I'm with you - I believe this apology.

'm curious, are you Orthodox? That would really explain your ideologies. I would like to expand more on this topic but the truth is this argument deals with an idea of church that lies more on institutional and traditional debate rather than Biblical context. So I will stop at that.

I'm aware of what synagogue means, but we are basing our definition on modern implications. Instead of looking at what synagogue means to us today, we need to look at what synagogue meant in ancient times. Synagogues have a system of doing things that did not exist in the Hebrew Bible. Synagogues became prominent during Rabbinic Judaism. Thus the distinction between ancient “beit knesset” and post Second Temple “beit knesset”. Because language evolves, you cannot rely that the definition of words are timeless. Ancient Hebrew, in particular, is consistently mistranslated because we based so much of it on modern Hebrew translation. For example, the word “soul” has been terribly mistranslated. Ancient Hebrews did not have a dualistic understanding of body and soul as we have today (thanks to the Geeks). To put it in a way we westerners can understand, they believed body and “soul” was one and the same. So be careful that you do not particularly rely solely on “Christian” Hebrew Lexicons.

When I said multiple churches, I meant just that, multiple “local” groups of believers. Churches not only identify the whole as a church but the particular of groups wherever they meet. Church identifies both a general and local reality. The body of Christ is a general concept of church; the church of Jerusalem, is a particular group of people. I use the term church at it is used in Scriptures, not as we use it today, implying an official and legalized institution.

Your comment about the Roman Catholic Church—this just seems to be an argument based on the premise of who's right and who's wrong, who's the true Institutionalized Church and who's not…I care very little about these arguments because neither have any grounding in Scriptures, it all depends on traditional perceptions. Frankly, that’s no different than some of the Judaic sects (i.e., Pharisees, Zealots, Essenes, Sadducees) claiming to be they’re right and everyone else is wrong.

As an artist, I’ve come to appreciate the icons of Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Although I do not agree with all of their theologies, I appreciate the creativity of their symbolisms expressed in the images. Being that most people were illiterate at the peak of iconography, icons served as instructional pieces that conveyed what the institutions believed to be true to the people. Whenever we see these kinds of icons, we immediately recognize their religiosity. I wanted the graphics on this site to communicate faith, and icons, in my opinion, are a great venue for that.

This conversation will go nowhere because your main concern is to defend an institution that claims to be the original church, though there is nothing mentioned in Scriptures about it. Again, it’s an argument based on tradition, nothing else. My arguments are based on exegetical research and contextual criticism. Tradition is not perfect. It’s certainly not absolute truth. I come from a Roman Catholic background and am fully familiar with tradition. With that said, let’s move forward from here. My advice to you is that you at least become aware of your institution’s imperfections and that not everything you learn there is absolute truth. And when you read Scriptures and study it, don’t let “Orthodox” be the only perspective. Do not let tradition obscure truth (yes, that applies to me as well).

Judging from what you’ve said in many of these posts…I suggest you do a lot more research than you have done (believe me, there’s a lot out there to learn and neither of us will ever learn all of it in our life time). Study Ancient Hebrew culture. Study early Greek culture. Study early Christian practices and how they have changed through time. And please do not let your sources only come from Christian authors or the internet. We Christians tend to be very bias and defensive when it comes to our beliefs. The worse thing we can do with Biblical Hermeneutics is view ancient texts with modern lenses and the Old Testament (appropriately the Hebrew Bible) with Christian lenses.

The objective in my posts is not to prove that I’m right and you’re wrong. They’re meant to challenge your predispositions and traditions that can often be taken for granted. If nothing else, these posts should encourage you to delve deeper into Biblical Hermeneutics and find truth that you may not have noticed before. But approach this journey of searching not trying to prove that your beliefs are right but in hopes that you get closer and closer to truth. This means you should be prepared to have your traditions and beliefs shaken when you encounter a God who transcends tradition, denominations and doctrine.

So, carry on, and continue on your journey. If you are confident that your journey passes through the Orthodox Institution (respectfully “Church”), then so be it. Perhaps God has you there for a purpose.

As for the icon in the background, I don’t remember what icon it is. I don’t even remember what I did to it for it to look that way. It has the hand of Christ in the center, though.

I'm glad he apoligized. In this day and age, when that is so rare, you got to give him props for having the courage to say, "I was wrong, and I'm sorry for hurting you"

ryc: Japaness Hamburgers sound rather interesting. I shall have to add that to my "Things to Eat Before I Die" list.

yeah - that's the thing with this apology. He really actually did say "I was wrong and I hurt you," not just "I'm sorry that you feel hurt because of how you interpreted what I did."