Informational Deep Into Christianity

The_FPMer

The_FPMer

Active Member
He is the original Christian, Jesus and his church changed :p
I only asked a question. As a Catholic, I believe in the Trinity. And therefore, Jesus is part of the Godhead YHWH. I don't see the harm in asking questions to be honest.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Walidos

    Walidos

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I only asked a question. As a Catholic, I believe in the Trinity. And therefore, Jesus is part of the Godhead YHWH. I don't see the harm in asking questions to be honest.
    Ask away, I was just reading :)
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I only asked a question. As a Catholic, I believe in the Trinity. And therefore, Jesus is part of the Godhead YHWH. I don't see the harm in asking questions to be honest.
    you do realize there is a whole theme about Just War in Christian theology? if there is no escaping it, and you have to defend yourself then you will carry that out, that is not something that is carried out under the "baddi kasserlo rasso" theme, in particular when you consider that these actions are sanctioned by YHWE of the old testament and that Christ was simply talking bi jalse ma3 tlemizo.

    and yes even that will still be against the teachings of Christ. if you fail to realize what that means, remember that Rome, the enemy of the Jewish people who were awaiting a conqueror Messiah, became Christian without having to lift a sword.
     
    The_FPMer

    The_FPMer

    Active Member
    you do realize there is a whole theme about Just War in Christian theology? if there is no escaping it, and you have to defend yourself then you will carry that out, that is not something that is carried out under the "baddi kasserlo rasso" theme, in particular when you consider that these actions are sanctioned by YHWE of the old testament and that Christ was simply talking bi jalse ma3 tlemizo.
    But that is the core of my question, how can the Son contradict himself? YHWH in the Old Testament is the Trinity.

    And any Bible verses that affirm the Just War theology?

    and yes even that will still be against the teachings of Christ. if you fail to realize what that means, remember that Rome, the enemy of the Jewish people who were awaiting a conqueror Messiah, became Christian without having to lift a sword.
    Yes, there are exceptions in history but doesn't mean that everything happens that way. If our ancestors chose to lay down and die, we wouldn't be conversing right now through the internet, we wouldn't be breathing in fact.
     
    Last edited:
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    But that is the core of my question, how can the Son contradict himself? YHWH in the Old Testament is the Trinity.

    And any Bible verses that affirm the Just War theology?

    Yes, there are exceptions in history but doesn't mean that everything happens that way. If our ancestors chose to lay down and die, we wouldn't be conversing right now through the internet, we wouldn't be breathing in fact.
    are you even Christian??
     
    The_FPMer

    The_FPMer

    Active Member
    are you even Christian??
    Yes, I don't think I'm espousing anti-Christian beliefs. We as Christians believe that the NT is a continuation of the OT and in the Trinity. Therefore the same God that spoke to Moses in the burning bush is the same God that was crucified on the cross and resurrected after three days. Or am I wrong?
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Yes, I don't think I'm espousing anti-Christian beliefs. We as Christians believe that the NT is a continuation of the OT and in the Trinity. Therefore the same God that spoke to Moses in the burning bush is the same God that was crucified on the cross and resurrected after three days. Or am I wrong?
    your words are correct on the surface, but your perception however is off. such a dry approach is not all that different from the Jewish perception that lead them to reject Christ and crucify Him. the NT is not simply a continuation, it is rather destination towards which the OT was always progressing. Christ's word is final, there is no higher authority, you are getting it straight from the source, not through prophets, nor through scribes. "You have heard it said ..... but I tell you"!

    you should brush up on your theology.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The Christianity of Catholicism and Orthodoxy is a powerhouse of philosophy, theology, and culture to behold. So much humanity and arts and sciences was born out of this notion. However Evangelical Christianity, the ridiculous Americanized and mutated version of Christ is so absurd and so unfortunately popular and powerful that it is actually disturbing our region for many years. Why is Evangelicalism so popular and how did it become so? And what can real Christians, Catholics and Orthodox of course, do stop this heresy?
    Protestantism started as a rejection of the one true Church. Therefore, it is normal that some of their beliefs will be heretical (to various degrees, depending on groups). There are, however, some very bright minds within protestantism: William Lane Craig and Nabeel Qureshi, to name a couple. I wouldn't paint all protestants or evangelicals with the same brush. Some have ideas worth listening to; but always cross check to know which ones are in line with the Catholic Church.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    @The_FPMer welcome back to the forum my dear :)

    It is a good sign that you are asking questions about your faith. It is perfectly normal to be confused about or to not understand certain aspects of the faith or the Scriptures. Honest questioning with a genuine desire to learn should always be welcomed.

    As humans, we have the natural drive to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Christ's message of radical love can, at times, feel counternatural. We tend to focus on smaller parts while He sees the whole. For example, in some cases, taking up arms might mean saving the life of a few you care about, while remaining peaceful might lead to the loss of those lives but the conversion of many more. An example of this are the early Christian martyrs who were fed to wild animals as entertainment. They did not return violence for violence, and the same society who loved such "entertainment" eventually became Christian.

