toejam said:

.

Jesus on the other hand is painted in unrealistically perfect colours - sinless, divine powers, always has a witty response to criticism, etc. The gospels are propaganda at its most basic. Sure, in some sense all historical writing can be called propaganda, however I think there's a distinction between what we would deem a modern fairly-written historical portrait that attempts to be objective, with something akin to cult-leader devotional propaganda. The gospels surely fit better in the latter.

Jesus painted like that - is the Jesus of imaginary world. If He was like that, Church as a symbol of His Body would never be able to develop teachings about salvation. Basic christology deny any of that hippie nonsence. We need Jesus human as much as possible. We need him with that Adam fallen nature. We need him as one of US. Humanity IS part of His Hypostatic union. He felt fear, he was traumatised with life, he laughed, he cried... he experienced - death. The Gospel would be propaganda, if we accept 'sola scriptura' approach, but except some minority in Christian world, that's not the case. Ppl forget that what was preceded to Gospels is - Church - actual community with Apostoles and later their successors who kept remembrance of Christ by serving Eucharistic liturgy in catacombs, random homes etc. Gospels came years and decades later partly as a need to keep testimony alive. What Church centuries later compiled Gospels as we know them, but they are called Gosples for reason, for God's sake. In more authentic Christan communites, sacred traditions, liturgy, the writings of holy fathers are important as the Gospels. In the begenning of the Chruch there were zero Gospels, so we can live wituhout them, but we need to go back to the Chruch.

[Edited 1/12/18 16:35pm]

stpaisios said:

toejam said:

Why do YOU trust this branch of tradition? [i.e. that says Jesus was a Godman]

.

Simplified - God-man is precisely the God and Man because God has united with Human nature.

.

You're not actually addressing my question as to why you think this is true about Jesus. You've merely responded with a definition of what a Godman is. I don't think Jesus was a Godman.

.

... i will defend church agianst improviezed talking about 'magical' stuff. You know, magical is a bit lazy term, cuz this aint some disney movie really.

.

I don't think "magical stuff" is an inappropriate term for what the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic churches believe about Jesus. They believe he was born from a virgin mother, that he walked on water, that he was transfigured, that he rose from the grave and ascended into heaven, and that he is simultaneously both God and God's son, etc. This is magical stuff, as obviously not true as Mohammad flying to the moon on a horse.

.

The reason for the convening of the council with the universal significance were the frequent occurrences of various heresies that threatened the true faith of the Church and the proper way of life in the Church

.

How do you determine that they concluded things accurately? Did not the wider community of Jews effectively write off the plethora of Christian sects (Jewish-Christian, proto-orthodox and gnostic included) as heresy that threatened the "true" traditions of Yahweh? If you're all for tradition, why not go a step further back and see ALL Christian branches as heresy spin-offs from older and more traditional forms of Judaism?

.

Methodology was simply making things clear, and that is why big part of that first counsil was Nicene Creed which is a summarized but fundamental theology of the Holy Trinity. That doctrine of Trinity was later more deeply developedt by Cappadocian Fathers

.

Can you articulate the methodolgy used to "make things clear"? How was their methodology reliable for determining this stuff about Jesus's beyond-human nature and membership within the Trinity?

.

We need Jesus human as much as possible. We need him with that Adam fallen nature

.

And yet, isn't the point of the legends of Mary's immaculate conception and her virginity to rid Jesus from inheriting sin nature? If Jesus were truly one of us, then he should have inherited the fallen human nature in all its limitations. But this is not the Orthodox/Catholic view. According to them, Jesus didn't inherit sin nature and he had abilities beyond that of us mortal men. If that's the case, is he really "human"?

.

The Gospel would be propaganda, if we accept 'sola scriptura' approach

.

No. The Gospel can be propaganda with or without a 'sola scriptura' approach.

.

I want to focus again on why YOU trust these traditions about Jesus as true?

.

[Edited 1/12/18 17:19pm]

You're not actually addressing my question as to why you think this is true about Jesus. You've merely responded with a definition of what a Godman is. I don't think Jesus was a Godman.

I want to focus again on why YOU trust these traditions about Jesus as true?

I think i gave one very simple answer on that question, so i will need to quote myself : "I can say i am just amazed with christianity and especially with Eastern Orthodox cuz of clear balance between faithfulness to sacred traditions in which Liturgy is the central revelation of the Christian mystery and giving space and opportunity to dive deeper into ambis of existential questions: Who am I? What am I doing in this world? What is the sense of it all? Does it have any meaning? and seek for answers."

Theorfore, i would also repeat that i trust those particular traditions cuz through history people who lived with model reflected in faith and way of life in the Church, were able to transform their fallen nature and fulfill their potential getting closer to GodMan prototype.

I don't think "magical stuff" is an inappropriate term for what the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic churches believe about Jesus. They believe he was born from a virgin mother, that he walked on water, that he was transfigured, that he rose from the grave and ascended into heaven, and that he issimultaneously both God and God's son, etc. This is magical stuff, as obviously not true as Mohammad flying to the moon on a horse.

