Although the Eastern Orthodox Church does not maintain inherited guilt, as does the Roman Catholic Church, it does maintain that mankind bears the consequences of Adam’s sin, and that those consequences involve physical corruption and death. But does the Orthodox Church also maintain that man’s tendency to sin is worse post‐Fall than pre‐Fall, being inherited from Adam? Does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that humans inherited an inward tendency to sin (sin nature) from Adam that Adam himself acquired only after the Fall? Or would the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that man’s inherent tendency to sin is roughly the same as that of Adam and Eve’s?

There is much discussion in secular academia about the possibility/impossibility of Christ being a God? And there are sects *within religious circles* who diss the idea of Christ really being Deity. Some of those sects fly under the banner of "Christianity." ***Since a "Christian"--in normal patois--is defined as someone who is a disciple of Christ***, it follows that that disciple would believe and teach faithfully whatever the essence of Christ is. But many interpret the Bible as declaring that ***Christ taught He was Deity (God in the flesh)***. >Israelites...whose are the Fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 9:5) >I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me. (John 6:38; also 8:24,42) >Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed on Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31-32) Note that the second half of this verse is engraved on the portals of Harvard University! Yet none would say that Harvard wishes to promote Christ's divinity. Could all others who claim to be Christian, whether sect or individual, ***but do not believe in His divinity*** still legitimately fall under the umbrella of the title, ***Christian***? Or is that deceptive? Is that unwarranted? ***Is that contradictory to the words of Jesus in these verses?*** >For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. (Colossians 2:9, NIV)

Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians believe and affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the ***ark of the new covenant***, but is there a scriptural basis for this and if so where do we see this in the Old or the New Testament?

I was looking up some stuff and noticed that multiple sources claim that the Catholics and Orthodox have a different view on the "first sin" or "original sin". - There is this answered question within the exchange. Which is what I've found through research as well. - As the Catechism says, “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404). - The Council of Carthage (418) is considered Ecumenical by the Orthodox Church, and it contained the doctrine of "Original Sin"... so no issue here. - Instead of original sin, which is used in Western Christianity, the Orthodox Church uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make one key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so. The Greek word for sin, amartema, refers to an individual act, indicating that Adam and Eve alone assume full responsibility for the sin in the Garden of Eden. The Orthodox Church never speaks of Adam and Eve passing guilt on to their descendants, as did Augustine. Instead, each person bears the guilt of his or her own sins. (Saint John the evangelist orthodox church ) - The OCA website claims the "West" understand the doctrine of Original guilt. It is possible they meant the protestants and not the Catholics, but in my experience the Western Church is usually the catholics. - There is the OrthoCuban website who provides a summary, but perhaps it is just the authors flawed understanding of the words used? ------------- As the two churches appear to be still maintaining that there is a difference between Original Sin and Ancestral/First Sin... what exactly is the difference? Because as far as I can tell, there seems to be no difference. Both the catholics and orthodox churches say we suffer the consequences of the first sin, not the guilt. I think the difference is that the Catholic Church defines sin as a violation, and for the Orthodox sin is the separation from God. Is that the issue?

In the book "Rock and Sand" by Josiah Trenham he criticises Evangelicals for their emphasis on personal purity. I didn't understand this and, to the best of my ability, I don't remember him elaborating what he meant by this. There was an Orthodox apologist in the early days of Youtube who used to talk about religion while smoking. For me, coming from a Protestant background, this was quite shocking. Even as I write this, there is another (in)famous Orthodox man on Youtube from North America who also smokes. Could someone explain what Orthodoxy and possibly Roman Catholicism mean when they criticise us Protestants for our emphasis on personal purity. PS: 1. While I use cigarette smoking as an example, this question isn't specifically about smoking. 2. In the Protestant sect I grew up in, tobacco, betel nut and many other drugs were strictly off limits even in the privacy of our homes. We would be told that the body is God's temple and warned against stumbling others(Romans 14:13-23). 3. The quote from Trenham's book is as follows: > In the Protestant world today the majority of evangelicals are from > Holiness, Pentecostal or Charismatic congregations. They are the > fastest growing segment of Evangelicalism. The most influential > Pentecostal denomination is the Assemblies of God with a membership in > the millions. The Great Awakenings defined the Evangelicalism of the > 18th and 19th centuries. But the 20th century has been the century of > the Holiness, Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. > > On the first day of the new century, in Topeka Kansas, Agnes Osmond, a > student at Charles Parham’s Bethel bible college began speaking in > tongues. News spread and an African-American hotel waiter, William J. > Seymour carried this Pentecostal gospel with him to Los Angeles in > early 1906 and speaking in tongues erupted on April 9th at a house on > Bonnie Brae Street where Parham was staying in Azusa California. The > bible college moved to a warehouse at 312 Azusa Street, where for the > next several years, the Azusa Street mission promoted divine healings, > Pentecostal enthusiasm and missionaries to promote the Pentecostal > movement throughout the world. This Pentecostal movement not only > replicated Pentecostal churches throughout the world, but deeply > influenced both established denominations and even the Roman-Catholic > church. > > These movements share in common a quest for a higher spiritual life > sometimes called a second blessing. Leaders of this movement have > placed tremendous emphasis on moral purity and have given the > Protestant churches a moral uplift. At the same time many of these > movements have established an externalized ethos in which dancing, > drinking and smoking rather than pride, vainglory and self-love are > the great taboos to be avoided and abstinence from these external > vices is seen as the defining characteristic of holiness. Such > erroneous visions of holiness have led evangelicals to the promotion > of such things as teetotalism which is seen as the demonisation of > recreation.

