Pastebin, with FAQ's for atheists, Jews, Muslims, Protestants, liberals, and of course, Catholics: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
Orthodox Bible study: http://orthodoxbiblestudy.info/
Orthodox akathist service
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeRXbLAIPcU
Orthodox and Catholic compared
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZtbnaXuGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcOv4zPoVo
Roman Catholic hymn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0iOBOIwQ2o
Orthodox hymn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs
Roman Catholic hymn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD-iMC6LZF8
Orthodox hymn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noetoc2W4Pc
What did he do wrong? All he did was oppose Palamas bs doctrine. Are there any Orthodox that actually agree with his critiques or are they all forced to accept Palamas?
>>731605
Literal fedoras of the Christian world
What is this recruitment drive bullshit.
No one cares about this irrelevant ethnic cult.
Catholic here, if we recanted the ecumenicism of Vatican II, would you like us more?
>>731692
Stop that. We do our thing, they do their thing. Occasionally we get together and lie about being sorry for the 4th crusade.
>>731702
This desu. If anything, theyre the ones who should apologize for the shit they did to us and the Orientals under the Eastern Empire
>>731702
Even so, the Protestants are increasingly exasperating and I'm getting tired of making nice with them. Can we just go back to calling them heretics?
>>731708
I already do unironically.
>>731708
Not yet, we must wait until the whole liberal meme collapses, leaving only the least degenerate Protestants intact. THEN we start converting them and calling them heretics, along with taking the Orthodox little by little
>>731633
https://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1246&catid=383
>>731692
Yes, very much. Vatican II, while making it easier for Catholics to approach us and recognize us, was actually more damaging overall. If you went back to an extremely traditionalist approach we'd have much more in common.
>>731682
Every single Orthodox person I have met is a convert. It is not ethnic.
>>731750
>posting links because (s)he cant give an argument
gee Constantine, are you sure youre not a Orthodox bot or something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Elisabeth_of_Hesse_and_by_Rhine_(1864%E2%80%931918)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JnCO0OlhlE
>>731760
I thought it was some Russian thing.
>>731766
The link quotes Church Fathers.
>>731773
Russia is predominantly Orthodox, but they are not the first Orthodox country, and, in the US, at least in my experience, they are not most the majority. The Orthodox Church is having huge growth in the US. Even the priest at my parish is a convert (he was born Roman Catholic).
>>731793
>The Orthodox Church is having huge growth in the US.
Not really. 16% parish growth in a long period of time, less than two million members with with a 27% rate of church attendance? The Catholics are growing faster.
Hell. You're not even competing with the Mormons. You got to step it up senpai.
>>731806
Take a look at the Antiochian Church in America
>>731806
The main reason so few attend is that Orthodox Churches are few and far between. As far as growth, I was pretty sure most other Churches were on decline? I may have overstated because, in personal experience, the local parish has seen massive growth (I'm not a member, but the parish is new and already has a surprisingly high number of people, and I'm not the only person converting at the moment).
>>731817
They should all have books that will give you a side-by-side translation in English.
>>731817
Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Churches are in those languages because they are under the Patriarchates of those countries (i.e. they are expats), I suggest looking at the Orthodox Church in America: https://oca.org/parishes
Most of its members are converts, so most parishes do their services entirely in English. Of course, just about everyone who converts is a history buff, so just be prepared for that.
>>731829
70% of Antiochian Orthodox clergy in America are converts, 1/3rd of Orthodox clergy in America overall. Converts make up about half of my parish, and I'm Greek Orthodox.
>>731848
I really hope the Orthodox Church in America will be made the American Orthodox Church in the upcoming council. Then we won't have to deal with the different variants of Orthodox in the country--not that that's terrible, it's just that having an incorporated American Orthodox Church with its own uniformity and administration will make conversion rates go through the roof.
>>731829
>The main reason so few attend is that Orthodox Churches are few and far between
That's probably fair.
> I was pretty sure most other Churches were on decline?
In terms of organized churches? Catholic Church is doing real well. Mormons are steady, and The Episcopal Church is losing members to you lot and the Catholics. Most other denominations are either steady at around 1-2% growth or in decline
Islam is also doing quite well here. Right now I would say
>Catholic Church and Islam
>powergap
>the various Orthodox
>Mormonism
>slight gap
>everyone else
>>731760
Every single Christian is a convert, since everyone is born atheist.
>>731869
>Catholic Church is doing real well
They're by reproduction and immigration. Their conversion rate is not so good.
>>731869
I meant more in-terms of Christianity in-general. I am pretty sure the Evangelicals are hemorrhaging members.
But, yeah, outside of large cities, most Churches are in the Pacific Northwest, IIRC. I was pretty lucky to find one in my area. Was only started a couple years ago, but already has a community of maybe 15 adults, and, including me, a couple of prospective converts.
>>731885
Christians don't believe we're born atheists. In fact, I don't see any reason to presume we are: we innately attach agency to everything from wind to waves until we learn to suppress doing so with reason, that is a product of instinctual "theory of mind". Theory of mind is what gives humans capacity for such complex social organization, and it a root faculty of theology (which is also why autism makes people far more likely to be atheists, since autism is impaired theory of mind).
>>731885
Don't be a pedant.
>>731605
Red the frequently asked questions for Catholics and atheists, there both jokes. lots of that material has been torn to pieces on this very board, or at the very least good counter arguments have been made.
I am no longer Catholic so I am probably not the best one to defend their position but I'll just say this about The Council of Florence, as far as the Catholics are concerned, papal supremacy is something the church as always held true, so to dismiss it on that ground is begging the question. In fact the Catholic church holds that all dogmas they consider infallible have always been held true by the church, The Orthodox disagree with this, hence the schism But the Catholics have never seen themselves as innovating dogma.
>>731903
>papal supremacy is something the church as always held true, so to dismiss it on that ground is begging the question
Quoting the Church Fathers is begging the question regarding whether Papal supremacy was always a held dogma?
>>731887
>Their conversion rate is not so good.
Hate to break it to you, but you're both tied for last with that. It has to do with the longer process of joining and a focus on making sure people know what they're getting. I think Catholics are losing some naturally too because of the reproduction and such. That's not taking regional growth into account though, much stringer in some places than others.
