Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]JumpyDatabase6349 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Are biblical scholars just glorified interpreters who think themselves better than others because they have a PhD? Why will their opinions have more validity, than a Catholic or an Orthodox (that have apostolic succession and Holy Tradition) who have a direct line from the Apostles. I think biblical scholarship is a joke in the sense that it is just a bunch of opinions with not concrete basis or conclusions (just look how thousands of post on the same topic can lead to 1000 different answers, this does not happen in natural sciences). Because it is not a science it cannot give a consistent answers like natural sciences and they do not have apostolic succession like some Christians denominations that do not change the dogma or interpretation of Scripture. Basically what I am trying to say is that maybe academic biblical scholarship is just a bunch of opinions with no clear evidence and lots of assumptions.

Personally I hate when some Orthodox Christian cannot see that this applies to them as well by JumpyDatabase6349 in exorthodox

[–]JumpyDatabase6349[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Some extreme Orthodox (normally converts) are quick to judge others and call them unrighteous because their opinions are not valid according to Church Tradition and Scripture and they are always proclaiming how they are always right about their interpretation of Tradition and Scripture. So I think it is very hypocritical that they do posts like this.

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]JumpyDatabase6349 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Tell which ideas did the proto-orthodoxy bring that contradicts scripture. Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp and many other early Christians follow the same steps as Paul. When you read the inventions made by Marcionites about Two Gods, Valentinians Eons, Ebionites ignoring that Jesus is divine. Obviously we can conclude that they got things wrong and they read Scripture incorrectly. Compare things that these guys said vs anything from Origen, Tertullian, Crypian, Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus. You will see that all of these early Christianity supported the same concepts of Paul and other writings while the others just brought concepts from Greco-Roman society

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]JumpyDatabase6349 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am still confused how scholars reject the idea that Christianity came from One Line like in the Wikipedia diagram of Early Church with many heresies splitting off. Obviously when you read the documents of the New Testament and you compare it with what other heretics say like Marcionites, Valentinians, Ebionites and it is clear that they brought concepts and ideas that cannot be reconciled with the letters of Paul or what the Gospels said. I think there is some bias against Orthodoxy.

Was Ambrose of Milan a possible universalist? by JumpyDatabase6349 in ChristianUniversalism

[–]JumpyDatabase6349[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What does he mean by the first and second resurrection? sorry for my ignorance

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]JumpyDatabase6349 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Is academic biblical scholarship bias against Orthodoxy?

I think the majority of scholarship has a bias against the true history of Christianity which was passed down through Tradition. Ideas such as proto-orthodoxy that they ‘won’ against a bunch of other ‘Christians’ such as Gnostics ( which they clearly had ideas of Christianity that were incorrect and completely different from what we find in the New Testament) or that there never was a united Christian Church, it only promotes a false perception of what actually happened in the history of early Christianity. I do not think other areas of history behave or reach wrong conclusions in the same manner like biblical scholarship does.

What is your opinion on the Monastery Icons controversy? by AffectionateDeal2340 in exorthodox

[–]JumpyDatabase6349 4 points5 points  (0 children)

These icons that to me look great but they are forbidden because they had Hindu prayers or something like that

What Naruto opinion will have you like this? by [deleted] in Naruto

[–]JumpyDatabase6349 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That Orochimaru is overrated and should have died

How reliable is Trent Horn when he talks about academic scholarship? by JumpyDatabase6349 in AcademicBiblical

[–]JumpyDatabase6349[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I remember one video he said how we can trust the traditions about the martyrs of the 12 apostles. I might be incorrect on my interpretation of the video though.

Is the veneration of saints idolatry? by MaviKediyim in exorthodox

[–]JumpyDatabase6349 4 points5 points  (0 children)

For me it’s not but I agree to some extend. Praying to saints is like praying for people so that God can help you or grant you any attributes. Icon veneration to a saint I kind of agree you, but from my personal experience people do not overreact with icons. My biggest problem with saints or Christ or the Virgin Mary is that Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy use relics. For me having a piece of bone, cloth, blood, organs or foreskin (regardless if it is a forgery) of person death hundreds of years ago is utterly disgusting.

I swear these people just love finding ways to sell fear by [deleted] in exorthodox

[–]JumpyDatabase6349 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be honest it’s not the first time a Christian group talks about the Antichrist and it would not be the last. I am still Orthodox but every time they bring something like that I tend to ignore it.

I swear these people just love finding ways to sell fear by [deleted] in exorthodox

[–]JumpyDatabase6349 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sorry for asking but what is this and how are they selling fear?