/lit/ - Literature

>>19285197
>The invasion of Canaan was a metaphor, it didn't happen, God wouldn't do something like that
It did happen, and it's proof that the god of the jews is just a mere desert demon that christians mistakenly elevate to high status

>>19285209
>trying to judge God's righteousness with human metrics
Why do people do this?

What percentage of women are actually demons trying to lead you into eternal hellfire?

>>19285212
If the human mind can invent god, it can judge his actions too

>World is trillions of light years old

Where did you actually read or hear this?

>>19285409
It can judge the actions of their invention, but not of the Living God who is Jesus Christ.

Light years are a measure of distance, faggot.

Bump

>>19285565
Jesus is no living god

>>19285197
Reading Nihilism by Fr. Seraphim Rose right now, enjoying it a lot so far. More informative than the vast majority of political philosophy books out there.

>>19285209
>NOT MUH HECKIN’ CANAANITES, THEY WERE GOOD BOYS
Imagine defending a people who sacrificed their own children to actual demons

>>19286113

>>19286113
>Jesus is no living god

“When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”

>>19286131
>>19286150
>>19286241
No amount of jewish myths, propaganda and copes can change the simple fact that's it's just one of many religions on this planet, and one of the lesser ones too.

>>19286248
>it's just one of many religions on this planet
That is what the evil one inclines people to believe. But when we look deeper, we see the absolutely different character of Christ's teaching compared to all other religions.

>>19286248
This is what I used to think when I was an atheist and hated Christ, but as God slowly opened my heart to open-minded research, I realized that Christianity is in fact completely different than any other religion. Even in the time of the Israelites, the laws and morality and conceptions of God revealed to Moses were radically different than the surrounding Middle Eastern religions. The fact that so many prophecies have come true, and that almost every Christian I’ve met has had amazing spiritual experiences unlike anything I’ve heard from practitioners of false religions is just more proof to me that Christ is truly the way, the truth and the life. I pray that you will one day discover this.

>>19286326
>>19286293
Aside from meme "prophecies", what, in your opinion, makes christianity better than other religions?

>>19286620
It's better because it is true and has the fullness of truth. It allows me to become a son of the Father, of the Living God who created the world.
It allows me to participate in the inner life of this God, getting cleaned from sin and participating in Christ's righteousness itself. Other religions are about self-worship ultimately, they mistake the image of God in us for divinity itself. They think God is impersonal, but we know the Father and Son and Holy Spirit and we pray to them and can engage in communion with them.
The prophecies are real too and are one of the ways of getting convinced of the truth of Christ.

>>19286643
You've said nothing of substance, just your personal feelings of extasy towards christianity and some low brow misinformation about other religions. Overall, nothing a person of another creed couldn't say to justify their faith against christianity.

>>19285197
>the author of Mark
>the author of the Apocalypse
>Moses didn't write Genesis
>The flood was a metaphor, it didn't happen
>Exodus didn't happen, it was a metaphor
>World is trillions of light years old, Genesis was a metaphor
>The invasion of Canaan was a metaphor, it didn't happen
All of this is true (well, trillions of light years doesn't mean shit but still) according to the best evidence available.

>>19285197
>World is trillions of light years old
ask me how I know you are a midwit

>>19286666
>Those digits
>That post

>>19285441
OP is a christfag, of course he's retarded and thinks light-years are a time measure

>>19286326
>Moses
Wasn't real. Jews didn't start worshiping Yaweh exclusively until after the Babylonian captivity and the shift was largely due to Zoroastrian influence.

>>19286681
I'm ultra-satan

>>19286666
>according to the best evidence available
False presupposition. Holy Scripture is better evidence because it is from our Lord the Holy Spirit. Any so-perceived "evidence" of "modern science" has to be seen as a falsehood whenever it is in conflict with Holy Scripture and the way it has been interpreted for millennia.

>>19286762
>False presupposition
Presuppositionalism is literally one of the most retarded philosophical positions ever developed. It's just theists who are too dumb for evidentialism so they resort to "NO I'M JUST RIGHT BY DEFINITION"
>Holy Scripture is better evidence because it is from our Lord the Holy Spirit
Holy scripture is a text, you have to know what the text say before saying "it's better evidence" for something. If the text is metaphorical, then it's evidence for a moral/theological message, not for scientific or historical facts.
>and the way it has been interpreted for millennia.
Scriptural literalism/fundamentalism is literally a couple of centuries old.

>>19285197
He wasn't Eastern Orthodox but you really should read pic related.

Also familiarize yourself with the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the 1930s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93Modernist_controversy

>>19286776
>Presuppositionalism is literally one of the most retarded philosophical positions ever developed.
I wasn't assuming a philosophical position, but rather using basic logic to show that false presuppositions like yours lead to a false outcome in interpreting events. You assume a system outside of divine inspiration can be used to judge scripture, which is not true.
>If the text is metaphorical,
We know it was not seen as purely metaphorical by the divinely inspired people who interpreted it all coherently and in agreement to not be purely a metaphor.
>Scriptural literalism
This is a false dichotomy. Scripture is interpreted in a layered way, not in a dualistic way where some parts are purely literal and others are purely metaphoric. The four-fold understanding of layers in Holy Scripture is from the patristic era (even from Old Covenant days) and definitely not a few centuries old.

>>19285197
>Adam was a result of copulation of animals, creation was a metaphor
I believe that it is most likely Adam was specially ensouled by God with a rational soul (ruach) by His breath, and thus was the first Homo sapien, but that God providentially used evolution by natural selection to create the matter (from initial "earth", eg. material elements) with which Adam was ensouled.
>World is trillions of light years old, Genesis was a metaphor
As has already been said, light years are not a measurement of time, but of distance - and even if they were, the estimate for the universe's age is in the billions, not trillions, of years. I believe that God created the universe through being the efficient cause of the Big Bang billions of years ago.
>We don't know what to believe today, it is up to interpretation what dogma is
Dogmas are dogmas, which all in good faith must accept - but where there is freedom of opinion on non-dogmatic matters, let there be freedom of opinion.
>It doesn't matter for salvation
You obviously need to elaborate more, but I am assuming you mean "if one does not believe that [eg. the world is only ~6000 years old], their salvation is in jeopardy". This is completely contrary to the theology and soteriology of the apostolic Christian church. One's opinion on non-dogmatically proclaimed matters does not have salvific consequences. It is enough to be baptized into the apostolic Catholic church, in a state of grace through confession, assenting to all dogmas of the church, and receiving the blessed sacrament. This is all that is required for salvation.

>>19285245
All of them

>>19286987
>I believe that it is most likely
On what basis? Where is this belief seen in Holy Tradition with which we interpret Holy Scripture? You cannot interpret Holy Scripture in a way contrary to the Holy Fathers according to numerous proclamations in canons and councils. If you think the consensus of fathers is not dogmatically binding, you have created a separate faith and thus your salvation is in jeopardy.
St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John of Damascus (and others) speak about the soul and body being created at the same time. It is a key argument in refuting gnosticism, which evolutionism is merely a subtle form of.

>Now this being the case, He creates with His own hands man of a visible nature and an invisible, after His own image and likeness: on the one hand man»"s body He formed of earth, and on the other his reasoning and thinking soul He bestowed upon him by His own inbreathing, and this is what we mean by «after His image.» For the phrase «after His image» clearly refers to the side of his nature which consists of mind and free will, whereas «after His likeness «means likeness in virtue so far as that is possible.
>Further, body and soul were formed at one and the same time, not first the one and then the other, as Origen so senselessly supposes.

>>19286987
>One's opinion on non-dogmatically proclaimed matters
Is there a list of such matters? No, there isn't. But anything universally believed by the Church about Holy Scripture is dogma. See the criterion of St. Vincent of Lerins.
>Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
It is not the explicit acceptance of evolutionism that puts your salvation at risk, but rather the contradiction it causes with how the Church has always interpreted the creation of Adam. If you persist in this error after seeing what the fathers teach, this is when the damage to the soul happens.

>evolution
>natural selection
"For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth: "
- (Wisdom 1:13-14)

>>19287040
>On what basis?
The basis of natural philosophy and scientific evidence - the best possible basis we have to analyze the material world.

>Where is this belief seen in Holy Tradition with which we interpret Holy Scripture?
The Holy Fathers were enlightened by the Holy Spirit pertaining to theology, Christology, and soteriology. As far as I know, the Fathers were not conduits for God to reveal scientific empirical knowledge pertaining to our material world - which type of analysis far post-dates their thinking anyways, and it would be anachronistic to expect their interpretations to align with scientific insights.
>You cannot interpret Holy Scripture in a way contrary to the Holy Fathers according to numerous proclamations in canons and councils.
I am a Catholic, and we are allowed to have matters of opinion on things which are not dogmatically proclaimed by the church. For example, I can believe that the matter of Adam's body was formed through natural selection and specially ensouled by God, making him the first homo sapien, but not in polygenism:
>"[...] the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question." (Humani Generis 36)

>If you think the consensus of fathers is not dogmatically binding, you have created a separate faith and thus your salvation is in jeopardy.
I am a faithful member of the Catholic church, and all of my opinions and beliefs are in line with what I must believe as a Catholic in good standing.

>>19287075
The fathers were not material empiricist scientists. Their inspired writings were key to lead men into salvation, and that is what they accomplished. But it would be less reasonable to suggest that they were 100% correct about material empirical truths about our universe, rather than spiritual ones.

>>19287137
>we have to analyze the material world
Yet these only analyze the world as seen after the fall of Adam. Do you believe it happened historically and altered creation as the Church always believed it? If so, then you cannot trust scientific paradigms of interpreting the world to uncover truths about the pre-fall world more than you can trust those enlightened by the One who created this world.

>were enlightened by the Holy Spirit pertaining to theology, Christology, and soteriolog
Anthropology is part of Christology. It is a matter of theology whether the soul and body of Adam were created at the same time or not. It is not up for debate if the consensus of the fathers teaches it happen in one way and not the other. Also, where is this said that the Holy Fathers were only enlightened on these matters and not on anything else? It does not seem obviously intuitive to me that the Spirit of Truth limits itself to only these subjects when teaching us all truth as Jesus said.

>I am a Catholic
You should have made it clear from the beginning. It's not surpising that Roman Catholicism has departed from actually following patristic teachings but relies more on the opinion of a single bishop.

>>19287165
>If so, then you cannot trust scientific paradigms of interpreting the world to uncover truths about the pre-fall world more than you can trust those enlightened by the One who created this world.
I can trust material investigations into the world, because there is no clear evidence on the table for me to believe that matter was changed in any significant way which would alter its properties of decomposition, radioactive decay, etc. A literal reading of Genesis points clearly to the fall leading to a fundamental alteration of -human- nature.

>It is not up for debate if the consensus of the fathers teaches it happen in one way and not the other.
It is up for debate, actually, and you might notice that the evidence seems to point in the direction of there existing dead matter before humans existed. All you have to do is dig in an archaeological site yourself, and analyze the stratigraphy - below a certain point, you will never find human remains, but you will find animal and plant remains.

>Also, where is this said that the Holy Fathers were only enlightened on these matters and not on anything else?
If you believe that the Holy Fathers were enlightened in material and empirical sciences which far post-date them, do you also believe that the world is flat? Many enlightened fathers, full of the Holy Spirit, held this belief as well.

>It's not surpising that Roman Catholicism has departed from actually following patristic teachings but relies more on the opinion of a single bishop.
Fortunately, I am a part of the true and living mystical body of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic church. The proper hierarchy of the Church was always as an eternal reinstatement of the Sanhedrin and Davidic Monarchy, with Christ and the Holy Spirit as its head, and the apostle Peter as the rock upon which the church is built. When you used to be a part of the true church, it would have been easy for the "Orthodox" to convene an ecumenical council and, for example, disavow third remarriage or contraception - or brand holders of universal salvation with an anathema (like David Bentley Hart) - but because you have separated from the true church, and the true Davidic hierarchy of the church, you no longer have the ability to do so.

On the other hand, it is easy for the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church to do so, because we maintain the exact same hierarchy as old - and convene ecumenical councils quite often, to deal with such issues. Eastern Catholics maintain all of the beliefs you profess, except they are in perfect communion with the rock upon which the church is built, the apostolic see of St. Peter - which is the marker of orthodoxy, as was made clear by the Fathers.

You are left stuck in the past, eternally at the same moment you broke off from the true church. You can never anathematize anybody, anymore, and that is why you have David Bentley Harts and quadruple divorcees using condoms in your communion.

>>19286729
Books on this? Genuinely interested.

>>19287040
>Holy Tradition
No
>Holy Scripture
Yes
>Holy Fathers
No
>If you think the "consensus of fathers" is a pile of dung and rely on Scripture and God alone for doctrine, you have returned to legitimate Christianity and thus your salvation is assured. Gregory of Nyssa and John of Damascus were simply men and their theories are nothing more than exactly that, theories. You should just read the Holy Bible, believe it, and trust God to sort the unnecessary details.
FTFY

>>19286661
>You've said nothing of substance, just your personal feelings of extasy towards christianity and some low brow misinformation about other religions. Overall, nothing a person of another creed couldn't say to justify their faith against christianity.

>>19287209
>David Bentley Harts
What's wrong with him?

>>19287252
>rely on Scripture and God alone for doctrine
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thes 2:15)

>>19287275
He's a universalist Eastern Orthodox theologian in good standing with the EO church. Believes that there is no eternal hell for unrepentant sinners, something that I'm sure the EO I'm talking with here >>19287165 would anathematize (although his church cannot). Besides this position, I'm not aware of any other defects in his scholarly work.

>>19287280
>2 Thes 2:15
Written before the necessary traditions were recorded in the gospels, acts, and other epistles.

>>19286620
The Daniel 9.24-27 prophecy is irrefutable though

>>19287232
He’s pretending that because Jews were rebellious against God and constantly whored after false gods that therefore there was no covenant with God and that everything was made up. It’s the same shit that academics do when they find something that allegedly depicts God and Asherah, as if this debunks Judaism, which it doesn’t because anyone who has read the Bible knows that the Israelites went after Moloch, Baal and Asherah almost more than they did Yahweh

>>19285197
You know Buddhism considers the entire western world to be run by demons right?

