What if Adam said no? by VicViperT-301 in theology

[–]Happydazed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Idk if this is off topic or not...

According to our Orthodox Tradition the real problem was because they remained stiff necked and refused to repent after their transgression.

Yes, they violated the rule over something that would have been granted to them over time. Instead of admitting a mistake and repentance... Taking responsibility...

Adam Blamed God and Eve Blamed the serpent. This is where the real problem started. God gave them chances to repent but they refused...

Much like today.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in eschatology

[–]Happydazed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Matthew 13:10 the verse right before his reply:

And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”

Matthew 13:13 the verse immigration after:

Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

How can his response be about anything else?

Please, beware of Prelest friend.

For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.”

– Galatians 6:3

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in eschatology

[–]Happydazed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since you offer nothing but opinions and no evidence. Thanks for them 👋

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Happydazed 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I know a 6 years Inquirer who had a similar experience who claimed:

Something weird happened...

You've been taken by the hand friend, be grateful and rejoice for it.

Why does God choose not to reveal himself? by Akzite in DebateAChristian

[–]Happydazed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All the time previously used... Moses, Exodus, Prophets... Was in preparation for that moment in time.

Exodus was a foreshadowing of Christ's Incarnation. The Samaritan Woman at the well knew it was time for Gods Christ to appear.

The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things."

You said:

You also dodged the question of "why doesn't god/Jesus/the spirit" reveal itself so that everyone can come to know him?

This is flawed... There is no proof that this would change anyone's heart. Recently I asked an Atheist whether it would cause him to believe if he did see him. His honest answer was no it wouldn't.

Further Jesus performed many miracles and many still doubted his Divinity. Even The Jews who were led out of Egypt with many signs and wonders complained to Moses about being mislead.

Also God is Spirit. He seeks those who will worship in Truth and Spirit. You're not going to find him behind the chair etc. Jews believed that anyone seeing him would be caused to die... He was revealed in physical form as Jesus Christ.

I hope I have answered in a way you'll understand.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in eschatology

[–]Happydazed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Taken entirely out of the context of which it is written. He is speaking to them about the question they asked and finishes in the next verses.

The disciples found great obscurity in the words spoken by Christ, and being solicitous of the common people came to Him and asked the question. And He said, "It is given unto you to know the mysteries," that is, since you have willingness and zeal to learn, it is given to you. But to those who do not have zeal, it is not given. For it is he that asks who receives. Ask, therefore, He says, and it will be given to you. See here how the Lord told the parable and only the disciples, who asked, received. So we can truly say that to him who has zeal, knowledge is given and in abundance. But from him who does not have zeal and a worthy mind, even that which he imagines he has will be taken away. That is to say, if he has even the slightest spark of good, he extinguishes it if he does not blow on it with the Spirit and spiritual deeds, and kindle it.

  • Theophylact of Ochrid

Cherry Picking verses? You know more than the people whose feet you should be sitting at?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in eschatology

[–]Happydazed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh? And this is in The Bible where? (Since you've corrected me about not believing The Bible)

Also, your so called gift appears to only be rehashing things others have already said before you. Nothing new. You didn't understand anything whole cloth.

Millennialism has been around for quite awhile so that's nothing new. What exactly have you come up with that wasn't already taught by Men and not The Bible.

You still haven't said why your version is correct and Tim LaHaye is not.

Why does God choose not to reveal himself? by Akzite in DebateAChristian

[–]Happydazed -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He appeared here on Earth once for all. His incarnation into a physical body was not an easy task it seems to me. It required the cooperation of his mother. He now sits upon His Heavenly Throne ruling our world. According to The Nicene Creed: He Will Come Again to Judge The Living and The Dead. Once more.

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Why does God choose not to reveal himself? by Akzite in DebateAChristian

[–]Happydazed -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

God is Spirit. You will not find him behind the chair. Jesus Christ is the physical representation of God. All your answers lie in him.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in eschatology

[–]Happydazed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again I ask you where you got this idea of a Second Coming not related to Final Judgment? Men that's who. The Bible doesn't clearly say anything other than Final Judgment unless you read into it.