    I have a movie suggestion for you: Hacksaw Ridge. It is a war movie based on real events, and it is an incredible example of how Christians can remain true to their faith, even as the world around them is engulfed in war.
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    @The_FPMer , there's no contradiction, but a fulfillment.

    At a primitive stage, defending and preserving oneself against leprosy will require defending against the lepers themselves. This naturally translates into isolating, exiling or eliminating the lepers. Since all analogies limp, i'd rather add to the analogy that the lepers are being and remaining lepers largely due to their own choices and will. If justice is about bringing balance and paying each their due, and say leprosy is manifested by Steve plucking out one of Bob's eyes, then the natural balancing action ought include plucking out one of Steve's eyes in return. However, at this stage, there's still no remedy for the actual 'why' or 'reason' that made Steve commit this evil act in the first place (let alone a true restoration against the damaging effect of Steve's action). Hence, isolating or killing the lepers, or going by Justice alone and to the letter, is not a remedy against leprosy or against the root cause that drove Steve to pluck out Bob's eye in the first place.

    It is only at a non-primitive stage that the defense and fight against leprosy is developed into one against the disease itself rather than the lepers (the carriers, spreaders and effecters). This is where mercy, love or self-sacrifice comes in the scene. If Justice is fulfilled by truly and fully reversing the leprosy effect, then Justice gets fulfilled only at this stage. Here, justice still underlies the whole mechanism through and through. It is not until the lepers become completely one in will with the disease, that they are treated back as the disease itself, and definitively so this time; this is damnation.
     
    Last edited:
    The_FPMer

    The_FPMer

    Active Member
    Christ's word is final, there is no higher authority, you are getting it straight from the source, not through prophets, nor through scribes. "You have heard it said ..... but I tell you"!
    I agree, but you're implying that the OT has been altered with, or am I assessing your words inaccurately? Gher inno this is what Muslims believe, that shakes the foundation of Christianity because it is based on the OT. The prophecies written in Isaiah about a virgin woman who give birth to the Jewish Messiah, the Exodus from Egypt into Canaan, Jesus coming to fulfill the law and so on.

    Moreover, you never answered my question, isn't YHWH, the Trinity? Reading the OT, I've noticed the Angel of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord as two distinct beings from the Father. The Angel of the Lord appears to Moses in the burning bush.

    you should brush up on your theology.
    Thanks for the advice, that's what I'm trying to do by asking questions :)
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    I agree, but you're implying that the OT has been altered with, or am I assessing your words inaccurately? Gher inno this is what Muslims believe, that shakes the foundation of Christianity because it is based on the OT. The prophecies written in Isaiah about a virgin woman who give birth to the Jewish Messiah, the Exodus from Egypt into Canaan, Jesus coming to fulfill the law and so on.

    Moreover, you never answered my question, isn't YHWH, the Trinity? Reading the OT, I've noticed the Angel of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord as two distinct beings from the Father. The Angel of the Lord appears to Moses in the burning bush.


    Thanks for the advice, that's what I'm trying to do by asking questions :)

    Where are you seeing a contradiction?

    - Defending against leprosy is good
    - Defending against leprosy entails defending against lepers at one point
    - Defending and going against leprosy doesn't stop nor is it fulfilled at that point
    - It is fulfilled by going against leprosy itself; its root cause
    - If justice is restoring the balance and rendering to each their due, then it is partially done by averting and reversing the effect of leprosy, and it is fully done and fulfilled by tackling the root cause; that which causes leprosy in the first place.
     
    The_FPMer

    The_FPMer

    Active Member
    Where are you seeing a contradiction?

    - Defending against leprosy is good
    - Defending against leprosy entails defending against lepers at one point
    - Defending and going against leprosy doesn't stop nor is it fulfilled at that point
    - It is fulfilled by going against leprosy itself; its root cause
    - If justice is restoring the balance and rendering to each their due, then it is partially done by averting and reversing the effect of leprosy, and it is fully done and fulfilled by tackling the root cause; that which causes leprosy in the first place.
    In the quote that DA has provided, Matthew 5:38-39 You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

    "You have heard that it was said" means either that it wasn't Him who said it or that what was said back then was wrong and no longer applicable.

    What I'm asking is why should we deal with absolutes, why can't we take the OT And the NT as one book. And take scenario and search the scriptures for who we should act. Like you said, defending against leprosy entails defending against lepers at one paint, i.e: taking arms and killing.
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    In the quote that DA has provided, Matthew 5:38-39 You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

    "You have heard that it was said" means either that it wasn't Him who said it or that what was said back then was wrong and no longer applicable.