Like the south. I know of in my town a priest who was Orthodox, and another who is married with three children who converted from one of those snake handler deals.
>>731888
Evangelicals are hemorrhaging members, but they start out much higher than anyone else, and it's super fucking easy to convert to so they benefit from that.
>>731888
>pretty sure the Evangelicals are hemorrhaging members.
depends on what you call "evangelical".
the people who are losing the most are mainline Protestants (I.e. elca Lutherans, Episcopalians, umc Methodists, etc). they all recently flipped the bit on gay marriage/ordination and it's miffed a good percentage of their congregants.
Catholics are losing members too, but not as fast as mainline Protestants.
conservative Protestants Rose a bit, but their biggest number change is interdenominational -- I.e. an LCMS Lutheran this year may be a southern Baptist next year, may be a church of the nazarine member the year after...
orthodoxy is on the rise, but it's actual numbers are so small that you might as well say that discordianism is on the rise too in order to scare Christians. orthodoxy has very few parishes outside of major cities, so it's generally the urban hipster who attends Orthodox Church, not the normal American who lives outside of those immigrant hives that serve as our seats of commerce and government.
>>731892
pls. if we weren't born under the Dominion of satan, baptism would be unneeded. the parental promise of catechesis would be unneeded.
theory of the mind may say we're all born animists, but it's certainly not an innate Christian belief to say that we're all born innately aware of God in a right and proper manner.
>>731913
The Catholics quote the church fathers too, but I digress, I was referring to the passage on the council of Florence, I missed the essay on how papal supremacy doesn't date back to the era of the church fathers
Then again I think almost all the Patriarchies are political contrivances rather than things grounded in historical reality, so I am probably not the man to argue the Catholic position
>>731605
Nigga got some bad scoliosis
>>731937
Listen. Only 3 types of people come to these fucking threads. Orthodox who think it's a place for them, non-orthodox who come out of curiosity and either leave or get mad at BS, and then Constantine.
I suggest everyone leave and let him bump his thread into oblivion before he tries to convert you.
>>731928
>pls. if we weren't born under the Dominion of satan, baptism would be unneeded. the parental promise of catechesis would be unneeded.
So?
>theory of the mind may say we're all born animists, but it's certainly not an innate Christian belief to say that we're all born innately aware of God in a right and proper manner.
None of us are. Saint John Chrysostom said that the Bible is "baby talk" that God gives us to get an idea of him because we're incapable of any understanding beyond that.
>>731780
out of context. The original texts dont say anything about energies
>>731958
>him
>>731916
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-01-11-orthodox_x.htm
>>731973
You're absolutely wrong. Have you read the letter Basil's quote was taken from?
>>731958
Whats the point? they'll just start another if this thread gets unpopular.
But Orthodox, answer me this, The Catholics recognize different church fathers, and you were fighting with the Latins over some of this stuff all the way back during the seven councils.
It is not reasonable that you two never saw Christianity the same way and the differences were just ignored before the great schism?
>>731982
>The Catholics recognize different church fathers
They recognize literal heretics as Church Fathers. Even they admit, for instance, Origen was a heretic, but they still have him as a Church Father.
>>731980
yes, it doesnt say anything about energies in the Palamistic sense. Youve already posted all of your links, so dont trouble posting them
>>731974
I thought that was a meme? Did he actually?
Because neither the Orthodox, Catholics, or any other self respecting Christian denomination allow that.
>>731987
You going to answer my question or are you going to attack their definition of "church father"?
>>731987
And your definition of Church father is essentially meaningless, since anyone who preaches your doctrine is considered a Father, and your list keeps getting new additions up to this day!
>>731996
What are you talking about?
>>731992
The word he uses is exactly the same, ἐνέργεια
http://biblehub.com/greek/1753.htm
It's just translated as "powers" or "energies" depending on the translation.
Now that we got that out of the way, please explain how Saint Basil's conception of the essence-energies distinction differs from Palamas's. It is literally exactly the same conception.
>>731987
His teachings where literally anathematized by the church.
>>732015
of course it isnt, Palamas' distinction is ontological, Basil doesnt even elaborate on it (if he does show the distinction, which he doesnt)
>>732026
He says the distinction is that we can directly experience God's energies, but not his essence. Which is exactly what Palamas said, the whole of which was in defense of Heyschasm, because Balaam went to Latin theology school and was scandalized at the idea that monks were seeing God (which Isaiah does).
>>732058
>Which is exactly what Palamas said
of course not, Palamas' distinction is ontological. Basil never affirms it is such
>because Balaam went to Latin theology school and was scandalized at the idea that monks were seeing God
he wasnt scandalized with the practice, rather, he was scandalized that Palamas' doctrine pretty much entailed duotheism, an accusation that would be repeated through centuries by anti-Palamists alike (that is, until it became "unorthodox" to do so)
>>732017
>anathemizing someone who died a long time ago
shiggy
>>732076
>of course not, Palamas' distinction is ontological
No, no it is not. That's the whole point. God's energies are a distinction from God's ousia, not a distinction within God's ousia. Just like God's hypostates are a distinction from God's ousia. This misunderstanding comes from Catholics considering ousia synonymous with nature (Roman Catholics use "nature" to mean substance, Eastern Orthodox use "nature" to mean attributes, Oriental Orthodox use "nature" to mean existence).
>he wasnt scandalized with the practice
Yeah, he was. Palamas spoke up in defense of the practice, in direct response to Balaam.
>>732118
>God's energies are a distinction from God's ousia
and this is Palamas' ontological distinction, since both Essence and Energies are both God (or Divine)
>Palamas spoke up in defense of the practice, in direct response to Balaam
Nope, he responded to Barlaam's view of the Holy Spirit, the hesychast dispute came much later (and he wasnt scandalized, he viewed the practice as stupid mystical nonsense)
>>731885
That's fucking retarded
You might as well say everyone is born a Democrat
>>731982
>It is not reasonable that you two never saw Christianity the same way and the differences were just ignored before the great schism?
This is pretty much the commonly accepted history, yes.
