145
>Also Orthodox art does avoids realistic depictions, since that changes the art from a mystical symbol into a carnal imitation.
Don't the Orthodox accuse Catholics of mixing their theology with Neo-Platonic philosophy all the time? Talk about planks and dustmites.

>>1840149
>Plato invented symbolism

>>1840145
>statues
I thought we were taking about the pic in the OP.

>>1840153
Anon mentioned Michelangelo's statue of David.

>>1835645
>not knowing the difference in Greek between Ikon and Idol

>>1840249
Are you new (not an attack, just asking)? There was a prolific tripfag by the name of Constantine that posted endlessly about Orthodoxy (also trying to refute Stirner and Nietzsche in the most intellectually dishonest fashion possible). Somehow along the way there came an idea that they were female and/or an MtF transsexual.

>>1838965
Yeah, at least in my eyes. Ask your priest if you're unsure.

File: 1476392469188.png (334KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1600x1600px

Don't forget to pop into /pol every once in a while, brothers! For Christ!
>>93437721
>>93437721
>>93437721
>>93437721

>>1840830
oh i wont
>>93445281

>>1835663
Literal idolatry

>>1835441
>The Way of a Pilgrim
I'd like to thank you anon for mentioning this book. I picked it up on your recommendation and have by now finished the first book. I have it say its simply one of the most beautiful things I've ever read.

Oh Constantine please come back! I held in my dirty doo doo all night and it hurt but I held it in for you!! I dreamed about you and your thread all night! I need your permission to doo doo. Ow ow ow it hurts! Please come back and give me permission mistress! Oh oh oh oh!

>>1841433
Don't be retarded, it's just a guy walking around repeating a phrase again and again in his head. Meanwhile my doo doo!

OW
I'm having to get down on one knee to keep the doo doo from gushing out!

>>1840257
The OP is constantine.

>>1841689
and a tranny

https://warosu.org/lit/thread/7529969

>>1841872
>posts something about how blogs are bad
>illustrates with something from tumblr
>therefore a tranny

>>1841872
found constie desu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmFO-wXTQc

>>1842765
holy shit

I've never been a transsexual or had even faint inclination or desire to be another sex. I'm unsure where this fixation on me as a person comes from, I've never mentioned my sex.

>>1843069
Ever visited New Skete (Mount Athos)?

>>1843074
No, I'm afraid not.

>>1843080
Why do you insist upon lying to me.

>>1843069
You're not really a girl, you're a man const. A MAN

>>1843082
I haven't. Why would you think I've visited Mount Athos?

>>1843086
I'm what I was born as.

>>1843095
You were born a MAN

>>1843095
>I'm what I was born as.
Chris in a bucket, Constantine, you make it so difficult to tell if you're an elaborate troll or just incredibly obtuse and dishonest. You'd know exactly how this statement would be interpreted and said it anyway, meaning you're doing it on purpose or actually that dense.

>>1839615
Gee, maybe the early church was written about in the bible?

>>1839918
>muh idolatry is not idolatry because we do it right.

When are you going to begin worshiping the Creator, and not the creation?

>>1843114
I'm not very smart, I can assure you of that. I'm the stupidest person I've met.

>>1840137
>important
>we're Jews, the post.

>>1843123
More false humility.

>>1843121
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_M9TSHuGw0

>>1843129
If so, then I am truly wicked and will have no defense before God.

>>1842765
I can't imagine looking at that thing and asking "tell me about Jesus!"

>>1843069
Okay, Isaac.

>>1843123
Can't put on lipstick very well either.

>>1843134
You are a tranny?

>>1843134
None of us do.

That's the entire point of Christianity.

>>1843132

AMERICA! F*** YEAH!

>>1842765
Props for admitting he's a lunatic, though.

>>1843141
I don't wear lipstick

>>1843142
No, and I never have been, and never had the faintest inclination to be.

>>1843143
You are correct.

>>1843162
you LIE

>>1843169
No, lying is a grave sin. Shall I sell my place the Kingdom of God for 4chan frivolity? Like Esau selling his inheritance for a bowl of lentils?

>>1843162

I've always been correct in dealing with people here, including you.

And you have been disingenuous, or ignorant, at best.