Can you articulate the methodolgy used to "make things clear"? How was their methodology reliable for determining this stuff about Jesus's beyond-human nature and membership within the Trinity?

That's very important and serious question, and its impossible for me to sums up in one post. Ever read or consider to read literature by eastern theologicans? Ever heard of John Zizioulas? Cuz i think you really have a problem with Trinity, otherwise i doubt that you would aks those questions. This would be my sincere Recommendation:

https://www.amazon.com/On...amp;sr=1-6

How do you determine that they concluded things accurately? Did not the wider community of Jews effectively write off the plethora of Christian sects (Jewish-Christian, proto-orthodox and gnostic included) as heresy that threatened the "true" traditions of Yahweh? If you're all for tradition, why not go a step further back and see ALL Christian branches as heresy spin-offs from older and more traditional forms of Judaism?

Well, here i just trust and have faith in Church. It was written in scriptures - Christ himself said : ""Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." And following the sacred tradition and holy father - St. Augustin said: “New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.” Btw, i know about judaism, but that community just failed to give me for what i yearned for.

And yet, isn't the point of the legends of Mary's immaculate conception and her virginity to rid Jesus from inheriting sin nature? If Jesus were truly one of us, then he should have inherited the fallen human nature in all its limitations. But this is not the Orthodox/Catholic view. According to them, Jesus didn't inherit sin nature and he had abilities beyond that of us mortal men.

Theotokos became a 'nucleus' for His dogmas, that's why her presence in eastern orthodox church is very important. And Jesus experienced limitations of our human nature, cuz he died. Christ's human nature has the hypostatic union in Logos, and due to that "in two nature" - its infused with divine "energy." It is therefore transofrmed human nature (not having sin nature) that does not lose its limitations. It was necessary to voluntarily humility (kenosis) of the Son of God so that fallen humankind could fulfill its call to theosis, and that the substance acquires the union with God through the action of non-material blessings.

No. The Gospel can be propaganda with or without a 'sola scriptura' approach.

It can. But 1st we need to determine what denominations are submissive to Gospels and heavily use it as propaganda. Maybe those who cut off every connection with ancient Churches ( i.e. Orthodox/Roman Catholic + Oriental) and with that every connection with sacred traditions: holy fathers, liturgy... and use Scriputre to to tell us that Earth is old 6000 yrs?

[Edited 1/12/18 19:43pm]

toejam said:

stpaisios said:

.

And yet, isn't the point of the legends of Mary's immaculate conception and her virginity to rid Jesus from inheriting sin nature? If Jesus were truly one of us, then he should have inherited the fallen human nature in all its limitations. But this is not the Orthodox/Catholic view. According to them, Jesus didn't inherit sin nature and he had abilities beyond that of us mortal men. If that's the case, is he really "human"?

.

The Gospel would be propaganda, if we accept 'sola scriptura' approach

.

No. The Gospel can be propaganda with or without a 'sola scriptura' approach.

.

I want to focus again on why YOU trust these traditions about Jesus as true?

.

[Edited 1/12/18 17:19pm]

Who are those academics who don't think the Gospels are propaganda, what is their argument,
and why do you disagree with them?

toejam said:

I don't think "magical stuff" is an inappropriate term for what the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic churches believe about Jesus. They believe he was born from a virgin mother, that he walked on water, that he was transfigured, that he rose from the grave and ascended into heaven, and that he is simultaneously both God and God's son, etc. This is magical stuff, as obviously not true as Mohammad flying to the moon on a horse.

When did you discover all the physical laws of nature so that you could prove that there was never
a moment in the history of spacetime as rendered in our universe that the things attributed to Jesus
weren't the results of God? When did you ever disprove the existence of God or magic? When did
you ever show how the basic assumptions of the scientific method in addition to the base limitiations
of scientific knowledge (that our senses are reliable; that the physical laws of nature are not the
result of supernatural causes; or, that every single alternative explanation has been considered) gives
you just grounds to utterly dismiss what was said about Christ as being perfectly impossible? In short:
you ain't no physicist and you've never transcended reality to look outside reality so that you are not
biased in any regard to tell us that Jesus is certainly not who his followers say he is. The reason why
your criticism of Christianity will remain entrenched in the goofy circles of new atheism and hack
scholarship is because you refuse to investigate the claims of this particular faith system without
animosity or hostility and rarely do you engage in the scholarship of those who disagree with you and
you don't seem to acknowledge the limitations of scientific knowledge and the basic assumptions of
the scientific process and you don't seem to recognize your biases. And, most heinous here, you
go for the low-hanging fruit all the time when it comes to criticizing Christianity.

I think the bible ought to be relegated to obsolescence like other old, epic religious texts, and I e-
specially like giving Christians a hard time about their faith. But, it is your half-baked arguments that
really are taxing to the reader, at least this reader. I'm not saying that we shouldn't criticize Christian
claims, hell, I've spent the past year doing nothing but that. Yet can you do it perspicaciously? For
example, instead of focusing on how Jesus was presented by his followers, how about addressing the
claims supposedly said by Christ and showing how they don't cohere? Freaky said:

He healed the sick, cast out demons--mental illness.

