There are a few pressing objections about Christianity that I see posted over and over. 1. Christ said he only came only for the Jews, and that he did not come to abolish the law. 2. If God loved everyone infinitely, he would have mercy on those condemned to hell. 3. The Gospels are full of contradictions. 4. The Trinity is crypto-polytheism. 5. Veneration of icons is crypto-idolatry.
Here is my attempt to answer these questions from an Orthodox perspective.
Cont
1. Christ did indeed say this, but he made it clear again and again that after being rejected by the Jews, the Gospel would come to the gentiles (Mark 12:1-9, Matthew 8:11-12). Now as to the law, the crux of this is what "fulfilling the law" means. To grasp an Orthodox understanding of the law in this verse, I suggest reading De incarnaatione, by Saint Athanasius, as well as Paul's Epistle to the Romans. "The law" here is referring to the law the world came under with the fall, that is the law of death: all that lives, must die, humans and animals, all decays and corrupts. We don't, however, see Christ as an object for God's catharsis, a person God vented his wrath on in place of us (since Christ and the Father are one in action, this would be God killing himself). Rather, satan provoked the fall because he lord of death, and the one in charge of particular judgement (though only Christ renders final judgement); we became enslaved to the devil with the fall, which God saved us from. Sacrifice of life for atonement is fundamental to the law of death. Mosaic law is but an expression of this, it is the law of an eye-for-an-eye, not the law of mercy. It is the law of the condemned, so to speak. So Christ, by dying, fulfills this law, and we, by mystically participating in his death (Romans 6:4, Galaatians 2:20) in baptism and communion, fulfill the law's demand for our death; but, Christ being God, could not die, and so while he fulfilled the law, he also destroyed it, because the death ended; we also participate in that, communing with his physical body (which is God made material). With Christ's death, heaven and earth pass away, for Christ is God Almighty. And with his Resurrection, he makes all things new, a new heaven and a new earth. At this point, following Mosaic Law is a problem: it is like trying to follow the rules for inmates after you have been liberated: following such rules no longer makes you righteous. It is in fact ignoring what Christ did.
2. The fire of Gehenna (which is not the same thing as Sheol, or Hades in Greek), is in fact God's love (I don't mean that in the sense of a human emotion, since God, in Orthodoxy, doesn't have any emotions apart from through the incarnation, we only use them as analogies, like "hand of God"). God's radiance is referred to throughout the Bible as both light and fire. This radiance is God's "energies". The purer and more perfect and more like God one is, the more this radiance is conducive to one's state; the more ungodly one is, the more this radiance is jarring, demons especially hate it. Therefore the fires of hell and the light of halos and heaven, are not ontologically different: more properly, they are different experiences based on different spiritual states. Could God make a change in spiritual state possible even after death? Of course, he's God, but that he would is something we should hope for, not take for granted.
3. Most of the contradictions of the Gospels are superficial. They are natural when you have multiple witnesses recalling something from years ago. The Church never said the Gospels can be completely reconciled in this sense: the Gospels were truly inspired, but that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit dictated them letter by letter. Saint John Chrysostom said we rather take these contradictions as evidence that the authors were not colluding or using a common written source. However, in all major issues, of doctrine and things that would not just be due to different witnesses, you'll find there is a pretty solid Patristic explanation of every one.
4. The Trinity is three distinct existences sharing one essence. In Orthodoxy, essence simply means qualities common to a class. Catholics, by contrast, being influenced by Platonism, see essence as a sort of Platonic form, and identify it with God's existence; his persons are not, to Catholics, distinct existences, but simply the essence of God relating to himself. The Orthodox do not see essence as existing on its own, but being preceeded by existence. So this questions, whether or not the Trinity is is crypto-polytheism, is a good one (since three humans also share one essence in Orthodoxy). The answer is that God is not only one in essence, but also in energies, which means things like activity and will. The Son does not have his own energies, but has only the Father's (John 5:19). Humans can of course also participate in God's energies, which is called Theosis, but they cannot participate in his essence.
5. First, let us use a simple definition of idolatry: ascribing divinity to a thing. Do Orthodox do that? No, but we do ascribe holiness to matter, and in fact this was the major philosophical point in the Seventh Ecumenical Council: can matter be holy? And it was believed that after God became material, in the incarnation, matter can very much be called holy, and to say otherwise is heresy against the incarnation. The Orthodox do not use statues, because the word in Hebrew and in Greek translated as "graven image" in English, is actually quite distinct from the term "image" in both languages: a more accurate rendering would be "form" (it is the same word Plato uses, "eidos," which is where "eidolos," idol, comes from). We have understood this to mean a replication (which statues are, but icons are not). Icons also serve a very practical purpose: we don't picture images in our head when we pray, like Western Christians do, because we see that as very easily leading to idolatry: you can end up ascribing divinity to the image in your head and falling into delusion. So you are supposed to either not picture anything, or use an icon.
