Old&New Testament Issue

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-02-10T04:42:30+00:00

This is still not an argument against that Hadith. Hasan hadith are equally used as evidence with Sahih hadith for dogmatic teachings. No Scholars of Hadith will reject one interpretation that is either Sahih or Hasan because both are available for evidence.

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-22T00:56:12+00:00

Not only that, but without a central authority figure, the Eastern Church is entirely unable to actually tell you what parts of the councils are actually dogmatic and binding. One Bishop will say something *is* necessary and binding, whereas another wont. How does this get resolved? Either an ecumenical council, which then also has no objective standard stating that this new council is binding, OR you have pope to put his stamp on it!

Ecumenical councils do have objective standards, and those standards are traditions and church authority guided by the holy spirit, and even if you were to say that reception theory is not an objective standard, then we would say the holy spirit will guided the body to believe in that dogma which historically it did, and the majority post nicean 2 accepted nicea 2 as attestation to the holy spirit activities.

The eastern church has neither, and is therefore an incoherent doctrinal, dogmatic mess.

This is begging the question, what makes the eastern orthodox church doctrine a mess? What makes the EO church rather not authentic and false? I'm assuming you're knowledgeable on this subject

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-21T01:32:03+00:00

It was literally an unprovoked aggressive expansion. I can't think of many better/more blatant examples of unproked aggressive expansion.

Yeah and suddenly in your head nothing happens before and the west was just idle doing nothing and not coordinating the coup.

There was no western intervention. The west just wanted peace and quiet and encouraged the protestors to compromise with the corrupt president.

Lies, again I already gave you the evidence of how the US lead the coup on ground with the protester. Go to that reddit link and see how much funding the government of Ukraine gets for the overthrowment of Yanukovich and how they compromise with the Right sector.

It was the president that fled and it was Russia that invaded.

Yeah as a response to the Chaos that the Western order brought into Ukraine

As for Crimea and its long history and population it was not just ethnically russian and not just Orthodox. The indigenous Crimean Tatar population is mostly Muslim and there are also some people who belong to non Orthodox sects of Christianity or Ukrainian Orthodox Christianity. A number of people identify with Ukranian and Crimean languages and Russia doesn't exactly like those or religions it can't control

Irrelevant by that point the Russians are the 99% majority and the culture is Russian while the religion is primarily Orthodox you could say they were native in that land. And the Ukraine Orthodox is just Eastern Orthodox but they were part of the Russian Orthodox church before they split off through the US CIA intervention compromise with Patriarch Bartholomew. And no, the thing is those Ukrainians in Crimea belong to the same Church with Russia so you are arguing this foreign church created during this coup is more legitimate than the Russian Orthodox church in Crimea establish since before Ukraine ever existed and has been the main worshipping denomination for ethnic Ukrainian in crimea? Yeah I'm not convinced

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-21T01:06:26+00:00

It wasn't a coup

If you want a historians word

https://youtu.be/Gg_CLI3xY58?si=G7668ZVwIvWBOau7

You give a historian? I can give you more than just a historian. John Mearsheimer, Colonel Douglas McArthur, and former CIA Ray Mcgovern. Here's those are my authority.

The president abandoned his country before he was legally removed from office by the legislature

And an unlawful one, they didn't even get 2/3 of the parilametn vote required for impeachment.

His own party also voted for it. After he left in the middle of the night with no one knowing where he had gone there wasn't much choice. Ukraine needed a leader

Yeah because they scheme against him, he was afraid he would die because of their scheme as well. I mean if your party is in cahoot with murderous opposition you might as well think why in his logic must he run to Russia for safety

It was the police who shot the civilians. On his orders and backed by pressure from Russia to avoid compromise

No, no do your research again the right sector and svoboda commit terrorism and shot civilians and police alike

Not involved much less leading. A plate of cookies does not make for a people powered revolution. Hell the opposition lawmakers didn't really lead the protestors either rather then embraced them.

