(Part 3) Top products from r/OrthodoxChristianity

This is pretty misguided sounding to me just skimming it. For example, "If asceticism denies people pleasure from the senses" is like saying "if surgery cuts people open and mutilates their bodies"... The end of asceticism isn't denying pleasure, but getting closer to God, and it is a matter of fact that for most people, sensory pleasure results in distance from God and that is the only reason to give it up. If sensory pleasure doesn't result in distance from God, then there is no reason to give it up. Many times it brings us closer to God, for example if we eat a nice meal due to hospitality, but the fathers recognize that we can consciously or unconsciously use this as an excuse in order to gratify our flesh, so they are even careful about this. Also, sometimes denying pleasure makes us proud and farther from God, in which case many saints (the only one that specifically comes to mind is St. John of San Francisco, but I've definitely encountered this sentiment before) encourage us to not deny ourselves as much, so that we don't become proud (St. John forced a young boy to eat meat during lent so that he would not become self-willed and proud; I have heard a story about a monk being ordered to eat meat by his abbot after repeatedly confessing pride at never having broken the fast). Asceticism is about radically confronting our experiences and values and struggling to remove the bad and make the good grow. If someone simply had pleasurable experiences all the time and for some reason this had no spiritual effect on them, then they would be called to some other, different type of asceticism than the rest of us depending on what came in between them and God.

Some points here, like that we should enjoy what is from God because it is from God, echoes sentiments in Orthodox teaching. There is a story (from the life of a desert father, don't remember which one) about a monk who said he will only trust God, so he won't eat anything unless it comes directly from God. Some neighboring saracen tribes who were hostile to the monks decided to make peace with them and brought a lot of food to them to feast on in reconciliation, but this monk denied doing so because it isn't from God, he said. But it is clearly from God because he did not seek it out, so he was chastised for denying this food. There is also a story I think in the life of St. Benedict of Nursia (but that is a guess) about a monk who was living in such severe asceticism in a cave that he didn't even know what day it was and had no contact with the world; he was revealed to the saint and the saint went to him on Pascha with a lot of food to feast in honor of the holiday, and urged the monk to eat this food he wouldn't normally eat in honor of God. But whether or not sensory pleasure falls into categories like this seems highly variable and individual.

If you are interested in further reading, I highly recommend this https://www.amazon.com/Struggle-Virtue-Asceticism-Secular-Society/dp/0884653730 book. By no means exhaustive or systematic, but it talks about foundational questions regarding asceticism and the worldly response to it in detail.

Also good: http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/podvig.aspx

and http://www.stxenia.org/difference.html

There are a few underlying issues for your questions. I'll try to address these first and then answer your 3 questions. Didn't expect this to be that long but please bear with me.

1. Why do the early Christians (including NT writers) seem to "twist" OT prophecies?
   
   The popular understanding of the whole prophecy thing is this:
   
   

• the OT contained some prophecies
  
• Jews had a quasi-checklist of what the Messiah should do when he comes
  
• Jesus fit the criteria that people had in mind
  
• Therefore Jesus is the Messiah
  
  Of course that's not how it happened at all...
  
  The first two points are correct though... Jews did have a pre-conceived notion of what the messiah would do. But if you take a look at this notion, it actually does not fit Jesus!
  
  They never thought the Messiah would be crucified (and obviously thought the Messiah would not raised from the dead). They thought the Messiah will rid them of their Roman oppressors and will "restore the kingdom to Isreal" (Acts 1:6) as Israel's new ruler and king. The list goes on...
  
  What happened with the early Christians though is that what happened to Christ (his death and resurrection) was for them a completely unexpected turn of events. Through the events of ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, pentecost, etc.. the early Christians believed that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, despite him not fitting their pre-conceived notions of him. They allowed their starting points to be challenged. Their starting points were their OT scripture, but it became Christ himself. He was their starting point not their pre-conceived notions of what he might look like or what he might do.
  
  After that Christians (out of their belief that Christ was the Messiah) started to re-interpret the OT in a new light.
  
  For example you see John 3:14 talking about the snake that was lifted up by Moses to be a type of Christ. Was that a prophecy? No. It was simply something that happened a long time ago, but it is now understood in a new light: the light of Christ.
  
  All the NT writers do this, and all this is portrayed very beautifully in Luke 24:
  
  >Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him.
  