The book of 3rd Maccabees is included in the Eastern Orthodox canon, a practice which dates back at least to the 85th canon of the Apostolic Canons ratified by the Quinisext Council in 692. I had never heard of the book, nor had I heard the story contained in the book, until I purchased an Eastern Orthodox Bible. Wikipedia devotes a whole paragraph to talking about how it has generally been overlooked by theologians throughout history. **Why have theologians who consider this book canonical not placed greater emphasis on it?** Anyone who reads it cannot deny it is an interesting story, and I am sure that if it is incorporated in the canon, it must also be considered instructive. By contrast, the other deuterocanonical books have received a great deal of attention, as have the books of the protocanon.

I am a Russian Orthodox Christian, and I know other Russian Orthodox Christians who consider a woman's menses to be impure. As a woman, this monthly bleeding is not saying that I am evil or bad during that time. I am simply not pure. Here is a good explanation of this. However, I know we Orthodox Christians plan our weddings around the bride's menstruation cycle, because she should be completely pure at that time. Do other Christian denominations do this too?

An answer was given from the Orthodox perspective to a question about contemplative prayer, regarding their practice of hesychasm. The stated goals were noble, with much Scriptural support. My question is in regard to the Jesus prayer. Humility is of course required of us as we approach the God Who dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6:16). The Jesus prayer states this: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!" It is repeated over and over in an attempt to be like the publican in humility. I have, in fact, repeated this same prayer in my heart many times. But does it not in actuality represent doubt, not faith? Do Orthodox Christians believe that Christ's death has already exemplified His mercy to us, and that our role is to simply believe and receive that truth in our hearts, and then live accordingly? In other words, do we need to continually ask for mercy, or is it just a reminder of the mercy that we have already been shown?

The subject of the "calvinist" Patriarch of the Orthodox Church comes up from time to time, with the 2 sides presenting conflicting versions of events. Here is what I am certain of already. 1. Lucaris was viewed as having heretical beliefs as viewed by the rest of the Orthodox Church at that time. 2. There was a tension between the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant faiths. 3. There were other ottomans who didn't like Lucaris. The Execution was deceptive from the start, as Lucaris was taken away as if to be banished. But later out of sight of the majority of people they strangled him with a bowstring. --- #### Question: Are there any sources or evidence that indicate one of the 4 parties mentioned were directly involved? Reason: A common assertion is that the orthodox church was attempting to remove him at "any cost", though I can't find evidence to support that.