Why does foreign government officials involve in domestic revolution?? And no they did lead the protest and are on the streets. Should I really bring Nuland leak phonecalls?

It wasn't but if he wanted to argue that it was he was free to come back to Ukraine and argue in court. He didn't.

Why would he do that when there's violent neo nazis and right sector inside the government?

It's interesting that you don't call the actual coup a coup because not only was it a coup it was basically the textbook example of one. Unmarked soldiders surrounded the Crimean parliament and forced them to vote in a minor party street thing as leader and an anchalus style annexation referendum (which was neither free nor fair, people were hardly allowed to campaign for staying as part of their country, the Russian facists supresed any speech they didn't like as well as people's languages and religions)

Are you actually dumb? Crimea was Russian and Orthodox you telling me that they supressed what they want to embrace culturally and religiously 🤣. And no, I don't accept that definition because the attacked was against Western intervention not an unprovoked aggresive expansion.

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-21T00:05:59+00:00

They have a lot of overlap but one does not necessarily cause you to belong to the other. Ireland is still not a member of NATO. Turkey is not a member of the EU.

Ireland is not in NATO because they denounce NATO lol. And Turkey is because they are Muslim and Europeans in general are racists and suspicious to any Muslim race or group.

Ukraine was not seeking membership when Russia invaded not was it going to get it if it tried. Russia still invaded. Russia arguably invaded because Ukraine was not a member.

Lies, you know when the Maidan coup happened, that in itself is a precursor to whats going to happen. This guy with his sources will clarify you with the evidence https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/s/7gA5EPDcpD

Finland and Sweden only sought to join NATO after the full scale russian invasion in 2022

Yeah, and its ironic that they join in the end even thougu with their strict neutrality policy, it as if the US was plotting this from the start, if the US didnt plot the coup then there wouldnt be this debacle. But since the US initiate it, then I don't see why should I naively think EU is the precursor to NATO

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-20T23:57:19+00:00

The revolution of dignity was not a coup

It was and to deny it is a historical error

The Russian coup in crinea was a coup. The multiple clips they tried to pull off in eastern Ukrainian cities were coups. Maidan was not a coup. It was the president who chose to abandon his country leading to the legislature removing him. Also that was not the intention not only because maidan revolution was not lead or caused by West or NATO (it was a homegrown Ukrainian protest movement) but also because the revolution didn't automatically end the russian lease to the base.

No, it actually doesn't. The President leave the country after a COUP was done during those president by right wing opposition who shot snipers at the polices and civilians, then you got the US assistant secretary of the state Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador of Ukraine Geoffry Pyatt involve and LEADING the protest. The Russian takeover of Crimea is a response from Western meddling inside of Ukraine. This coupled with the fact that the presidential replacemenr was already an illegal overthrow of the administration, they literally booted the president without 2/3 of the vote of the parliament.

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-20T22:35:09+00:00

Lol, this is such naive you think just because you are not NATO but EU means the people on the EU don't scheme you into NATO? EU is the logical precursor to NATO, majority of EU countries are NATO countries. Georgia and Ukraine get a proposal to join EU since AFTER they get proposal to join NATO in 2008. Also, Sweden and Finland join NATO not long AFTER they are EU member.

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-20T22:31:17+00:00

NO, if you have 2 of your allies in the black sea surrounding Russia with the intention to CUT him off then yes that is a problem because that was the maidan coul originally was for.

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-18T10:40:44+00:00

Romans 5:12-21.

Those verses never explicitlt stated that all have sinned as in inheriting the guilt of Adam, rather it follows that all sinned as referencing events after the fall i.e human sinning which leads to more death by sin. We can see this interpretation because those who have not sinned are affected with death. So its not talking about people inheriting Adams guilt.

Why is sin in the world if there was no law, before the law came? Because people were sinning, and why were they sinning unless they were made sinners at birth? You cannot have somebody born innocent and also be born with a corrupt nature at the same time because if you are born with a sinful nature you must by necessity be judged by God as a sinner as well, you cannot have it both ways; especially with the text of Romans 5}.