>>732177
>and this is Palamas' ontological distinction, since both Essence and Energies are both God (or Divine)
But God's energies are not his ESSENCE. This would not be a difficult concept if Roman Catholics didn't have such a hard-on for Aristotle. The closest thing to an essence-energies distinction in Roman Catholicism is the substance-accidents distinction, and for some reason that got taken to the point where the "accidents" are not truth in Roman Catholicism, an idea which verges on Gnosticism.
>>731708
Have no fear, friend.
Soon and very soon, each and every christian will disappear off of the face of the earth, leaving only catholics and orthodox under the direction of the Vatican.
>>734673
Either you're a catholic supervillian, or you don't think Catholics or Orthodox are christian.
>>734679
All I know about Catholics is that they are members of the Catholic church. All I know about Orthodox is that they are members of the Orthodox church.
Neither condition is precedent for salvation.
But no, I'm not the pope.
I heard this guy has a really [spoiler]phanbase[/spoiler] here
>>734728
really big*
damn
>>734732
Really big show, really big show.
>Our guys in funky hats are better than your guys in funky hats.
>>734713
>Neither condition is precedent for salvation.
Our Faith in Christ is. And pretty smug of you to think that they somehow are worse off than you. Considering the Orthodox are direct descendants of Andrew's Church, and the Catholics Peter's.
>>734763
Gee, I guess that just leaves me with Jesus.
>>734773
Well. No. It leaves you with an interpretation of Christ lacking in both tradition and historical context.
>>734793
Hmmm, that's strange, since I have Jesus.
Which one did you have again? Peter, or Andrew?
>>734763
Saint Peter was Orthodox, m8
>>734834
And Jesus was a Jew :^)
>>734834
>St. Peter was a non-Christian
Nice meme
>>734799
>y-you don't have Jesus because I say so
Andrew, My church was built by a man who knew Jesus personally. Also, you seem to be trying to claim ownership of Christ, like he is some object you have that others don't. I don't 'have' Christ, I follow him.
>>734834
What? Even ignoring that Peter set up his church in Rome, and that's where Catholics draw their line from. That distinction didn't exist when Peter or Andrew was alive.
>>734871
>That distinction didn't exist when Peter or Andrew was alive.
That's because the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist then. If Peter proclaimed himself both earthly Caesar the infallible vicar of God and the final word in all disputes, then the Roman Catholic Church would have been around.
How do Orthodox followers I'm general feel about Catholics?
>>734890
I've seen a lot of hate on /his/ between the two, but literally nowhere else have I seen it.
>>734896
A lot of the Orthodox on 4chan AND the other chan are Protestant converts who kept their old religion's anti-Catholic biases.
>>734890
It's similar to how Anglicans feel about Catholics vs. how Catholics feel about Anglicans.
>>734929
The Catholics being the Anglicans in the parallel.
>>734871
Strange, because I have Him. Inside me. All day, every day.
How often do you get to talk to Andrew? Well, he's dead, isn't he. Do you pray to dead men, as though they were God?
Peter was murdered by Rome; he never set up anything there but an upside down cross.
>>734934
I've literally never once thought about the Anglicans as a Catholic.
>>734944
Show me in the bible where contraceptives are mentioned.
And what is annulment, but a divorce you have to pay Rome for?
>>734945
I do think it was delightfully devious of Benedict to try to poach some of them once they approved gay marriage. Didn't a decent number of archdioceses still come over?
>>731655
why?i really cant get the comparison
>>734944
>We do not allow oral contraceptives, which have always been prohibited by the Church, because they are a kind of abortion. We do allow the use of condoms in marriage, because we consider them just an advanced form of coitus interruptus. Did some Church Fathers dislike coitus interruptus? No, only Saint Augustine opposed it (all of the other quotes by them supposedly opposing it are talking about oral contraceptives, or are by people not considered Church Fathers by the Orthodox Church--to be a Church father, you must be both a saint and not have taught heresy, so Roman Catholic Church Fathers are not necessarily the same as ours), but let's contrast his view with what Saint John Chrysostom says in On Marriage and Family Life: "If for a certain period, you and your wife have abstained by agreement, perhaps for a time of prayer and fasting, come together again for the sake of your marriage. You do not need procreation as an excuse. It is not the chief reason for marriage. Neither is it necessary to allow for the possibility of conceiving, and thus having a large number of children, something you may not want." But how can we affirmatively settle the matter as to whether the Church treated it as a sin? Very simple, we look at the penance manuals for confession for the first thousand years. Only one of them, Poenitentiale Hubertense, lists coitus interruptus as a sin, and we know that is due to a misunderstanding of biology--how do we know? Because it gives the penance time as *ten years*, which is what every manual gives for abortion; compare that to the ten to twenty days typically given for masturbation, or the three years generally prescribed for sodomy. Could married couples just not have sex if having more kids would put their family at risk of poverty? Yes, but it’s important for married couples to maintain a sex life as long as either of them has urges, as per 1 Corinthians 7:5.
>>734943
You claim to own Christ? All you have inside of you is hate.
I pray to Christ. And I will pray that you find him and stop treating Him like a fashion accessory and tool to inflate your sense of self importance.
>Peter was murdered by Rome; he never set up anything there but an upside down cross.
Wow, you are historically stupid too. Most of the apostles set up churches.
>>734944
>
>It’s harder to get an Orthodox divorce than it is to get a Catholic annulment. For instance, one of the qualities covered under Canon 1097, section 2, is wealth: http://www.stmarys-waco.org/documents/Grounds%20for%20Marriage%20Annulment%20in%20the%20Catholic%20Church.pdf That means if you married someone primarily for their wealth, but they weren’t as rich as you thought (even if they did not try to decieve you), that is grounds for annulment. Other viable reasons for annulment include their lack of social status and a criminal record.
Annulments are literally just Catholics getting around their injunction against divorce. If the annulment were actually an annulment, then the children would be illegitimate. Furthermore, let's give a case of a *legitimate* annulment: the guy is already married, and marries the woman while pretending not to be. That means the marriage could not have been valid, and even if no one discovers it, the marriage was never valid. But the Catholic guidelines are ridiculous--it's safe to assume a lot more couples qualify for them than actually apply for annulment, meaning you have a ton of Catholic couples living in sin and fornication without even knowing it.
