Orthodoxy

Chrysostom called Mary the Mother of God. The only caconized father who was squeamish about that was Augustine. Nestorius was controversial because he impaired the existential unity of the Word, which is at the heart of the Eucharist and Christian's death-Resurrection; if the Word cannot be born of woman, then how can he die? And how can we eat him?

No problem, you will find that the Middle Ages were philosophically rich long before scholasticism.

>engaging in scholasticism
nigga wtf

Are you suggesting Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, or Photius the Great, are scholastics?

Hello.
Great commentaries. Thank you.

I would ask a the following of you:
1) How to you regard the fulfilment of Law? Does Christ fulfil the Old Law or has He brought the new? I believe that both cannot be satisfied.
2) If God clothed Himself with humanity, can (and is it not a problem) for humans to clothe themselves in divinity?

Thank you.

No problem.

1. The as the really depends on how you define the law. Christ understands and quotes it as a promise (which includes Jeremiah 3:16 and 31:33); when quoting the "law" it is always in a newer or prophetic way, Isaiah or Psalms generally; even with Moses, apart the Ten Commandments, he pretty much only references him as an older approach, or as someone foretells him. So if you means "law" as a juridical code from Moses, Christ abolishes that, yes (and even hardcore Jews of today no longer have a Sanhedrin or its penal adpect). If, however, you it as Christian uses it, he fulfills it.

2. It's called Theosis

But why does Orthodoxy think Christ had his human body born of anal sex?

Is sacrilege still considered provocative and witty?

Hey, our great theologian Constantine said it first, not me.

Is lying really exciting? On Veeky Forums?

Great blog post

You can look it up in the archives neighbor.

The Spirit is a person too, and He is God.

Twisted way to deny the miracle of the virgin birth.

Hello orthofriend. Thank you for making this thread. I'm a baptized, fallen away Lutheran. My personal study of ancient philosophy has rekindled an interest in theology and the Christian religion of my forefathers. However, I fear that Protestantism is too averse to philosophy, in particular Greek philosophy, because it's "pagan" and "not in the bible". How happy was I to find out that the western philosophical tradition is preserved and developed in the theology of the Greek Orthodox Church! I've been studying and listening to orthodox lectures and sermons for quite some time now, and I'm fascinated by its intellectual and mystical traditions and its aesthetics. It's a real shame that Protestantism has thrown away the western tradition and turned to anti-intellectualism. Catholicism too has thrown its traditions into the trash after Vatican II in order to please the world, and its philosophy has reduced itself to self-help tier secular humanism. If I were to (re)convert to Christianity my choice would surely be orthodoxy.

PS: don't let the fedoras scare away from Veeky Forums. Remember that they are angry because they're miserable on the inside.

How do the Orthodox deal with the inconsistencies in the Gospels?

>God is existentially three, but ontologically one.

This is an arbitrary division without basis to hide the fact the trinity is contradictory. Being is another term for existence, a being is a conscious thinking entity, but it's just a subcategory of existence. To have a distinct existence, you would have to have a distinct being.

There are none

What would you say if the four gospels were word for word identical?

God has more dimensions than you do, Flatlander.

Yes there are. They don't even agree as to what day Jesus was crucified on, and you get inconsistency within the same Gospel, like Mark's little comment about how they go to the country of Judea from within it.

I'd say it's really only one gospel, isn't it?

I'd say it was fiction.

Because four witnesses that come up with identical stories are in a conspiracy 100% of the time.

There are inconsistencies only in theory, not in reality. For instance, Luke put things in chronological order; John did not. John grouped like events. So you could find a part in Luke where Jesus did X and then Y, but John says Jesus did Y and then X.

Because John never said, and did not, write in chronological order.

All four gospels say Jesus was crucified on Thursday, the day of the Passover, Nisan 14.

That doesn't mean though, that four people with 4 different stories are all honestly relating events. And it certainly means that one or more (or even all of them) are inaccurate in some respects. And especially when it comes to something as important to the Christian movement as when the culmination of human history, according to them happened, I'd expect them to agree on things like what day it was, even if they say, used different words to describe it.

Nope, only John says that. You have read the Gospels, haven't you?

You're missing the part where the Holy Spirit of God inspired them to write what they wrote, and brought everything to their remembrance.

You're neglecting the divine part of this collaboration.

I would not expect mere men to be able to write the bible, no. But men inspired by God? Of course. With God, all things are possible.