  >And He said to them, “What kind of conversation is this that you have with one another as you walk and are sad?”
  
  >Then the one whose name was Cleopas answered and said to Him, “Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?”
  
  >And He said to them, “What things?”
  
  >So they said to Him, “The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see.”
  
  They're talking to the risen Christ! They know about the empty tomb! But they still don't get it and they still don't know him! Their pre-conceived notions are stopping them from seeing the real Christ.
  
  >Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
  
  Scripture is not vague prophecies where we can draw a checklist of things we think the Messiah would do. Scripture talks about Christ.
  
  >Then they drew near to the village where they were going, and He indicated that He would have gone farther. But they constrained Him, saying, “Abide with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.” And He went in to stay with them.
  
  >Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight.
  
  Scripture was opened. The bread was broken. Now they see him! Opening the scripture and breaking the bread is what is done in the liturgy... That's how we get to know and see Christ.
  
  

2. What is meant by divinely-inspired?
   
   Does not mean infallible. Does not mean dictated by the voice of God or some inner voice.
   
   It means it was both God and man working together to produce such work. And that's not unique to the Bible. Some fathers (I can get you references later if you wish, just let me know) said some books were inspired even though these books never made it to the NT canon for example.
   
   Inspiration is the continuous work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. There are still books written today that are inspired. Inspiration is not limited to the Bible.
   
   
   For references to the above do yourself a favour and check out The Mystery of Christ - John Behr and Reading Backwards -
   Richard Hays. both are absolutely brilliant.
   
   >1) Matthew misunderstood Zechariah 9:9
   
   Maybe he did. After all how does a man ride two donkeys? Maybe he meant something like first half of the journey Jesus rode one donkey, and the second half of the journey Jesus rode another? Maybe. Either way, why would it matter?
   
   >2) Matthew misatributes a prophecy to Jeremiah, but the "thirty pieces of silver" prophecy is from Zechariah.
   
   Maybe he does. But this one is interesting actually because there is a manuscript in the Coptic language that attests to this prophecy being in Jeremiah. Find more info and the full text here.
   
   >3) Hebrews 10:5 "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:"
   
   
   Not sure about this one. It is very likely though that the author of Hebrews knew Hebrew, he (or she?) seems to be very well versed in Judaic law and custom.
   
   

There are many great introductions to this period of Christianity. These books in particular are written by evangelical scholars for an audience like you, so they would be of great use.

• Classical Christian Doctrine by Ronald Heine
  
  
• Life in the Trinity by Donald Fairbairn
  
  
• Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction by Bryan M. Litfin
  
  Heine teaches at Northwest Christian University, Fairbairn at Gordon-Conwell, and Litfin at Moody Bible Institute. They are not whitewashed treatments of the topic by any means - I'd recommend Heine and Fairbarin in particular because they've published advanced scholarship on patristics in the past and know the topic very well. Another great introduction to early theology is The Spirit of Early Christian Thought by Robert Louis Wilken (who taught Litfin!)
  
  Hopefully one of these will be the most useful for your dad's small group. I think Litfin's book is designed to be accessible (each chapter is focused on a major figure), Heine's is designed to be informative and clear, and Fairbairn's is designed to feel devotional.

1. Nope. Not rude or disrespectful.
   
2. http://www.orthodoxiya.fm/ (If you speak Arabic, here is an Orthodox on-line radio station. If not- you'll be just as lost as I am with this! However, if you like chants, there is some good chanting to be found here. If you prefer or know English better, then this might be more up your alley: Ancient Faith Radio (music/chanting, podcasts, blogs)
   
   Well, I'll just share books and links with you that I just shared to someone else on another thread. I don't know how useful some of them will be for you, since you don't have a Christian background, but there they are anyway. Regarding specific differences between Copts, Armenians, Old Believer, and Eastern Orthodox, I don't know of any books that specifically address the differences (but Ethiopians are Copts and Greeks/Russians/Antioch are all Eastern Orthodox). ;)
   
   The Orthodox Faith by Thomas Hopko (It's all on-line- so no need to buy anything here.)
   
   Beginning to Pray by Anthony Bloom (Wonderful resource for anyone.)
   
   On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius (Catholics of all stripes should approve of this, but this is definitely something the East looks at more frequently in my observation. Also all on-line.)
   