>>19287297
Where does it say in scripture that all necessary traditions were recorded in the New Testament?

Are Orthodox sola scriptura? I had no idea they were this cringe

>>19287280
>in good standing with the EO church
This is false. Same as there not being councils after the schism which are binding for all EO, such as those anathematizing the reformation and laying out our differences with them. Not all councils which are universal have the name of 'ecumenical' as the first seven councils.
DBH is already anathematized (by the Synodikon of Orthodoxy read every year at Lent) because of his false beliefs, there is no need for an ecumenical council to anathematize DBH when his beliefs were already condemned at previous councils. If I secretly believe Christ is Satan I have been severed from communion without explicit anathema in a council.

>>19287347
Buddhism is Satanic itself. It claims that there is no substantial self, that the human being is reducible to nothing more than bundles of aggregates. Many Buddhists worship demons and idols (‘devas, nats, kami, etc) in Buddhist lands like Myanmar, Tibet, Japan, etc. as part of their everyday life.

>>19287209
>You are left stuck in the past, eternally at the same moment the Latins broke off from the true church

>>19287358
No. We accept apostolic tradition. Prots are heretics.

>>19287363
keep not posting buddhists I guess

>>19287358
No, "Orthodox" follow the writings of "saints" and "fathers" rather than Scripture. They barely ever have time for the Bible if it all, after all that obsessing over their idols.

>>19287381
Shouldn’t you be meditating in your cuckbox?

>>19287360
>DBH is already anathematized (by the Synodikon of Orthodoxy read every year at Lent) because of his false beliefs, there is no need for an ecumenical council to anathematize DBH when his beliefs were already condemned at previous councils
Then why is he not excommunicated from your church? Do you not feel uncomfortable sharing in communion with a heretic, or that your bishops allow a heretic to partake in the Body and Blood of the Blessed Lord? Why do your bishops not excommunicate him - are they not supposed to be the defenders of orthodoxy? If DBH's beliefs are already anathematized, why does your "Orthodox" Church not protect the faithful, by publicly condemning his writings as heresy?

>>19287373
It's all fun and games until your daughter says she believes that unrepentant sinners still go to heaven (and therefore she can perform sinful acts and still be saved), then gets divorced three times, and uses condoms whenever she has sex with her fourth husband. So trad! It's so cool being unable to make anathemas or settling matters of contention through ecumenical councils!

>>19287384
Are you going to answer >>19287351 ? Seems like a pretty straightforward question.

>>19287436
>Do you not feel uncomfortable sharing in communion with a heretic, or that your bishops allow a heretic to partake in the Body and Blood of the Blessed Lord? Why do your bishops not excommunicate him - are they not supposed to be the defenders of orthodoxy?
Behold, the spirit of Pharisees.

>>19287452
>ad hominem
It's a good thing we have you to infallibly judge other men's spirits.

>>19287209
>because there is no clear evidence on the table
By the very nature of what we are discussing, there can be no materialistic evidence of it. It is a change in how the world exists, not a change of what exists inside it.
>A literal reading of Genesis points clearly to the fall leading to a fundamental alteration of -human- nature.
The changes are not limited to human nature even from the most surface level reading of Genesis (not to mention the fathers). The Earth itself is cursed as well.
>>Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.

>It is up for debate
If you want to create a new faith, then sure. If you do not stick to the apostolic faith given to the apostles once and for all and explicated in coherence and agreement by the Holy Fathers, then it is a different church.
>you will never find human remains, but you will find animal and plant remains.
The interpretation that this is because of evolution is what I doubt, not the fact itself. You are confusing the interpretative paradigm with the fact it interprets.

>Many enlightened fathers, full of the Holy Spirit, held this belief as well.
We believe in the consensus of the fathers. Most of them did not teach this view.

>t would have been easy for the "Orthodox" to convene an ecumenical council
I don't know where you got the idea that we did not do this when we felt the need, we've had many synods universally accepted by the Church and became parts of liturgy, so it is dogmatic for us. A heretic in America who holds is not grounds for assembling the fullness of the Church to deal with him.

>exact same hierarchy as old
Papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction as defined by Vatican I was never accepted by the entire Church in history. Only thing you can do is quote forged Latin versions of documents to support this.

> Eastern Catholics maintain all of the beliefs you profess
A great demonstration of the lack of unity in faith in the RC communion. There is no longer any care given to maintain the same apostolic faith in unity, but all kinds of contradictory opinions are allowed (even venerating "schismatics" like St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus) as long as you submit to the Pope. You even allow Malankara heretics in your communion who venerate Nestorius.

>which is the marker of orthodoxy
The marker of Orthodoxy is following the ancient faith of the apostles.

>You can never anathematize anybody, anymore
?

>quadruple divorcees using condoms in your communion.
Bishops can exercise their apostolic power and use economy to cater to the weakness of the flock. These are not default positions, but allowances for certain people. Canons and the authority of a bishop to bind and lose is not a Talmudic system, many people today would be excommunicated until their deathbead if full canons were used.

>>19287403
You can tell how effective a path buddhism is for spiritual liberation because of how effect a tool for it is for spiritual control when you invert it's teachings entire like seen here.

>>19287463
>It is a change in how the world exists, not a change of what exists inside it.
While I respect your right to hold this belief, why should I believe it, if there is no evidence?
>The Earth itself is cursed as well.
And we have no evidence of what exactly that curse entails.
>If you want to create a new faith, then sure.
I believe it is a stronger case that the "Orthodox" churches are a schismatic church. I had no qualms with becoming orthodox - I just found that the arguments are more compelling for Catholicism.
>The interpretation that this is because of evolution is what I doubt, not the fact itself.
What do you attribute it to? Because it seems pretty obvious to me that if you have millions of years of strata between the earliest known human remains and the earliest known animal remains, it implies that things lived and died before humans were around.
>Most of them did not teach this view.
So are you implying that somebody filled with the Holy Spirit can come to an erroneous conclusion with regards to material and empirical reality? Because I agree, and that is my entire point.
>I don't know where you got the idea that we did not do this when we felt the need
Key word is "did" - there is no binding authority to actually assemble the council in absence of an emperor or the pope, and so you have a failed attempt to convene ecumenical councils (I guess the patriarchates of Bulgaria, Georgia, Antioch and Russia can just not show up if they don't feel like it - who's to stop them?), and a church in schism with itself over petty political matters.

>There is no longer any care given to maintain the same apostolic faith in unity
Eastern Catholics believe every single dogmatic proclamation of the apostolic see, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. They are allowed to maintain their own traditions, but they must assent to the teachings of the church as a whole.
>The marker of Orthodoxy is following the ancient faith of the apostles.
"[...] the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, ALL THE CHURCHES MUST AGREE, that is, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD" - (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3)

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], IN WHICH SACERDOTAL UNITY HAS ITS SOURCE” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letters, 59:14).

"If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4)

>>19287463
>Bishops can exercise their apostolic power and use economy to cater to the weakness of the flock
AKA your bishops allow people to commit what everybody else would recognize as sinful behaviour without repentance, because of "muh economia". This is exactly what I was talking about, so I appreciate that at least you are being intellectually honest and admitting that this is a real problem.
>many people today would be excommunicated until their deathbead if full canons were used.
It would be just as it was in the past - excommunication unless one recants and accepts the orthodox authority, which is the opinion of the Catholic church.

>>19287436
>Then why is he not excommunicated from your church?
I'm not a bishop of his jurisdiction so I am not the right person to ask.
>Do you not feel uncomfortable sharing in communion with a heretic
No, I do not believe a heretic somehow defiles the Body and Blood of Christ I partake of. Under this logic donatism would have to be true and I could not partake of the same Cup as a heretical priest, or a heretical bishop who sanctioned the Eucharist my priest performs. Heresy is just another form of sin like fornication. If your view would be true, then the Church could never survive waves of heretical onslaught like monothelitism and arianism, since there are heretical unrepentant bishops in major lines of apostolic ordination.
>Why do your bishops not excommunicate him
I don't know the mind of US bishops and I don't know which jurisdiction he attends, (if any!). It is an absurd demand to want every heretic to be excommunicated swiftly. There were waves of heresy spreading throughout the church for lengthy periods of times without official condemnation, and here we are talking about a single american writer. A priest could also easily not allow him communion with the authority of his bishop and nobody would know about this publicly because such things are usually not aired to everyone. There is a popular guy in Russia who does not believe the Eucharist is Christ's Body and he is not allowed communion at major monasteries even though there has been no council to condemn him. Orthodoxy is not a Talmudistic system where every wrongdoer has to be immediately punished with full force of the canons. Bishops can have mercy and wait for his repentance, it is for them to decide what to do, it is their flock.

>>19287436
>she believes that unrepentant sinners still go to heaven
That is a condemned view.
>then gets divorced three times, and uses condoms whenever she has sex with her fourth husband
This is not a sin in itself.
>It's so cool being unable to make anathemas or settling matters of contention through ecumenical councils!
Anathema is a power of any assembled synod of bishops, we have had these many times. Divorce/contraception is not a matter of contention to us. The bishop can exercise economy to allow a fourth marriage because he has the apostolic power to bind and lose, to guide his flock who might be spiritually weak. St. Paul said it is better to be married for those who cannot abstain from it, so the bishop can allow such a person the lesser evil of remarriage if it will save his soul from falling to fornication. Fourth marriages are extremely uncommon and marriage/divorce in general by faithful practicing Orthodox is done in communication and guidance from a spiritual father, who answers to his bishop. Also, why are you so judgmental of remarriage when your church literally allows the same by calling it by a Talmudic name of "annulment", where you pretend the marriage somehow never happened so it is not a divorce.

>>19287536
>AKA your bishops allow people to commit what everybody else would recognize as sinful behaviour
It is not seen as a sin, but a lesser evil allowed for the salvation of some people. If the full force of the canons was used right now, so many people would be barred from communion (or even entering a church building for many years) until their deathbed. The bishop can see that a person is weak and will not be able to abstain without remarrying, thus leading the soul into damnation. The person can also recognize this and ask for help from the bishop. It is a complete fantasy and fairy-tale world where remarriage is not allowed under any form in Christian countries historically, even you people do it just by calling it a different name and pretending it never happened.
>excommunication unless one recants and accepts the orthodox authority
He has already been anathematized by holding to heresy without repenting. You do not need a council to anathematize someone who thinks fornication is not a sin and engages in it while calling himself Orthodox. It is very funny that you as a Roman Catholic are so keen on instant excommunication of all wrongdoers when you have popular priests pushing LGBT and not being deposed. Are you sure this is the correct fight to pick for you?

>>19287538
>then gets divorced three times
>uses condoms whenever she has sex
> fourth husband
>This is not a sin in itself.
and orthodox think they are unchanged? incredible.

>>19287538
>I do not believe a heretic somehow defiles the Body and Blood of Christ I partake of
"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
>That is a condemned view.
It is publicly accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. In your eyes it is condemned, and in the eyes of others it is not.
>This is not a sin in itself.
"So He told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
I guess adultery is not a sin in your eyes?
>why are you so judgmental of remarriage when your church literally allows the same by calling it by a Talmudic name of "annulment
You literally have no idea what an annulment is, apparently. You are only allowed it under extremely specific circumstances, like being unbaptized when married. In the marriage, there must be a "[...] defect of form, defect of contract, defect of willingness, defect of capacity". For annulment, proof is required of the existence of one of these defects, since canon law presumes all marriages are valid until proven otherwise. Basically, the marriage must literally have never been valid in the first place, unlike the Orthodox, who allow 100% sacramentally valid divorce and remarriage, again because of "muh economia".
>even you people do it just by calling it a different name and pretending it never happened.
Pure ignorance, no offence intended. This is not our doctrine.
>He has already been anathematized by holding to heresy without repenting.
That is just opinion. Every man a pope, you get to interpret the councils however you want, because you have no unifying body making such proclamations. You say he is anathematized, others say he is in perfectly good standing, and holds an orthodox position. I guess you think I should believe you because you're special?

>>19287467
>Satanic governments use elements of Satanic religions to control people
Wow!

>>19287577
>"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
How does a sin of another person "defile" the Eucharist and me partaking of it? Is this normal RC theology or your personal opinion? Because there is always going to be some sinner or heretic in the Church. How he can defile the Body and Blood of Christ for all faithful is beyond me. It's an extreme form of donatism.
>It is publicly accepted by many Eastern Orthodox.
The same argument would work for refuting the truth of the Orthodox Catholic Church where many bishops accepted Arianism. Acceptance by many people in a small time-frame of history is not something even you judge orthodoxy by. It's an inconsistent demand from you.
>I guess adultery is not a sin in your eyes?
Christ denounces divorce as the sin and the adultery. Second marriage itself is not a sin, divorce is the sin here if not done because of fornication of a spouse.
>You are only allowed it under extremely specific circumstances
Yet it is still practiced widely as a mechanism for second marriage (or they just ignore it altogether and just remarry). It doesn't matter if you rename it and find some canonical deficiency in the marriage using an extremely vague system where you could explicitly create such canonical deficiency by saying there was actually a lack of consent all along. It's like a modern women retroactively deciding a guy raped her after she had consensual fornication. The stats show it is not merely some extreme case. I think you aren't living in the real world but in some kind of trad online community.
> who allow 100% sacramentally valid divorce and remarriage
There is no "sacramentally valid divorce". The bishop can allow a second marriage because of the weakness of the person, to not lead him into damnation by giving himself into the burning passions. Why do you see this as evil? Please explain to me, because I genuinely do not see how the bishop exercising mercy and allowing the person to marry again is somehow a sinful action. Divorce itself is never allowed unless there is threat of life for a spouse or because of fornication. It is always seen as a tragedy but we do not pretend the marriage was not valid to begin with. But you are not an unrepentant sinner because of a Talmudic law which damns you automatically for marrying a second time.

>That is just opinion.
It is as much of an opinion as saying if you deny Christ's divinity you are anathema. It is not necessary in our ecclesiology to convene a council to condemn a single person holding an already condemned heresy. Nobody does this, not even your church, which allows LGBT friendly priests in its communion.
>others say he is in perfectly good standing
Show me the council which states this? Because I can show you a council condemning the universalist position.