    What I'm asking is why should we deal with absolutes, why can't we take the OT And the NT as one book. And take scenario and search the scriptures for who we should act. Like you said, defending against leprosy entails defending against lepers at one paint, i.e: taking arms and killing.
    While 'taking arms and killing' is not inherently wrong if only within the context of defense and some application of justice, we are called for a higher end. That's what is implied in scripture. What is inherently wrong however is holding 'taking up arms and killing even in self defense' as an act of fulfillment or an end in itself. If justice is 'countering and negating leprosy', then going the extra mile and tackling the root cause of leprosy is a fulfillment of justice.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I agree, but you're implying that the OT has been altered with, or am I assessing your words inaccurately? Gher inno this is what Muslims believe, that shakes the foundation of Christianity because it is based on the OT. The prophecies written in Isaiah about a virgin woman who give birth to the Jewish Messiah, the Exodus from Egypt into Canaan, Jesus coming to fulfill the law and so on.

    Moreover, you never answered my question, isn't YHWH, the Trinity? Reading the OT, I've noticed the Angel of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord as two distinct beings from the Father. The Angel of the Lord appears to Moses in the burning bush.


    Thanks for the advice, that's what I'm trying to do by asking questions :)
    I am not the one who is implying anything. Christ's statement is the one which implies everything. Christ is indeed speaking in His Divine authority, saying that what the people have been told is neither accurate nor enough.

    Now the revelation itself was incremental, God took his people from the figurative wilderness to a promised Jerusalem, they experienced the good and the bad while they were slowly growing on that journey and progressing towards the coming of the Messiah. Even as far as Christians are concerned our perception of the Divine is evolving with the remaining of our faculties, and we believe in Christ's promise about the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives which guides forward not simply by inspiration, but through the qualities that we develop in its presence: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, understanding, goodness, faithfulness, self-contorl, gentelness, wisdom, fortitude, counsel, etc...

    so only in the light of these attributes can you interpret something of such a deep nature, otherwise Christ's words will not resonate and their value will remain that ink and paper, regardless if you are Christian, Muslem, Jewish, atheist, or whatever else, be it by practice or by birth.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    @Dark Angel 7ebbo ba3d ya jame3a, mesh hek! :cigar:
    i know the guy, that was a typo, the name is "The Misleading Atheist" :p
    there is only one Truth, but people interpret it in countless different ways, that does not negate Truth. :cool:
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    I'd like to offer a summary of an interplay and interdependence of Justice and Mercy using a tweaked analogy of a leprosy that is self-inflicted, harbored and transmitted as a byproduct of people 'choosing an apparent good' or 'chasing a good wrongly'.
    1- Leprosy is bad.
    2- Defending against leprosy is good.
    3- Defending against leprosy entails defending against lepers at one point.
    4- Defending against leprosy doesn't stop nor is it fulfilled at that point.
    5- Defending against leprosy is fulfilled by going against leprosy itself; by tackling the disease at its root or source, by tackling its cause.
    6- If justice is 'restoring the balance, reversing the effect of leprosy and rendering to each their due', then justice is effected by averting and reversing the effect of leprosy at a proportional-based cost due-paid or taken of the leper, and it is fulfilled or most completely effected by tackling the root cause of leprosy; reversing it fully by eliminating its cause, or by causing its opposite.
    7- Fulfilling justice (effecting justice at the highest level) then naturally will require self-sacrifice on the part of the offended as they will be offering up some or all of the due cost they otherwise justly deserve of the leper, in this process.
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    Mercy is love turned towards the leper (sinner) ultimately via self-giving and self-sacrifice; manifested by going fully against leprosy rather than fully against the lepers themselves, for the leper's sake and salvation, entailing in the process the forgiveness or remitment of an offense of leprosy committed by the leper against one's self, and paying it off of one's self. Indeed, mercy is 'bestowing a gift' upon the leper. Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in this sense is the fullness thereof. Thus it is said, “Mercy exalts itself above judgment” (Jas 2:13)
     
    Last edited:
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    For what purpose is it to go against leprosy (against sin which causes it, and its effect)? Is it for merely saving, protecting and preserving one's self (and that which leprosy deprives one's self of)? or for saving, protecting and preserving the other (and that which leprosy deprives the others' self of) as well, even at one's own expense if need be? If leprosy is being itself in including necessarily in what it follows the universal natural (animal) order of sacrificing 'the other like me' for one's own sake, then willingly sacrificing oneself for the others' sake necessarily has to be in the counter cause.

    If the ['choosing of a fake good' (or the 'chasing a good wrongly') and the resulting effect] is countered and reversed by love, or more particularly by mercy, by self-giving as such, then 'choosing the actual good' or 'choosing good rightly' necessarily has to involve love as such and the 'choosing it'. Indeed, true love fulfills. It is the actual good itself.
     
    Top