I just read https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/52081/117426 and felt inspired to ask the same question from a Protestant perspective, which also relates closely to my previous question [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/108199/117426) . According to Wikipedia, the *[Philokalia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philokalia)* is described as follows: > The Philokalia (Ancient Greek: φιλοκαλία, lit. 'love of the > beautiful', from φιλία philia "love" and κάλλος kallos "beauty") is "a > collection of texts written between the 4th and 15th centuries by > spiritual masters" of the mystical hesychast tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church. They were originally written for the guidance and instruction of monks in "the practice of the contemplative life". The collection was compiled in the 18th century by Nicodemus the Hagiorite and Macarius of Corinth based on the codices 472 (12th century), 605 (13th century), 476 (14th century), 628 (14th century) and 629 (15th century) from the library of the monastery of Vatopedi, Mount Athos. > > Although these works were individually known in the monastic culture of Greek Orthodox Christianity before their inclusion in the Philokalia, their presence in this collection resulted in a much wider readership due to its translation into several languages. The earliest translations included a Church Slavonic language translation of selected texts by Paisius Velichkovsky (Dobrotolublye, Добротолю́бїе) in 1793, a Russian translation by Ignatius Bryanchaninov in 1857, and a five-volume translation into Russian (Dobrotolyubie) by Theophan the Recluse in 1877. There were subsequent Romanian, Italian, French, German, Spanish, Finnish and Arabic translations. OrthodoxWiki.org also has an [article](https://orthodoxwiki.org/Philokalia) on the *Philokalia*: > The Philokalia is a collection of writings, mostly centering on practicing the virtues and spiritual living in a monastery. In recent decades it has become an important resource for Orthodox Christians, laity and clergy alike, in personal living and in some ways has achieved status as a major secondary spiritual written resource (after the primary one, Holy Scripture) along with St. John Climacus' The Ladder of Divine Ascent. The original question aimed at Catholics says: > The absence of a "mysticism"-oriented text in Catholic Christianity > has always struck me. The *Philokalia* are an incredible source of > ascetic instructions for the believer who seeks communion with God. > > (1) In what consideration do Catholic Christians keep the Philokalia? > And, (2) is there a similar text in the Catholic tradition? I would like to ask similar questions of Protestants: 1. What do Protestants think of the spiritual teachings found in the *Philokalia*? 2. Are there Protestant traditions with teachings emphasizing ascetic practices and mystical spirituality?

I'm seeking to understand the theological distinctions between two significant concepts in Christianity: **Eastern Orthodox *theosis* (deification/divinization)** and **Protestant *sanctification***. While both terms describe a process of spiritual transformation and growth in the believer, my preliminary understanding suggests there are fundamental differences in their nature, scope, and the means by which they are understood to occur. Specifically, I'm interested in answers that address: 1. **Definitions:** A concise theological definition of both *theosis* and *sanctification* from within their respective traditions. 2. **Nature of the Process:** Is the transformation described by each tradition primarily ontological (a real change in being), forensic (a change in legal status before God), relational (a change in relationship with God), or some combination of these? 3. **Role of Grace and Human Effort:** How do grace and human effort (or synergy) factor into each process? 4. **Goal/Telos:** What is the ultimate aim or culmination of each process? What does a "theosified" or "sanctified" person look like from each perspective? 5. **Key Theological Differences:** What are the most crucial points of divergence between the two concepts? Are there areas of unexpected overlap? References to key theological sources or official teachings would be especially helpful.

The GotQuestions article, [What is Hesychasm?](https://www.gotquestions.org/Hesychasm.html) , offers one Protestant perspective on the Eastern Orthodox practice: >Hesychasm is a form of [Christian mysticism](https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-mysticism.html) found almost exclusively in [Eastern Orthodoxy](https://www.gotquestions.org/Eastern-Orthodox-church.html) , rising to popularity in Greece in the 1300s. Roman Catholicism and Protestant denominations have no meaningful equivalents to it. Hesychasm has many similarities to Buddhist concepts of meditation, but it maintains a Judeo-Christian framework, rather than a pantheistic one. The general idea in Hesychasm is to use contemplative prayer, particularly the repetition of “[the Jesus Prayer](https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Prayer.html),” as a means to **experience union with God**. This requires the Hesychast to block out all his senses and eliminate all his thoughts. > > Hesychasm is, supposedly, grounded in Jesus’ command in Matthew 6:6. There, Jesus refutes the ostentatious prayers of hypocrites who want to be seen praying in public. Instead, Jesus says, “Go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” Hesychasts take Jesus’ reference to secret praying in an extreme and absolute sense. In particular, they believe that Jesus intended His followers to separate themselves from all sensory and intellectual inputs. In other words, “go into your room,” really means “go into yourself.” > > This withdrawal into oneself is accomplished by a form of repetitive [contemplative prayer](https://www.gotquestions.org/contemplative-prayer.html) . The Jesus Prayer is a short, liturgical chant very popular in Eastern Orthodoxy: Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν (“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”). Hesychasts will repeat this prayer over and over, seeking to invoke the power of the name of God. As they do so, practitioners gradually cut off their perception of external stimuli and eliminate all stray thoughts. **The ultimate goal of this process is [theosis](https://www.gotquestions.org/theosis.html) , a personal unity with God**. > > ... > > Mysticism is based on the quest to “experience” God through the use of rituals or other techniques. All forms of mysticism are rooted in an assumption that God can only truly be “known” in some subjective or personal way. **Contrary to mysticism in general, and Hesychasm in particular, the Bible commands us to pray with a purpose and intent, not with a goal of washing out our own thoughts** (Philippians 4:6; John 16:23–24). Scripture also indicates that God can be known objectively—or else it would not be possible to “examine” or “test” our own faith (1 John 4:1; 2 Corinthians 13:5). > > **Jesus’ comment in Matthew 6:6 was never meant to be taken as a command to go “within ourselves.” It was and is simply a refutation of hypocritical and showy religious antics. While Hesychasm is not quite the same as Eastern meditative practices, it is neither biblical nor beneficial**. Does GotQuestions reflect the mainstream Protestant view on Hesychasm and the pursuit of union with God (theosis)? Is the idea of "experiencing" union with God, as understood in Eastern Orthodoxy, generally rejected by most Protestants? Are there branches of Protestantism that are more open to similar concepts of theosis or experiential union with God? Do any Protestant traditions embrace spiritual disciplines aimed at deepening one's experiential relationship with God?