>>734945
Similarly, Orthodox do not think Catholic Sacraments are valid. A Catholic baptism, for instance, is only valid if the Catholic converts to the Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Church retroactively validates the baptism. But this is a matter of mercy. Catholic baptisms are all wrong, even if mercy can be used to validate them: how do you think if would have looked if John the Baptist baptized Jesus by just sprinkling water over his head? Why on earth would you do baptism that way?
>>734970
I claim Christ owns me. And as an earnest money downpayment, has installed in me His Holy Spirit.
If you think the Holy Spirit is hate, then you don't know Him at all.
Peter was murdered by Rome, having never been a bishop or "pope" at all. Just like Paul was murdered by Rome. Just like millions and millions and millions of Christians and Jews have been murdered by Catholics.
>>734987
So you believe that John the Baptist saved Jesus by baptizing Him.
>>735006
I believe John the Baptist initiated Christ into the new covenant by baptizing him, just as Christ was initiated into the old one by circumcision.
>>734896
Ive seen it in other places. There are alot of Orthodox who really seem to have a chip on their shoulder about the Catholic church. Most Catholics in contrast respect the Orthodox even if they disagree with them
>>734987
When I mentioned the Anglicans, I meant I literally never think of them or care about them.
>Catholic baptisms are all wrong...by just sprinkling water over his head
Well, we do it differently, but worrying about how much water is involved seems like missing the point. It would have been cool if I was dunked in the river like Jesus I will admit, but having a big ass bowl of holy water rolled over my tiny baby face worked fine for me.
>>735033
Like I said, the Orthodox see Catholics like Roman Catholics see Anglo-Catholics, and the Catholics see the Orthodox like Anglo-Catholics see Roman Catholics.
>>735042
>When I mentioned the Anglicans, I meant I literally never think of them or care about them.
But you would if people kept saying, "So Catholicism is basically Anglicanism with a Pope, right?"
>>735042
>Well, we do it differently, but worrying about how much water is involved seems like missing the point
The point is being born.
>>735073
If someone asked me that, my response would literally be 'Well, there are some differences, but that's a pretty alright way to sum it up I think."
Especially for someone not interested in hearing a whole theological nitpicking argument.
>>735073
Most people have no interest or probably could not understand a debate about things like actus purus or other esoteric concepts that they are not even qualified to hold an opinion about.
So for the average pleb, yeah its Catholicism without a pope
>>735002
Too bad the Early Church and the Apostles don't believe in Prot crud
>>735018
So, you have absolutely no idea that the New Covenant was not in place until Jesus died on the cross.
Got it.
>>735089
I don't think that answer would have been possible for you before Vatican II, since there is a pretty big distinction between the Church Christ founded, and something masquerading as said Church.
>>735137
>So, you have absolutely no idea that the New Covenant was not in place until Jesus died on the cross.
So why was the Mystical Supper prior to the Cross, when it was of the New Covenant, not of the Old Covenant?
>>735148
It wasn't mystical. It was the Passover. And the Passover lamb, the Lamb of God, was killed on the following day, Passover.
Remember that Jew days start at sundown/spotting of 3 stars.
Jesus told us to take the bread and the cup in remembrance of what He was about to do.
He was about to have His body broken.
He was about to have His blood spilled.
And He wanted us to remember that, so that we would draw closer to Him, and love Him even more.
Jesus changed the Passover from a remembrance of God delivering the Hebrews from the land of Egypt to the Lamb of God delivering the world from the bondage of sin through His death and resurrection.
>>735094
Christians believe what Christians believe.
Catholics believe what Catholics believe.
I'm more than happy to let the chips fall where they may.
>>735168
Yes, it was indeed a Pascha, but it was a new covenant Pascha...if it weren't, then they would have used unleavened bread.
>>735177
The Feast of Unleavened Bread did not start until the next day, the day after Passover.
>>735194
>Also, please direct me to this non-catholic unified Christendom.
It's called every single person ever who has the Holy Spirit in them.
And no, Catholics are Catholics, and Christians are Christians.
If you knew how many millions of Christians were slaughtered by the catholic church, you would understand the animosity. Maybe. And by millions, I mean tens of millions. When the catholic church murders Christians, they call us "heretics", because we do not bend the knee to Rome.
So you'll have to excuse me for vomiting when you say that all Catholics are christians.
>>735183
Passover meals have no leaven in them, period, starting from the evening of the 14th Day (the evening is the beginning of the day by Jewish reckoning). Christ's meal was obviously in the evening (beginning in this case) of the 14th Day, since that is the day the Passover Lamb is slaughtered.
>>735194
His definition of Christan is someone who agrees with him
>>735215
Yes, a Passover meal.
The day before the week long event of the Feast of Unleavened Bread began.
>>735219
My definition is the same as the bible's. Anyone who has confessed with their mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believes in their heart God has raised Him from the dead. Romans 10:9
So simple, yet it's impossible without God's help. Which is why all of you think you can do those two things, and only the saved actually did.
>>735209
Well, all Catholics are Christians. But not all Christians are Catholics. It's literally fact buddy.
>>735229
>My definition is the same as the bible's. Anyone who has confessed with their mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believes in their heart God has raised Him from the dead. Romans 10:9
Well that definition would include Catholics, Orthodox, protestants and several other groups, unless you belief they are lying about their belief in Jesus.
Does anyone have any good statisitcs on participation rate growth/decline in the church I keep seeing conflicting statistics some saying that its growing others say its declining.
>>731760
Your experience doesn't seem to conform to the general trends then because the Orthodox church is one of the most ethnic branches of Christianity and continues to be to this day. Unlike the Catholic church which moved out of being just an "Irish or an Italian thing" the Orthodox are still heavily tied to their ethnic roots.
>>731806
>>731829
Take a look at the creation of new churches, a lot of growth figures come from consolidation rather than substantive growth.
>>732296
The correct comparison would be "everyone is born apolitical"
>>735238
All Cathoilcs are Catholics.
All Christians are Christians.
You have made zero case for any overlap.
>>735250
I'm saying that they haven't actually done it.
I'm saying that their faith is in their church to save them.
I'm saying that their church is telling them what to do, and how, and what rituals to perform, and how, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with their salvation.
For the catholics, chanting creeds does not save you.
For the orthodox, being baptized and having oil spread on your does not save you.
It's always been one-on-one, man with God, and it is not a corporate event.