>>19287558
>and orthodox think they are unchanged?
Yes, this is not a new issue and was in the entire Church. The West has canons about second marriage too.
https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2016/09/17/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-a-forgotten-history/
https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2017/05/09/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-an-addendum/
People are people and have weaknesses, Christians are not Talmudic Jews who weaponize the law against people.

>>19287698
>The bishop can allow a second marriage because of the weakness of the person, to not lead him into damnation by giving himself into the burning passions
the bishop has already lead him into damnation by allowing divorce in the first place!

>>19287730
>But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Christ Himself allowed divorce in certain cases. It is arguable that it would be sinful for the bishop to actually allow the continuation of such a marriage if the spouse who was cheated on does not want it.

>roman catholics are actually just talmudists in disguise
Makes sense that scholasticism would lead to this.

>>19287730
Also, there is no canonical procedure for divorce, there is only an allowance of a second marriage. It is in a sense like annulment, but we do not pretend and roleplay that the first marriage was not canonically valid at the beginning.

>>19287524
>"[...] the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, ALL THE CHURCHES MUST AGREE, that is, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD" - (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3)
>“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], IN WHICH SACERDOTAL UNITY HAS ITS SOURCE” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letters, 59:14).
>"If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4)
Nothing about Rome being faithful onto eternity. Also read St. Cyprian in full context. Rome indeed has a primacy in the early church because it was a bastion of Orthodoxy.

>>19287351
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

>>19287845
>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Sola scripture perfectly fits this definition. It's a philosophical idea created in a specific point in time, not passed down from the apostles.

>>19287800
>but we do not pretend and roleplay that the first marriage was not canonically valid at the beginning.
there is no pretending. it is a long process that has to bring sufficient evidence to bear in order for a marriage to be rendered invalid. I have family members who are currently living in sin because of this, one is still married in the church because it doesn't recognize the civil divorce, but they married anyway.

>>19287777
Mark, Luke, and Paul's letters all do not mention 'sexual immorality.' Please reconcile this difference rather than grab the only thing you can to justify the sin. Jesus also said
>Therefore what God has joined together, LET NO ONE SEPARATE

>>19285212
Do you refuse to recognize the reality and objective existence of good and evil?

>>19287853
>Mary being a permavirg and praying to her perfectly fits this definition. It's a philosophical idea created in a specific point in time, not passed down from the apostles
FTFY

>>19287857
>I have family members who are currently living in sin because of this
Great system of talmudic pastoral care you have there.

>Mark, Luke, and Paul's letters
Are you implying the Gospel of Matthew is somehow not inspired or is in conflict with these other inspired documents? Because Jesus Christ clearly says divorce is permissible if fornication is involved.
>But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication [πορνείας], maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
>>Therefore what God has joined together, LET NO ONE SEPARATE
But God Himself can separate. He is the one who mystically joins in marriage, the bishop can merely recognize the separation took place without larping that the joining never occurred.

>>19287903
Prayer to saints is biblical. Virginity of St. Mary is also known from the earliest of times. I'm very sorry you believe in a fairy tale church and are not member of any actual body which existed in unbroken continuity from Christ.

>>19287883
>objective existence of good
Good is an eternal attribute of God. Nothing is truly good apart from participation in God's goodness.
>objective existence of evil
I'm a Christian so I do not believe in this. No such thing exists.

>>19287903
Show me the exact historical circumstances when these ideas were "created".

>>19287926
No I’m clearly saying that all scripture is in agreement, this any apparent conflict must be based on a felicitous interpretation. The other gospels and Paul’s writings have a zero tolerance for divorce and this one instance SEEMS to indicate a POSSIBLE exception.
Is it for adultery? Incest? Sex before marriage or during engagement? Abuse? You have a forgone conclusion so you insert your interpretation as “obvious”. You are just as bad as a Protestant

>>19287950
>You have a forgone conclusion so you insert your interpretation as “obvious”

>And not thus only, but in another way also He has lightened the enactment: forasmuch as even for him He leaves one manner of dismissal, when He says, Except for the cause of fornication; since the matter had else come round again to the same issue. For if He had commanded to keep her in the house, though defiling herself with many, He would have made the matter end again in adultery.
>Do you see how these sayings agree with what had gone before? For he who looks not with unchaste eyes upon another woman, will not commit whoredom; and not committing whoredom, he will give no occasion to the husband to cast out his wife.
- St. John Chrysostom

>Although the law gives divorce for any fault, but Christ - not for any fault, but only allows one to be separated from the adulteress, nevertheless he commands to endure the rest with any reason, and separates the adulteress because she harms the family.
- St. Gregory the Theologian

>And accordingly the Lord Himself in another passage, when a question was asked Him as to this matter, gave this reply: Moses did so because of the hardness of your hearts. For however hard-hearted a man may be who wishes to put away his wife, when he reflects that, on a writing of divorcement being given her, she could then without risk marry another, he would be easily appeased. Our Lord, therefore, in order to confirm that principle, that a wife should not lightly be put away, made the single exception of fornication; but enjoins that all other annoyances, if any such should happen to spring up, be borne with fortitude for the sake of conjugal fidelity and for the sake of chastity; and he also calls that man an adulterer who should marry her that has been divorced by her husband.
- St. Augustine

Are you going to cope with this or just accept the truth? I can only see two ways to proceed from here - it's just a metaphor and they didn't really mean it! Or you don't have to listen what the fathers thought it meant (thus making you the protestant here).

>>19287698
>How does a sin of another person "defile" the Eucharist and me partaking of it?
I never said the Eucharist is defiled. You are playing with my words to give me a position I do not hold. I clearly said, "Do you not feel uncomfortable sharing in communion with a heretic". I said this because your entire point so far has been the "pristine ancient faith" of orthodoxy, in contrast with Catholicism - and I am just pointing out that, a symptom of the EO church removing itself from the Catholic church is the inability for them to maintain the same level of unified teaching, leading to people like DBH and others leading tons of EO astray with his ideas.
>It's an inconsistent demand from you.
I am only speaking the truth - your personal opinion, based upon your personal interpretation of the councils, leads you to believe that DBH position on soteriology is anathematized - whereas other EO's personal opinion, based upon their personal interpretation of the councils, leads them to believe that DBH position on soteriology is orthodox. Do you get my point?
>divorce is the sin here
I agree. But it was the Byzantine Empire made the Orthodox Church the “only institution with legal competence for the celebration of matrimony…As a consequence the Eastern Church had to conform its practices to State and civil legislation. Then once civil legislation began to allow divorce and successive remarriages, the Eastern Church was obligated to recognize these practices.”
>It doesn't matter if you rename it and find some canonical deficiency in the marriage
Except it does matter. Marriage is a sacramental contract, and contracts must be shown to have certain deficiencies to be invalid (duress, etc). We do not grant annulments to valid sacramental contracts.
>Why do you see this as evil? Please explain to me
I believe that it contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ, especially with cases of incurable illness and one party going to jail. Many EO agree with this orthodox Catholic position, such as Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov.
>It is as much of an opinion as saying if you deny Christ's divinity you are anathema.
No, it is obviously different than that matter, because many EO in good standing, including bishops, accept universal salvation. See Kallistos Ware's "Dare We Hope [...]", and for a layman's reasonable perspective:
https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2021/01/21/orthodoxy-universal-salvation-are-the-two-compatible/
>Show me the council which states this? Because I can show you a council condemning the universalist position.
Again, I feel you are missing my point here. Because you have no centralized authority which interprets those councils, fathers, and canons, you have Bishops, priests, and laymen alike who hold to the orthodoxy of universal salvation.

I'm really trying to level with you here. I mean no ill will, although I do believe that all of these deficiencies in Orthodoxy (and more) are a result of your church leaving the true church in schism.

>>19287822
>Nothing about Rome being faithful onto eternity
You are blatantly moving the goalposts - I was clearly providing these quotes as evidence that the marker of orthodoxy is the chair of Peter. You really think the rock on which Jesus Christ built His everlasting church would crumble and fall away? Do you know what happens when a foundation stone erodes and breaks? Why would Christ mark St. Peter as this foundation stone upon which He would erect His church, and give him the keys and power to bind and loose, if He knew this foundation would break apart in scarcely a millenium?

>>19287845
This says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for teaching. Where does it say that all necessary traditions were recorded in the New Testament? Unless you just made up that manmade doctrine, because you do not want to be reproved and corrected by the clear and explicit teaching of 2 Thes 2:15?

>>19287984
>See Kallistos Ware's "Dare We Hope [...]", and for a layman's reasonable perspective:
I don't have the time to respond to everything else, but we do not hold to the opinions of people, we hold to synodal and patristic consensus which is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It does not matter if even 99% of living bishops say universalism is correct right now. Such cases have happened historically, of a great number of bishops falling into heresy. It happened in the same Church you claim to be a part of. Universal salvation is simply not the majority patristic teaching and is condemned officially and explicitly in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy which is part of our liturgy. This is not an opinion, but dogma. I can turn this around on you and say that you not deposing LGBT-friendly priests immediately means you cannot excommunicate anyone and are schismatic/heretical just because there is currently a wave of heretics active in the church. It's not an argument based on either of our views of ecclesiology.
We have had numerous councils post schism condemning new heresies (hesychast councils, anti-reformation councils, condemnation of bogomilism, etc). I don't know why it is such a prominent false belief in the RC world that there are no EO ecumenical councils. We just don't call them ecumenical, but they are dogma for all Orthodox (as is anything universally received). We operate on a synodal system as did the early church, with local synods being called to decide local matters.

>>19288018
>You really think the rock on which Jesus Christ built His everlasting church would crumble and fall away?
St. Peter did not fall away, neither did the episcopate, which St. Peter is the type for. Every bishop has the same power as St. Peter did, the power to bind and lose, the keys Christ speaks about are received by all bishops, not only St. Peter. You have a false view that privileges the Roman apostolic see has translate somehow to complete indefectibility onto eternity.

>>19288044
Yeah, you can hold local synods. But if you want to convene an ecumenical council in lieu of an emperor, temporal ruler, or pope, you have so far been unable. Even your best attempt in 1000 years, the 2016 council, led to the patriarchs of some of the world's largest churches, like Bulgaria, Georgia, Antioch and Russia, literally just leaving. Your church is in schism with itself. I will pray for you, and I do hope you respond to the other criticisms when you have time. God bless.

>>19288059
>Every bishop has the same power as St. Peter did, the power to bind and lose, the keys Christ speaks about are received by all bishops, not only St. Peter
"On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord." (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Unity of the Catholic Church 4)

The Holy Trinity is leader of the church, the cathedra of Peter holds primacy and is the source and intrinsic reason of unity, which chair holds primacy over the sees of the Apostles, who hold primacy over their flocks
Simple as.

>>19287984
>nability for them to maintain the same level of unified teaching
Roman catholicism has no unified teaching, the unity is generated only by ascent to the Pope's authority. You can have completely different theologies like palamism, thomism and complete modernist-liberalism in the same church and it is seen as acceptable.

>>19287932
>Prayer to saints is biblical
Wrong, and even aside from your heretical non-Scripture books, something being mentioned does not automatically equate to God supporting it. The best you possibly have is that a book that isn't Scripture documented that some Jews prayed to the dead.
>known from the earliest of times
Late 2nd century fan fiction (Gospel of James) is not "earliest times".

>>19287981
Cherry picking church fathers to agree with you is the definition of Protestantism. Look I can quote them too

Justin Martyr
> According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so

Clement of Alexandria (he even quotes this passage as a refutation of your interpretation)
> That Scripture counsels marriage, however, and never allows any release from the union, is expressly contained in the law: ‘You shall not divorce a wife, except for reason of immorality.’

Ambrose
> You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder’”

Augustine (look the fathers have varying opinions!)
> Undoubtedly the substance of the sacrament is of this bond, so that when man and woman have been joined in marriage they must continue inseparably as long as they live, nor is it allowed for one spouse to be separated from the other except for cause of fornication. For this is preserved in the case of Christ and the Church, so that, as a living one with a living one, there is no divorce, no separation forever”

>>19288090
>catholicism has no unified teaching
>the unity is generated only by ascent to the Pope's authority
So in other words, there is a unified teaching that all members of the Catholic church must assent to the Pope's authority? Are you aware that your statement is self-defeating?
>You can have completely different theologies like palamism, thomism and complete modernist-liberalism in the same church and it is seen as acceptable.
Dogmas are dogmas, which all in good faith must accept - but where there is freedom of opinion on non-dogmatic matters, let there be freedom of opinion. Simple as.

>>19287945
>>19288099
Even confirmed by dubs.

>>19288084
>Yeah, you can hold local synods.
Did you just ignore the fact that I said they are binding dogmatically on all Orthodox? I don't know if you are being wilfully ignorant. Patriarchs leaving shows it was not an ecumenical council, since it was not received by all of Orthodoxy. That is the criterion, universal acceptance, not just acceptance by the EP which is not some kind of pseudo-pope. A local synod can be universally accepted and become dogmatically binding on all faithful. The synods I mentioned earlier also had explicit representation by most of Orthodoxy.

>>19288106
There is no unity in faith is what I mean, you can believe almost anything as long as there is agreement on this one point of the pope's authority. The rest is seen as secondary, RCism is essentially just papal lawyering and nothing more.
>freedom of opinion
>non-dogmatic matters
The problem is that dogma itself shape-shifts constantly in RCism with no continuity with the historical church. Prayer with muslims can be heresy a couple of centuries earlier but practiced later with no reproach from the papacy (because they themselves engage in it).

>>19288119
If you don't have time like you said, then stop responding. If you do have time, then respond to my other points >>19287984.
>Patriarchs leaving shows it was not an ecumenical council, since it was not received by all of Orthodoxy
I know. That is my point - you cannot hold ecumenical councils without a temporal ruler or pope. And this all is still to say the obvious: you are a member of a schismatic church, and even if you do not accept that w/r/t the Great Schism, you can clearly see the fruits of this schism in the fact that you are, once again, in schism with yourself (Moscow and Constantinople). Trust me, I had no innate bias against EO (I was coming from "non-denominational" Protestant-type belief, but the case for EO, in my opinion, is far weaker than the case for Catholicism. I even wish you could prove to me that EO is true and Catholicism false, because it would be much easier to be EO. Regardless, I must follow the truth wherever it leads, and I hold no animosity towards you, as my separated brother in Christ. God bless.
>>19288142
>The problem is that dogma itself shape-shifts constantly in RCism with no continuity with the historical church.
What is the ordinary and universal magisterium? People who make comments like this almost never know the actual nuances of RC teaching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AadrSMOS7AU&t=1605s
Also,
>Prayer with muslims can be heresy a couple of centuries earlier but practiced later with no reproach from the papacy
Need I link the video of Constantinople, Moscow, Antioch, and basically the entire EO world going to Assisi interfaith prayer meeting? Ecumenism is a problem we all have to deal with.