The absence of a "mysticism"-oriented text in Catholic Christianity has always struck me. The *Philokalia* are an incredible source of ascetic instructions for the believer who seeks communion with God. (1) In what consideration do Catholic Christians keep the Philokalia? And, (2) is there a similar text in the Catholic tradition?

What is the official position of the various Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.) regarding the situation in Israel and Palestine and the conflict between them?

**John 16:13**: > (KJV) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. > > (NLT) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future. I've often heard John 16:13 quoted as an argument for the various "infallibility" doctrines, be it Biblical infallibility, infallibility of the ecumenical councils, or general Church infallibility. In particular there is great emphasis placed upon the fact that the Holy Spirit will "guide you into all the truth." In fact I have heard it stated that if you believe that the Church can err, then you believe Christ was lying when he said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to "all the truth," not "some of the truth." Yet a plain reading of that verse does not seem to require infallibility. "Guide" seems to imply a process, and one not necessarily free from error. If someone is being guided to a final destination they may still get lost along the way, perhaps even be allowed to do so. The verse just seems to be assuring us that in the end the Holy Spirit will bring us to "all the truth." So am I missing something? Is there something that has been lost in translation? Is there extra-Biblical commentary somewhere amongst the Church Fathers that more thoroughly explains the verse? I am particularly in the Catholic position, but I would also be interested in the Orthodox and Protestant interpretations as well.

How did the Catholic Church choose which Sacred Tradition is infallible when there are conflicting traditions, such as the Filioque controversy, especially considering that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have valid apostolic succession according to the Catholic Church?

This question regarding whether the Catholic Church considers the Assyrian Church of the East to be heretics made me wonder: are *any* Christians outside the Catholic and Orthodox churches *not* considered heretical by the Catholic Church?

The Orthodox Study Bible's OT translation (produced by the St. Athanasius Academy) is based on the Septuagint, instead of being primarily based on the Masoretic text like most English translations of the Bible. The text of 1 Samuel 17:4 in the Septuagint lists Goliath's height as "four cubits and a span" (roughly 6'9''), contrasting with "six cubits and a span" (roughly 9'9'') in the Masoretic text. The OSB follows the Septuagint in its translation, but the footnote says: > Goliath is over nine feet tall. This is accurate regarding the Masoretic text, but not the Septuagint. Is it a mistake? Or are they following St. Augustine's interpretation of differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text? I.e. that the Hebrew text is historically accurate, but that the Greek is also divinely inspired and contains symbolical significance (*City of God* Book 18, chapter 43-44 ). There could also be another explanation I've not thought of.

Do Greek speaking Christians still use the Septuagint and original New Testament text? Or do they have a "modern Greek translation"? I ask because the New Testament is 2000 years old, presumably the Greek language has changed and evolved a lot in that time and so the original NT might not even be understandable to a modern Greek speaker. I'm interested in what Greek speaking Christians use in general (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant), but I'm also very interested in the Greek Orthodox church in particular. I'm curious what version of the scriptures they draw upon in their liturgy: the originals? or a modern paraphrase/translation?

Can anyone explain what the Eastern Orthodoxy's eschatological view is? The one that I've spoken to can't (or won't) give a direct answer when I've asked him if everyone outside of Eastern Orthodoxy isn't saved.