Great thread. Thanks for posting
Why did you change your trip? Was it because of this?
My pleasure
No, but I'll admit that is annoying
So torturing somebody indefinitely is in fact God's love and him not having human emotions explain why he allows countless of humans to suffer, i have learned something new today.
It's God's radiance; it is love to those who harmonize with it, and wrath to those who don't. This radiance is the fountain of all being, it permeates and sustains all creation, though we cannot see it without cleaning the reflection of God that we are. As Dostoevsky said, we are already in heaven, we just haven't realized it yet.
> Most of the contradictions of the Gospels are superficial.
Yeah, like what day Jesus was crucified on! And before you even go into the historical impact of such a scene, let's not forget how John tries to make it clear that Jesus is being crucified at the same time the lambs are being slaughtered as the paschal sacrifice to set up that connection, while the Synoptic Gospels just pass it by.
The Day starts with evening in both Judaism and Orthodox liturgical practices. So the mystical supper is the date of the crucifixion
>I haven't read the Gospels
Christians are pathetic. Yes, we know that "It was evening and it was morning", depicting a calendar that starts days in the evening. But Mark, Luke, and Matthew all agree that the "Mystical supper" as you want to call it, was sacrificed earlier in the afternoon, and eaten on that dinner, with the crucifixion happening the next morning. (Luke 22:7, Mark 14:12, Matthew 26:17). John is equally clear that by the time of being brought before Pilate (after the supper, after Gethsemane, after the arrest, etc), they still haven't brought the offering, since the priests are worried about potential purity issues disqualifying them from bringing and eating it (John 18:28).
Saying that "the day starts at evening" doesn't help you here. With reference to when the paschal sacrifice is being offered, John is quite clear that they're being done on the same day, indeed at around the same hour. The Synoptics are also clear that it's a day afterwards.
I've read all four of the Gospels several times and I read them every day
No one says anything about the lamb being slaughtered prior to the mystical supper, only that the day of the slaughter had begun (the prior day being over), and indeed Christ's passion begins that evening. I'm sorry if you found that a bit confusing
Was it you? Why?
Explain this
>I've read all four of the Gospels several times and I read them every day
This is inconsistent with
>No one says anything about the lamb being slaughtered prior to the mystical supper,
Although I suppose pure stupidity is a possibility.
You will note, especially if you read it in the original Greek (whcih I know you pride yourself at Constantine, despite having no language skills worth mentioning), that in all three Synoptics, they mention EATING the Passover.
Mark
>Ποῦ θέλεις ἀπελθόντες ἑτοιμάσωμεν ἵνα φάγῃς τὸ πάσχα;
Matthew
>Ποῦ θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμέν σοι φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα;
Luke (now on 22:8)
>Nestle GNT 1904
kαὶ ἀπέστειλεν Πέτρον kαὶ Ἰωάνην εἰπών Πορευθέντες ἑτοιμάσατε ἡμῖν τὸ πάσχα, ἵνα φάγωμεν.
In each case, disciples are being sent to ready somewhere that they might eat the Passover. This is explicit, with the word πάσχα. Unless you want to claim that Jesus REALLY meant "oh yeah, go over there and hang out and get them ready to eat the Passover on some completely other day (presumably next year, because all three also mention that this was the day of unleavened bread and said passover had to be offered), and then we'll go eat it then, you're left with the conclusion that the Last Supper (Mystical supper? What exactly is mystical about it?) was indeed a Passover. meal.
Because let's remember, John is very clear that the lamb had NOT yet been offered by the time Jesus was before Pilate.
Constantine is not a bright woman (male).
No, it wasn't, you can see the tripcode isn't right.
It's a joke, not an actual icon
It is the pascha of the new covenant: the bread and wine are Christ' body and blood. They eat it reclining and all four Gospels use the term for leavened bread, not unleavened. This is precisely why we object so strongly to the use of wafers, because it is a throwback to the old covenant,before the bread was Christ's body.
>What exactly is mystical about it?)