>>19287327
Books on this? Genuinely interested

>>19288163
Fellow Catholic anon, do you have good resources for apologetics? I’m the other Catholic anon in this thread and I always get frustrated/angry in these discussions and feel I handle myself very poorly. You and other anons on this board just seem to handle yourselves very well, and I’m very proud to have people like you t bh f am

>>19288274
Hey, God bless you, brother. I probably handle myself worse than you, in many cases. I would only suggest to expose yourself to the very best arguments by those who hold a contrary position, and to make a habit of reading/watching debates & content of the most nuanced and honest people on your side. If you only have answers to a Catholic's strawman of what an Orthodox is like, a real Orthodox with an intelligent position will be out of your league. For Orthodox positions, this probably means people like Jay Dyer, Craig Truglia, Fr. Patrick, and the people they associate with. For Catholic positions, this probably means people like Erick Ybarra, Michael Lofton, Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin.

You can get a lot of information from watching debates, too. Just keep a notepad open, and note what the points are from the opposing side, and what the points are from your side. Then, note the rebuttals to each. If you can't rebut your opponents strongest argument at your current level of knowledge, ask questions, do deeper research into primary resources, and trust that the Holy Spirit will guide you into the truth. We will almost never convert somebody in a conversation, but remember that we are just trying to show that our belief is reasonable. Always remember that any discussing is out of love for the person. It would be easier for me to ignore EO, but I love them, and don't want them to go to Hell by banking on their invincible ignorance.

Anyways, bless you brother, happy to answer any specific questions if this didn't help much.

>>19288018
15...thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Right there is enough.
>That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
And all it takes is:
>thou hast known the holy scriptures
Repent and come out of Babylon.

>>19288274
How about the Holy Bible?

>>19288491
Prots don’t even have a complete Bible lol, nor does the Bible specify which texts fall under the the umbrella of ‘holy scriptures’. Come join the real church, not your stripmall KJV-only cult

>>19287941
>Good is an eternal attribute of God.
So if something that is claimed to be God doesn't posses this attribute then it isn't God. Simple as

>>19288520
>nor does the Bible specify which texts fall under the the umbrella of ‘holy scriptures’
Yes it does, it's hidden in Isaiah but you have to read it enough to understand. Once you've truly seen it it is undeniable. You'll never read it enough until you repent from idolatry and stick to Scripture.

>>19288491
First and foremost, as Timothy was not a child when the NT gospels and epistles were written, it is clear that Paul is talking about the Old Testament, and how it leads one to knowledge of faith in the Messiah - not the New Testament, which did not exist at that time, but which you would say is required for salvation.

That text clearly says that knowledge of scripture (in this case, the Old Testament) can lead one to justification by faith in the Messiah, but it does not say that the scriptures are the only thing that is necessary for salvation. First and foremost, just because the verse says scripture can lead one to being perfected, does not mean that scripture /alone/ can lead one to being perfected. See James 1:14:
"And let patience have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."
If we are to be consistent with your method of exegesis, then we should also say that through patience alone, "solo patientia", we can become perfect and complete.
Obviously, this is irrational. So either patience alone is sufficient for perfection (otherwise there is a contradiction in the Bible, which also apparently says that patience alone leads to perfection, by your method of exegesis), or you are misinterpreting the scriptures.

Further, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is irrational because the very New Testament you are using was first compiled by Catholic bishops at the Council of Rome 382, presided over by Pope Damascus I. None of those bishops believed in Sola Scriptura - that belief arose 1500 years later - but they did believe in the power of tradition and apostolic succession, which is what gave them the authority to compile your New Testament canon. If there is no power in tradition or apostolic succession, why do you use the New Testament, which was compiled by people who claimed that very power?

>>19288621
>Yes it does, it's hidden in Isaiah but you have to read it enough to understand
Just because there are 66 chapters in Isaiah, does not mean there are only 66 books in the Bible. You are aware that chapter divisions are a much later invention, and that the original text was a continuous scroll with no chapters, right? The same people who compiled your New Testament also proclaimed that the deuterocanonicals were a part of the Bible - you accept one claim by papists, but throw away the other claim, arbitrarily.

>>19288786
>Just because there are 66 chapters in Isaiah, does not mean there are only 66 books in the Bible.
Lol is this what Prots actually believe? How ad hoc

>all these wrong ideas in this thread
sure am glad to have been born with the right ideas heh

>>19288786
>when the chapters and verses were installed and what the original format was matters in the least
Atheist's opinions are discarded.

>>19287327
No I'm talking about the fact that there's literally no historical or archaeological evidence to support the existence of Moses or the Exodus narrative.

How does it feel being an Abrahamoid and knowing that there's more concrete evidence for the Iliad being real than most of the Bible?

>>19287630
The Russian Orthodox Church was literally an arm of the KGB under communist rule.

>>19289823
You’re just ignorant if you think there is absolutely no evidence for Exodus. Do the research. Look into El Lahun, the abandoned Egpytian town of workmen where dead infants have been found buried under the houses, or the Amarna letters and their talk of the Habiru, or the Ipuwer Papyrus and its talks of rivers of blood and plagues. Many of these date from roughly the era of the 12th dynasty.

Even Moses is substantiated by the otherwise unexplainable nature of the Israelite religion, which is radically different in every way from the surrounding religions. No one knows where the name Yahweh is from, and the best explanations offered by scholars link it to the name given by Yahweh Himself in Exodus 3, i.e. “I am that I am”. The fact that there was a repudiation of images, other gods, the notion of a Jealous God claiming to be the one true God, the shift towards a guilt-based rather than shame-based system of morality, a transcendent deity, etc., the sabbath (which has no parallels in any other surrounding tradition), etc. All of these a radical innovations. Also the Bible itself is a proof as well.

Moses was real and wrote the Torah. Cope.

>>19289127
Born with the "blue steel" look, you mean.

>>19289924
Sorry bro but it just isn't true. There's no way all that shit the Exodus talks about happened and we would have no record from Egyptian sources or Canaanite sources for that matter. I'll take the word of well qualified objective scholars over a schizo larper on the internet any day.
>Also the Bible itself is a proof as well
OH NO NO NO!!!!

Is there an official list of all valid church fathers and writings kind of like there is with the books of the bible ?

>>19286326
>Even in the time of the Israelites, the laws and morality and conceptions of God revealed to Moses were radically different than the surrounding Middle Eastern religions.
No they weren't lmao. Akhenaten came up with monotheism centuries before the Hebrew bible. The covenant of Moses is based on Assyrian vassal treaties. About half of Genesis is reworkings of Babylonian mythology (Yahweh is an anthropomorphic being who walks around the Garden of Eden and Adam hides from him lol). There are Psalms where Yahweh is described as killing the chaotic sea serpent Leviathan that directly parallels Canaanite/Ugaritic myth. Etc. etc..

>>19287252
>tradition and fathers bad
bro what is your process for interpreting the Bible though? why do you trust the translators?
>read it in the original language
why do you trust the people who tell you what the words of the original language mean?

>>19287363
>Many Buddhists worship demons and idols (‘devas, nats, kami, etc)
No they don't, for laypeople worship of gods is discouraged, and monks are not allowed to worship gods.

Anons what is the most up to date translation of the Bible? Hopefully straight from the original Hebrew and Greek. I've heard the KJV has a lot of misinterpretations - especially when it comes to Orthodoxy.

>>19290887
KJV is fine to use, but don't use just one translation.
https://orthochristian.com/81240.html

>>19288544
You aren't the judge of who possess this attribute, because you do not possess it yourself outside of God.

>>19290887
The Orthodox Study Bible is usually the go to. It's NKJV and in terms of translation discrepancies there's usually a note at the bottom explaining them

>>19286131
> people who sacrificed their own children to actual demons
What did the Lord mean by this?

>you're supposed to sit in a dark room with candles all day and chant weird Slavic shit
>everything else is evil
>also don't shave or shower
Fuck off, maybe God shouldn't have given me dopamine receptors if he didn't want me to enjoy life

>>19288491
>the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
they ARE ABLE, just like I AM ABLE to punch you in the face, doesn't mean I will or that the scriptures will
>That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
that the man MAY BE perfect, not HE WILL BE MADE
learn to read

>>19289765
>t-the original format doesn't matter
>i totally knew that the chapter divisions were a later addition by men, and that isaiah's revelation was initially continuous and on a scroll
>b-but the Bible is still the same number of chapters as Isaiah, because...
>because I said so, okay?!
yeah goy, reject the scriptures used by the entirety of the early church who also gave you your New Testament and creeds
surely there's nothing wrong with rejecting books of the word of God because men from the 1500s told you to reject them, right?

>>19290990
I can't understand how it would affect my judgemental abilities. Either I can see or not see Good in everything including the source or I can't see it at all. It's like light, I only see things because there is a source of light but it doesn't prevent me from seeing that source of light and recognizing it as such.

>>19290168
Massive copes.

>>19291416
>What did the Lord mean by this?
It looks like someone was totally filtered on the story of the binding of Isaac. It is a prefiguration of the story of Christ. Isaac was to be sacrificed on the third day of his and Abraham's journey to the mountain. Isaac is made to carry the wood for the sacrifice on his shoulders just like Jesus carried the cross to Golgotha. Abraham says something to the effect that God will provide a lamb for the sacrifice when he arrives on top of the mountain. There is no lamb of course there, but the Lamb of God is Jesus Christ (John 1:29). Abraham moves in for the sacrifice and is stopped by the Angel of the Lord, who is the Son himself.

>>19290570
>Akhenaten came up with monotheism centuries before the Hebrew bible.
He was still worshiping a creation, namely the sun. Seems like he didn’t get much further than the Hindus

>About half of Genesis is reworkings of Babylonian mythology
No, it’s not. The nature of Yahweh is far different from that of pagan gods in Babylonian myths. Pointing to similarities like the flood is meaningless, because the flood happened and other cultures had somewhat distorted rememberances of it.

>Yahweh is an anthropomorphic being who walks around the Garden of Eden and Adam hides from him lol
This is the Son lovingly sharing and walking through the garden with His creation. Filtered again.

>There are Psalms where Yahweh is described as killing the chaotic sea serpent Leviathan that directly parallels Canaanite/Ugaritic myth. Etc. etc..
Again you operate on the presupposition that roughly parallel stories means that the Bible is necessarily derivative.

>>19291874
>Empirical evidence is a "massive cope"
THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF CHRISTKEK LARPERS!!!!

>>19292552
>be given documentary and archeological evidence from Egyptians and testimony from Biblical narratives
NOOOO MUH ACADEMICS DON’T SAY THAT, TRUST THE SCIENCE

>>19292552
>absence of evidence is evidence of absence

>>19287347
Neat. Sauce?

Daily reminder to any ath*ests in this thread:
>creation happened in six literal days
>evolution is a Masonic ideology used to justify capitalism and progressive ideologies (all of which are Satanic at core)
>the Earth is not older than 6,000 or so years
>there was no death before the fall
>God flooded the entire Earth and only Noah and his family survived
>the Israelites were slaves in Egypt
>Samson literally killed 1,000 Philistines with a jawbone
>Christ is king
>Hell is eternal

>>19292703
>if you don't believe me im going to hurt you

>>19292607
>>be given documentary and archeological evidence from Egyptians and testimony from Biblical narratives
Once again, the Bible itself is not concrete historical evidence. Taking it as such is simply a matter of religious faith. As for the other things presented as evidence here>>19289924:
>El Lahun
Infant mortality was very very common before modern medicine. There's no evidence that those bodies came from a single massacre or were from foreign people. Plus, due to its long occupation time, you would also have to prove that the bodies all date from the time of the traditional exodus narrative.
>Habiru
Were a social class of outlaws found throughout the ancient near east. It's possible that they have some connection to the biblical Hebrews but that doesn't prove the reality of the Exodus narrative.
>Ipuwer Papyrus
Likely dates from centuries before the Exodus is said to have happened and its reference to a river of blood is clearly just a metaphor about how Egyptian society is degenerating

>>19293165
>the Bible itself is not concrete historical evidence.
I trust God’s revelation more than Redditor’s opinions

The threat of eternal hellfire was the only thing that managed stop Seraphim Rose from doing it in the butt homosexually.

>>19293185
>I trust God’s revelation more than Redditor’s opinions

>>19293198
>I trust God’s revelation more than Redditor’s opinions

>>19293191
Based prodigal son.

>>19290887
OSB as mentioned by another anon, gives good commentary for introduction to Orthodoxy. It's based on NKJV.
EOB for the New Testament is a new and fully Orthodox translation with a lot of commentary. Haven't read it yet but it's probably good.
NASB, NRSV, ESV and KJV are also good but not Orthodox in their assumptions and in their canonical books. Stay away from NIV and other translations marketed as "easy to read" translations.

>>19291423
Strawman, God wants you to enjoy His creation in a God-centered way.

>>19293185
Unbelievably based and blessed

>>19293121
>If you reject the free offer of salvation presented through the loving sacrifice of Jesus Christ, my only Son, you will go exactly where you want to be in the afterlife - away from My presence and from the presence of Christ, in the place most ontologically distant from Me, which the sons of Men call Hades. In there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, and you will forever know that this is where you chose to be - for my only Son chose to be tortured and killed so that you could be free, but you hated Him, as you hate Me. Repent and accept the Lord, before it is too late.

>>19293302
>for my only Son chose to be tortured and killed so that you could be free, but you hated Him, as you hate Me. Repent and accept the Lord, before it is too late.