Again, they all say Jesus was crucified on Thursday, Nisan 14. the Passover; Jesus is the Lamb of God slain for the sins of mankind. He had the power to lay down his life, and the power to pick it back up again.

Because Jesus is God.

That baby has a tiny ass head.

All four do.

And yes, extensively, which is why I know you do not understand that the Passover is the Preparation Day for the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

They're emphasizing Mary, as usual.

>You're missing the part where the Holy Spirit of God inspired them to write what they wrote, and brought everything to their remembrance.

God inspired them to write incorrect things? Why?

No, they don't. You clearly have not read the Gospels, or perhaps you're just extremely ignorant.

Quick and rough timeline.

>Nisan 14th, afternoon, everyone goes and sacrifices their lamb for the Passover offering.
>That evening, which is now the 15th, people eat said lamb in part of a large, festive meal.

John is the ONLY Gospel to put Jesus's crucifixion before that meal. The Synoptic Gospels all put it after the meal, which means that Jesus was crucified on the 15th. Ergo, they disagree.

No. John is very clear that Jesus is brought before Pilate before eating the passover. The other three are all equally clear that they were eating the passover a full evening before Pilate gets involved.

Go read. You can read, right?

He did not. You only think there are incorrect things in the bible; that's on you, not the bible, and not on God.

The big meal is the Feast of Unleavened Bread; as I said, you do not understand the passion week at all.

Nisan 10, Sunday. Jesus arrives in Jerusalem riding on a colt.
Nisan 11-13 Jesus is questioned and examined by religious leaders who find no blot, flaw, or blemish.
Nisan 13: Day of Preparation for the Passover.
Nisan 14: Passover. After sundown, Jesus has the Last Supper with his disciples, goes to Gethsemene, gets arrested, tried, and executed. Passover is also the Day of Preparation for the Feast of First Fruits.
Nisan 15 Feast of Unleavened Bread. Jesus in the grave
Nisan 16 Day 2 of Feast of Unleavened Bread. Jesus in the grave
Nisan 17 Day 3 of Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the day of First Fruits, another festival you know nothing about.

Three days and nights in the tomb, all accounted for. And all writen of by all of the gospel writers.

That is how all of the gospels account for the week.

Again, you have no idea that Thursday is Passover, and Friday is the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

You don't know which meal goes with which festival.

Your ignorance only reflects badly on you, not on the bible.

The reason they had to tell Pilate they needed the bodies off of the cross is because that year was a special high holy day, and not the usual sabbath that Pilate was accustomed to.

It's also possible that since you're this much of a dipshit, you also don't know that the Jewish day starts at sundown, not at midnight.

Nope, you haven't read the Gospels. Your Nisan 14 statement is wrong, because the evening of the "fourteenth" is when the 15th begins, so the stuff at Gethsemane, and the last supper, etc, is all on the 15th. Well, in the synoptics. None of this actually helps your case, you realize, because John is stating that "eating the passover" happens after Jesus's presentation to Pilate, wheras the other three all say it happened the evening before.

>That is how all of the gospels account for the week.

You REALLY, REALLY need to actually READ them.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 18&version=KJV
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark 14&version=KJV
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 26&version=KJV
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 22&version=KJV

I never mentioned any day of the week. I'm basing it entirely on what the Gospels themselves say as to the sequence of events relative to φάγῃς τὸ πάσχα; It's different in the different gospels, which inevitably points to a different day of crucifixion.
>I STILL can't read!

Nope, it's all on the 14th.

14th starts.
Last supper on the 14th
Gethsemene on teh 14th
Arrest on the 14th
Trial on the 14th
Crucifixion on the 14th
Taken off the cross and buried on the 14th
Sundown on the 14th.

You're just an idiot, dude. That's all. You want the bible to be wrong because you're not right with God, and you know it.

Three days in the grave.
Three nights in the grave.

Go ahead and count by your theory how many days and nights Jesus was in the grave.

Go ahead and see if you can count to 3.

ffs look up a Jewish calendar and find out that Nisan 14 32 AD was a Thursday.

So willfully stupid and ignorant.

φάγῃς τὸ πάσχα

Why do Mark, Matthew, and Luke say it happens before Gethsemane, and John says it happens after the presentation to Pilate, which is, of course, necessarily after the whole garden and arrest episode?

Holy shit.

The 14th begins right after sundown on the 13th.

You truly are stupid, you know?

Do you think all of the OT feasts were random events?