2freaky4church1 said:

He healed the sick, cast out demons--mental illness.

Depends on what you mean by "healed" and "cast out."

Ok Bill Clinton.

Dasein said:

toejam said:

When did you discover all the physical laws of nature so that you could prove that there was never
a moment in the history of spacetime as rendered in our universe that the things attributed to Jesus
weren't the results of God? When did you ever disprove the existence of God or magic? When did
you ever show how the basic assumptions of the scientific method in addition to the base limitiations
of scientific knowledge (that our senses are reliable; that the physical laws of nature are not the
result of supernatural causes; or, that every single alternative explanation has been considered) gives
you just grounds to utterly dismiss what was said about Christ as being perfectly impossible? In short:
you ain't no physicist and you've never transcended reality to look outside reality so that you are not
biased in any regard to tell us that Jesus is certainly not who his followers say he is. The reason why
your criticism of Christianity will remain entrenched in the goofy circles of new atheism and hack
scholarship is because you refuse to investigate the claims of this particular faith system without
animosity or hostility and rarely do you engage in the scholarship of those who disagree with you and
you don't seem to acknowledge the limitations of scientific knowledge and the basic assumptions of
the scientific process and you don't seem to recognize your biases. And, most heinous here, you
go for the low-hanging fruit all the time when it comes to criticizing Christianity.

I think the bible ought to be relegated to obsolescence like other old, epic religious texts, and I e-
specially like giving Christians a hard time about their faith. But, it is your half-baked arguments that
really are taxing to the reader, at least this reader. I'm not saying that we shouldn't criticize Christian
claims, hell, I've spent the past year doing nothing but that. Yet can you do it perspicaciously? For
example, instead of focusing on how Jesus was presented by his followers, how about addressing the
claims supposedly said by Christ and showing how they don't cohere? Freaky said:

The bible is not history it is myth mixed with allogory mixed with man's search for his place in a dark world. Most of the bible is very loving and preaches social justice. The bad parts even have a meaning, but is a small part of the overall whole.

And all you've been doing in this thread is focusing on the "myth" part. This is the low-hanging fruit
I'm talking about!

.

Its actually worse than this - the topic is nothing to do with toejam's conspiracy theories and the easy target of a person's Godly or spiritual beliefs. It is on the even easier target of the need to separate ancient practices primarily in the Old Testament between those in line with Jesus' teaching and modern knowledge and understanding from those that are deplorable or have more in common with OCD.

toejam:

You're not actually addressing my question as to why you think this is true about Jesus. You've merely responded with a definition of what a Godman is. I don't think Jesus was a Godman.

.

stpaisos:

I think i gave one very simple answer on that question, so i will need to quote myself : "I can say i am just amazed with christianity and especially with Eastern Orthodox cuz of clear balance between faithfulness to sacred traditions in which Liturgy is the central revelation of the Christian mystery and giving space and opportunity to dive deeper into ambis of existential questions: Who am I? What am I doing in this world? What is the sense of it all? Does it have any meaning? and seek for answers."

.

So the dominant reason why you believe Jesus really was a Godman is because you perceive the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic branch as being "clearly balanced" between "faithfulness to sacred traditions" and "giving space and opportunity to dive deeper into deep existential questions"
.
This doesn't connect the dots for me. How do these responses function as good reasons to believe that Jesus really was a Godman? How do they work as pieces of evidence to show that Jesus really was a Godman, and not simply another man whose life story was exaggerated into deification?

.

Jesus experienced limitations of our human nature, cuz he died. Christ's human nature has the hypostatic union in Logos, and due to that "in two nature" - its infused with divine "energy." It is therefore transofrmed human nature (not having sin nature) that does not lose its limitations. It was necessary to voluntarily humility (kenosis) of the Son of God so that fallen humankind could fulfill its call to theosis, and that the substance acquires the union with God through the action of non-material blessings.

.

Again, what you're doing here is repeating theological narratives and dogmas. You're not actually showing how these things are true about Jesus.

stpaisos:

Ever read or consider to read literature by eastern theologicans? Ever heard of John Zizioulas? Cuz i think you really have a problem with Trinity, otherwise i doubt that you would aks those questions.

.

Here is my reading list, much of which touches on the Trinity.

.

I think the Trinity is illogical at its conceptual core. It is said that Jesus is fully God, that The Father is fully God, and that the Holy Spirit is fully God. It is also said that Jesus is not The Father, nor the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is not The Father. How many gods then? Surely the answer is three. But then out of its other cheek, the Trinity wants to insist that they believe only in one God. It is an illogical concept, not to be believed.
.
But even if it can be shown to be logical in conception, that doesn't mean it is necessarily true. If you think Zizioulas can prove the reality of the Trinity, by all means take as many posts as you require to show it. But if, as I suspect, his argument is based on the assumption of "scripture" being neccessarily accurate, then I predict I'll have a problem because I don't hold much stock in "scripture". Why should anyone?

.

Well, here i just trust and have faith in Church. It was written in scriptures - Christ himself said : ""Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." And following the sacred tradition and holy father - St. Augustin said: “New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.” Btw, i know about judaism, but that community just failed to give me for what i yearned for.