"Mystery" is the Orthodox equivalent to "sacrament" (the word used in Latin translations on the Bible). The Eucharist is a holy mystery. Saint John Chrysostom says it is called that because how it is flesh and blood is a mystery
>It is the pascha of the new covenant: the bread and wine are Christ' body and blood
Which is of course not stated in the Gospels, and certainly not meant by the disciples (who are the ones initiating action in Mark and Matthew), nor is it necessary in Luke's version to send Peter and John to some guy's house for dinner for this to occur. You will COMPLETELY ignore Luke 22:13, where it says in so many words that they in fact prepared the Passover.
>They eat it reclining and all four Gospels use the term for leavened bread, not unleavened.
No they don't. There is no such distinction.
ἄζυμος is used by itself in reference to unleavened bread.
See luke 22:14 the Jewish passover is eaten standing with loins girded (a belt)
No, let us use a biblical definition of idolatry: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
There is a reason that the earliest Christian art refused to depict God. Your faith just isn't all that ancient.
God provided His Church with divinely appointed images, which are all we need: the Sacraments/Mysteries. Jesus' likeness is not found in the imaginations of icon painters, but in the bread broken, and the cup poured.
The ancient temple and even the ark of the covenant featured imagery. Christ even likens himself to the bronze serpent
>There is a reason that the earliest Christian art refused to depict God.
Early Christian art generally depicts Christ. God chose to make himself physical and visible
>Orthodox perspective
Into the trash it goes
Westerners love to play "eastern religion of the year." Remember when everyone was pretending to be Tibetan Buddhists? Fun times.
I'm actually Orthodox. Orthodoxy is a catholic religion, and was followed in the West for a long time before being displaced by rationalism and the Donation of Constantine. Orthodoxy is eastern in the sense that the original Christisnity is
>ἄζυμος is used by itself in reference to unleavened bread.
So? That does not in any way imply that ἄρτον means specifically leavened bread. You have a simple Artos used when Jesus is discussing the showbread in Matthew 12, and those are unleavened, are you implying they were in fact leavened simply because he doesn't specify that they were unleavened?
>See luke 22:14 the Jewish passover is eaten standing with loins girded (a belt)
Who the hell told you that? The only parts that are eaten standing or squatting are the bitter herbs, as the slavery reminders; the rest are eaten reclining, or at least with the leader reclining if there is insufficient space. Luke's statement corroborates the notion that it's a Passover meal, not implies against it.
the larping is cringe desu
>The gospel contradictions mean that are legitimate!
>we wuz westernaz
Filioque or GTFO, slavshit.
Don't you also like how he focuses solely on the Gospel contradictions (they're not a big deal!) but not the other contradictions between OT and NT, or within either group of books themselves, many of which are theologically vital?
>and those are unleavened
Ah, no. The Talmud specifies that, but the Bible doesn't, nor do most scholars interpret it that way
>Who the hell told you that?
Exodus 14. Remember, modern, Pharasaic Judaism is not temple Judaism
The Pope inscribed the Creed on silver plaques without the Filioque to prevent its insertion
>Ah, no. The Talmud specifies that, but the Bible doesn't, nor do most scholars interpret it that way
Most bible scholars do in fact interpret that way, not because of the Talmud, but because of Josephus, who states, quite clearly that they were unleavened.
penelope.uchicago.edu
>7. However, out of the common charges baked bread [was set on the table of shew-bread], without leaven, of twenty four tenth deals of flour; for so much is spent upon this bread:
>Exodus 14. Remember, modern, Pharasaic Judaism is not temple Judaism
You mean, a chapter that says nothing about Passover at all, and talks exclusively about the escape from Egypt, Pharoh's chase, and the sea parting? One that doesn't mention eating, or celebrating, or any sort of future ritual law at all?
Do you understand now why I accuse you of not reading the Bible? Why do you constantly say stupid shit? I mean, what on earth do you think you're accomplishing other than making Christians in general look retarded?
Throwing you a bone here, Constantine, but I'll assume you meant Exodus 12, and just got confused. You might want to check up the previous verses, namely verse 7, which talks about daubing the blood on your doorway. I.E. what was done once in the original Egyptian sacrifice and NOT in successive generations when they were doing it in Israel.
>Josephus, who states, quite clearly that they were unleavened.
Yes, please read this if you have the time: themessianicfeast.com
The Sadducees were strongly opposed to any teaching beyond what is overt in the Pentateuch, so it is a cinch that by then, the rabbis, the Pharisees, had more power than the priests. Using unleavened shewbread is very much a Pharasaic innovation.
>You mean, a chapter that says nothing about Passover at all,
user below is right, I meant Exodus 12. I read the Bible, but I'll admit I don't make much effort to memorize the numbers of verses and chapters.
> Why do you constantly say stupid shit? I mean, what on earth do you think you're accomplishing other than making Christians in general look retarded?