Go ahead and do and say what is in Romans 10:9, right now. You'll see.
>>735229
It was on the 14th Day, the day the Passover Lamb is slaughtered. Is says in the OT to eat no leavened bread starting from the evening of the 14th. If it weren't on the 14th, then it wouldn't even be a Passover meal, since Passover starts on the 14th (Leviticus 23:5), and at that point you can no longer eat leavened bread (Exodus 12:18)
>>735288
You just added to your own definition, They now have to express their belief the same way as you.
Your original definition is just something people have to say and believe true.
at least be consistent
>>735293
Keep reading. The feast of unleavened bread is on the 15th.
>>735301
>It's always been one-on-one, man with God, and it is not a corporate event.
>Go ahead and do and say what is in Romans 10:9, right now. You'll see.
Show me where I interjected something new.
>>735310
Yes, they recite meaningless chants often.
Mark 7:6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.
>>735304
But the Passover meal of the 14th still uses unleavened bread.
>>735310
There's only one requirement. A man must be born again, in the Spirit.
>>735317
So you can read minds now? Like I said before, You've just declared them liars because they disagree with your interpretation of scripture.
>>735322
Right, which comes with being baptized into the Church.
>>735320
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that Jesus could not have broken unleavened bread?
Do you know that leaven in the New Covenant is a symbol for sin?
Are you agreeing that Jesus is without sin, and that His body was broken for us? And His blood shed for us?
Because desu, that bit about Passover being followed by the Feast of Unleavened Bread isn't really common knowledge.
>>735330
The Catholic church says only people in it are saved.
I am saved.
I am not in the Catholic church.
I know them for liars.
I also know them for murderers.
As to the Orthodox, they have similar if not identical problems, and a less murderous past. I don't really care for them, and they don't really care for me.
>>735333
So saith the church of satan. Bathe within my walls, and receive heaven.
>>735334
I'm the word used for "bread" here is the one for leavened bread, not the one for unleavened. Whereas it was called a Passover meal. Passover meals of the old covenant use unleavened bread. Christ used leavened bread, which shows it was a new covenant Pascha. Christ doesn't say, "Do this is remembrance of when you were slaves in Egypt".
>>735338
Don't blasphemy the Holy Spirit, bruh.
>>735344
>Hell, even the Catholics think it comes from being baptized in general. They recognize quite a few non-catholic baptisms as valid.
But I'm Orthodox, and we do not recognize any baptism as valid apart from Orthodox (which includes Coptics and other Oriental Orthodox, who also only recognize Oriental and Eastern Orthodox baptisms).
The idea that baptisms outside the Church are valid would make as much sense as saying Communion outside the Church is valid.
>>735209
>It's called every single person ever who has the Holy Spirit in them.
lmao
>>735340
While Jesus did change the Passover, Jesus did not disobey one jot or tittle of the Law, which would be the case if you are correct.
The Greek word used to identify the bread distributed by Christ at the Last Supper is artos (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24), which is the general word for any kind of bread (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 110).
Because it was the Passover, and because eating leavened bread would violate the Passover, and cause Jesus to be expelled from the nation of Israel, for you to say it was leavened bread, based on a word that can mean either, is deceptive.
>>735344
I called all Catholic creeds meaningless chants.
I can call all Catholic prayers meaningless chants, too.
Because they are.
>>735346
I can't. And because you don't know what it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, you likely are.
And if you're counting on the Whore of Babylon to save you, you definitely are.
>>735351
Yup. Same as the papists.
Bathe in our buildings, or go to hell.
>>735351
>Water, applied by any means.
>The wording, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” taken from Matthew 28:19.
>The desire on the part of the baptizer to perform a valid Christian baptism.
>>735414
Water
Saving anyone
Ludicrous
And shame on all of you idiots who say that your water saves people. Shame on you for not loading up super soakers and dousing everyone you can find. Shame.
>>735403
>A man proclaims in a church that he believes in Christ.
>He means it.
>you say it's meaningless
I don't know, you seem to be acting pretty much like some sort of adversary or deceiver right now. I know it has meaning when I say it mate.
>>735421
Baptism is required. It in itself isn't enough to save you, but it's required just like circumcision used to be. You have to affirmatively enter into the new covenant to be in the new covenant, and the baptism is an affirmation and Sacrament.
Now, it is true God is not autistic, and won't require it from you if situation makes it impossible (like the guy on the cross with Christ), but just because God is not autistic about a rule doesn't mean the rule is no longer in place.
>>735423
I know what the verse means. You do not, as you thought I, a born again Christian with the Holy Spirit literally living inside me, had committed the unpardonable sin.
>>735424
The devil believes in Christ.
He means it too.
>>735436
You are a huge theological mess.
Baptism is not required, at all. See, e.g., the thief on the cross, saved while being nailed to a cross.
It has nothing to do with saving you.
It is not required.
You do not have to be baptized in water to enter into the New Covenant.
There are no sacraments.
God may not be autistic, but you sure are.
>>735441
>I know what the verse means
What does it mean?
>>735449
>Baptism is not required, at all. See, e.g., the thief on the cross, saved while being nailed to a cross.
You even finish my post? God isn't autistic, so he's not going to say, "Well, you could be saved, but it is physically impossible for you to be baptized, so you're out of luck." The idea that you are trying to use the exception as a guideline that no one has to be baptized, is very, very wrong. The thief didn't have to be baptized only because he physically could not be baptized. You are exploiting this to say "Well, then NONE of us have to be!" No, it doesn't mean that at all. It's like saying, "Someone was literally penniless didn't give to the poor? Well then, it's not required for a Christian, since he still went to heaven!"
>>735451
The Unpardonable Sin
Matthew 12
“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
1 John 5
He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son.
The only sin not pardoned at the cross is the unpardonable sin. It is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, the Witness sent to all men that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
It is calling the Holy Spirit a liar.
It is Unbelief.
>>735445
Holy shit, you're a fucking mess.
Nah mate. I'm a human man, who believes in Christ and says it, often. You can continue to feel mad.
>>735463
You have to be baptized to be saved.
This guy was not baptized, but he was saved.
The logical conclusion is that you do not have to be baptized to be saved.
Except that you do have to be baptized to be saved, just not in water. And that man, like all men saved, was baptized in such a manner.