.

Well, I don't have trust and faith in "the church" nor biblical "scripture". I think most of the Bible is myth, legend, forgery, lies and historical propaganda, from which we may be lucky only to be able to scrape the occasional nugget of historical reflection from. Its theological claims are as speculative and unproveable as any other. Better explanations for most of them are that they are superstitions.

.

[Edited 1/13/18 15:24pm]

toejam said:

toejam:

You're not actually addressing my question as to why you think this is true about Jesus. You've merely responded with a definition of what a Godman is. I don't think Jesus was a Godman.

.

.

So the dominant reason why you believe Jesus really was a Godman is because you perceive the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic branch as being "clearly balanced" between "faithfulness to sacred traditions" and "giving space and opportunity to dive deeper into deep existential questions"
.
This doesn't connect the dots for me. How do these responses function as good reasons to believe that Jesus really was a Godman? How do they work as pieces of evidence to show that Jesus really was a Godman, and not simply another man whose life story was exaggerated into deification?

.

Jesus experienced limitations of our human nature, cuz he died. Christ's human nature has the hypostatic union in Logos, and due to that "in two nature" - its infused with divine "energy." It is therefore transofrmed human nature (not having sin nature) that does not lose its limitations. It was necessary to voluntarily humility (kenosis) of the Son of God so that fallen humankind could fulfill its call to theosis, and that the substance acquires the union with God through the action of non-material blessings.

.

Again, what you're doing here is repeating theological narratives and dogmas. You're not actually showing how these things are true about Jesus.

You look suprised by my answer, but at the end you need to put all pieces of Jesus through history in some context. That is precisely why i followed steps and 'bumped' into eastern/catholic traditions. And when we talk about christian context, ancient Churches that survived all this centuries are living 'treasury' with extraordinary rich understanding of Christ. Just look at perfect Christology, the conceptual development of the Godman prototoype, something that other monoteistic religion & philosophies

dont have, and not to speak of the absolute lack of methods for achieving human theosis, something that i strived for by heart and mind - that story of the redemption that includes the victory over death, the beginning of the universal resurrection, the liberation of nature trapped by sin, the establishment of a new substance in Christ. If you wanna reduce Christ on some mascot, than ok - i can stop repeating theological narratives and dogmas, but that is part of divine revelation, which are just deepened by the Church through the cenutries and through the sacred traditions on which i am keen on. You also need to consider the necessity of Greek philosophy in the discovery of theological truths, because their contribution is bigger than at first glance it seems. Hellenic culture accepted Christ easier than others because in their mystical cults, both by philosophy and by rituals, they had, what became theosis in christianity, as the center of all their yearnings.

.

No one, but no one can show you how those things are true in some pure analytical way. This is more like Personal introspective experiment...

[Edited 1/13/18 17:03pm]

stpaisios said:

at the end you need to put all pieces of Jesus through history in some context.

.

I feel my reconstruction of events DOES place things within appropriate historical contexts. The context was a time of religious propaganda, Jewish imminent apocalyptic expectation, etc. Jesus was a likely something of a 'doomsday' preacher whose life story was exaggerated to the point of deification, like as was common with Roman Caesars and other cult heroes of the time of whom the early Christians were competing against. For example, it was common practice to assign fictional 'miraculous conception/birth shenanigan stories' to cult heroes' biographies, hence the fiction of the virgin birth, etc. There is nothing in my reconstruction that I see as unfairly out of historical context (nor requiring of a "conspiracy theory", despite Ian's desperation to smear)

.

That is precisely why i followed steps and 'bumped' into eastern/catholic traditions. And when we talk about christian context, ancient Churches that survived all this centuries are living 'treasury' with extraordinary rich understanding of Christ.

.

They are extraordinarily rich, sure, but that does not mean they are necessarily true. The character of Darth Vader today with the inclusion of later sequels and side-stories is much "richer" than the original conception and portrayal in the first Star Wars film. But this growing richness and the survival of the character going on for over 40 years now is not evidence to suggest there really was a Darth Vader in a galaxy far, far away. Yes, there was probably a historical Jesus, but that does mean the richness of eastern/catholic traditions about him being more than a man, somehow similtaneosly God and God's son, etc., differences between personhood, "substance" and "nature", etc., are true reflections on who Jesus was. There are better reasons for thinking those things are superstitions, if not outright illogical in some instances.

.

[Edited 1/13/18 17:50pm]

stpaisios said:

toejam said:

You look suprised by my answer.

.

He is not, he is playing his same old game, a game he has played here and elsewhere across the internet often.

.

Ironically, given his use of the term propanda, this is all about toejam hijacking yet another thread to promote his religion by taking it off topic to his obsession with how he imagines Christianity started. The topic is about whether the Bible encouraged Moore to paedophilia, not toejam's view of your beliefs. Toejam will just continue so he can repeat his funamentalist atheist mantras until you give up.