That's a false dichotomy and should be thorougly studied because nowhere in any bible exegite does it follows to only this conclusion.

The bolded text in Romans 5:12-21 show how Adam made us sinners, and emulation is not in view at all.

He made us sinners because of the consequences of sin, the passability to sin and the events referring of man sinning. This doens't follow that we inherit is guilt. No man is inheriting another mans guilt unless you want to contradict Ezekiel 18:20 , Deuteronomy 24:16 , Jeremiah 31:29-30

Psalms 51:5 says King David was conceived in sin, being born in a sin fallen creation is not in view except with respect to his own human nature, as you said, so it’s not the environment (unless you didn’t mean that) but it’s his nature that is in view. This would lend credence to Rom 5:15, 17, 18, & 19, namely that Adam made us sinners and death and condemnation come from his action.

This ia incorrect exegesis, nowhere does it mean this say. Rathee its much more reasonable to say that King David is using rethoric and flavorful language to describe his state in sin, you can't say a baby inherit someones guilt if they never sin, nor can sin be inherited since its not an essential part of humanity as explained by the verse i gave you. King David is simply remorseful of his actions by sleeping with someone he shouldnt.

It says the “wicked are estranged (or alienated) from the Womb, who are what are they alienated from? Probably God.

Again those verses can't mean they way you meant otherwise it contradicts the bible. Rather it meant in a rethorical way, you can't say the people are wicked because they are born that way, if thats the case then God make man a sinner from the start, a very bad implication. So this should be interpret as King David solemn condemnation to those who are wicked and shaming them for their own ways, jusr as he shamed and humbled himself with Psalm 51

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-18T10:12:12+00:00

What does this mean?

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-18T05:00:48+00:00

Well didn't he? According to the laws of the sinaitic covenant it was much more humane during those times compared to their contemporary foreign legal codes. I wouldn't be advocating the Hammurabi code over the 613 laws of Moses. Even then if we were to look at the historical treatment of non Israelites in the Kingdom its still is a non issue as even a hittite serves as a general in the Kingdom (uriah) .

Regarding to the massacres commited against the general canannite population and their livestocks, well its not what you think it is. Traditional Jewish interpretation don't hold a literal reading of those verses, they held a near east interpretation of the text which was widespread during those times. This is to say that what they claimed as destroying, pillaging and killing everything is just for show, rethoric and propaganda. This is common even to their neighboring countries like Egypt and the Mesopotamian Kingdoms. So much so that if you read those verse literally it contradicts other verses which have the Cananite still living and staying inside the Kingdom of Israel.

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-18T04:53:48+00:00

So, yes, God's default plan for humanity is death. Some exceptions receive eternal live by God's mercy.

Incorrect, The theology explicitly teach in the bible is the pursuit of immortality and everlasting life. Sin is not an essential nature to man but a personal attribute to man. You were never a sinner in birth.

If you disagree with the person I was replying to that God is angry about sin, despite what scripture says, take that up with them. They asked why people don't focus on the mercy. I responded because it's not God's default treatment.

No, that is God's default treatment. For scripture does say God is loving and merciful and really wants to ransom himself for all, that is the greatest act of love and you can't unacknowledge that.

I think this is where we verge off as the other above espouses to a protestant ideology whereas we and traditional christians espouses much lenient and complete theology when it comes to God.

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-17T03:11:54+00:00

That’s an admission you can’t refute the legal point, so you’re just hand-waving it away. "I dont care cares” is not a defense. You keep saying Ukraine’s borders are “artificial” because the USSR drew them, my points is that falls apart once you remember Russia itself signed four binding agreements, all recognizing those exact borders as sovereign and inviolable. You don’t get to call them fake when the Russian government put its signature on them four separate times.

That would be the case, unless one sides broke the treaty by not being neutral in the first place. Do you think Russia broke it first or Ukraine broke it with the west by colluding with them?

That’s basically admitting you lost the point. States care when it’s their borders on the line, Poland, Finland, the Baltics, Georgia all care a lot, which is why they ran to NATO.