>>735471
The Second Verse doesn't say anything about blasphemy.
>>735472
The devil believes in God more than you do. The devil talked to God today, in heaven, in the throne room. Snitching, as usual.
Do you think the devil is saved?
>>735472
James 2:19
>>735481
>he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son.
Saying God is a liar is blasphemy.
>>735487
James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!
(He doesn't want the truth.)
>>735479
No, the logical conclusion is that God isn't autistic. Yes, you can be baptized in ways other than water, such as being baptized by fire or blood. That doesn't mean you don't have to use water when it's available.
>>735489
Where does the Bible say that?
>>735483
>The devil believes in God more than you do
Well, considering belief is binary you mouth-breathing retard. No. I believe in God the same amount anyone who believes in God does.
>>735487
>14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?[c] 15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? 21
I even do works too mate.
>>735503
You're so desperate to pin your salvation to when you were baptized that you don't even realize you're not saved yet.
>>735513
Are you serious?
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
>>735515
Belief is binary? Oh, wow, you really are autistic.
>>735522
My saved state is always in jeopardy, true.
>>735534
>Are you serious?
I'm showing how ridiculous sola scriptura is.
>>735534
Where does the Bible say it is blasphemy to refer to God as a slanderer (translated as "devil")?
>>735542
If you were saved, you would know that to be a lie.
Because you are not saved, and know you're not saved, you do not know that you are saved.
Because
you're
not
>>735539
Belief in God is.
Either you do or don't.
>>735545
You may think you are, but you're not.
Those verses show the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit quite clearly.
You saying it isn't blasphemy to call God the devil is a joke. Right? A joke? Tell God it was a joke.
>>735580
Again, the devil believes in God.
Is the devil saved?
Some muslims believe paradise awaits, and they detonate suicide vests on themselves. Some muslims kind of believe paradise might await, and don't.
Is there belief level identical?
>>735585
>You saying it isn't blasphemy to call God the devil
But I never said that
>>735602
Good. Right. Never said it. Best to move on. Maybe he won't notice your "derp, #2 doesn't have blasphemy in it."
>>735609
Hey pal, you're the one who called the Body of Christ Satan, I didn't.
>>735580
You can believe without being saved, and your belief can be false. You accused the Devil of believing more than a person, which is false as belief in God would be binary. You either believe or don't.
>>735619
I called the devil satan.
I called the catholic church the catholic church, a collection of lost people desperately hoping the Whore of Babylon will save them.
She won't.
She's a whore.
This is the body of Christ, as I said it to be, and as the bible says it to be: The collection of all saved people from Pentecost to Rapture indwelled with the Holy Spirit of God, having been born again in the Spirit, and renewed unto eternal life.
>>735633
The
devil
believes
in
God
>>735637
The Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ. You are calling Christ's Body a whore.
Christ founded a Church. Just reading works from that Church aren't enough to make you a part of it, let alone enough for you to say you know more about Christ than the Church he founded does.
>>735644
Yes. We've been over that and I agree with it. It's almost like you don't have a theological leg to stand on so you just throw out the same thing over and over again.
>>735650
You and the papists can bitch about which church is the "real" church Jesus founded all day and all night.
Because you have nothing better to do.
Because you don't know Jesus.
>>735656
Ok, good. So believing in God is not salvation.
Glad you finally got hammered somewhere near the truth.
>>735658
Sure bro, but Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons and Lutherans and Anglicans and Presbyterians all do.
>>735656
And it's almost as though you can't figure out that a muslim who believes hard enough to detonate a suicide belt in a kindergarten believes in paradise more than a muslim who kind of thinks maybe the whole thing is a little silly.
Jesus commended several people for their strong faith, including Romans.
But you? No, you like the simple things in life, like light switches. But no dimmer switches! Just on and off! on and off! on and off!
kek
>>735670
That you think those people are on the same level is laughable.
Lost as eff, lost as eff, mostly saved, mostly saved, mostly saved.
>>735658
But we do.
>>735658
You don't know Jesus either. If you did, you'd know what he cried out when The Amazing Dildoni took his ass in Pilate's dungeon.
>>735676
JW's are sola scrptura.
>>735681
Nah, not really. He's dead to you, as He is to the papists. You two have your own thing going, and it's self-governed. It has nothing to do with Jesus. Nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. Not really.
>>735690
>He's dead to you
You sure are projecting there. He's not dead to us, or them.
>It has nothing to do with Jesus. Nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.
It really has everything to do with it.
>>734648
>But God's energies are not his ESSENCE.
and? there is still an ontological distinction
>This would not be a difficult concept if Roman Catholics didn't have such a hard-on for Aristotle.
it is an incoherent concept by itself. How can a God trascend his energies an infinite number of times yet be in each one of his energies
>The closest thing to an essence-energies distinction in Roman Catholicism is the substance-accidents distinction
No, for the essence-energies distinction to be "somewhat" like a substance-accident distinction we would have to drop the "accident" part altogether and have a "substance-lesser substance" i.e, an incoherent concept
>and for some reason that got taken to the point where the "accidents" are not truth in Roman Catholicism
I dont know what you are talking about. Accidents are pretty much real (though I doubt you actually understand what an "accident" is, or that not all kinds of accidents are of the same kind).
What does verge on Gnosticism is Palamist Duotheism, something that is entailed by your so called distinction. If you had listened to the arguments of your critics instead of imprisoning them and condemning them in "angry mob councils" you would realize that.
>>735761
>and? there is still an ontological distinction
It's clear to me at this point that your idea of being is very different from mine. I consider it essence, substance. What do you consider it to be?
>How can a God trascend his energies an infinite number of times yet be in each one of his energies
How can God transcend matter yet have a human body?
> Accidents are pretty much real
For Aristotle they were. Roman Catholics derived a very warped conception though as clear in their Eucharistic theology.
>>735761
>have a "substance-lesser substance" i.e, an incoherent concept
Substance and essence are the same thing, ousia. The essence energies distinction is between ousia and energeia, not between ousia and ousia.
>>735803
>It's clear to me at this point that your idea of being is very different from mine.
You retarded? You two are arguing from two totally different fucking theological schools and you are just now grasping that he may not agree with you on some ideas?