Passover - Jesus sacrificed as the Lamb of God.
First Fruits - Jesus rises from the dead, as do many saints.
Pentecost - Jesus and the risen saints go to heaven.

Give it up dude. Your crusade to find something incorrect in the bible FAILED.

Did I not post in this thread, or was it a different thread, that John did not write in chronological order?

>still not getting it.

Why are Christians so unable to read? Why do you even have holy books? I mean hell, you can't even parse a 2,000 character Veeky Forums post in English.

>STILL not getting it.

Ok, say John scrambles the order of things, for some reason. He still manages to get the sequence of events the same as in the Synoptics. You go

Last Supper
Gethsemane
Arrest
Trial before Ciaphas
Presentation before Pilate
Crucifixion.

You want to dispute that order? On the assumption that even you're not that dumb, why is it that Mark, Matthew, and Luke all say that the eating of the Passover is done in step one, at last supper, when John says that it hasn't yet been done by step 5, presentation before Pilate?

It's actually Jews who are blinded to the bible, not Christians.

And again, you're conflating Passover with the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because you've never celebrated either properly.

It used to be two different feasts.

John is OBVIOUSLY talking about Unleavened Bread, which is the big seder meal.

Which, again, is why Pilate had to be REMINDED why sundown was going to be a high holy day, since it was only THURSDAY night.

But that's your answer, dude. You have been blinded by YHWH.

2 Corinthians 3
But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.

It's the order I gave you. Of course I agree with it.

>John is OBVIOUSLY talking about Unleavened Bread, which is the big seder meal.

Which is why he says the EXACT same words that the synoptics do when talking about "Eating the Passover". Which, according to you (contradicting the Gospels, by the way) is clear evidence that they're two separate days.

By the way, here's a quote for you, fill your heart with some of that Christian idiocy, I mean joy.

>And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

Remember how you, in your full idiocy, in post state that the feast of unleavened bread happens after the passover? Thus contradicting your own holy book that you never read?

John 18:28? “Then they [i.e., the Jews] led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early [Friday] morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.”

This is what you're talking about, right?

Are you aware that the 7 day feast of unleavened bread required ridding your entire house of all yeast?

That's not passover. That's the feast of unleavened bread.

Which started after sundown on the 14th.

After the Crucifixion.

Good, then you recognize that John puts eating the passover in a different place, and over half a day later than the synoptics. That is, to us normally brained people, called a 'contradiction'. You do know what that word means, right?

And you were doing so well. But it's ok, reading at a third grade level is hard, and I shouldn't have expected too much of you.

>Are you aware that the 7 day feast of unleavened bread required ridding your entire house of all yeast?
Irrelevant on several levels, and wrong in the particulars. Presumably, these people did remove all leavened material from their house (not yeast in and of itself). But they woudln't go into Pilate's house because..... something something Paul has no idea about the difference between ritual impurity and sin because he's a moron who hasn't read the Bible any more than you.

In any case, it doesn't matter, because it places the eating of the Passover AFTER the last supper, unlike the synoptics.

>That's not passover. That's the feast of unleavened bread.
Also irrelevant. Read the passage again. The priests ARE talking about the Passover.

Passover
Feast of Unleavened Bread

Pick one.

>Still can't read.

I've been talking about the Passover, specifically the Passover sacrifice and eating thereof, this entire thread. The only person bringing up the feat of unleavened bread has been you.

Yes, it means that intellectually lazy people see "passover" and do not for one second do the research necessary to come to a proper conclusion.

Leviticus 23:5 On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the Lord’s Passover.

Leviticus 23:6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; seven days you must eat unleavened bread.

Pick one.

None of that even addresses my point. You do understand what my point is, don't you? Because it's not centered around date, it's centered around when the Passover sacrifice happens relative to the rest of the passion narrative.

By the way, if you really want to claim that these two are different, and that the "Feast of Unleavened bread" happens after the Passover, how come the Synoptics all claim otherwise?

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark 14:12&version=KJV

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 22:7&version=KJV

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 26:17&version=KJV

Surely, there can't be a contradiction between them and between the Old Testament. That would be unthinkable!

Yes, because it's the source of all of your confusion.

Passover started the 14th.

Feast of Unleavened Bread started the 15th.

John is referring to the Feast of Unleavened Bread when the Jews would not enter into Pilate's unclean building that had not rid itself of yeast.

See, being a Jew used to mean something.

Jesus was slaughtered on the Passover along with all of the other lambs slaughtered that day.