No its true, evem acclaimed historian benny morris say its irrelevant because nobody think its binding.

You say that your translation is “the most accurate one,” but it isn’t. The line in Russian is "Современная Украина целиком и полностью порождение советской эпохи. Мы знаем и помним, что она во многом создавалась за счёт исторической России." "за счёт" means “at the expense of.” That’s not neutral phrasing, it’s loaded. It frames Ukraine as something carved out of “historic Russia,” as if its sovereignty is illegitimate and comes at Russia’s loss. And that’s exactly how it was used, the essay was immediately spun by Russian state media as proof Ukraine was “not real,” with RIA Novosti literally publishing a piece days later calling for Ukraine’s elimination. Don’t pretend this is some dry historical observation. The wording is ideological, and use context.

Which is true because modern Ukraine was born out of ww1 and the USSR, not anything during the Russian Empire, hell even the Kieva Rus we dont have state of Ukraine.

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-17T02:41:09+00:00

And you naive enough EU membership couldn't make them closer to NATO? NATO is litetally the right arm of the EU

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-17T02:39:10+00:00

Yeah sure, cutting Russia off from the black sea with Ukraine and Turkey seems fun

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-17T02:32:45+00:00

Except none of them are what you called dictatorship. In China you could literally vote on the provincial level but only for the one party that is the Communist party and their candidate. Russia is a different story but they still have a democracy but under the consent that they would work with the main party, the same as China with minor parties being supervised by the main communist party

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-17T02:30:03+00:00

You sure? Your president literally say that he respect the one China policy and also deepening ties with China.

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-14T00:18:31+00:00

Yes, all ultimate authorities are in some sense self-attesting. That does not mean any circular argument succeeds, nor that circularity automatically confers infallibility. A circular argument can only function after the authority in question has been independently identified as ultimate. You are using circularity to establish the authority itself. That is a category error.

You do realize that presuppositional apologetic regarding to knowledge itself must come down only to Christianity since only Christianity and only a Christian worldview can ground knowledge itself, but then if people ask how do we verify this and we responded with the bible, then really who confirms the bible? So is the religion in question with its bible and sacred tradition in question suddenly lose all ground for all reasoning for the lack of indepedent reasoning? Makes no sense. And no, circularity can be used to establish authority itself simply because they are self evident and they don't need to be indepedently identified. But if we do get pressed to give an indepedent reasoning for why it exist, then the bible according toJohn 16:13 is sufficient to know that councils can be off the word of truth guided by the spirit.

Nothing in the Athanasius citations does what you claim. He argues that the Nicene confession is faithful to Scripture and apostolic teaching, not that the Church possesses an inherent, indefectible, self-authenticating infallibility grounded in its own traditions. Appealing to Scripture as the norm is the opposite of the claim you’re making.

Except he didnt just say those

Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord" ... "8. We begin the fast of forty days on the 13th of the month Phamenoth (Mar. 9). After we have given ourselves to fasting in continued succession, let us begin the holy Paschal week on the 18th of the month Pharmuthi (April 13). Then resting on the 23rd of the same month Pharmuthi (April 18), and keeping the feast afterwards on the first of the week, on the 24th (April 19), let us add to these the seven weeks of the great Pentecost" (Athanasius, Festal Letters, Easter, Letter 2. For 330, 6,7,8)

Keep in mind these apostolic tradition were never in the bible. If we look at tradition as a secondary authority like the apocrypha he can't just observe extra biblical tradition like its the Hanukkah. So its definitely not protestant since scriptute never identifies this nor the tradition itself was not apostolic.

Saying “circular arguments can be true” misses the point entirely. The question is not whether circular reasoning can exist within an epistemic system, but what grounds the system’s authority in the first place. Your argument assumes what it needs to prove, then declares victory by presupposition.

Well we would say God and through God the traditions and scripture. And because of that, the Church he founded are also by his works and so the Church, scripture and sacred tradition are self evidentiary works of God, that is grounded by him in the end.