   The Meaning of Icons by Vladimir Lossky (Icons are often overlooked in book recommendations on Orthodox Christianity. It's a shame. It's one of the most fascinating subjects.)
   
   On Acquisition of the Holy Spirit by St. Seraphim of Sarov (Even the pope has recognized him as a saint. This is a wonderful and deceptively simple (i.e. heavy) read. This is also all on-line. There are also six you-tube videos for this so you can just listen: https://youtu.be/pBynRA0wNg8 )
   
   Also, I don't think this has much to do with theology, but I really liked them:
   
   The Way of a Pilgrim (I recommend this book to everyone. Always.)
   
   How to Live a Holy Life by Gregory Postnikov (This is a small book. It's deceptively simple. The doing of what's in it is more difficult.)
   
   

3. For an Orthodox view, I highly recommend this podcast series on the bible to you. Dr. Constantinou of the University of San Diego essentially covers what she would in one of her survey courses. This goes in-depth on the topics of scripture (old and new). It truly starts with the second podcast (Inspiration and Inerrancy) and moves on to cover oral tradition, bible manuscripts, the septuagint, the canon, translations and versions, patristic interpretation, the school of Alexandria, the school of Antioch, and the Latin fathers in other podcasts. Search the Scriptures: Introduction to the Bible (Lesson 2)

>I think part of me doesn't want to freak her out about something that I'm worried could just end up being a phase....

Yes, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Orthodoxy, but there are some rather freaky and disturbing things to it when you are coming to it for the first time.

For example, venerating the tombs where saints are buried and being anointed with holy salves that are springing forth from the bones of these men. I'm speaking literally here. Being called to participate in present day miracles and mysteries is no easy task. I don't mean to scare you off, along with the mysteries there is unmistakable beauty and richness which can be found no where else.

Although, idealistically, it doesn't matter where you go, I think practically speaking though you both would be served well by going to a more modern minded parish.

I know you're being recommended lots of books at this time, but if I could reocmmend one more for you Introduction to Liturgical Theology by Alexander Schmemann will help you to understand the roots of the early Church, why the Sabbath is important to them, where vespers and matins came from, why the Passover and Pentecost continued to be celebrated and much much more. All presented from a liturgical and Orthodoxy perspective.

I know that you went to seminary, but understanding the roots of the Liturgical worship from an Orthodox perspective is not always easy to understand, especially in explaining this to your wife I think this could be very helpful.

I recommend Documents in Early Christian Thought. It's a basic and very good anthology, covering the first - 5th centruies, and organized by topic (so there's a section on the church and the sacraments).

For the earliest patristics, another good place to start is this larger anthology from the Library of Christian Classics, The Early Christian Fathers

Given your background, there are many excellent introductions to the church fathers from evangelical scholars to recommend:

• Ronald Heine, Classical Christian Doctrine (this is my favorite of them all)
  
  
• Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought, Volume 1
  
  
• Bryan M. Litfin, Getting to Know the Church Fathers
  
  
• Michael A. G. Haykin, Rediscovering the Church Fathers

Roman Catholic doctrine about grace is that it is created:

>It is not a substance that exists by itself, or apart from the soul; therefore it is a physical accident inhering in the soul.... Sanctifying grace may be philosophically termed a ‘permanent, supernatural quality of the soul’ (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition, vol. 6, p. 705).

I wish I could recommend a simpler book, but the only book that I am aware of that treats the differences in detail is Michael Pomazanski's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Also perhaps Seraphim Rose's The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church.

I agree that the understanding of grace is central to the dialog between Christians. I simply don't understand why it doesn't get more intention. It really is at the root of how the nature of man and free will is understood, which in turn drives the theology of original sin, which in turn drives the understanding of salvation. Orthodox Christians can dialog with western Christians about salvation and on the surface the conversation may even seem to make sense, but the foundational theology of grace is so different on the two sides that the discussions are generally meaningless.

I will name some names, link some links and include some quotes.

For a description of the symbolical meaning of the Liturgy you can read Maximus the Confessor's Mystagogy. You can find that text in parts in this book "Tasting Heaven on Earth" , or try his "Selected Writings" for the full text. I highly recommend the Mystagogy!