Millions of slaughtered lambs, with a stick up their ass and out their mouth, and another stick across their shoulders.

Like a cross.

>Surely, there can't be a contradiction between them and between the Old Testament. That would be unthinkable!

They don't. You just don't comprehend them, because, again, for the 100th time, all Jews have been blinded by YHWH since the crucifixion.

>Still missing the point.

You cannot eat the Passover at the time of the Last Supper and still have it uneaten for the Priests at the time of the presentation to Pilate, half a dayish later.

That's not what the Synoptics say.

Then why do the Synoptics all say that it was the Feast of Unleavened bread at the time that they were going to prepare (not even eat) the Passover?

By the way, you do know you can put all of those into one post instead of constantly repeating yourself, right? Or is that another one of these advanced concepts that's too tough for your brain?

>I know, my autistic ass will come back 16 minutes later and get the last word!

1. Passover meal = Last Supper on the beginning of the 14th.

2. Seder meal = Feast of Unleavened Bread on the beginning of the 15th.

It's really not that complicated. If you had a triple digit IQ, I would not have to make so many redundant posts.

They actually say it was the day of preparation, and again, since you do not understand there were three sabbaths in a row, and a preparation day for two of them, you're kind of in the dark, aren't you.

>much magic pickturs

You're all basically idolaters desu

>1. Passover meal = Last Supper on the beginning of the 14th.

Which, according to John, didn't include the Passover, since the Priests hadn't eaten it AFTER the Last Supper. How hard is this to understand? Are you literally retarded? I've said it like 9 different ways in just this one thread.

>2. Seder meal = Feast of Unleavened Bread on the beginning of the 15th.

Which again, contradicts the Gospels, since according to Mark, Matthew, and Luke, the "Feast of the Unleavened Bread" is BEFORE they ate the Passover. I even cited the verses to you.

>It's really not that complicated. If I had a double digit IQ, I would not have to make so many irrelevant posts.

FTFY.

And seriously, complaining of a 16 minute gap. You're really hovering over that keyboard, just waiting for a response. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. But then, a Christcuck, so I'm being reduandant here.

>They actually say it was the day of preparation,

Nope. They say, and I quote
> when they killed the passover,
>when the passover must be killed.
>to eat the passover?

Remember how all of that happens in the Last Supper? BEFORE the presentation to Pilate? Why are you so ignorant of your own holy books?

You really need to take some sort of brain pills, because I'm getting tired of telling you the very same thing in the very same way.

John's reference to the Passover is a reference to the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

You don't believe Moses and the Prophets, do you, because Moses clearly laid out that the Passover is on the 14th (a Thursday in 32 AD) and the Feast of Unleavened Bread started on the 15th (a Friday in 32 AD).

You don't believe Moses and the prophets, and you don't believe in your own messiah, and you for sure cannot comprehend Jeremiah 31:31, so why are you still posting as though you made some sort of point?

Instead of as the case actually is, that you miss the point deliberately, in order to castigate Christianity?

The 14th became known among the people as Preparation Day , because during the day they made ready for the great feast day beginning at sundown, after which no work was permitted. Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:31 all identify Preparation Day as the day of the Lord’ s death, while Matt. 27:62 says the day after the crucifixion was the day after Preparation Day. So all four Gospels agree; Jesus died on Preparation day, the 14th of their month Nisan, which is Passover. As evening began the day, He ate the ritual meal with His disciples in the Upper Room, and then was arrested, tried, convicted, and put to death; all on Passover. So just like the Lord had commanded in Exodus 12, our Passover Lamb was selected on the 10th, inspected on the 11th, 12th, and 13th, and executed on the 14th of Nisan.

o blind Jew, when will you see?

>John's reference to the Passover is a reference to the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

So now we're on the level of just 'ignore the text as stated, and make up new shit'. Because the Greek is abundantly clear. φάγωσιν τὸ πάσχα. That they can eat the Passover. There is not one word in there about anything involving unleavened bread.

>You don't believe Moses and the Prophets, do you, because Moses clearly laid out that the Passover is on the 14th (a Thursday in 32 AD) and the Feast of Unleavened Bread started on the 15th (a Friday in 32 AD).

I do, but given that you can't understand English, I despair of making you understand Hebrew. Suffice to say, as usual, you're wrong.