I labor for your unstinting scorn, which John of the Ladder says is a pure stream of tonic for the heart. :)
>The Sadducees were strongly opposed to any teaching beyond what is overt in the Pentateuch
Which is why they wouldn't slaughter animals, didn't get married, and wouldn't ritually bury the dead. Oh wait, no they did all those things, and like most Christians, you have no idea what you're talking about. Bear in mind, that "by then", circa 30 AD, the Rabbis might be influential, but it's still the priests running the temple, and there is nothing to show that they're leavened, just a lot of guesswork around "Well it doesn't explicitly say they're unleavened, it just assumes that you'd be smart enough to notice how everything else around the temple involving bread has to be unleavened and connected the dots."
>user below is right, I meant Exodus 12. I read the Bible, but I'll admit I don't make much effort to memorize the numbers of verses and chapters.
user below is me, and you'll note that I pointed out that it contains other customs only extant for the original offering in Egypt, like rubbing the blood on your door.
>I labor for your unstinting scorn, which John of the Ladder says is a pure stream of tonic for the heart.
You should try laboring for understanding, it's considerably more rewarding, and you don't need to torture your brain with pretzel logic.
Yes, you're right, but see 12:24. And 12:11 is a formula; some formulas are for recitation only, but others are for actual observance. This formula as use only for narrative recitation at Passover, would be rather awkward. Furthermore, the bitter herbs, which user says are the only thing you stand for, are portrayed as eaten with the lamb and bread, not seperately, which Numbers 9:11 corroborates as a continuing practice. In fact, the very idea of eating the bitter herbs seperately, of seperating the remembrance of bondage from the rest of passover, because you supposedly only stand in relation to the herbs, seems extremely circuitous, hairsplitting ,and contrived--in a word, Pharasaic.
If you did not find the article at all convincing, then I must profess I do, and leave it at that.
Understanding comes from godliness, godliness can only come through humility, which generally only comes through scorn from others--humility that is not tempered with this, is often superficial. Any understanding other than this true, pure understanding, demons have in spades and will always surpass man in, so it is only worth so much.
Orthodoxy strikes me as so unbiblical and bizarre. Where is everything that OP is talking about, about hell not being a place, but instead being God´s radiance, etc. where is all this in the bible? All of these sound like traditions of men to me.
Deuteronomy 4:24
See also Exodus 24:17
>The answer is that God is not only one in essence, but also in energies, which means things like activity and will. The Son does not have his own energies, but has only the Father's (John 5:19). Humans can of course also participate in God's energies, which is called Theosis, but they cannot participate in his essence.
How do you think this answers the question?
If anything it seems close to answering the problem by simply denying the trinity itself (which defeats the purpose of answering the quesiton in the first place) for by your definition either the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are either components of God or your defintion is so broad that we could prove by the same process that the Ancient Greeks worshiped only one God because they shared the same essence whilst merely having a dozen different entities.
>Constantine is not a bright
Why would you say that? Sure that poster spammed a fair bit but they were probably one of the most well read people on the board
Yeah, well. To the Israelites God appeared as a consuming fire, but they weren´t in hell or anything. Also none of that doctrine that OP was spouting was is supported by that verse. That the fires of hell and the light of God are one and the same thing. Nowhere does it say that in the bible. Also, OP says
>The purer and more perfect and more like God one is, the more this radiance is conducive to one's state
Implying that you have to become "pure and perfect" to experience the light of God as light. But that is works salvation, and that is unbiblical. The bible says, on the contrary, that none is good, no not one. Moreover it seems to imply that there are different degrees of salvation. If you are really "good" and "perfect" (assuming it means you are orthodox) you get the most of it, and if you just slighty "good" and "perfect" yes you experience the light of God, but not as much as those that seat on the box seat as it were. I don´t mean to be contetious but all these sound man-made doctrines to me.
Entity and essence come from the same Latin word, just two different cases of it.
>you can end up ascribing divinity to the image in your head and falling into delusion. So you are supposed to either not picture anything, or use an icon
>imagining a picture is bad but looking at one is okay
Explain yourself.
???
They weren't in Sheol, no, but being in the radiance of God is very much Gehenna/Heaven. The Transfiguration was an experience of heaven on earth. This what Christ was referring to when he said some of the Apostles would see him in his kingdom before death.
Being pure comes from God cleansing you of your sins and passions, not by being a "good person". Indeed, even good works done for any other reason than as an instrument of God's will and Spirit, are sin, because they are not about union with his energies. And you cannot be such an instrument without renouncing yourself and being contrite before God.