"It follows that a doctrine which adapts itself to the requirements of sentimental beings and which must therefore itself put on a sentimental dress can henceforth no longer be identified with absolute and total truth; the profound change produced in the form of the doctrine by the introduction of a consolatory principle corresponds to an intellectual falling off on the part of the human collectivity to which its message is addressed. Looked at from another angle, it is this characteristic that gives birth to the inevitable diversity of religious dogmas; hence their incompatibility, for whereas intelligence is one, and truth, in whatever measure it is understood, can be understood in one way only, the same does not apply to feeling, so that religion, in seeking to satisfy the demands of feeling, cannot avoid trying to adapt its form as far as possible to its multiple modes, which vary largely according to race and period."

>>19293231
>>I trust God’s revelation more than Redditor’s opinions

>>19293327
The fact that a doctrine is comprehensible to humans does not necessitate that this doctrine can not contain "absolute and total truth". Instead of letting other people think for you, why not formulate your own thoughts, and articulate your own arguments? It is the sign of a lazy mind to verbatim quote the opinions of another man, instead of using your God-given rationality to say what you actually believe, and why.

>>19293369
Guenon's opinion is from the point of view of purely metaphysical traditions like Taoism and Advaita Vedanta, I agree with it because of this. I didn't said that religions with dogmas don't have an absolute truth(at least in principle), but their sentimentalist approaches are irrelevant from the point of absolute truth which doesn't rely on peoples feelings and sentiments. This sort of mentality can be useful but only as a means to an end and usually that end isn't going very far.

>>19286762
Currently writing a 70 page theology thesis on this. The data is one thing; the interpretation is another. The geological column can be explained either by Genesis or false atheistic stories.
>>19285197
From Viktor Warkulwiz has a good book about a lot of these, "The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11," but as others have mentioned, speculative theories and pseudo-historical sciences must yield to the evidence of Scripture and the testimony of the Fathers. Christ has proven Himself not only through prophecy and the miracle of His resurrection, but in ongoing miraculous signs (e.g. Lanciano, Lourdes, Fatima).

>>19293423
To give you an example, metaphysical traditions will go as far as saying that YOU can achieve and be the absolute truth. When the average orthodox christian hears this, offended by the fact that his religion doesn't go so far, will say that my point of view is demonic and therefore appeal to the sentiments of ignorant people.

>>19293423
>>19293449

You haven't gone far enough into either Orthodox or Catholic theology. We believe in theosis/divinization, which is a far more complete (and metaphysically coherent) doctrine than is present in any non-Christian tradition. It recognizes the fundamental ontological distinction between created beings and the uncaused cause, while still providing the path to mystical union in the most safe manner possible. The problem with these other traditions is that even though they can elicit mystical and metaphysical experiences, they cannot go further than that by ensuring salvation. The epistemological claims of the various religions all pale in comparison to Christianity, and Christianity lacks nothing that any other religion has. It is, in truth, the ultimate Dao, the true Dharma - because the Dao itself became flesh, and dwelt among us, and taught us the mysteries of the Godhead. Your ideology is not demonic because it "[goes] so far", it is demonic because it appeals to your innate sense of pride by positing that you can bypass a fundamental ontological distinction and become God, of your own power. "All I need to do is try hard enough, and do enough works and practices, and I will be God" - this is literally the nature of Luciferianism. The question is whether you embrace this fact, or remain ignorant to it.

>>19293302
>god sacrificed his son (to himself) to guilt me into worshiping him
What a bizarre thing to try to convince someone of. Why is god trying to potlach me?

>>19293490
>god sacrificed his son (to himself)
You misread.
I said:
>my only Son chose to be tortured and killed so that you could be free, but you hated Him
It was not God the Father commanding God the Son to become incarnate and die for us. God loves us so much that He Himself chose to become flesh, so that He could show us how much he loves us, and to save all of humanity.

>>19287137
Humani Generis have permission for scholars to research evolution; it did absolutely nothing to change Catholic teaching, not did it allow the laity to begin to believe in evolution.
Lateran IV declares that
>God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body (Denz 428).
Trent and Vatican I forbid the Catholic from interpreting Scripture in a manner contrary to the consensus of the Fathers. The Fathers are absolutely united in teaching things like the special creation if man and woman, the direct creation of every animal kind, the historicity of Genesis and that the world was created either around 4,000 (minority) or 5,500 (majority) B.C.

>>19293560
"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
[The Magisterium of the Church does not forbid that research and discussions take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, as long as one doesn't say souls are created by evolution - as we are obliged to believe in the special creation of souls.]

However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.
[These discussions, and research, must be done with utmost seriousness One should not be too hasty to accept or reject the doctrine of evolution - but weigh the evidence with necessary seriousness. As always, Catholics must be prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church (who has not made a dogmatic proclamation on whether or not evolution can be believed) - if the Church dogmatically declares that it cannot be held, that must be accepted by all Catholics.]

Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
[Some foolishly act as if it is certain and already proven as a fact. This cannot be held, and is not true, even scientifically.]

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
[Catholics cannot hold polygenism.]

Seems clear to me.

>>19293499
That doesn't change anything, I don't care about filioque or whatever jesusology minutiae you are stuck on. If God is doing as you say, he is basically trying to loanshark me by outdoing me in a display of sacrifice, creating debitor relationship I can't pay off. Or rather, his priests (or today's larpists) claim this relationship exists and they mediate it.

>>19293488
Believe me, a debate on this topic is the last thing which I wanted. Anyways... I know about theosis, which btw is above salvation. A peasant who practices christianity can achieve salvation without being a monk. What is the role of the monk if he can be saved without achieving theosis? Isn't obvious that theosis is above salvation? Do you think that all of the people who are saved (including monks and the average people) will have the exactly same place in heaven? What is the meaning of theosis again? If it doesn't make any difference in the long run. I think you got the point. Now, you don't understand the concept of being one with God. It is exactly the opposite. Hindus and even sufi muslims, all teach about overcoming the ego. Liberation / becoming one with God is a supra-individual state, the ego is only part of the individual state. You should read some advaita literature and see for yourself. All of the things which you accuse them to be are already refuted there. The sufi Ibn Arabi also wrote ablut the differences between actual spriritual states (including supra-individual) and mere illusions. Your religion isn't special at all.

>>19293560
>>19293601
Imagine rejecting basic proved science because some guy said something 1700 years ago.

Early Christian writers all said the sun revolved around the earth. Guess we should take them on faith that heliocentrism is false then?

>>19293670
>I don't care about filioque or whatever jesusology minutiae you are stuck on
You don't understand what I even said. You said "god sacrificed himself to himself to guilt you into worshipping him", and I pointed out why that is an erroneous formulation - the more accurate formulation is something like "God the Son sacrificed Himself to atone for the sins of the world, and to show you how much He loves you, and how devastating sin is.
>creating debitor relationship I can't pay off
Again, your understanding is exactly opposite of what is actually happening. Humanity had a debt (their sins), which they constantly had to sacrifice animals, or shed blood, in order to be absolved (in basically every culture that has ever existed). This was a debt we could never pay, because sin itself is a fundamental part of human nature (we are selfish, fallen creatures who are prone to doing malevolent shit). So in order to free us from our unpayable debt, Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself as the ultimate sacrifice - being God Himself - so that we could be free from our debt which constantly required bloodshed and sacrifice.

>>19293728
>I know about theosis, which btw is above salvation
No. Theosis is the perfection of human nature. Everybody in heaven has reached theosis as a condition for their beholding the beatific vision, but some are able to perfect their human nature while on Earth.
>What is the role of the monk if he can be saved without achieving theosis?
There are many different kinds of monks, and they all have different roles.
>Isn't obvious that theosis is above salvation?
Quite the opposite.
>Do you think that all of the people who are saved will have the exactly same place in heaven?
We know that people can store up treasures for themselves in heaven, and that there are many mansions in the Father's house. Besides that, we do not know.
>Hindus and even sufi muslims, all teach about overcoming the ego
So do Christians.
>you should read some advaita literature and see for yourself.
I have. I used to be new-age and perennialist, now I realize how erroneous it is.
>Ibn Arabi also wrote ablut the differences between actual spriritual states (including supra-individual) and mere illusions
Why should I care about what some random guy said?
>Your religion isn't special at all.
Except for the fact that we are the only religion which professes that Jesus Christ did for our sins, and that only through Him can one reach heaven. Your analysis is very rudimentary and childish, like mine used to be.

>>19293775
>in order to free us from our unpayable debt, Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself as the ultimate sacrifice - being God Himself - so that we could be free from our debt which constantly required bloodshed and sacrifice.
If that were the case, christers wouldn't be shrieking at people about how sinful and hell-bound they are for being indifferent to theology and not worshiping the god of the ultimate potlach

>>19293735
Yes. Earth is the center of the cosmos and hell is also in the center of the earth, the furtherst place away from Heaven.

>>19293735
>Early Christian writers all said the sun revolved around the earth.
It does. It’s completely relative, even scientists say so

>>19291907
>Again you operate on the presupposition that roughly parallel stories means that the Bible is necessarily derivative.
No, it just proves what I said (against what you originally claimed), that Israelite religion was not particularly distinct from its neighbours. The Hebrew Bible has an anthropomorphic national god who has a body, walks around, signs typical ancient near east treaties with his subjects, kills chaotic sea serpents and creates man and the world just like in Babylonian myth.

It's only in the latest stage with influence from Hellenistic and Persian culture that the nature of the Jewish god changed radically. You can thank Plato for that.

>>19290526
Bumping for an answer to this

>>19293870
If you want to say it's relative then the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth either, so the geocentrism of early Christians is wrong as well and there is no centre to creation at all.

It's not relative anyway. The gravitational force of the Sun is stronger than the Earth so the latter is attracted to the former and orbits around it. Can't believe I'm having to explain this.

>>19293796
>it's the "christers" guys
It seems that one of your main hobbies is going on the internet and crying about how much you hate Jesus Christ. Is that what you call "being indifferent to theology"? Because you sure seem to be seething about theology every time I see you.

Also, your point is a complete non-sequitor. Christians telling people about the great danger they are in by not accepting Christ is an act of pure love, even if you hate them for it. If they didn't care about you and didn't want you to go to heaven, they would just ignore you. With your rude demeanor, it's a miracle of love that any continue to interact with you. If I did not care about you, I would just filter "christer" so that I don't have to see your adolescent-tier rants. But I love you, so here I still am - and will be for many more years, God willing. :o)

>>19293849
Lmao. Imagine being this stupid. Christianity really is a cult.

>>19290526
>>19293883
Depends on if you are Catholic, or Orthodox. A good place to start for either, even if you are just a curious Protestant or Atheist, would be the Apostolic Fathers, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and the Post-Nicene Fathers (in order).

>>19293775
>We know that people can store up treasures for themselves in heaven, and that there are many mansions in the Father's house. Besides that, we do not know.
I refuse to believe that this is the "official" christian-orthodox belief, is just too stupid.
>Except for the fact that we are the only religion which professes that Jesus Christ did for our sins, and that only through Him can one reach heaven.
And what is the metaphysical meaning of this? What is so special about it? You say it like is the historical event which matters the most. Is simply irrelevant, just a claim. With this kind of irrational sentimental ideas, I am not surprised that atheism is a thing.

Learn romainian/greek/serb if you want to read the real schizo shit of orthodoxy
all you are getting with english translation is tamest material

>>19293911
the self- importance and narcissism in this post is something else. Most religious cucks are under this delusion that they figured out the universe/the universe somehow cares about their pathetic ass so they treat their ego bursts as an act of kindness for others
keep your farts to yourself champ

>>19293971
>I refuse to believe that this is the "official" christian-orthodox belief, is just too stupid.
Do you have an argument for why that position is stupid, besides your emotions?
>What is so special about it?
It is the meeting of metaphysics (meaning) and matter. It provides the most cutting edge Logos technology on the planet - the most safe path to worldly detachment and overcoming the ego (kenosis), the most complete path to union with the Godhead (theosis), and the most metaphysically coherent system of all. Beyond all this, the system gives one the ability to put you into direct communication with God Himself, by His grace, through the Holy Spirit - attested to by innumerable saints and fathers, the vast majority of whom were extremely articulate and intelligent (to rule out the "lol schizo" claims). Our scriptures contain huge amounts of explicitly fulfilled prophecies, which give supernatural assurance of the inspiration of the authors. It gives one the surest chance of having a positive outcome in the afterlife, across the set of all (major) system's claims - and, most importantly, rather than making God into our own image, we teach about God as He is, as He was made known to us through Jesus Christ.

When you analyze all religious claims, with their hypothetically infinite discourses on the nature of God, from Shankara to Muhammad to Siddhartha, it is the only logical choice to believe that Jesus Christ - the only man to claim to be God Himself, the only man to claim that He Himself is the only way to God, whose enemies even say He performed miracles, for whom we have multiple firsthand witnesses who say He prophesied His own death and resurrection, even under pain of torture and death not recanting this testimony - that this Jesus Christ is who He said He was.

And not only that, He was tortured, killed, and rose from the dead on the third day to set us free.

"Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be silent as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth."
- The Book of Isaiah, written ~700 years before Jesus Christ

>>19294048
go touch some grass, you are severely mentally ill

>>19293980
I guess you have no actual argument, which is why you didn't back up your previous non-sequitor with actual reasoning. I didn't figure out the universe, Jesus Christ figured it out for me, because He created it. The universe doesn't care about me, because it is inanimate - but its creator does care about both you and me, because He is infinitely loving, and so has an infinite amount of love for us all, individually. I'm sorry that your religion of secular materialism leads you to being so bitter and hostile that you spend your free time talking about how much you hate religious people and Jesus Christ, but I hope you soften your heart one day.

>>19293980
>Learn romainian/greek/serb if you want to read the real schizo shit of orthodoxy
Redpill me on this please, why is it so concentrated in those countries?

>>19294058
>"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you."
Thanks for all you do, brother. God bless you.