>You don't believe Moses and the prophets, and you don't believe in your own messiah, and you for sure cannot comprehend Jeremiah 31:31

I do, actually, but again, "Writing it on their hearts" isn't actually changing anything, and the Messianic ideal, that you have to chop out of context to even begin to have a point, is perfect adherence to the Mosiatic Law, not just lol throwing it out.

>The 14th became known among the people as Preparation Day

Don't make me laugh. No it didn't.

> Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:31 all identify Preparation Day as the day of the Lord’ s death, while Matt. 27:62 says the day after the crucifixion was the day after Preparation Day.

You're still evading the problem. If they were eating the passover at the time of the last supper, it would have been BEFORE presentation to Pilate. If that's the case, the Priests can't possibly be worrying about going into Pilate's house and how that would make them ineligible. And if they're eating the Passover AFTER that point, then the three Synoptics are having Jesus and pals eating it at the wrong time.

You clearly are incapable of communication, and I think I've amply proved this to anyone else reading this thread. Have fun being an imbecile and repeating your scriptural ad hom.

>means that Father and the Son are the Spirit's joint existential principle
This is philosophical theology. It is a big part of Scholasticism. You are using the Scholastic method in that post.

As a modern Jew, you don't even separate these two feasts anymore; you just have a seder dinner.

And yet, when they used to follow the law, and did separate these two feasts, you think they are somehow completely unrelated to each other.

Guess what? They're not. They are part of the very same feast.

Passover Unleavened Bread First Fruits.

All part of the same exact thing.

So you keep autistically screeching that John said Passover instead of Passover is becoming as annoying as how you must be in real life.

pascha

covers both Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Read this, right here. Chapter and verse where all four gospels say Jesus was crucified on the same day. Thursday, Nisan 14.

This is how I know you lie, Jew.

Luke 24:44
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

John 5:46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.

Before you do what you ALWAYS DO:

1. Murder the Messiah.
2. Reject the Messiah's Kingdom.
3. Blame the Murdered Messiah for not bringing in the Rejected Kingdom.

o blind Jew, who will open your eyes?

I'll just leave this right here.....

Revelation 3:9
Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.

--YHWH

>3
Your implied error here is essentially modalistic. God is not triune because He chose to be, He is triune because He can be nothing else. Triunity is a part of divine nature. So the double procession of the Spirit is clearly true.

No, I'm literally just reiterating an objection from Mystagogy of the Spirit, by Photius the Great, which predates the advent of scholasticism by several hundred years.

If procession were natural, the Spirit would also proceed of himself, and the Son would be jointly begotten, since they are both naturally the same as the Father

Incorrect. Your being consists of an essence (humanity) and an operation (what you do). Humans precede humanity as a general essence, and what you do must be contingent upon you existing, hence these are all distinct elements.

We have explanations for most of the big ones; as for minor ones, since ancient times we've seen those as proof the Gospels were derived from 3rd on several eyewitnesses instead of just a common written source.

Hey guys, yesterday I had a dream in which I think I finally understood the Trinity! How to solve all the apparent contradictions and antinomies in the Trinity, between universal and individual, unity and multiplicity, etc? The answer, it seems to me, is love! The love between the members of the Trinity allow them to be one and many at once, because love does just that! Even we, mere humans, when we love someone, we're two, but we're also one.

>and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Mark 10:8

If this is true for us, imperfect, material beings of flesh and blood, imagine for the Trintiy!

What do you guys think?

You seem to think everything but nominalism is scholasticism. Ironically, nominalism is actually a scholastic idea.

To say God is naturally three, is tritheism, friendo. God is hypostatically three, but naturally he is one.

>the Spirit would also proceed of himself
Do I even need to explain what is wrong with this?
>and the Son would be jointly begotten
No, since the Son is partly the origin of the Spirit He could not also be begotten of the Spirit. >To say God is naturally three, is tritheism
No, since there is one God. You are making creatures of the Son and Spirit by making them the result of the Father's will. They exist by nature, not by will.

I see the 4th Crusade was not enough

I'm ready for English to evolve.

Hanging out on /pol/ was bad for you, Constantine.

I'm a protestant and anyone who doesn't just call themselves "christian" and need some hyphen like Orthocuck or cathocuck and doesn't follow in Martin Luther steps is an agent of Satan and I need ya'll prayers for even coming into this den of dark side, I mean it dont say anywhere in the bible to make icons or whatever yall do

t. catholicuck named Stepinac

Phoneposting catholicuck, you know that the people in the pictures are under god, through them we believe in our god.
>muh god is better than yuh god
FUCK RELIGIOUS POLITICISM!