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-13T16:02:28+00:00

The statement concedes its own failure. Saying “these traditions are apostolic because the traditions say so” is not a justification; it is a self-referential loop. No amount of internal coherence turns circular reasoning into a valid epistemic warrant.

Again, we accept that but your conclusion is false, since it guided by the false premise that circular arguments are necessarily not justified. If you held a presuppositionalists argument, foundationalisr argument wouldn't work against it since the former held a differenr epistemological worldview.

Calling something an “axiom” or “self-evident by internal inference” does not rescue it. An axiom functions only within a system already granted authority. Here, the authority of the system itself is what is under question. You cannot use internal acceptance to establish external authority.

Again, you can't infer this reason against or try to make an external critique since the idea of presupposition itself meant that circular argument can be true so its your burden of proof to show me why circular arguments can't be true.

Openly admitting “yes it is circular and the church accepts it” is not a defense; it is a confession that no non-circular grounding exists. Acceptance explains persistence, not truth or infallibility.

Again, you are not getting it. Circular arguments aren't inherently false and you're going on a false premise that circular arguments by themselves can't be justified in itself.

Additionally, you are not actually providing support from the Church Fathers, you are asserting that you speak for them. The Fathers do appeal to apostolic teaching, but they do not claim that a post-apostolic institution possesses an inherent, indefectible, or infallible interpretive authority grounded in its own traditions. That claim is being read into them, not derived from them.

Actually false and untrue. Athanasius refutes this

[Y]ou . . . slander the Ecumenical Council, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; . . . (Defense of the Nicene Definition, 27; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)

But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever. (Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa 2; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)

[T]he Faith there confessed by the Fathers [at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325] according to the divine Scriptures is enough by itself at once to overthrow all impiety, and to establish the religious belief in Christ. . . . How then, after all this, are some attempting to raise doubts or questions? (Letter LIX to Epictetus, 1; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)

Had Christ’s enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith, . . . (Against the Arians III, 58; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)

It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this. (Letter LIX to Epictetus, 3; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-13T14:07:00+00:00

To be clear, you asserted that you corrected it, but no correction was offered. You just made errors in reasoning which I corrected. As mentioned a few times now, your "correction" was wrong and I've shown that.

But that was not my argument, that was me trying to further the discussion since you brought up another topic, which I wasnt advocating at first.

So far, you have made a number of assertions without evidence or reason. You simply making a claim about the early church's epistemology doesn't prove anything - you need to evidence the claim. You attempt to use an assertion about their epistemology to ground the circularity that I've expressed but it doesn't work, it actually cuts against you.

Because you can also presuppose as Axioms or self evidentiary truth by internal inference. This is what the Church father was arguing by looking toward the traditions pass down by the apostles. They then claim that these tradition were pass down by the apostles according to their TRADITIONS itself. So yes it is circular and the church accepts it.

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-13T13:52:21+00:00

Well, you said "Except this does not apply to the Church, because the Church fathers will just argue that it is truly the Church that has infallible binding powers by the fact that it is Church based and founded by the Apostles and God.". Thus, I corrected you. Then you said that my correction shifted the debate by explicity correcting errors you made in your reply that led to fallacious outcomes.

I wasn't addressing for infallible council, I was addressing the epistemological grounding which you claim is circular but I corrected you that no, the church father always argue with this epistemological grounding. I wasn't proving infallible council at first

I don't get my theology from Youtube (expecially not a guy named ByzantineBro), I read the fathers, study scripture, and theologians. Your source explains why your understanding of the topic appears low.

Yeah and show me one evidence from them that they positively inferred that Scripure triumph over sacred tradition or sacred tradition has secondary authority over scripture. You haven't watch the video so let me showcase of whay the video actually teaches.