>>19293911
>i love you, but you better worship my god or he is sending you to hell
Jesus I have less of an issue with. It's christers, you guys, who completely missed the point, came up with a whole soteriology, ported over the mosaic distinction so you could call everyone else liars and demons except you, and so forth. Jesus let himself be killed because his crusade was against the very bad manners and ressentiment that the rest of you have, where everything you dislike conveniently is a sin or a slight against God. The priestly authorities turned him over to the Romans. But christers later figured out, they could replace those priestly authorities with their own, and here you are, long after those nu-priests themselves got ousted, larping as a "Christian" but in practice being a spiritual egoist

>>19294064
you read some schizo shit written by some schizos and you took it fully because you are yourself a schizo. Repeat this cycle across centuries for ever culture where autists and neurotics take refuge in each other's delusions
There is nothing more to it than that, I am not even bothering to even pretend to debate all that garbage you take for granted

>>19294078
SUCK
MY
DICK

>>19294071
well the religion practiced by the monks of those particular countries is more severe and taken to extreme, you basically hang around in the wilderness with autists like yourself with none of the glamour, obsessing over the apocalypse. Add to it balkan and slavic superstition and general savagery than has run amok for centuries there, and you get a brutal lore for the saints and devils

>>19294086
>It's christers, you guys, who completely missed the point,
What point did we miss?
>came up with a whole soteriology
Our soteriology is directly from the words of Jesus Christ.
>ported over the mosaic distinction so you could call everyone else liars and demons except you
"the mosaic distinction" might mean something to you, but it is a meaningless statement to other people. Please elaborate if you want anybody to understand you.
>Jesus let himself be killed because his crusade was against the very bad manners and ressentiment that the rest of you have
How do you know that? Scripture clearly testifies that He died for the sins of all mankind, as in Isaiah 53.
>where everything you dislike conveniently is a sin or a slight against God
None of it is our opinion - it is directly from sacred scripture, which Jesus affirmed:
>If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to depart into hell.
Sin is still important. We must always crusade against sin, as Jesus did.
>But christers later figured out, they could replace those priestly authorities with their own
From the very earliest days, we had priests. The apostles were priests. We know this because they used the ancient method of priestly ordination when giving others the Holy Spirit:
"Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."

>>19294120
>you read some schizo shit written by some schizos and you took it fully because you are yourself a schizo.
>SUCK
>MY
>DICK

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you."
I do really appreciate you, friend. God bless you even more, may you one day come to know the peace and love which is in Jesus Christ. I love you!

>>19294058
Better a fool for Christ than wise according to wisdom of this world

>>19294136
>cuck quote that reinforces my coping
you really got me with that, any more nail salon wisdom like that?

>>19294135
stop relying to me, you are a literal golem

>>19294141
>cuck
>>19294146
>you are a literal golem

Thank you very much. I appreciate you more than you know. God bless you, brother.

>>19294048
>Our scriptures contain huge amounts of explicitly fulfilled prophecies, which give supernatural assurance of the inspiration of the authors.
The 'prophecies' Jesus is supposed to have fulfilled were invented post-facto by apologetic authors.
>for whom we have multiple firsthand witnesses
No we don't. We have one secondhand letter writer in Paul, who never knew Jesus while he was alive.
>The Book of Isaiah, written ~700 years before Jesus Christ
Maybe about 500. But that passage isn't a prophecy of the Messiah (who isn't mentioned at all), it's a personification of Israel.

The Lord called me before I was born,
while I was in my mother’s womb he named me.
He made my mouth like a sharp sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me a polished arrow,
in his quiver he hid me away.
And he said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”

>>19294156
I asked you to stop replying to me

>>19294123
The mosaic distinction, as per the egyptologist Jan Assmann, is the defining feature of monotheistic religion, which ought to be familiar to you, as it involves denying the god(s) of every single other religion, even the ones close to yours. This is a dangerous game theologically since it creates a very easy framework to deny your own god, since we are now free intellectually speaking to decide which gods are false. Christians have tried to fix this with whatever has been available to prevent atheism, like neoplatonism or the feudal state, but one can always dismiss Christianity if they are at liberty to say "I don't believe you" in response to various revelationary claims made about the religion

>>19294157
>Maybe about 500
Try 356BC, and even then only after significant editing.

>>19294141
Just accept Jesus into your heart, I know you are spending so much time here seething for a reason. You want to talk with Christians

>>19294157
>The 'prophecies' Jesus is supposed to have fulfilled were invented post-facto by apologetic authors.
All of the Messianic prophesies fulfilled with Christ, like the cutting off of the Messiah in Daniel 9 which is followed by the destruction of the Temple, and the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 where the Messiah is killed by His own people and rejected by them during His sacrificial atonement, existed hundreds of years before Christ was born. Your statement that the fulfillments of these were invented is simply post-facto rationalization of an emotional position, with no evidence.
>No we don't. We have one secondhand letter writer in Paul
The gospels of Matthew and John are written by firsthand eyewitnesses, and Mark was most likely witness to many events firsthand as well. Luke and mark are secondhand testimonies from those who knew eyewitnesses.
>But that passage isn't a prophecy of the Messiah (who isn't mentioned at all), it's a personification of Israel.
The rabbis of the second temple period all believed that Isaiah 53 was a Messianic prophecy, as do the Christians of today:
"The Rabbis said: His [the Messiah's] name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of YHWH, and afflicted." (The Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b)

>>19294160
Why should I listen to you? :)

>>19294191
I think Trito-Isaiah may be 4th century. Deutero-Isaiah is clearly writing in the context of Babylonian exile, although it might be early post-Exilic.

>>19294185
>one can always dismiss Christianity
Uh, obviously? I don't think any Christian expects every atheist to accept Christ - if somebody is too in love with their own sin and depravity, they won't seek God, or higher things.
Anyways, we didn't "port" over monotheism, Christians are the logical successors of the Hebrew religion, as the people who accept the Hebrew Messiah. You're obviously free to reject Christ, but you will have to answer for that rejection on the day of your particular judgment, and I strongly advise against it.

>>19294211
>>19294214
I knew christucks like you, more specifically the lovey dovey amerimutt type that needs to copy aste muh bible passage every two sentences can't help yourself, you have to masturbate your self-importance wherever you go, even when told that no one asked for
carry on

>>19294244
>christucks
>amerimutt
>masturbate your self-importance

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you."

God bless you!

>>19294250
oh wow you sure showed me, do it again

>>19294232
Literally the "i made this" meme made into a religion. And you're still threatening me of course, for disagreeing with you, that someone else will harm me.

>>19294244
Jesus loves you

>>19294264
You can only harm yourself, through your own free will. You will go exactly where you want to go - either into Jesus Christ's presence eternally, or somewhere else. I hope you make the right choice!

>>19294214
>All of the Messianic prophesies fulfilled with Christ, like the cutting off of the Messiah in Daniel 9 which is followed by the destruction of the Temple, and the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 where the Messiah is killed by His own people and rejected by them during His sacrificial atonement, existed hundreds of years before Christ was born. Your statement that the fulfillments of these were invented is simply post-facto rationalization of an emotional position, with no evidence.
After the death of Jesus. Christians went hunting through the Jewish scriptures looking for verses to help them understand what they believed had happened, and selectively reinterpreted passages in the light of their beliefs about Jesus. It's not particularly remarkable.
>The gospels of Matthew and John are written by firsthand eyewitnesses, and Mark was most likely witness to many events firsthand as well. Luke and mark are secondhand testimonies from those who knew eyewitnesses.
No they weren't. The gospels were written anonymously, at least two or three generations after the death of Jesus, in a different language to that of Jesus or his disciples, in a completely different historical and theological context. Like if you think is Matthew a "firsthand eyewtitness" then why did he copy the bulk of his account from Mark?
>The rabbis of the second temple period all believed that Isaiah 53 was a Messianic prophecy, as do the Christians of today
I think there was a variety of interpretations by Jews of the period, what with Second Temple Judaism hardly being a monolith. At any rate, they are no better proof of what a writer from centuries ago may have meant either.
Isaiah explicitly mentions the servant is Israel multiple times. I have pointed out one example to you (Isaiah 49:3). Nowhere is the Messiah mentioned in any of the songs.

>>19294295
>free will
>it's just going to hell or obeying priests
Very cool

>>19294157
>it's a personification of Israel
There are clearly two distinct figures, the sinful Israelites and the suffering servant
"But HE was wounded for OUR iniquities, HE was bruised for OUR sins: the chastisement of OUR peace was upon HIM, and by HIS bruises WE are healed."
Nice try rabbi, you'll get them tomorrow

>>19286643
>my religion is better because it is true
everyone says this

>>19294300
>After the death of Jesus. Christians went hunting through the Jewish scriptures looking for verses to help them understand
Christ opened their minds to the scriptures after the resurrection and explained that it was all about Him. Luke 24:27—“And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” This is true in how we can see endless types of Christ throughout scripture—It’s amazing really.

>The gospels were written anonymously, at least two or three generations after the death of Jesus
Not even people like Bart Ehrman believe that the scriptures were written two or three GENERATIONS after Jesus. If you had said decades, you would be closer to the mark, but even then, the later datings of the Gospels post-70 A.D. is entirely based on the presupposition that Jesus did NOT predict the destruction of the Temple by foreign armies, even though this was further predicted centuries beforehand in Daniel 9.24-27. There’s little reason to believe they were anonymous either. Church tradition has never doubted their attributions.

>in a different language to that of Jesus or his disciples
Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean and Jesus told them to make disciples of all nations.

>Like if you think is Matthew a "firsthand eyewtitness" then why did he copy the bulk of his account from Mark?
All of the Gospels stress different aspects of the same Jesus. John stresses his divinity, Matthew was written for the Jews, etc. This was intentional.

>Isaiah explicitly mentions the servant is Israel multiple times
Someone can’t into typology and multiple levels of meaning. Even some Second Temple era Jewish writers said Isaiah 53 was Messianic in one sense

>>19294300
>selectively reinterpreted passages in the light of their beliefs about Jesus
If it was just a selective reinterpretation, why do the anti-Christian rabbis of the second Temple period agree that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah?
>The gospels were written anonymously, at least two or three generations after the death of Jesus
The only evidence we have, the writings of those who knew the apostles (apostolic fathers) and their disciples (like St. Irenaeus), points clearly and explicitly as supporting evidence towards Johannine authorship of John. If you have evidence against this, please put it forward - if not, on what grounds do you dismiss it?
>Isaiah explicitly mentions the servant is Israel multiple times. I have pointed out one example to you (Isaiah 49:3). Nowhere is the Messiah mentioned in any of the songs.
If it was a post-hoc rationalization by Christians, why did the sages who passed on the Oral Torah, considered scripture by today's Jews, also say that Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah? Can your theory account for this?

>>19294325
The nations are speaking about Israel in that passage. Where does it mention a Messiah?

>>19294379
Why did the Second Temple sages, the authoritative figures in Judaism, also interpret it to be the Messiah? That is the question you should first ask yourself.

>>19294379
t. rabbi

>>19294370
>Christ opened their minds to the scriptures after the resurrection and explained that it was all about Him.
This is like citing a Buddhist jataka with miracles by the Buddha in order to prove Buddhism as true.
> Not even people like Bart Ehrman believe that the scriptures were written two or three GENERATIONS after Jesus.
At the very earliest we have a gospel, Mark, from the 70s AD. The terminus post quem for Luke is mid-90s, and is probably 2nd century.
>the later datings of the Gospels post-70 A.D. is entirely based on the presupposition that Jesus did NOT predict the destruction of the Temple
What? No it's not. The rationale for dating Mark post-70 is not simply due to the destruction of the Temple but the fact that it is clearly written under a Roman occupation with much Latinate military/administrative language and is concerned with how Christians should respond to Roman rule. The "render unto Caesar" pericope concerns a coin (the denarii) which only circulated in Palestine with the stationing of legions after the Roman-Jewish War, for example.
>Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean and Jesus told them to make disciples of all nations.
Jesus was a Galilean peasant whose native language would have been Aramaic. He would not have spoken long philosophical discourses in the Koine Greek of gJohn.
>All of the Gospels stress different aspects of the same Jesus. John stresses his divinity, Matthew was written for the Jews, etc. This was intentional.
If they stress different aspects then why did Luke and Matthew copy the account of Mark in bulk?
>Someone can’t into typology and multiple levels of meaning.
We have no reason to assume Isaiah refers to the Messiah when that is indicated absolutely nowhere in the text. What people may have thought centuries after the author died is irrelevant.

>>19294372
>If it was just a selective reinterpretation, why do the anti-Christian rabbis of the second Temple period agree that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah?
I don't know, why is it relevant to what the original Deutero-Isaiah wrote? Considering that the Mishnah was compiled centuries after Jesus it might well have been a Rabbi influenced by Christian interpretations who gave that interpretation.
>The only evidence we have, the writings of those who knew the apostles (apostolic fathers) and their disciples (like St. Irenaeus), points clearly and explicitly as supporting evidence towards Johannine authorship of John. If you have evidence against this, please put it forward - if not, on what grounds do you dismiss it?
No-one refers to the gospels by their traditional authorships until the late second century, so this is not the case. Justin Martyr, for example, talks about the vague "memoirs of the apostles" when citing stories about Jesus. I suspect the attribution of authorship of gJohn to John was a guess based on who later Christians thought the Beloved Disciple was.

>>19294388
>>19294393
What people thought in the 2nd century AD is irrelevant to what the author of 6th century BC Deutero-Isaiah meant. There is no reference to the Messiah anywhere in the songs. But the servant is referred to as Israel multiple times, repeatedly.

>>19294485
>No it's not.
Cope, yes it is. It’s one of the main reasons. The coin in question very well could have been an Antiochan tetradrachm, which circulated in the area and bore images of Caesar. Or if not that, it may have been the denarius of Augustus with reverse Caius and Lucius Caesars, which have been found frequently in Israel

>Jesus was a Galilean peasant whose native language would have been Aramaic.
Intentionally misrepresenting me now, especially since I never said Jesus wrote a word.

>If they stress different aspects then why did Luke and Matthew copy the account of Mark in bulk?
They didn’t though. They follow the same trajectories and use many of the same stories but they are articulated differently and the Gospels as a whole paint for us different pictures of the same Jesus.

>We have no reason to assume Isaiah refers to the Messiah when that is indicated absolutely nowhere in the text.
You’ve already been debunked on this point by the other anon.

>>19285197
>I'm very tired of modern Christians promoting this...
Thank you for saying this, I was about to write a gigantic paragraph at how wrong you were.