^There is nothing inherently atheistic about my beliefs on Christian Origins. One can be a theist and still see that the historical Jesus and Paul were likely failed 'doomsday' preachers.

toejam said:

stpaisos:

Ever read or consider to read literature by eastern theologicans? Ever heard of John Zizioulas? Cuz i think you really have a problem with Trinity, otherwise i doubt that you would aks those questions.

.

Here is my reading list, much of which touches on the Trinity.

.

I think the Trinity is illogical at its conceptual core. It is said that Jesus is fully God, that The Father is fully God, and that the Holy Spirit is fully God. It is also said that Jesus is not The Father, nor the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is not The Father. How many gods then? Surely the answer is three. But then out of its other cheek, the Trinity wants to insist that they believe only in one God. It is an illogical concept, not to be believed.
.
But even if it can be shown to be logical in conception, that doesn't mean it is necessarily true. If you think Zizioulas can prove the reality of the Trinity, by all means take as many posts as you require to show it. But if, as I suspect, his argument is based on the assumption of "scripture" being neccessarily accurate, then I predict I'll have a problem because I don't hold much stock in "scripture". Why should anyone?

.

[Edited 1/13/18 15:24pm]

How can i say this, in some way its supposed to be illogical - but only cuz its not the product of the human mind (in this fallen nature) but transofrmed human nature that was revealed through Christ. Without Trinity the road to contradiction and absurdity is wide open in christan world. It is not meant to be understood only by intellect in a way we perceive empirical world of the phenomenon where we find out about things in the logical and analytical way of thinking, and use language to describe things. And in other christian denominations, 1+1+1 = 3 is heavily based on trying to understand Trinity using only bible. In last century Jehovian Wintesses are the saddest case of that narrow-minded approach, where when you ask them how actually Triadological dogma is falce, they say its not written in the bible, its paganism, they show you some ancient trinity concepts (which is actually just a prove that ancestors were longing for that concept)... while in the same time some passages in the biible that can allud about that concept they translate in some bizzare manner and some are just kicked out.

John Zizioulas is the most prominent thelogican in orthodox christianity, so i dont know can he 'prove' Trinity, but his writings and understanding is based in eastern theology.

Well, I don't have trust and faith in "the church" nor biblical "scripture". I think most of the Bible is myth, legend, forgery, lies and historical propaganda, from which we may be lucky only to be able to scrape the occasional nugget of historical reflection from. Its theological claims are as speculative and unproveable as any other. Better explanations for most of them are that they are superstitions.

There is a lot of bible exegesis which is being studied last century, and no one thinks that everything is filled with shinning stars there. But i wanna say that Myth is not a bad thing. Like every great art, mythology and generally any meaningful metaphorical and allegorical saying is one of the best ways to find out metaphysical questions.

toejam said:

^There is nothing inherently atheistic about my beliefs on Christian Origins. One can be a theist and still see that the historical Jesus and Paul were likely failed 'doomsday' preachers.

.

Scott, your beliefs constantly drive your objectives, constantly result in your reliance on logical fallacies, constantly drive you to edit, misinterpret and misrepresent in a way that is only matched by Trump, right down to you actually using the term "Fake News" recently. Requoting your conspiracy theory based mantras, whilst pretending you are not doing it to promote your atheist religion as above is only proving my point. Just as nothing you have said is on the topic of whether Moore was inspired to paedophilia by the Bible.

.

As I know that you will only seek to use what ever I say just to evangelise your religion, I am out - goodbye.

toejam said:

stpaisios said:

at the end you need to put all pieces of Jesus through history in some context.

.

I feel my reconstruction of events DOES place things within appropriate historical contexts. The context was a time of religious propaganda, Jewish imminent apocalyptic expectation, etc. Jesus was a likely something of a 'doomsday' preacher whose life story was exaggerated to the point of deification, like as was common with Roman Caesars and other cult heroes of the time of whom the early Christians were competing against. For example, it was common practice to assign fictional 'miraculous conception/birth shenanigan stories' to cult heroes' biographies, hence the fiction of the virgin birth, etc. There is nothing in my reconstruction that I see as unfairly out of historical context (nor requiring of a "conspiracy theory", despite Ian's desperation to smear)

.

That is precisely why i followed steps and 'bumped' into eastern/catholic traditions. And when we talk about christian context, ancient Churches that survived all this centuries are living 'treasury' with extraordinary rich understanding of Christ.

.

They are extraordinarily rich, sure, but that does not mean they are necessarily true. The character of Darth Vader today with the inclusion of later sequels and side-stories is much "richer" than the original conception and portrayal in the first Star Wars film. But this growing richness and the survival of the character going on for over 40 years now is not evidence to suggest there really was a Darth Vader in a galaxy far, far away. Yes, there was probably a historical Jesus, but that does mean the richness of eastern/catholic traditions about him being more than a man, somehow similtaneosly God and God's son, etc., differences between personhood, "substance" and "nature", etc., are true reflections on who Jesus was. There are better reasons for thinking those things are superstitions, if not outright illogical in some instances.

.