>CHAPTER FIFTEEN
>
>Of what the closing of the doors of the holy church after the reading of the holy Gospel is a symbol.
>
>The closing of the doors which takes place after the sacred reading of the holy Gospel and the dismissal of the catechumens signifies the passing from material things which will come about after that terrible separation and even more terrible judgment and the entrance of those who are worthy into the spiritual world, that is, into the nuptial chamber of Christ, as well as the complete extinction in our senses of deceptive activity.

For more information on how services ought to be performed you can read the "Abridged Typicon".

>The roofs of the temples are adorned with cupolas or domes: one cupola signifies the highest head of the Church, Christ Jesus Himself; three cupolas tell us of the three hypostases of the Holy Trinity; five cupolas express our Lord Jesus Christ and the four Evangelists; seven cupolas symbolize the Seven Holy Mysteries, seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, or the seven Ecumenical Councils; nine cupolas indicate the nine ranks of angels; thirteen indicate Christ and His twelve Apostles.

For a history of the development of the Orthodox liturgy you can read this.

>For Western Christians the Liturgy offers an experience of eucharistic worship of a kind which they cannot find in their own tradition, and which for many of them has a profound appeal. Their own rites have been renewed in accordance with what modern scholarship assures them was the practice of the early Church. The Liturgy appears to embody principles widely at variance with those they have come to regard as fundamental in worship: and yet for many of them it provides an experience which is deeply worshipful. Familiarity with the Liturgy provokes at least two questions for the Western Christian: How did a rite which claims to go back to the early Church come to assume a form so different from what we know of early Christian worship? and, Might the Western Churches have something to learn from the eucharistic worship of Orthodoxy? The rest of this book will be largely occupied with answering the first question, but will also suggest some answers to the second.

Another guide through the liturgy you can read is "Let us Attend: A Journey through the Orthodox Divine Liturgy".

>The practice of the laity receiving both the Body and Blood of Christ together on the spoon did not come in until the eighth century, and its use only gradually spread. Even by the middle of the eleventh century, its use was not universal. Byzantine canonist Theodore Balsamon wrote in the twelfth century that “in some churches” they had abandoned the age-old practice of receiving Communion in the hand—showing that even then the practice of receiving from the spoon was not universal. Scholars have no certainty regarding why the use of the spoon became the preferred method. Some have suggested that the faithful were taking the eucharistic bread home from the service for private and illicit use, and that using the spoon to deliver the gifts directly into the mouths of the faithful ensured they would actually consume it.

​

Speaking as someone who read Fr. Seraphim as an inquirer, I don't think that Fr. Seraphim is the best introduction to Orthodoxy, though I thought at the time that God's Revelation to the Human Heart was good. It's a lecture he specifically made as an introduction to Orthodoxy. I think the best introduction to Orthodoxy is simply going to church and listening to the chanting, which is hopefully in English.

Sojourning With Angles was, I thought, a really good book. It's written from an Orthodox point of view about an Orthodox guy and is really about guardian angles and some stuff in there about how marriage works in the eyes of Orthodoxy (on a spiritual level). I'm hoping he writes another one because it's set up like the start of a series.

The other one I've personally read is A Place of Brightness about a Romanian Orthodox priest and his brother.

I thought those were both excellent books. If you happen to come across any others, please share them. I'm always looking for new books. I'm trying to work on writing my own but it's a lot easier said than done. Sigh. One day.

St. Innocent: Apostle to America is a detailed but very readable book about this wonderful saint. It's only about $5 used at Amazon :-) I recommend it!

I recommend reading the book "John Chrysostom and the Jews" (https://www.amazon.com/John-Chrysostom-Jews-Rhetoric-Reality/dp/1592449425) which goes into a lot of detail about Christian-Jewish relations and the nature of rhetoric and public dialogue in the times when these many of these things were written, focusing on St. John Chrysostom's writings on the Jews. I am a Jewish convert to Orthodoxy and found this to be a very pressing topic and this is probably the best resource I've found discussing it.

Also, these two books by Timothy (Kallistos) Ware https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Way-Kallistos-Ware/dp/0913836583 and https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/014198063X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480292564&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=the+orthodox+church&dpPl=1&dpID=51exHD4f7sL&ref=plSrch are relatively easy to read and give a good summary of church doctrine and history.