>>19294636
>The coin in question very well could have been an Antiochan tetradrachm, which circulated in the area and bore images of Caesar.
Mark uses the word denarii, which is a different coin.
>Or if not that, it may have been the denarius of Augustus with reverse Caius and Lucius Caesars, which have been found frequently in Israel
Yes, which did not circulate in 1st century Palestine until after the Roman-Jewish War, when it was brought by the economic weight of legions based in the province.
>Intentionally misrepresenting me now, especially since I never said Jesus wrote a word.
Then if we don't have any of the direct words Jesus spoke, how likely is it that we are reading "firsthand eyewitness" accounts?
>They didn’t though. They follow the same trajectories and use many of the same stories but they are articulated differently and the Gospels as a whole paint for us different pictures of the same Jesus.
Well it's banal to point out that the gospels each have different perspectives and theologies. I'm not sure the relevance of proving they are reliable accounts. That Matthew and Luke copy Mark and twist his account in different ways is if anything troubling for the idea.
>You’ve already been debunked on this point by the other anon.
Where has anyone showed that the Messiah is referred to in the servant songs of Isaiah? Nowhere. It's a later interpretation. Not a prophecy by Deutero-Isaiah.

>>19294683
>Mark uses the word denarii, which is a different coin.
The type of coin isn’t even that important, plus I’ve already shown that denarii did circulate in the region prior to 70 AD, but evidently you think that all denarii are exactly the same. This stuff takes thirty seconds of research to learn.

>Yes, which did not circulate in 1st century Palestine until after the Roman-Jewish War, when it was brought by the economic weight of legions based in the province.
Look at you confusing two different types of denarii lol.

>Then if we don't have any of the direct words Jesus spoke, how likely is it that we are reading "firsthand eyewitness" accounts?
Scripture is written by men who knew Jesus, further inspired by the Holy Spirit.

>That Matthew and Luke copy Mark and twist his account in different ways is if anything troubling for the idea.
“Twist” implies distortion. Different Gospels have different emphases. As said, in John the divine Jesus is most clearly seen. Matthew was written with attention to the Jews, Luke to the Gentiles, etc. All of these are faithful to the complex figure of Jesus Christ.

>Nowhere.
>It's a later interpretation.
Pick one. Second Temple Jews had already this understanding. Jesus fulfilled it and showed that it was Messianic. Everything else is rabbinical cope

>>19294502
>What people thought in the 2nd century AD is irrelevant
It was not just the 2nd century AD - it was prior to Christ even being born. See the Targum Jonathan for Isaiah, which would have been widely read before Christ and seen as /the/ authoritative interpretation of the scriptures at that time:
"Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper, He shall be exalted and extolled, and He shall be very strong. As the house of Israel anxiously hoped for Him many days [...]" (Isaiah 52:13-14)
Now, as you surely know, the latter part of Isaiah 52 and 53 is one continuous narrative, than then leads to the suffering servant narrative.
Again, I will ask you: Why would the authoritative paraphrase of the Nevi'im, read as scripture itself in the synagogues, interpret Isaiah 52-53 as being about the Messiah? Is it possible that both before and after Christ, they knew this text referred to the Messiah? Is is possible that you are missing some key cultural context in this interpretation, which is why your opinion (that it has nothing to do with the Messiah) is totally contradicted by every single Rabbinic authority from even before the time of Christ?
>No-one refers to the gospels by their traditional authorships until the late second century, so this is not the case.
Late second century? Don't say such disingenuous things - even if you take the late date for Papias' authorship, that is still early second century (~130AD latest, although other scholars prefer a date of 95-110 AD). Regardless, you did not refute or respond to my actual argument at all:
The only evidence we have for the authorship of the apostolic gospels (John and Matthew) is a long-standing oral tradition recorded in the writings of the disciples of the apostles. Why should we discard that evidence, which seems to suggest Johannine and Matthean authorship, and what contrary evidence do you have to put forward which outweighs the evidence put forward by that tradition? It is not like the attestations are by spurious figures, either - Irenaeus, for example, has an incredible pedigree, being the disciple of apostolic father St. Polycarp, who learned under St. John. If anybody would know who authored the Gospel of John, it would be him - and we see him explicitly testify Johannine authorship in his writings.
>>19294502
>What people thought in the 2nd century AD is irrelevant to what the author of 6th century BC Deutero-Isaiah meant.
Because you are missing cultural context, you are a much weaker authority on what Isaiah meant than Jonathan ben Uzziel, the apostles, and the sages of the Talmudic era. Why should I trust your interpretation, when you are 2000 years removed from that cultural context? Why did seemingly every interpreter in an authoritative context, Judaic or Christian, all interpret 52/53 as being Messianic?

All in all, while I appreciate that you seem to be arguing in good faith, you are not really making a good case for your position here.

>>19294748
>The type of coin isn’t even that important
???
Mark is writing in Greek, yet uses the *Latin* word denarius. Because he is talking about a specific type of Roman coin, that only circulated post-70 with the stationing of legions in Judea.
>Look at you confusing two different types of denarii lol.
???
The tetradrachm was not a denarius. It was a drachmae, and had been minted for centuries prior to Roman rule. The denarius was a Roman coin introduced by Roman rule.
>Scripture is written by men who knew Jesus, further inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Yeah, and the Jataka are written by inspired people who knew the Buddha.
If you're just going to recite nostrums to me instead of providing actual arguments to support your views then we can end this conversation.
>“Twist” implies distortion. Different Gospels have different emphases. As said, in John the divine Jesus is most clearly seen. Matthew was written with attention to the Jews, Luke to the Gentiles, etc. All of these are faithful to the complex figure of Jesus Christ.
Just repeating yourself. Again, I don't dispute the banal point that each gospel has a different theological viewpoint. If they're each eyewitness accounts, however, why did Matthew and Luke copy Mark verbatim?
>Pick one. Second Temple Jews had already this understanding. Jesus fulfilled it and showed that it was Messianic. Everything else is rabbinical cope
Second Temple Jews and Christians had all sorts of wrong and silly beliefs about what Bible authors meant. Is there any reference to the Messiah in the servant songs of Isaiah? No. Is the servant referred to as Israel, repeatedly? Yes. It is not a prophecy about the Messiah. What later people may have *thought* is irrelevant.

>>19294842
>It is not a prophecy about the Messiah.
Why should anybody trust an atheistic outsider to interpret their scriptures? If you give such a plain and literal reading, you would be left with many absurd conclusions, such as that the physical man Judah will continue to live until Shiloh comes, wielding a sceptre, and that once Shiloh comes, a lawgiver will come from between his literal feet:
"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." (Gen 49:10)
Or that King David will rise from the dead and rule over Israel:
"My servant David will be king over them, and there will be one shepherd for all of them. They will follow My ordinances and keep and observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)

Applying an exclusively materialist and literalistic reading to the text is foreign to the cultural context of the authorship, especially during Isaiah's time, and thus it is illogical to interpret any prophetic passage with a strictly literalistic lens. This is why all of the Rabbinic authorities, who were actually immersed in this sort of typological understanding, understood that this passage in Isaiah a prophecy about the Messiah. You are coming to erroneous conclusions, because you are not understanding this cultural context. Could it also be a prophecy about Israel, simultaneously? Sure. But to say that it is /only/ about Israel is to apply an anachronistic lens to the text.

>>19294842
>Mark is writing in Greek, yet uses the *Latin* word denarius. Because he is talking about a specific type of Roman coin, that only circulated post-70 with the stationing of legions in Judea.
Again you repeat the thing that I already debunked. There WAS a type of denarius circulating in the Judea region prior to 70 A.D. but you are literally too dumb to realize this. There was a new type issued after 70 A.D., yes, but there is more than one type of denarius, and this is SEPARATE from the tetradrachm interpretation, which you also seem to be incapable of understanding from what I can see in other parts of this post. Literally spend five minutes researching so you won’t embarrass yourself like this.

>If you're just going to recite nostrums to me instead of providing actual arguments to support your views then we can end this conversation.
You’re talking to a Christian in a Christian thread. If you don’t like the answers you’re just going to have to cope with it.

>Just repeating yourself.
Because you can’t debunk it.

>why did Matthew and Luke copy Mark verbatim?
They’re not verbatim the same, this is a meme peddled by people who have never looked at the synoptics in parallel. You should just reference my previous posts where this has already been explained to you, as much as you hate the answer.

>It is not a prophecy about the Messiah.
Yet it was a mainstream Messianic interpretation in the period. You are just angry that people dare to read things on multiple levels. Brute literalism has never been the main method of interpretation until modern times. Jews understood it to be Messianic. Evidently this was true, given the life of Jesus Christ

>>19294908
>Why should anybody trust an atheistic outsider to interpret their scriptures?
I'm sure the local rabbis felt this way when half-Greek fishermen started shouting at them that Yahweh had incarnated as a human, been killed, and rose from the dead to lead them to paradise.

>>19294926
I know you’re mad that Jesus whipped you out the Temple and didn’t affirm your legalistic racial cult, Shlomo.

>>19294934
>the old testament prophecies are about ME, they're about MEEE
Cry harder Demetrios

my friends please don't bother with 4chan trolls

>>19294926
Many local rabbis found this perfectly plausible, like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimithea. Maybe they had some understanding that you don't?
God becomes incarnate as a child:
"Because the Child is born to us, and the Son is given to us, and his authority was on his shoulder, and his Name was called The Wonder and The Counselor, God, the Mighty Man of Eternity, the Prince of Peace [and The Father of Eternity]" (Isaiah 9:6)
Messiah will be killed:
"After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Messiah will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary [the Temple of Jerusalem]" (Daniel 9:26)
After being killed, He will rise from the dead:
"[...] and when His soul is made a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. After the anguish of His soul, He will see the light of life and be satisfied." (Isaiah 53:10-11)

I hope one day you will see the light. It is literally right in front of you.

>>19294966
>the old testament prophecies are about ME, they're about MEEE

>>19294990
If I am not part of their ethnic group, why should fulfillment of their prophecies be applicable to me or of any interest? Why did their god do a limited trial run with them before broadening the next pact with humanity to be universal? Seems terribly fickle and anthropomorphic. I would be careful if I were (You) about trusting this volcano.

>>19294834
>It was not just the 2nd century AD - it was prior to Christ even being born. See the Targum Jonathan for Isaiah, which would have been widely read before Christ and seen as /the/ authoritative interpretation of the scriptures at that time:
The Targum Isaiah has a date of completion somewhere post-AD, possibly into Late Antiquity. The Targum's attribution to Jonathan ben Uzziel was to give it authority from a line of prophetic descent, but the versions we have are in places identical to Targums attributed to Joseph ben-Chija, who lived in the 3rd/4th century.
>Again, I will ask you: Why would the authoritative paraphrase of the Nevi'im, read as scripture itself in the synagogues, interpret Isaiah 52-53 as being about the Messiah?
I don't really care about what Jews who were centuries removed from the author of Deutero-Isaiah thought.
>Irenaeus, for example, has an incredible pedigree, being the disciple of apostolic father St. Polycarp, who learned under St. John.
Irenaeus only says that Polycarp was a companion of Papias, Papias being a hearer of John. So the transmission would go John -> Papias -> Polycarp -> Irenaeus. And Papias, while interesting, is a bit of an oddball who later Church Fathers didn't really know what to make of.
>even if you take the late date for Papias' authorship, that is still early second century
Papias does not refer to the gospels we have. He says Matthew was in Hebrew, and Mark wrote unordered "chreiai" (literally "anecdotes"), not a narrative account. I suspect later Christians may have taken Papias out of context and used them to put names to the anonymous gospels they had.
>The only evidence we have for the authorship of the apostolic gospels (John and Matthew) is a long-standing oral tradition recorded in the writings of the disciples of the apostles. Why should we discard that evidence
Because it's wrong? "Oral tradition" made many blunders of authorial attribution, e.g. 2 Peter being written by Peter, gJohn and Revelation being written by the same John, The Epistle of Titus being written by Paul, hell, the entire tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Tradition seems an extremely bad guide to reliable authorship.
>Because you are missing cultural context, you are a much weaker authority
I'm not convinced about the argument from cultural context. For one thing, the cultural context of Jewish religion changed dramatically over the centuries. Secondly, we have a much better historical-critical apparatus to apply to texts now, e.g. recognition that Isaiah was composed by multiple different authors.

>>19295029
Gyarados is vastly superior to Polycarp

>>19295022
The religion was never predominantly ethnic. Ruth (an ancestor of Jesus) was not an Israelite for one, Esther 8:17 mentions people of many nationalities becoming Jews. The Old Testament says over and over that the Gentiles will come to worship God in the future:

Psalm 22:27-28
>All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations.

Psalm 86:8-10
>Among the gods there is none like you, Lord; no deeds can compare with yours. All the nations you have made will come and worship before you, Lord; they will bring glory to your name. For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you alone are God.

Isaiah 56:6-8
>And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” The Sovereign Lord declares—he who gathers the exiles of Israel: “I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered.”

Psalm 117
>Praise the Lord, all you nations;
extol him, all you peoples. For great is his love toward us, and the faithfulness of the Lord endures forever. Praise the Lord.
We must also remember God’s promise to Abraham. All nations on Earth will be blessed through his offspring (Genesis 22:18), which is clearly looking forward to the eventual coming of Christ, and indeed this happens immediately after the clear crucifixion type of the binding of Isaac. And of course these themes are even clearer in the NT.