[Edited 1/13/18 17:50pm]

Early Christans were competing against cult heroes by preaching Truth (Christ) in human form (to quote The Work, part 1) who died in a humiliating way, but still opened possibiltes that come with that and aspired every individual to reach and be the living truth in human form, because that is the reason we were born? In just historical context, that is 1st - stunning and 2nd. beautiful. In the empire full of paganism, strict judasim, philosphies and everything else, having at once some christans who spread the story about that... well, help me! I miss words to explain what i am feeling right now.

.

In Christan context 'Everlasting Now' is not some frozen enternity, but a constant motion/movement to the eternal introduction of God and the construction of relationships with Him. Such eternal construction of relations and movement in love exists already in the Trinity. Trinity is before eternal unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, whose reflection We are.

And just to sum up one thing about Bible. The Bible has a peripheral significance throughout christianity. It is not the Church according to the Bible but the Bible according to the Church.

.

And the main problem with ToeJam is understanding that Christianity is a mere product of historical evolution, a mere product of history, and not above-historical event. The central issue of Christianity is the question of theosis and that to the Jewish tradition is not only foreign but also unknown.

[Edited 1/13/18 20:00pm]

[Edited 1/13/18 20:03pm]

[Edited 1/13/18 20:03pm]

stpaisos said:
How can i say this, in some way its supposed to be illogical - but only cuz its not the product of the human mind (in this fallen nature) but transofrmed human nature that was revealed through Christ. Without Trinity the road to contradiction and absurdity is wide open in christan world. It is not meant to be understood only by intellect in a way we perceive empirical world of the phenomenon where we find out about things in the logical and analytical way of thinking, and use language to describe things

.

It's supposed to be illogical? The Trinity doesn't prevent Christian dogma from "falling into contradiction and absurdity". The Trinity itself IS contradictory and absurd, trying in one breath to say that Jesus and The Father are both fully God in their own distinct right and that there is only one God. Your rationale here is nothing more than an admission that the Trinity appears, from a logical and intellectual view, to be illogical and unintelligent, but that this is somehow not a tell-tale sign of its fallaciousness. OK. Your belief in the Trinity is illogical and unintelligent, then. Good luck with that.

.

i wanna say that Myth is not a bad thing

.

Sure. Not always. Star Wars isn't true either, but it too can inspire us to reflect on our lives and actions and aspire to be better. I have no problem with myth / fiction in that regard. I have a problem when myth / fiction is presented as truth.

.

I'm curious, do you actually believe Jesus was born of a virgin mother? Or do you see that as part of the myth that you don't really believe in the literal sense but take within the grander mythological narrative?

.

Early Christans were competing against cult heroes by preaching Truth (Christ) in human form (to quote The Work, part 1) who died in a humiliating way, but still opened possibiltes that come with that and aspired every individual to reach and be the living truth in human form, because that is the reason we were born? In just historical context, that is 1st - stunning and 2nd. beautiful. In the empire full of paganism, strict judasim, philosphies and everything else, having at once some christans who spread the story about that... well, help me! I miss words to explain what i am feeling right now.

.

Early Christians were a divided lot. I don't see that Jesus's humiliating death "opened possibilities" you say it opened. Jesus died and has remained dead. If your belief in or appreciation of the myth of Jesus's atoning death inspires you to be a better person, then great. But one doesn't need it to aspire to be better.

.

In Christan context 'Everlasting Now' is not some frozen enternity, but a constant motion/movement to the eternal introduction of God and the construction of relationships with Him. Such eternal construction of relations and movement in love exists already in the Trinity. Trinity is before eternal unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, whose reflection We are.

.
So you say. But you've yet to articulate good reasons for why this should be believed.

.

The Bible has a peripheral significance throughout christianity

.

While I understand that your point here is that the Bible is perhaps not as important within the Eastern/Catholic traditions as, say, fundamentalist forms of Protestantism (e.g. Calvinism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.), I still think the statement that the Bible has only had peripheral significance throughout Christianity an absurd statement.

.

[Edited 1/13/18 23:30pm]

Pure comedy.........

It's supposed to be illogical? The Trinity doesn't prevent Christian dogma from "falling into contradiction and absurdity". The Trinity itself IS contradictory and absurd, trying in one breath to say that Jesus and The Father are both fully God in their own distinct right and that there is only one God. Your rationale here is nothing more than an admission that the Trinity appears, from a logical and intellectual view, to be illogical and unintelligent, but that this is somehow not a tell-tale sign of its fallaciousness. OK. Your belief in the Trinity is illogical and unintelligent, then. Good luck with that.