Here are a few suggestions

https://www.amazon.com/Life-World-Sacraments-Orthodoxy/dp/0913836087

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0281070989/ref=ox_sc_act_image_4?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Liturgical-Theology-Alexander-Schmemann/dp/0913836184/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?keywords=alexander+schmemann&qid=1570773874&sprefix=akexander+schm&sr=8-3

https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Worship-Living-Continuity-Synagogue/dp/1944967540/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=Orthodox+worship&qid=1570774074&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0881410829/ref=ox_sc_act_image_6?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/988785154X/ref=ox_sc_act_image_5?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/Hymn-of-Entry-Liturgy-and-Life-in-the-Orthodox-Church-Contemporary-Greek-Theologians-Series-No-1/dp/0881410268/ref=cm_cr_dp_mb_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8

Vespers

https://www.amazon.com/Evening-Worship-Orthodox-English-Russian/dp/088141011X

And here is a lecture on the history of the different divine liturgies.

https://youtu.be/i-39xxdeZ9Q

And here is a lecture on what litugircal theology is from the view of fr. Alexander Schmemann delivered by a theology professor with Notre Dame (both authors are linked above)

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/svsvoices/the_anchor_of_schmemanns_liturgical_theology

Most bishops would not require rebaptism, assuming your baptism invoked the trinity and it is a plus if it was via immersion. In Australia , I don't believe any of those bishops would have you be baptised again.

I used to struggle with icons but the writings in defense of them by St. John of Damascus convinced me. I recommend you read his Three Treaties

https://www.amazon.com/Treatises-Vladimirs-Seminary-Popular-Patristics/dp/0881412457


https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Images-Apologies-Against-English/dp/0913836621/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=john+of+damascus+icons&qid=1573431276&sr=8-1

if you continue to have doubts about icons

I know this book can be somewhat controversial in some Orthodox circles, but, I recommend Fr. Seraphim Rose's Soul After Death, which explains what's probably the most popular Orthodox viewpoint. Fr. Thomas Hopko seems to argue for Rose's tollhouse theory here too.

https://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Icons-Vladimir-Lossky/dp/0913836990/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487480778&sr=1-1&keywords=9780913836996

Perhaps not the guidebook you are looking for, but a good start.

The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity https://www.amazon.com/dp/014198063X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_HmxhDbPXC5MRX

Always a good Book to start with!

As /u/giziti said, ask your priest first and follow his advice. My two cents: Why not the Great Horologion? It is somewhat expensive on Amazon, but the more I use it, the more I find things in there.

If you really want to wrap your head around what Fr. Behr means by this, you need to read his books, particularly this one: https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Christ-Life-Death/dp/0881413062

(FWIW, giziti's answer is a succinct tldr, although I see you still have questions)

There's The Unabbreviated Horologion that had the Russian use in English. I have a Kindle version from when I was working with a touring theatre company so I could at least do typica when I couldn't find a church. Sorry I couldn't find any page pictures.

You can actually get the ESV with the full Deuterocanon here.

https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Greek-K-Michael-Tsiappoutas/dp/1494779714

This is the paperback version of the Zoe Brotherhood edition I've had for a long time.

Just ordered this bible and it rocks.

Sojourning With Angels

A Place of Brightness

Icon

I have not, I'll take a look.

I had been thinking to dive into Christ the Eternal Tao by Hieromonk Damascene.

I recently bought Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Haven't read it yet, but it seems to be what I'm (or you) are looking for.

I believe the ESV with Apocrypha (Deuterocanon) already exists: https://www.amazon.com/English-Standard-Version-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289102/

IMHO the ESV is better than many Protestant translations (e.g. the terrible NRSV) but I still prefer the RSV and NKJV personally.

My bad memory. Here's the book, which is actually titled The Struggle for Virtue: Asceticism in a Modern Secular Society.

So, what is it you believe about icons?

Edit- reading your posts...

Doesn't this one:
>A dwelling place in matter for dead heroes who were once incarnate? Same.

Contradict this one?
>Channel. A pipe isn't the home of water.

Your beliefs on icons might be a bit confused. You should come back after studying what we actually believe about icons, so you won't be arguing against strawmen. I'd start with St. John of Damascus. It's a $5 paperback on Amazon.

Start there so you understand our position first. That'a way you know what you're arguing against.