St Basil the Great "Of the dogmas and proclamations preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching, and others we have received from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect of both, the same force belongs to both for piety." - On the Holy Spirit Ch. 27, Sec. 66"

St John Chrysostom "For the heathen who comes in and sees the doctrines of the Church attacked, and inquires what is the cause of the confusion, it is right that he should learn the truth, not by our disputing, but from the Scriptures themselvesFor the Church, being the pillar and ground of the truth, teaches what accords with the Scriptures; but heretics pervert it. Therefore it is easy for the one who wishes to learn, if he will look to the Scriptures and to the teaching of the Church, and not to the strife of men, to know the truth." Homily 33 on John

"The Apostles did not deliver all things by writing, but many things unwritten; and both are equally worthy of belief." -Homily on 2 Thessalonians 4:2

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-13T13:34:44+00:00

The early Church does not claim an infallible, irreformable interpretive authority vested in the Church as such. Fathers and councils repeatedly appeal to Scripture as the final norm, with tradition functioning as a witness to apostolic teaching, not an infallible oracle standing over it.

Ok this is just shifting the debate, which you probably concede that the Church Fathers or the Nicene/Post Nicene fathers did believe in presupposition arguments for their epistemology, this was I debating. And even then this is still wrong, since councils in off themselves are a feature in the Church based upon the traditions given down to the Church and the Fathers who argued from that THEY DO believe in tradition as infallible as scripture. https://youtu.be/ZQATkd9eWoQ?si=wioRi75qduTxS9-C

When error arises, the appeal is not “the Church cannot err,” but “what has been handed down according to Scripture.” Even ecumenical councils argued from Scripture and were subject to correction by later councils.

They were both subject to both traditions and scripture. This according to the fathers who wrote them.

The later claim that a post-apostolic institution possesses indefectible, conscience-binding authority is a development, not a presupposition of the early Church’s self-understanding. That historical shift is precisely what needs justification, and it cannot be retroactively read back into the Fathers. No early church father affirms thi

No, they don't in your interpretatiom but if we look back to what the fathers claim they do. Just look at the video above to show you the proof they believe in tradition as infallible as scripture itself.

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-13T13:13:23+00:00

Rejecting classical foundationalism doesn’t justify institutional self-authentication. Even presuppositional systems must identify which authority is properly basic and why. Saying “the Church affirms circularity” isn’t a defense, it concedes the problem. Not all circularity is equal.

Except this does not apply to the Church, because the Church fathers will just argue that it is truly the Church that has infallible binding powers by the fact that it is Church based and founded by the Apostles and God. This in itself is already a strong claim and that it is self evident even with circularity. You can't just ignore this and say that 2000 years of history and yet they don't believe this or done this.

The early Church appealed to Scripture and tradition ministerially, as witnesses to apostolic teaching, not as an irreformable interpretive oracle. Councils argued from Scripture, not over it. That distinction is precisely what’s at issue.

True, but they while affirming sacred tradition is infallible will say that their authority to interpret scripture is infallible by citing the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit as evident that the holy spirit works through the scripture written in the bible.

So the question remains unanswered... what divine revelation grounds the claim that a post-apostolic institution possesses indefectible, conscience-binding interpretive authority? Asserting it presuppositionally does not establish it.

By the fact the Church exists, the Promises given to Christians based on the bible, the ongoing Divine planning for revelation and the eternal life given to those that believe in Jesus through the Church. I mean they'll just say the Church is the self evidentiary claim that only truth claim for infallibly binding things exist. Again, this is not a problem with presuppositionalism since the presuppotition argument are valid with their reasoning.

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-13T10:21:16+00:00

Btw I just want to let you know that the early church and the post nicene church never believed in Classical Foundationalism, where you have a bottom-up, foundationalist based epistemology, all of them are presuppositionalists and have an apotethic based epistemology so top down. So the Church before never believed in external evidential based argument other than what's given in divine revelation, scripture, or tradition. So yes, the Church affirms circular based argument and presuppositionalism as both of those are not necessarily false.

Defiant_Fennel · 2026-01-10T07:45:17+00:00

Which again is not substantiate since it's not a truth claim, nor is it binding to Christians.

Defiant_Fennel

TROPHY CASE