Something that differs Christianity from other well known monoteistic religions (judaism and islam) is the dogma about Holy Trinity. Among other developments in christian theology this represents the greatest contribution of Cappadocian Fathers. The biggest challenge is to explain this dogma to someone who haven't any knowledge of philosophy or theology, and lives outside of the Chruch. Illiterate people through centuries were experiencing this mystery with active participation into faith and life of Church. And everything starts with the sacrament of Holy Baptism - in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

When i said that Holy Trinity is reflecetion who We are, i am thinking about our Personal existence is always presupposes a relationship to another: a person exists in communion with another. Personality exists to the extent that there is nothing from which that personality would like to master only for itself, that is, when it has nature in common with others. Only then does it manifest itself in its distinctness between personality and nature. Otherwise, there will be individuals who divide nature among themselves. Holy Trinity as Pre-Eternal Unity has that construction and relations. It is significant that the Father, knowing His Icon, that is - His Son, knows His Self. Christians don't want God who is Lone, Monad... (like in judasim, islam etc)

The Nicen Creed speaks of the eternity of the Jesus Crhist. So pre-existence of Jesus becomes a link between Christology and Triadology. True Christianity is necessarily trinitarian. The connection between the Son of God and the life of the Son on earth is the most important. Identity is real and stems from the sonship od Jesus Christ with the Father. All it peaks in Resurection event, because the Son gives life for the world, and the the root of that is in eternal sonship, because the Son is born of the Father, which in biblical history is defined as a mission, and this salvation gift is possible only if Jesus Christ was born in the Father, that is, he have sonship as pre-existent Son.But we cant talk about Holy Trinity without whole concept in wider christan context, i.e. how does Holy Trinity relates to Christology - so lectures in Dogmatics are important for understanding its character for the Chruch and Christianity in general. This is probably the smoothest writing on that matter, i cant recommened this enough:

https://www.amazon.com/Le...bc?ie=UTF8

Maybe this is 'too much' Zizioulas and can trouble many people who were brought up in a Protestant environment, but - excuse me... a lot of ppl dont have a clue that Orthodoxy is still something relevant in christian world, and especially in the West is disgustingly underappreciated.

I'm curious, do you actually believe Jesus was born of a virgin mother? Or do you see that as part of the myth that you don't really believe in the literal sense but take within the grander mythological narrative?

I believe that Nativity of Jeus is fulfillment of the divine will of God, and that Mary stays virgin after His birth. But let put things this way. Christianity in his core have an eschatological-sotiriological perspective: Jesus Christ can not bring us into eternal life if he is not eternal. How pure exoteric approach banalizes faith and spirituality is easiest to see just in the light of this event and in the event of the resurrection. Bunch of atheists moves to prove that Christian are fraudsters and believe in something stupid. If they were a little less concerned with those issues in which confirmation of faith requires someone outside of us they would know that nothing, however literally and historically confirmed, It's not worth anything if the fire in our consciousness hides the thing by itself and refer only to phenomenon. People who are concentrated only on a phenomenon and try to observe things in empirical/naturalistic wanna get where? Atheist would have been different in their criticism and would not have been engaged in so much malting and humiliation, they at least would try to show respect for the concept of a different view of the world and life. The Holy fathers once thought that Christianity is precisely the religion of all religions, because they contain all the solutions to the dilemmas that plagued the Platonic and the Neoplatonists. What does it mean to you if it was proven that Christ is born of a virgin mother, if you are already trapped in phenomemon and your personal transcendence is impossible?

Early Christians were a divided lot. I don't see that Jesus's humiliating death "opened possibilities" you say it opened. Jesus died and has remained dead. If your belief in or appreciation of the myth of Jesus's atoning death inspires you to be a better person, then great. But one doesn't need it to aspire to be better.

His humliating death is not the end for christians. Death itself is something obscene, obviously lifless... passionless. In relation to Death, each story is incomplete - that 'feel' about death can share anyone who lost someones dear. First Adam changed his invocation, voluntary union with God. That is accomplished with Incarnation of Logos by excluding the power of sin from our nature by his death and defeating death and mortality. In Baptism we symbolically die with Christ. Love for Him is not a command in moral legal sense, but it is a pure ontology, which is realized in this world through Liturgy.One need to aspire to be better, depends on value of an existential model and according to which model he strive to achieve. For Christans that model is Christ and still is in last 2000+ yrs.

While I understand that your point here is that the Bible is perhaps not as important within the Eastern/Catholic traditions as, say, fundamentalist forms of Protestantism (e.g. Calvinism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.), I still think the statement that the Bible has only had peripheral significance throughout Christianity an absurd statement.

The church sees the bible as an indication (old testament) and proclamation (new testament/gospels) of God's Son and nothing else. Those mentioned in your post lost their connection with christianity long time ago because of study and stubborn fixation on bible.

[Edited 1/14/18 10:02am]

[Edited 1/14/18 10:14am]

Christ was a love warrior not a doomsday anything. The enlightenment screwed up on Christ. He is not the mean man in the sky but the love we inhabit. God is clothed in the universe.

Graycap23 said:

Pure comedy.........

.

Yes, but like the Simpson's, toejam's game has become very old and is just kept around as a comfortable institution for those who have not progressed.

The game involves life.

2freaky4church1 said:

The game involves life.

.

Well, yes. So it needs to be born in mind that, just like in comedy, the game becomes contemptible when it seeks to mock and ridicule a person's beliefs just to seek to get others to join the mocker's side.

stpaisos said:

Something that differs Christianity from other well known monoteistic religions (judaism and islam) is the dogma about Holy Trinity. Among other developments in christian theology this represents the greatest contribution of Cappadocian Fathers.

.

True Christianity is necessarily trinitarian

.