Case in point: >>1843095

>>1843183
You clearly do not understand, and are not in, the New Covenant.

Do you even want to be?

Do you even know what it is?

>>1843189
The New Covenant is Jesus Christ.

>>1843185
Enlighten me, then, I have no doubt you are much smarter than I am. And I don't mean that in a piously humble sense, I'm serious.

>>1843199
>I'm serious
No you aren't.

>>1843199
I have tried to, several times, but you place the authority of your church over the authority of the bible.

Until you see that's a fallacy, and a control mechanism that you have voluntarily signed up for, nothing I show you in the bible will be persuasive to you, as I am not in a position of authority over you.

You say the New Covenant is Jesus Christ, but it's not.

The New Covenant is between Jesus Christ and all who believe.

>>1843203
No, I do. I'm sorry you don't believe me, why should you have reason to doubt?

>>1843216
There is no conflict between the Church and the Bible, because both are authored by God

The New Covenant is quite literally Christ himself. Christ is God partaking of humanity, so that humanity may partake of God.

>>1843216
>I have tried to, several times, but you place the authority of your church over the authority of the bible.

Placing either of those as an authority above human reason is the fallacy.

>>1843230
>There is no conflict between the Church and the Bible, because both are authored by God

Until you realize that is a lie, there is nothing I can do to help you.

>>1843230
>Christ is God partaking of humanity, so that humanity may partake of God.

Eat God, Be God is anathema.

>>1843216
>and a control mechanism that you have voluntarily signed up for,
There is no effective difference between signing up for the control mechanism of a church or of a book. Constantine is dishonest because he is incapable of even entertaining the validity of any idea outside of Orthodoxy, not because he is Orthodox.

>>1843232
Placing the inspired Word of God over my own "reason" is necessary for salvation.

It's not necessary for justice. Problem is, you don't realize that you're the condemned criminal, and you're facing an eternal death sentence that you cannot otherwise escape.

You may not realize that now, but as they say, it's easier to hand out life jackets when people know the ship is doomed.

>>1843238
Do you deny Christ built the Church? And that she is guided by the Spirit of Truth?

>>1843240
Be God physically, but spiritually being God requires Theosis

>>1843246
>Placing the inspired Word of God over my own "reason" is necessary for salvation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t_bqqvJdik

Your idea of eternal justice is a kangaroo court

>>1843246
>Problem is, you don't realize that you're the condemned criminal, and you're facing an eternal death sentence that you cannot otherwise escape.
That nice Yeshua guy seemed to do okay despite being condemned to death by a corrupt and injust system. I'm sure everyone else can manage too.

>>1842765
>icons and ponies
Damn bigoted Christianity keeping fembois from going all they way. Even the Eslomic Republic of Iron recognizes that faggots might as well become women. Fucking big(fag)ots

>>1843243
Your disbelief in the afterlife will be cured against your will.

>>1843262
I'm denying that Jesus has anything to do with the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, yes.

I've seen all the claims, and they're all false.

Petros is not the petra; water does not clean a person of sin; oil does not allow the Holy Spirit to enter in; and Eat God, Be God is pagan blasphemy and an abomination.

The church that Jesus and the disciples were talking about is the collection of all born again Christians.

>>1843324
t. Muslim

>>1843310
>cured against your will.
Whoa, "free choice" sure goes out the window pretty easily in this religion.

>>1843267
When you stand condemned before the trial starts, and you have no advocate, and you have no excuse, you are free to call it a kangaroo court.

But you will still be guilty as sin, and punished justly.

>>1843276
He is God.

You are not.

>>1843348
Born again Christian.

Do you ever tire of being continuously wrong?

>>1843349
Yup. It ends at death. Hence our stressing the need for action TODAY, as you are not promised tomorrow.

And after death, it's too late. You'll already be resurrected, one way or the other.

>>1843402
Nope, you're just a Messianic Muslim. You've adopted the beliefs first promulgated by Mohammed, that sacraments and icons are paganism, and that Communion is blasphemy.

>>1843398
Its hilarious that you can write that and believe it.
Its also a little scary, but in any case its completely insane.