When you imagine Jesus, it is a lot easier to get confused and delusional and think you are actually seeing him himself, than when you use an icon. Taking an image of your mind for Christ himself, as opposed to simply an image of him, is idolatry
I mean that there is zero Patristic distinction between entity and essence, they're two cases of the same word in both Latin and Greek. So God as multiple entities with one essence, is gramatically incoherent
How does that answer the original question or the questions I posed though?
But what makes an icon necessarily an acceptable depiction of Jesus? And couldn't someone just imagine an icon?
I'd say the synoptics carry more primacy than John. Of course saying any book is more important is probably heterodox to many Christians. This is one thing I like about Buddhists in that they're open to the idea of textual criticism and possibility of some alterations to the teachings and the text.
It seemed your question was about the unity of God, which you saw as weak where he is multiple entities. But he's not multiple entities, he is ontologically one He is one in every respect save existentially
You shouldn't imagine an icon, that lacks clarity and still is susceptible to idolatry. If you don't want an image, then you should clear your mind completely.
Orthodox iconography follows a particular style intended to cultivate dispassion coupled with intense reverence. Much like our music: m.youtube.com
>But he's not multiple entities, he is ontologically one He is one in every respect save existentially
How does that address the issue regarding that reasoning being applied to Greek Polytheism?
And dont you think it would have been clearer just to state Orthodox aren't Polytheists because they understand God differently?
Greek gods shared a single existial principle, operation and will?
Sorry I looked at a different post and depending on how vauge or specific you want to be with definitions they can be argued to meet that criteria.
>There are a few pressing objections about Christianity that I see posted over and over.
Not really at worst we might have one on the problem of evil once a month.
The term for it is theodicy.
Perhaps Thé would be a good Anglicization for Theos.
God cannot torture. Stop anthropomorphizing you heretic. Back to worshiping your man-shaped sun!
That is superficial, you filthy systematizer. The Will to Consistency is superficial.
Not really
>systematizing
>Greece is Eastern
>Russia is Eastern
This geography is a meme.
>sola scriptura
Protestant heresy. God speaks now as He did then.
Constantine was using Christian theology to self-medicate her transgenderism. There was little difference from someone using alcohol to self-medicate their depression. She was well read, but fundamentally incapable of considering any idea but the Orthodox perspective for this reason. It really is a tragedy, and I use she because Constantine seems like a nice person despite the annoyances.
>considering other perspectives
Fuck off
> There was little difference from someone using alcohol to self-medicate their depression. She was well read, but fundamentally incapable of considering any idea but the Orthodox perspective for this reason
Could you expand/explain these points a bit more?
I'm not and never have been a trans. This a meme
Oh fuck it is you, I thought you finally went off to a convent/seminary or simply decided to stop flooding Veeky Forums
He's spouting a ridiculous story about me which was fabricated and meme'd. In actuality I think it just started as a way to discredit me
No, I still post sporadically. I'd appreciate it if you didn't spread lies about me. If I talked a lot about myself, that would be one thing, but I don't talk much about myself at all, so it is particularly unwarranted
I deleted a post explaining things because I realized it might make things worse. I really and honesty hope everything goes well for you, because despite how annoying I have found you in arguments I have intense sympathy for you as a person. You really do deserve to be happy. Please remember that always. And I know how sarcastic this must sound right now, but I genuinely mean every single word. Please take care of yourself.
Thank you, but I hope you realize that I am not any sort of transgender and never have been, and I would not lie about this. That is not my cross.
As for deserving to be happy, I disagree. Happiness is not my reason for existence, worship of Christ is, and sometimes unhappiness is actually more conducive to that. A bright sadness is what we are called to, immense anguish accentuated by intense faith, hope and love. To participate in Christ's llight andlife is impossible without participating in his pain and death.
I already know from last experience that arguing with you is completely useless, so please just pretend that I wrote something that wishes you as well as possible from the Orthodox perspective. Whatever that sequence of words is, I wish it 100% for you, or that when you stop self medicating that treatment actually helps you.
I don't want your wishes. You propagate lies to discredit both me and Orthodoxy. Your idea of happiness is satanic, not godly. I love you as an image of God, but your actions are immoral and you should really take the time to confront truth instead of insulating yourself from it with armchair psychology
Now explain free will
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
way to completely misinterpret his entire comment
This is like arguing over plotholes in a comic book. Creating a consistent self-contained narrative is not the same thing as a true description of reality.
>This is like arguing over plotholes in a comic book.
Best description of Christian theology in one line I've ever read.