Not all Christians are Trinitarians. There are ancient and modern examples of Christians who rejected it. And yet they are still Christians. Christians who reject the Trinity are not necessarily "untrue" Christians. Such an understanding of Christianity, in which only Trinitarians are the "true" ones, is unnecessarily exclusivist and naive about a wider perspective of Christianity (both historically and presently) and how the word "Christian" more generally fuctions.
.
Personally, I reject the Trinity because it is illogical (1≠3) and because there are better reasons for thinking it was developed as a compromised explanation of conflicting theological ideas (as opposed to being derived logically and evidently) and on faulty presuppositions about the reliability of "scripture". But I don't not identify as a Christian because I reject the Trinity. My rejection of the Trinity preceded my rejection of Christianity, it did not define it (I actually don't ever remember believing in the Trinity, even when I was something of a vague-Christian many years ago now).

.

The biggest challenge is to explain this dogma to someone who haven't any knowledge of philosophy or theology, and lives outside of the Chruch. Illiterate people through centuries were experiencing this mystery with active participation into faith and life of Church. And everything starts with the sacrament of Holy Baptism - in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

.

My suspicion is that the vast majority of Christians throughout the centuries did not have a well developed understanding of what is considered today as Orthdox Trinitarianism. I suspect most, if they were ever confronted with the problem of the conflicting statements that a) both Jesus and The Father were distinct and yet God in their own right, against b) that there is only one God, probably solved it in their head in a modalist or partmentalist way, not realizing that this was actually heretical according to more highfalutin circles. Many likely simply ignored the problem, taking it "on faith" because their pastor said so. Most Christians I speak to today are like this, not realizing that their understanding of the Trinity is heretical, according to the type of classical Orthodox Trinitariansm you seem to be promoting. But that does not make them improper Christians.
.

Everything else you've said about the Trinity is simply an attempt to refine and elucidate your particular understanding of The Trinity. It does not attempt to show, on evidential, reasonable and logical grounds, why this should be believed to be true. Like I said, I think there are better reasons to reject it. And I'm not really seeing you address the issues I've raised against it. Forgive me if I'm missing it...

.

I believe that Nativity of Jeus is fulfillment of the divine will of God, and that Mary stays virgin after His birth.

.

I think there are better reasons for thinking that Jesus was not born of a virgin. For starters, the claim goes well against how we understand humans are conceived. Jesus would have to be a 1 in ~108 billion biological enigma. Further, the nativity narratives found in Matthew and Luke are not found in the earliest sources of Christian belief. They are not found in Paul's epistles, nor the Gospels of Mark and John (Mark almost certainly being the earliest surviving gospel). We also know from the attestation of early Church Fathers that there were versions of Matthew and Luke that in circulation at a time as old as any manuscript that exists today that did not include the Virgin Birth narratives. A compelling case can be made on other grounds (source and textual criticism) that the Gospel of Luke originally began at Chapter 3. Further still, assigning fictitious miraculous conception/birth stories to cult heroes was a common phenomena of the time. Further even still, we know from looking at non-canonical gospels, that assigning fictional stories about Jesus's childhood in order to stress theological ideas about Jesus was common phenomena within Christian circles. Read, for example, the Infancy Gospel of James. We also know that many early Christians mistakenly thought that biographical information about Jesus could be found in mysterious Biblical passages, and as such, a good argument can be made that the idea of Jesus's Virgin Birth began from the misapplication of a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 - a passage not talking about a virgin nor Jesus in the original Hebrew but was awkwardly translated to "virgin" in the Greek, hence some thought it was a hidden prophecy about Jesus.
.
With all this, it looks much more likely that Jesus was conceived like everyone else - his mother having sex with a man - and the stories of his mother's virginity were later mistaken inventions, that survived in the tradition that came down to you because they initially helped compete with other cults who had miraculous shenanigans ascribed to their heroes conceptions/births.

What created MLK?

2freaky4church1 said:

What created MLK?

.

MLK's understanding of God's Love of us and our Love of God plus a recognition that so many of God's people did not love their neighbors. The things he learned from his beliefs and his understandings of the teachings relayed to him through the Bible - a set of books that is not the reason Moore is a paedophile.

.

This required MLK to seek to understand and not just act on a long term blind obession with reciting old and commonly rejected reasons to dismiss other people's beliefs without ever seeking to understand them. Whilst MLK's beliefs are different to mine, he applied them to make the world a better place, something people like Moore and toejam need to learn to do.

Graycap23 said:

stpaisios said:

Yeah... fake shit = religious expression = christianity, what is the source of that 'fake shit' conclusion? Some mediocre internet memes about Chruch?

[Edited 1/11/18 18:11pm]

I hope u know religion is some man-made nonsense.

Jesus isn't Christian. Men are.

Jesus didn't sit in on the Council of Nicea, the Council of Trent, or the Vatican Councils. Nor did he write the 95 Theses. Or the Gospels. They revolve around him.

To be sure, a lot of orthodoxy we see today, Jesus might not recognize.

All of the dogma and ceremony mean nothing without Him. Either the guy rose from the dead and is the Son of God or he isn't.