I can see why the churches split.
>>735803
>It's clear to me at this point that your idea of being is very different from mine.
No shit...
>How can God transcend matter yet have a human body?
It's a mystery, sure. But Palamism isnt a mystery, it's philosophy
>Roman Catholics derived a very warped conception though as clear in their Eucharistic theology.
Well then I dont know who told you that, but theyre wrong. Have you tried asking or reading a Catholic on this subject?
Seriously, this is just the same strawman one meets in Protestant circles
>OH WE AGREE WITH X DOCTRINE, NOT THE "ROMISH" DOCTRINE
it's all just one big meme
>The essence energies distinction is between ousia and energeia
so the energies arent God?
>>735263
Bumping for an answer / statistics for this
>>735877
>It's a mystery, sure. But Palamism isnt a mystery, it's philosophy
Not anymore than Trinitiarianism "Isn't a mystery, it's a philosophy."
>Well then I dont know who told you that, but theyre wrong. Have you tried asking or reading a Catholic on this subject?
Yes. The accidents are not considered to be Christ's Body and Blood.
>so the energies arent God?
They aren't God's ousia, but they are God's energeia. God's wrath, for instance, is God, but not God's ousia
>>735915
>Not anymore than Trinitiarianism
Palamism isnt Trinitarianism
>The accidents are not considered to be Christ's Body and Blood
Well yeah, accidents arent substances.
>They aren't God's ousia, but they are God's energeia.
So they arent God?
>God's wrath, for instance, is God, but not God's ousia
this is the distinction im talking about, you framing it in greek terms doesnt make it different. So which is God, the essence or the energies, or is it both?
>>735961
>Well yeah, accidents arent substances.
And existences aren't essences, yet the God the Son is God, though God the Son is a hypostasis whereas God is ousia.
>So they arent God?
No, they are God. You are more than your essence.
>So which is God, the essence or the energies, or is it both?
God's essence and God's energies are both God.
>>736023
>And existences aren't essences
what does this have to do with anything?
>You are more than your essence.
yet I'm not my wrath, or my thoughts, or this post, yet theyre all my "energies"
>God's essence and God's energies are both God.
but God's essence (if we can call it that way) infinitely trascends an infinite number of times the Divine energies, yet he is present in each one of them. So we have a God who is both infintely trascendent and untrascendent at the same time. How do you make sense out of this?
>>736055
>yet I'm not my wrath, or my thoughts, or this post, yet theyre all my "energies"
No, you are them. How on earth can you say you're not? What are they made of? This is what I mean by Gnostic thinking. You ARE your body, your brain, your heart, and everything they contain.
>How do you make sense out of this?
Magnets.
>>736092
>What are they made of?
not of "me" that's pretty sure
>This is what I mean by Gnostic thinking.
How do you go from
>I'm not my wrath, or my thoughts, or this post
to
>Le body is ebil :BB
>Le demiurge :DD
Seriously, I'm missing something
>You ARE your body, your brain, your heart, and everything they contain.
So if i cut of my hand, do we have two "me"s?
>Magnets
yeah, 'kay
>>736092
>Magnets.
>>736117
>So if i cut of my hand, do we have two "me"s?
Your hand is "excommunicated" (except without any sense of anathema) from your Body so to speak, and so it ceases to be you.
>>736147
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvmvxAcT_Yc
>>736168
I know this is a humanities board, but some people need to learn at least the basics.
>>736160
What if I cut of my head and keep it alive artificially, along with my whole body.
Seriously this is literally Theseus' ship: Ortho edition
>>736185
Seriously, are you going to deny that the Body and Blood of Christ, are Christ?
Roman Catholics, how do they work.
>>736196
>implying
How do you work? Do you literally bring up random stuff when you dont want to answer something.
Also
>Magnets
Did you read that before you posted it
>>736196
You can't meme now, you literally made such a stupid and retarded statement by bringing magnets into it that you ended whatever legitimacy you had.
I say this as a third party enjoying the argument up until now.
>>736207
>Do you literally bring up random stuff when you dont want to answer something.
I've been doing nothing but answering over and over. This is the only time I asked a question back to you.
>Did you read that before you posted it
It's a humorous way of saying we don't know how it works.
>>736213
The magnets thing is an old meme
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fucking-magnets-how-do-they-work
If you weren't a newfag, you'd know that it's meant to be humorous and it's a meme.
>>736216
>This is the only time I asked a question back to you.
It's a stupid, loaded question. You might as well ask me If I'm denying God is greater than the Pope.
>It's a humorous way of saying we don't know how it works.
I'd say it's an cringy way to admit you're in a pickle.
Posting the "It's magic, I aint gonna explain shit" meme wouldve been more fitting (theyre both intellectually empty though)
>>736245
>It's a stupid, loaded question.
It's a simply question. If you don't think you are your body, then does the same apply to Christ?
>I'd say it's an cringy way to admit you're in a pickle.
I'm saying it is a divine mystery. I didn't answer it very seriously because Roman Catholics also consider God to be both immanent and infinitely transcendent.
>gee I wonder what deep spirtual or historical discussion is going on here
>argueing about essence magic vs energy magic. It's like watching 2 nerds argue about fantasy anime
>magnet posting
The most consistent quality and spirtual threads we got on /his/ were Ape of Thoth's occultism threads.
>>736218
>I was meming! I wasn't actually retarded!
Right. You got backed into an argument and used magnets. Accept it.
>>736280
>It's a simply question. If you don't think you are your body
It's a loaded question, and when did I say such thing?
>I'm saying it is a divine mystery.
How can Palamas' philosophy be divine? or a mystery?
>I didn't answer it very seriously
No shit
>>736304
I could again say, "Well, God has a Body but is beyond the material, how do you explain?" And he's say (as he already did) that it's a mystery. But we already went through all that.
>It's a loaded question, and when did I say such thing?
You said your thoughts, which are happening in your brain, are not you. That is like saying your brain isn't you.
>>736285
>The most consistent quality and spirtual threads we got on /his/ were Ape of Thoth's occultism threads.
Where did Ape of Thoth go? I miss him ;-;
>>736336
>You said your thoughts, which are happening in your brain
I dont buy into naturalism, you do?
>That is like saying your brain isn't you.