Which makes sense because your a born again

>>1843412
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

"Sacraments" are nonsense; icons are obviously idolatry, and the thought that you're actually eating human flesh (the entire body) and drinking all 5 liters of human blood is anathema. I can't come up with a stronger word than anathema.

And it predates AD.

The pagans were doing the exact same thing thousands of years before Christ.

Eat God, Be God.

Eat Warrior Heart, Be Stronger.

>>1843418
It's what God says. Here's the verses out of the Word of God to show you that I am not giving you my opinion.

And believing the truth is easy.

John 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse...

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

Unless you're an end-Tribulation saint, 1007+ years in the future, that trial will end like this:

Revelation 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

File: 1474234686040.jpg (82KB, 700x717px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 700x717px

>>1843451
Away, Mohammed, there is no evidence pagans were doing that. That's literally a hypothesis based on the fact that Christianity did that, and therefore it must have got it from pagan mystery rites. There is zero evidence pagan mystery rites featured that.

>>1843465
Oh so your holy book says it (assuming your interpretation the only logical one) makes it true.

great glad we cleared that up. and here I was thinking taking the word of a two thousand year old book as fact is insanity.

>>1843481
The doctrine of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as is supposed. It was a controverted topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith, which means that it is essential to salvation according to the Roman Catholic Church. The idea of a corporal presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation. Even then, for almost another four hundred years, theological war was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma.

>>1843481
Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." The Story Of Civilization, p. 741. The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. Roman Society From Nero To Marcus Aurelius, Dill. In Egypt priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to be come the flesh of Osiris. Encyclopedia Of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76. The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and Haoma drink closely parallel the Catholic Eucharistic rite. Ibid. The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.

>>1843481
The Christian Church for the first three hundred years remained somewhat pure and faithful to the Word of God, but after the pseudo-conversion of Constantine, who for political expedience declared Christianity the state religion, thousands of pagans were admitted to the church by baptism alone with out true conversion. They brought with them pagan rites which they boldly introduced into the church with Christian terminology, thus corrupting the primitive faith. Even the noted Catholic prelate and theologian, Cardinal Newman, tells us that Constantine introduced many things of pagan origin: "We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own...The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, pp. 359, 360. This unholy alliance also allowed the continuance of the pagan custom of eating and drinking the literal flesh and literal blood of their god. This is actually how transubstantiation entered the professing church.

>>1843495
There's only one holy book, the bible, comprised of 66 books written by 40 men over 1500 years, all inspired by God Himself. Maintained by God Himself. Compiled by God Himself. Taught by God Himself.

It speaks for itself, and it is the only holy book on the planet. Men and angels do not make things holy.

>>1843548
Repeating what you believe does not make it fact, nor is it a proof that others should accept

>>1843570
>5 sources

>Unsourced

>>1843600
The only things you mentioned in that post
>>1843548
was the Bible and God (as revealed in the bible)

>>1842765
Oh shit.

If you're not a tranny then why did you start a thread on /lit/ with this tranny propaganda in the OP?

https://warosu.org/lit/thread/7529969

>>1843537
Durant is noted for being a terrible historian, and provides absolutely no primary sources on his assertion here. Neither can you.

>>1843538
Kyrie Eleison literally means "Lord have mercy" in Greek, it's what the Publican said in his prayer, contrasted with the Pharisee, remember?

Holy water and holy days were also Jewish things, c'mon man.

>>1843537
>"their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity
t. no primary source

>>1843533
>The idea of a corporal presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation.
It's extremely clear in Saint Ingnatius of Antioch, this monk you're talking about only coined the Catholic term, which the Orthodox did not adopt.

>1843744
The thread is about my dissatisfaction with blogs, so I posted something from a blog to express that.

>>1844149
>>1843744

>>1844149
Oh, I guess that makes sense.

>>1844149
You never post anything that isn't a piece of orthodox art or a photo of a pious orthodox believer. And that is from a webcomic, not a blog.

Look, if you are/were trans, fine. That's not anyone else's business if you don't make it anyone else's business. But if you are really just dense and not an incredibly dedicated troll, just shut up about it, because every time you leave a carefully calculated ambiguous answer you make it much harder to have any sort of actual discussion.