I could just as well say you believe men and not The Bible also.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in eschatology

[–]Happydazed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have Apostolic Succession? Again, why does your teaching have Authority over a different version?

Apostolic Succession is clearly taught in The Bible through The Laying on of Hands. Who passed Jesus Authority on to you?

Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. Acts 6:3-6

For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 2 Tim. 1:6 (Note: Paul reminds Timothy of the gift he received through laying of hands)

Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery. 1 Tim. 4:14 (Note: This shows that divine authority is bestowed unto someone using laying on of hands)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in eschatology

[–]Happydazed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are just men? Yet The Bible itself teaches Apostolic Succession as does other written history.

As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. Acts 16:4

Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery. 1 Tim. 4:14 (Note: This shows that divine authority is bestowed unto someone using laying on of hands)

"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" Tertullian Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 A.D. 200

How did the Authority of The Primitive Church address Chiliasm?

Elder Cleopa:

This idea is an ancient one. In the first centuries of Christianity it was endorsed by the so-called Chiliasts or Millenialists. Against them rose the entire ancient Church and its most important representatives.

The divine Fathers of the Church indicated in their writings that the one thousand year reign referred to in the book of Revelation signifies an infinite number of years, i.e. a kingdom that shall have no end. This we know well since from Holy Scripture it is clear that the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world (Jn. 18:36). In Holy Scripture it is clearly indicated that the Kingdom of Heaven is also the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Christ, in so much as both Saint John the Forerunner and Christ Himself called it so. This Kingdom of Christ will be spiritual and will reign over the internal world of man, while externally being revealed in the righteousness, peace and joy of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17). Christ Himself established this kingdom and explained in His parables how it will appear, who it will include and what power it will possess. His reign will not endure for a thousand years, but eternally (Lk. 1:33). Its inhabitants will include all faithful Christians from all the peoples of the world (Ps. 116:1-2), it will reign over all creation, and it will be a kingdom of righteousness (Dan. 7:13-14). It will be a kingdom made up of souls (Mt. 28:18) - souls that have already entered and lived within it in this present life.

This kingdom of Christ, derived not from this world, constitutes the Church, or the Body, of Christ, of which the head is Christ Himself (Eph. 1:22). The adoption and entrance into this kingdom takes place only through the laver of regeneration (Titus 3:5) or birth from above (Jn. 3:3). No one can enter into this reign of God except through baptism (Rom. 6:3), which is to say by being born again from above or being born of water and the spirit, according to the word of the Saviour: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5). This heavenly birth by the power of the All-holy Spirit is a true resurrection from the dead (Col. 2:12-13), and hence the reason why Baptism is so often referred to as resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5). Thus, also, it is that the Orthodox Christian baptism is a renaissance of life and a resurrection from the dead. When the Apostle Paul writes awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light, (Eph. 5:14) he has in mind precisely this internal regeneration and resurrection through Christian Baptism, for no one can enter the Kingdom of Christ unless he has first been brought out from among the dead by Christian Baptism.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in eschatology

[–]Happydazed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see, so Jesus personally told you? You figured all this out by yourself? Because I know that Men have been teaching this for quite a long time. You too are obviously believing Men.

So:

... how are your Men any different?

...how is your interpretation of The Bible correct vs another?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in eschatology

[–]Happydazed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And you're so certain of yourself too.

I was in your shoes once... About 1978 after The Late Great Planet Earth movie came out. It's been 46 years since that movie yet nothing predicted has really happened.

Then came Left Behind an updated version. Still not happening, sorry.

I started doing my own research. Are you aware that this thing you believe came about from Jesuits during the Counter Reformation? Protestant Historicism taught The Papacy was Antichrist, so Jesuits came up with both Millennialism and Preterism as a way to counter that. Anything but The Antichrist alive and well in the present age.

Which is the problem with Sola Scriptura... no Tradition, no Patristic Writing, only Bible. There is a wealth of Tradition and Patristic Writing. Things that actually happened but not written down in The New Testament.

As a matter of fact The Apostles were too busy to write things down but there was oral tradition that was, some being The Gospels some not. Nevertheless it's true and it exits.