>Why did their god do a limited trial run with them before broadening the next pact with humanity to be universal?
It wasn’t a trial run, it was an act of preparation. OT Israel is basically the instrument used to deliver Jesus Christ to the world. God forged a nation of monotheists who abandoned idolatry and paganism. Even the Israelites struggled to maintain this covenant though. We have the New Covenant now

>>19295029
>"Oral tradition" made many blunders of authorial attribution, e.g. 2 Peter being written by Peter, gJohn and Revelation being written by the same John, The Epistle of Titus being written by Paul, hell, the entire tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

>>19294910
>Again you repeat the thing that I already debunked. There WAS a type of denarius circulating in the Judea region prior to 70 A.D. but you are literally too dumb to realize this. There was a new type issued after 70 A.D., yes, but there is more than one type of denarius, and this is SEPARATE from the tetradrachm interpretation, which you also seem to be incapable of understanding from what I can see in other parts of this post. Literally spend five minutes researching so you won’t embarrass yourself like this.
No. The denarius were not in wide circulation because Judea was not an imperial province until after the war. I don't know why you're screaming at me when you're confusing drachmae and denarii.
The denarius Mark refers to in the render unto Caesar pericope is anachronistic for Jesus' lifetime, but makes perfect sense post-70 AD when suddenly Jews and Christians in Palestine had to deal with newfangled Roman currency with the Emperor on them.
>>19294910
>They’re not verbatim the same, this is a meme peddled by people who have never looked at the synoptics in parallel. You should just reference my previous posts where this has already been explained to you, as much as you hate the answer.
A majority of Matthew is material from Mark. Luke it's more than 40%. Add in the double tradition (whether from Q or Luke copying Matthew) and the unique material from these "firsthand eyewitnesses" is something like 1/4 or 1/3rd of their gospels.
>Yet it was a mainstream Messianic interpretation in the period. You are just angry that people dare to read things on multiple levels. Brute literalism has never been the main method of interpretation until modern times. Jews understood it to be Messianic. Evidently this was true, given the life of Jesus Christ
Well, I can interpret a Coca-Cola advert as a prophecy of XYZ if I want. Doesn't mean the advert was a prophecy, just some people centuries later thought it was. There is still no mention of the Messiah in the servant songs of Isaiah. Sorry.

>>19287075
>anything universally believed by the Church about Holy Scripture is dogma
That's fucking retarded, and yes there is an entire list of non-dogmatic matters, you fucking LARPer. There's actually several, because the Church has several levels of doctrinal certainty. Read Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

>St. Vincent of Lerins
Ah yes, the guy who wrote an entire work trying to 1-v-1 Augustine of Hippo's model of divine grace.

>>19293560
>the Fathers are absolutely united in... matters that have majority and minority opinions...
Please stop, before you hurt yourself.

>>19295089
You’re clearly not arguing in good faith. Pearls before swine. Have a blessed day.

>>19295075
>The religion was never predominantly ethnic
Absolutely not true, but later developments of the disapora certainly necessitated a degree of dilution, and hellenistic influences like adopting the Greek language opened it to further exchange with foreigners, which culminates in the belief in a Jewish Dionysus as the son of god who transmutes water into wine and is murdered by his rivals only to be reborn. Why did God do something so convoluted as to switch from anti-Egyptian monism to Hellenistic mystery religion halfway through recorded history? Is he just messing with us? What's the next covenant going to be after he tears up this one?

>>19295022
>If I am not part of their ethnic group, why should fulfillment of their prophecies be applicable to me or of any interest?
Because things like the prophecy of Daniel 9, which has a definite end-point in time and space (the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem), being prophesied hundreds of years before that event in combination with the appearance of a figure claiming to be the Messiah right before its destruction, should give you heavy pause in dismissing the idea of prophets. Unless you think that is just a happy coincidence?
>Why did their god do a limited trial run with them before broadening the next pact with humanity to be universal?
If you really wanted to know, I would tell you (spoilers: it's not a "limited trial run").
>Seems terribly fickle and anthropomorphic
That's because you are anthropomorphizing the actions post-hoc.

>>19295029
>The Targum Isaiah has a date of completion somewhere post-AD
If you're going to use the Talmud's ben-Chija attribution of some passages as a source for dating, you should mention that its attribution to Jonathan ben Uzziel comes from the same source. That gives us a range from late-BC to post-AD. The position of Jonathan's authorship is reasonable to hold.
>I don't really care about what Jews who were centuries removed from the author of Isaiah thought
Which is why you are alien to the cultural context, which leads to misunderstanding the scriptures.
>Irenaeus only says that Polycarp was a companion of Papias
Patently false. I hope this was just a mistake, and not intellectual dishonesty:
"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (Against Heresies, 3:3:4).
>Papias does not refer to the gospels we have. He says Matthew was in Hebrew
So is your position that there was Matthean authorship of a gospel, but that we somehow do not have it today? You don't think it at all likely that the current-day Matthean gospel, rife with explicit Aramaic phrasing and still-extractable Aramaic wordplays, is at all likely to be translation of an Aramaic original?
>"Oral tradition" made many blunders of authorial attribution, e.g. 2 Peter being written by Peter, John and Revelation being written by the same John, The Epistle of Titus being written by Paul
Your positing that these claims of pseudepigraphy are facts, instead of hypotheses, is troubling. The discrepancies in authorial style and vocabulary are easily explained by different scribes.

>>19295029
>Revelation being written by the same John
Funny how σκηνόω was used only by the author of John and Revelation.

>>19295125
Not that anon but someone who was following the discussion between you but is the point with the coins that there even though they weren’t heavily used Roman denari could still be found in the area prior to Roman occupation ?

>>19295143
>which culminates in the belief in a Jewish Dionysus as the son of god who transmutes water into wine and is murdered by his rivals only to be reborn. Why did God do something so convoluted as to switch from anti-Egyptian monism to Hellenistic mystery religion halfway through recorded history?
You're telling me you actually believe in this conspiracy-tier hypothesis? That despite the usage of wine as a poetic and symbolic device even before any Hellenistic exposure, you think that Jesus' transformation of water into wine makes Him simply a copy of Dionysius? Did you just watch Zeitgeist and think that you had found the nail in the coffin for Christianity? There was no "convoluted switch", it was a natural development and fulfillment of the prophetic utterances of the Messiah to come, far before Hellenism.

>>19287209

>>19295189
Not that anon either, but because Mark was writing for a Roman audience, the use of denarius to refer to a Tiberian tetradrachma is not at all strange.

>>19295156
>If you're going to use the Talmud's ben-Chija attribution of some passages as a source for dating, you should mention that its attribution to Jonathan ben Uzziel comes from the same source. That gives us a range from late-BC to post-AD. The position of Jonathan's authorship is reasonable to hold.
Sure. I will accept that it's theoretically possible that the Targum Isaiah preserves a pre-Christian Messiah tradition. But considering how late the Targums were edited until I don't think the evidence is very strong.
>Which is why you are alien to the cultural context, which leads to misunderstanding the scriptures.
If there is a cultural context to Isaiah it is in the 700s-500sBC. Not AD.
>Patently false. I hope this was just a mistake, and not intellectual dishonesty:
Yeah I was going off this passage in Against Heresies where Irenaeus mentions Papias and John, and Papias and Polycarp separately:
"And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp"
You may be right that Polycarp knew John, but if I'm reading that passage correctly Irenaeus only says directly "various apostles", which could mean people as remote from Jesus as Paul or other (literally) 'messengers' of the early church.
>So is your position that there was Matthean authorship of a gospel, but that we somehow do not have it today?
If what Papias says is true, then yes obviously. We know of many apocryphal gospels that didn't come down to us.
>You don't think it at all likely that the current-day Matthean gospel, rife with explicit Aramaic phrasing and still-extractable Aramaic wordplays, is at all likely to be translation of an Aramaic original?
No, for one thing it uses the Greek Septuagint for its quotes from the Old Testament. There may be passages with an underlying Aramaic oral tradition to them, but I don't think it is the bulk of Matthew. As above, Matthew is dependent on Mark which is a problem for any Aramaic translation theory.
>Your positing that these claims of pseudepigraphy are facts, instead of hypotheses, is troubling. The discrepancies in authorial style and vocabulary are easily explained by different scribes.
I don't think scribes explains wild variation in style and vocabulary between a text like 1 Peter and 2 Peter, or gJohn and Revelation. I was reading Cicero's letters recently and occasionally he will indicate this letter has been written by his secretary because he feels too ill to write. Stylistically it is still unmistakably Cicero.

>>19295192
Not sure what you're referring to about a documentary, but that after 300+ years of Hellenic and Hellenistic government the people living where Jesus taught who were not part of the conservative religious hierarchy imposed by one of the last quasi-autonomous Jewish states started mixing up their myths seems infinitely more plausible than your religion being true. And it is very obvious that it is a different religion and a serious break in continuity to anyone looking at it from a perspective which does not force them to reconcile the two, such as yours does with its quote mining of the older religion for evidence that the new one is the rightful heir. Without such concerns one sees obviously that Jesus is a Dionysian, Osirian, or even Orphic character in the gospels, because one is not required to deny other belief systems per the mosaic distinction.

>>19295255
That assumes Mark was writing for a Roman audience, when Mark was writing in Greek to a Greek-speaking audience somewhere around the Decapolis. His use of denarius was deliberate.

>>19295255
Thanks for clarifying that anon

>>19295308
>Mark was writing in Greek to a Greek-speaking audience somewhere around the Decapolis.
Some numismatic scholars hold the position that Mark was writing to Romans because of, for example, Mark 12:42. Either position is reasonable to hold, and both are supported by their respective scholars. See page 18 & 19: https://books.google.ca/books?id=Qa3Rj6rnjOIC

>>19295292
>If there is a cultural context to Isaiah it is in the 700s-500sBC. Not AD.
The Jewish cultural context was not suddenly deleted and renewed during Roman occupation. It is a continuous cultural context based on oral tradition, which means that looking at the writings and interpretations of Jews in the late-BC-to-early-AD gives us a window into how Jews of the exile thought. I am no fan of the Pharisees, but we should both admit that they had a strong tradition of passing on what their teachers taught, which their teachers taught, etc. etc.
>You may be right that Polycarp knew John
More evidence that Polycarp learned directly from John:
"I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life,’ Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures." (Eusebius, quoting Irenaeus' Letter to Florinus)
>If what Papias says is true, then yes obviously.
Then we are both in agreement on the basis on this point, because I find it highly likely that our modern Matthew is a Greek translation of Aramaic Matthean Q - which Q content was added around the narrative structure of Mark (probably with the help of a scribe), and with a copy of the Septuagint on hand for the Greek-speaking audience. I think your position is reasonable, too, so no need for contention there.
>I don't think scribes explains wild variation in style and vocabulary between a text like 1 Peter and 2 Peter, or John and Revelation.
Different scribes can have very different writing styles and linguistic tendencies, especially if translating from one language to another. I don't think it is at all unreasonable to say that, thus, the "pseudepigraphal" epistles are truly of Petrine or Johannine authorship.

>>19295301
>And it is very obvious that it is a different religion and a serious break in continuity to anyone looking at it from a perspective which does not force them to reconcile the two
I respect your opinion, but I think this is completely false. The Old Testament prophesies are unmistakable, to the point where synagogues took out Isaiah 53 from their annual reading cycle. There are so many prophesies which are fulfilled by Christ, and in such a perfect manner, that I think it is very fair to say that if the events of Christ's life were relayed accurately by the gospel authors, that Christianity is the perfect fulfillment of the Hebrew scriptures.

>>19295369
I think the interpretation in that link gets it backwards: "If we assume Mark must be early, since no denarii circulated in Judea in the time of Jesus that means Mark must be in Rome." But that's begging the question. We have no reason to start from the assumption that Mark was pre-70 when that's the point of discussion here. Rome is doubtful because Mark is intimately concerned with the geography of the Decapolis and is built off local traditions associated with that area. And the Latinisms in Mark are military/administrative, not the kind one would expect from an author in Rome necessarily but certainly the kind expected in an area where military and administrative affairs was the only interaction with Latin. The explanation of lepta by denarii is easily explained by lepta no longer being coined after the Hasmoneans and falling out of circulation by the time Mark was writing, with an influx of Roman coinage thanks to legions in the province.

Anyway, here's a good analysis of the pericope relating it to the Fiscus Judaicus levied after the war:
https://www.academia.edu/34194619/The_Date_of_Mark_s_Gospel_Apart_from_the_Temple_and_Rumors_of_War_The_Taxation_Episode_12_13_17_as_Evidence
And here's an analysis of Mark's Latinisms and how they relate to a Palestinian milieu:
https://www.academia.edu/34924189/Loanwords_or_Code-Switching_Latin_Transliteration_and_the_Setting_of_Marks_Composition

>>19295425
>if the events of Christ's life were relayed accurately by the gospel authors
Well that's the problem with prophecy; you have to already believe in it for it to be admissible.

>>19293883
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

>>19295464
I appreciate your honesty, and I appreciate your opinion being backed up by evidence. I hold to an earlier date of the Gospels than most scholars (as do many scholars, like Maurice Casey and James Crossley - who are both atheists, by the way), and apostolic authorship of Matthew & John, but I find that your perspective is reasonable. I appreciate having a reasonable discussion - what is most important, for me, is that we agree both perspectives are reasonable. I have no illusions that you will convert to Christianity because of anything I say, but I'm glad we could amicably discuss these things.

>>19295497
For me, it is the perfect fulfillment of the OT prophesies, especially the Psalms, Daniel, and Isaiah, which give me reason to believe that the Hebrew Messiah might exist - I find the fulfillment of Daniel 9 specifically very hard to ignore and explain away, as it is so explicit - and that, compounded with the case for the historicity of the resurrection of Christ and the reliability of the Gospel accounts (because I believe the case for apostolic authorship to be stronger than the anonymous-pseudepigrapha case), make (to me) an extremely convincing case. I have had this conversation with many people online and in-person, and it has always reassured me that this position, although not convincing to many people, is actually quite reasonable. So many people think reason and faith are incompatible, but it is not true at all. Indeed, I think the Christian position is the /most/ reasonable in light of all available evidence.

I was an atheist for a long time - but I truly believe now that the man Jesus was truly the Son of God, the divine Logos incarnate - He chose to be tortured and killed as atonement for our sins in accordance with these prophesies, and resurrected 3 days later. I believe He met with the apostles and ascended into heaven in their sight, in front of many witnesses, who then went all across the Old World, choosing to risk being tortured and killed rather than recant their testimonies or staying silent.

I may sound a bit boring, but this is the greatest thing in the world, to me. It is so joyous that it is almost indescribable. Miracles have happened to me since converting, and every day I thank the Lord for saving me from darkness. I hope one day you come to learn of Him too. All you have to do is seek, and you will find. He delights in leading us.

"God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly and despised things of the world, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast in His presence. It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God: our righteousness, holiness, and redemption."

Peace, and God bless you, brother.