Of course it isnt. I can see a painted wall and say without problem the paint isnt the wall. And the same is with my thoughts, they are only in my "brain" accidentally and arent essential for my being, since I could not have them and still be me (If they werent accidental, then I would cease to be every time I thought of something else!)
>>731605
What makes EO more truthy than the Assyrian Church of the East, or the Oriental Orthodox?
>>736367
>I dont buy into naturalism, you do?
I don't think the brain contains the spirit. I do think the brain does contain thoughts though.
>they are only in my "brain" accidentally and arent essential for my being
That is correct, but they are still you. Just like your hypostasis (existence) isn't your essence, but it is still you.
>>736375
nothing, theyre literally the same. People got mad with the Church so they declared themselves to be the "true" Church
>>736375
Assyrians are Nestorians, I think?
Oriental and Eastern are equally valid. Our confusion for long has to do with discrepancies in how we define nature. For a long time, Alexandrian theologians had used the term nature to mean hypostasis, whereas in the East in means attributes. We have both agreed that Christ has one hypostasis and two sets of attributes. We both recognize each other's baptisms (something we do for no one else) and all other Sacraments. We both recognize each other as 100% valid, and we can take communion with each other where it physical distance makes the alternative unfeasible. Working out full communion is mainly a matter of tying up jurisdiction and administration..
>>736383
not the guy you were responding to, but the idea that you are both 100% your existence and your essence (if that is what you are saying) is both mind boggling and awesome. where can i find the writings (online ideally) of early church fathers discussing this, among other, ideas?
also what do you think of "sayings of the desert fathers" as a text for someone being just introduced to orthodoxy? will it give me a good sense of what the orthodox believe?
>>736383
also how would you refute the claim of certain philosophical schools that there is only existence, and that essence is basically a false concept?
>>736383
>That is correct, but they are still you
I already told you why they arent you.
>Just like your hypostasis (existence) isn't your essence, but it is still you.
I'm not my act existence, I just exist. I could cease to be right now and it wouldnt affect my essence of "Anon". Or maybe you mean something else when you say existence.
>>736415
He can't. They both argue from two totally different opinion, and each requires an acceptance of a fact that is opposed.
>>736415
Magnets
>>736431
right, but why should someone buy into the idea of essence at all?
>>736413
>not the guy you were responding to, but the idea that you are both 100% your existence and your essence (if that is what you are saying) is both mind boggling and awesome. where can i find the writings (online ideally) of early church fathers discussing this, among other, ideas?
The Cappadocian Fathers talk about it extensively, and they had to in order to explain the Trinity. Ousia is the Greek word for essence, hypostasis is the Greek word for existence. God is one essence with three existences: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
>also what do you think of "sayings of the desert fathers" as a text for someone being just introduced to orthodoxy? will it give me a good sense of what the orthodox believe?
It's not really a catechism of Orthodox beliefs, but it is a very good way to grasp the Orthodox mindset, so sure, go for it. If you want other intro texts, see the pastebin in the OP, which gives online links
>>736415
Do you mean theologically, or with purely secular philosophy?
>>736422
>I'm not my act existence
Then the Son is not God? The Son is an existence of God.
>>736482
so are god's energies another hypostasis or what?
>Do you mean theologically, or with purely secular philosophy?
whatever way, in your opinion, best addresses the concern.
>>736482
>Then the Son is not God?
What? Where did THAT come from?
>>736451
Well, all essence is is an attribute or attributes that make something what it is. The only problem is, that after that you go into the mad realm of metaphysics, Ontology, and/or Existentialism.
And objectively speaking, anyone who claims to understand any of those is actually just mad. And unless you dive in headfirst and become mad like them, you won't be able to determine who is right.
>>736499
i think what she is saying is
>you claimed that you are your essence, not your existence (which is merely accidental)
>the son is an existence of god
>therefore the son is not really god, but a mere accident
something like that
>>736495
>so are god's energies another hypostasis or what?
No. God only has three hypostases. God's energies are distinct from his essence, just as his existences are. It's like this: suppose you are sad: your sorrow is an energy which is "you", but it does not maintain a distinct existence.
>whatever way, in your opinion, best addresses the concern.
Let us suppose humans were capable of mitosis. After the process, only one of them is "you". That "you" carries your essence, whereas the other does not. If there were no such thing as essence, then either both would be you, or neither would be.
>>736499
God has three existences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If you are not your existence, then neither Father, Son nor Holy Spirit are God.
>>736520
I didnt say my existence was an accident though
And what she says might be true in the Orthodox interpretation of the Trinity, but not on the Catholic interpretation.
>>736533
>If you are not your existence, then neither Father, Son nor Holy Spirit are God.
according to whom?
>>736539
According to you: Father, Son and Holy Spirit are existences, the essence is God.
>>736528
ok, so is there a certain limited number of energies in the same way that he only has three existences? or are they without limit?
>>736556
What do you mean by existence? What theory of existence are you using?
>>736559
Energies are not considered a bunch of little energies, it's more like water and air.
>>736574
Trinitarian. God has one ousia (essence) and three hypostases (existences). You say three persons, but that comes from Latin translation.
>>736575
>it's more like water and air.
im not getting what you mean by this
>>736579
>Trinitarian
that's not an answer
What do you mean by existence?
>You say three persons
So?
>tfw bumped this thread when it was on page 10 hoping to witness some interesting discussion
>it ends up just being an argument between two retards the whole time
I am full of regret.
Is jesus the son of God? How can God have a son? That's blasphemy
questions from the Jewish FAQ
>Genesis 18 explicitly depicts YHWH (generally translated as “the Lord” ever since the Septuagint) as Triune.
We see all three "anashim" eating and so on. So they are clearly physical beings. Does God the Father incarnate (not sure if that is the right word) physically as well? Also wasn't the Logos' incarnation a unique event?
>He refers to them as אֲדֹנָי, the emphatic form of Lord, a term, in that particular grammatical case, used 448 times in the Tanakh--in every instance it is used to refer to YHWH
That's not true, I can remember one instance, although im fairly certain there are more, where someone other than God is referred to as Adonai. Abraham is referred to as "Adonai". It's in Gen 23:15.
>>736603
Have you ever opened your Bible? How can a claim in the Bible be blasphemy?