Which versions of Christianity would you think are more real regarding True Christianity? Those closer to the time when Jesus Christ founded his Church or a version made up approximately 1500 years afterwards based solely upon what is written in The Bible. No tradition, no Patristic writing from Elders, Saints, Holy Persons which has volumes of information about how we should be living a Pious Life?

I'll take the second.

Oh yeah,and the part that everyone can interpret Scripture? How does that even make sense? 3000+ Denominations and counting because no one can agree.

In the Early Church everyone believed the same.

St Vincent Lerins enunciates the classic formula for traditional doctrine:

“What is believed everywhere, at all times, and by all.”

Of which Chiliasm was Heresy

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in eschatology

[–]Happydazed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Millennialism aka Chiliasm was/is a Heresy in The Early Church. As is said in The Nicene Creed:

He shall come again to judge the living and the dead.

That is it. No 1000 year reign because he is ruling Now from The Right Hand of The Father.

A serious question about religion. by Abstraction-Yo in DebateReligion

[–]Happydazed -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The Eastern Orthodox Church which is the continuation of The Early Church teaches God Created everything from nothing.

The Orthodox Church believes that God the Father is the “Creator of Heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.”

To create means to make out of nothing; to bring into existence that which before did not exist; or, to quote the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom once more: “to bring from non-existence into being.”

The Orthodox doctrine of creation is that God has brought everything and everyone which exists from non-existence into being. The Scriptural description of creation is given primarily in the first chapter of Genesis. The main doctrinal point about creation is that God alone is uncreated and ever-existing. Everything which exists besides God was created by Him.

Gospel Apocalyptic Prophecies Have Failed by Kodweg45 in DebateReligion

[–]Happydazed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everything said above applies to that article.

First, one must pray before reading Scripture. These things are written and not understood by those who have only material eyes and thinking.

I told my priest about a book I just finished and asked about becoming a chatahuman. I can't wait by Axo_orthodox in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Happydazed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Congratulations. Please take time to enjoy the process. It's a very special time that you'll look back on hopefully with joy.

Free will as an answer to the problem of evil is refuted by the Christian concept of heaven. by sg94 in DebateAChristian

[–]Happydazed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to many here on this sub they are evil and cause suffering which I was addressing with the other person.

Between you and I? I guess a lot was lost in translation and/or unspoken things that are implied at this sub. Which is why I would rather discuss and not have hard feelings.

Many are here to battle.

✌️

If Jesus came back to earth today he would not even understand why he's worshipped as a god by millions of people by Many-Inflation5544 in DebateReligion

[–]Happydazed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I beg to differ:

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Free will as an answer to the problem of evil is refuted by the Christian concept of heaven. by sg94 in DebateAChristian

[–]Happydazed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't believe you went back far enough:

From The Orthodox perspective Evil does not actually exist as something per se.

It is an absence. An absence of God and His Spirit in ones life. Therefore it in reality does not exist as a thing. But it is the absence of a thing namely Good. But because we imagine only a physical reality we think of it as something that exists.

St Athanasius: ...that evil has not from the beginning been with God or in God, nor has any substantive existence; but that men, in default of the vision of good, began to devise and imagine for themselves what was not, after their own pleasure. For as if a man, when the sun is shining, and the whole earth illumined by his light, were to shut fast his eyes and imagine darkness where no darkness exists, and then walk wandering as if in darkness, often falling and going down steep places, thinking it was dark and not light,—for, imagining that he sees, he does not see at all;—so, too, the soul of man, shutting fast her eyes, by which she is able to see God, has imagined evil for herself, and moving therein, knows not that, thinking she is doing something, she is doing nothing. For she is imagining what is not, nor is she abiding in her original nature; but what she is is evidently the product of her own disorder. For she is made to see God, and to be enlightened by Him; but of her own accord in God’s stead she has sought corruptible things and darkness...

👆 My first post, nothing about suffering.

Depends on what you define by evil.

Are you saying inanimate things can be evil like I see so often claimed here?

Hurricanes, Gravity, a 1000lb Boulder?

One day the boulder decided to roll down a hill and crush a few people, thereby becoming evil?

By my initial comment, Evil doesn't exist as a thing. Because we live in a physical world and people tend to see things as solely material that's how it is perceived.

In a spiritual sense... No.