[ndigila]

read revelation 2-3 and also paul's tears in acts 20. we cant say with confidence that an organization calling itself the orthodox church is the true church of god if the identified marks given in revelation 12 and 14 are lacking in them.

Yes we can. For instance, in acts 9:10-19, god commands Ananias to meet Paul in Damascus in a street called straight. The orthodox church of Antioch continues in unbroken succession to this day and is headquartered in Damascus on the street called straight. Same thing, with the Indian orthodox church which can trace its roots back to st Thomas, same thing with the Coptic orthodox church which can trace its roots back to st mark.

So you see, anyone can claim that Jesus started their church, but only the orthodox and the catholic church have the historical evidence to prove it. The only problem with the catholic church is that you can clearly pinpoint areas in history where their tradition changed and with the orthodox (at least as of yet) you can't.

reading the version of history provided by protestants, i get it that the fathers were influenced by state power and greek philosophies.

I could provide you with links that disprove this assertion (they're really long essays by the way, respond if you're interested). Besides, st ignatius of antioch became the bishop of the antioch church around 70a.d. And this was the time most of the new testament texts were being written. So if he was influenced by greek philosophies, then even the apostles and christianity in general was influenced by greek philosophies.

i am convinced that allowing work on sabbath day after sunday was declared a public holiday in 321ad by a monarch speaks for disregarding god's laws. Or asking people to rest (if we forget about communion for a while) on a working day just to respect a pagan's day of worship, and also being in complicence with a persecuting power on a number of dogma do not speak against this church?

But Grip, i've provided you with references dating to before 321 ad that show that christians met on sunday.

it happens that the canonised books do not contradict the old testament. I was also amazed to read peter's and paul's apocalypses to see how the orthodox could have promoted their acquired doctrines about life, death, heaven, and hell; doctrines contrary to general biblical teachings about the same topics. Here, i would say that god could not allow his words to be tarnished.

2 things:
1) you're refusing to accept by what standard that the bishops in carthage used to determine whether the new testament texts are genuine or not. They used the tradition of the church.
2) you've equated the bible with the word of God. Jesus is the word of God (john 1:1), what Jesus taught his apostles is the word of God, what the apostles taught the church, both oral and written tradition (2 thess 2:15) is the word of God, and the scriptures are the word of God.

the sacrament administered by the catholic church is circular, white, and dipped in wine. This resembles some early pagan communion very different from what we see in the lord's supper setting. What is the orthodox's resemblance?
The orthodox church uses leavened bread.

Because the dead die and become unconscious. and old testament has strong warnings against honouring the dead. Remember no one was to do any ritual activities, not even shaving or cutting part of the hair, for the sake of the dead. Read isaiah 8 which has a better insight.

First of all, this is not something that all protestants agree on. Secondly, don't you think that the state of the dead changed when Jesus conquered death?

god's messages are many and no one will ever access all. What i know is that his standards to weigh any messages that may come by are outlined in the "law and the testimony, if they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them". Isaiah 8:20.

Again, you've equated scriptures with the word of god. Anyway, let me ask you this, does the bible contain everything that a christian needs for his christian life?