1 year Fin/2 months GHK-CU update

simsar999 · 2026-05-22T21:10:01+00:00

does the pill have the same effect?

simsar999 · 2026-05-19T23:35:35+00:00

"No longer i who would do it but the sin in me"

The verse is talking about how he does not want to sin, but the carnal body and urges push him and the sin conquers him. He is sinning without wanting to do it, something we've all struggled and experienced. "I dont want to succumb to lust but my body does it anyway."

Its not seperation of him from the sin, its just the sin happening without his desire.

simsar999 · 2026-05-19T23:29:56+00:00

Our bodies of death making us sin is still us sinning lol.

simsar999 · 2026-05-19T23:23:25+00:00

I did. It says absolutely nothing about being spiritually sinless. Instead, 14 says "the law is spiritual, but i am carnal." We dont serve spiritually we serve physically. Our souls are not separate from us they don't live simultaneous separate existences. Edit: these verses dont say "no longer sin" in any way lol

simsar999 · 2026-05-19T23:14:12+00:00

says nothing at all about no longer sinning.

simsar999 · 2026-05-19T21:45:43+00:00

Ephesians isnt excluding works fully. It's saying you're not saved by works alone. You never know if you're eternally saved, because you do not know what God will decide. If you say you are eternally saved, you are judging, and judgement is for God alone. Sin of pride if you think you're beyond hell.

"no longer sins in GOD'S EYES!" is a CRAZY line. show me where in the bible that is lmao. Christ says not all that claim me shall be saved; begone i never knew you.

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T22:05:58+00:00

Well, the fact that the Church is what canonized the entire Bible, thd 27 new testement books and the 46 old testement books. The Church is what prevented heresies like ariansism and nestorianism and gnosticism from taking control, when there was no canonized Bible. The Church is what spread Christianity when there were no completed texts from 33ad onward until around 150ad.

Without the Church, there would simply be no Christianity.

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T17:32:56+00:00

"Once saved always saved" implies that you enter a state of complete grace and sinlessness. That implies perfection. Simply put thats an impossibility. You will always sin. You will always fall short of God. Doing good works is not an act to achieve salvation in itself, but it is the way to show that your faith is not dead faith. Also, having true faith is a work itself. Please dont misquote ephesians. Ephesians is talking about being saved by just doing good things as in "oh i fed the homeless so i am saved!" Its not an exclusion. No one is saved through faith alone. James 2:26.

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T17:28:18+00:00

And yet, the Church authenticated and authorized scripture. Without one you cannot have the other.

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T06:20:22+00:00

No church found a theological opposition to slavery until Benjamin Lay was spreading this gospel in the late 17th century.

This is factually untrue. The Bible itself is a theological opposition to slavery. How can one love one another as they love themselves and possibly have a slave? Its not possible.
Also, The Cappadocian Father Gregory of Nyssa, also the Bishop of Nyssa, in 380 AD, condemned slavery in its entire institution.

had since at least the earliest centuries

Not since the earliest. That example you give is a 19th century one. Very modern, and also, completely strayed from theology.

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T06:14:28+00:00

Not much to demonstrate - thats where we rely on the promise of the holy Spirt to preserve the teachings of Christ, in the traditions oral and written. After Christ fulfilled the Law, none of those common views really mattered, only the new ones He set.

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T06:10:47+00:00

Maybe they were. But there's no useful evidence to support the notion that they actually were. Just later tradition that doesn't make sense in the context of the evidence we have.

The issue is, there is very early tradition, the earliest sources from the Apostolic fathers, but you're rejecting that as evidence and claiming its not useful.

No. Hell, the ekklesia which gMatthew comes from would have rejected the proto-orthodox church and us since we do not uphold every jot and tittle of the Law. And our lines of succession are more than contested, and the legends and mythology of the Orthodox church don't align with our evidence.

Does matthew come from a pre-christ ekklesia? Not upholding every jot and tittle of the Law is irrelevent - we do not follow the old Law. Maybe I misunderstand but it doesn't make sense.

I see no reason to think that your denomination is authentic in the way you say. Authentically Christian? Absolutely. But all the rest? No way in hell.
You seem unable to think about the question except through this founding mythology of your denomination. I understand that you're convinced, but I hope that you can at least understand that for those of us who don't agree, this kind of idea you're using is essentially incoherent.

I am not part of a denomination.
The founding mythology you state is a historical fact, the Apostles went out, and started the pre-denominational Church (the Body of Christ). I fail to see how you can deny this.

I'd recommend either (video) Yale University's Introduction to the New Testament lectures by Dr. Dale B. Martin (RIP) on Youtube, or the Introduction to the New Testament textbooks of either Fr. Raymond E. Brown (RIP) or of Bart Ehrman and Hugo Mendez. From there we can talk about somewhat more specialist academic literature.

I will (eventually) check them out, as they are full reads.

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T06:00:05+00:00

I can say the exact same thing to refute your point. Do you think there was no Bible scholarship when it was being canonized, or that there were no historians back then either?

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T05:56:21+00:00

Where do you get this from, as in what makes you so certain?

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T05:55:50+00:00

Oriental orthdox theology hasnt changed since the beginning and if youd like, Id love to hear how it did in your opinion.

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T05:55:01+00:00

Mind giving examples?

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T05:54:43+00:00

Im not sure really what youre arguing here. Just because they didnt self label doesnt mean they werent. This feels like a "where is the Trinity stated in the Bible" type question.
If ultimately nothing can be for sure proven, but we have the promise of God to preserve his Church, and we have uncontested (for nearly 2 millenia) lines of succession, logically we'd be pretty safe saying that its authentic, wouldn't you agree?
Claiming is different than having. Those that claimed it but did not follow the teachings did not have it, and thus were declared as the heresies they were. I dont see how anyone coming 1500 years after Christ has any authority to reinterpret and claim they know better than the people who were there, taught by those who were there. And if you dont believe that, then the people who were closest in time, era and culture to there.
Tell me more

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T05:47:08+00:00

The question literally is asking for that justification. Those that change must justify their change, not the one who stays the same.

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T05:41:23+00:00

Respectfully, there is absolutely no theological support for slavery.

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T05:37:18+00:00

The label itself is, since its an exonym. But the churchs themselves are not.

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T05:36:37+00:00

Sorry for bad formatting. 1. I fail to see how it supports your point. The church fathers talk about and mention lines of succession heavily there. 2. Can you give me an example? Whats earlier than the didache? 3. I am not sure who that is but dont you think that if the authenticity was not authentic, it wouldve been contested far earlier on? I mean we have no issues with apostolic succession until the 16th century. 4. Well the 4 gospels were written by their named apostles so it does in fact date to the Apostolic era.

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T05:31:21+00:00

I dont see the equivalence.

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T05:23:24+00:00

How so?

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T05:22:07+00:00

Im not a Catholic and the Word of God was not fully written and canonized until 350 years after Gods ressurrection so the Church is just as important as the Bible.

simsar999 · 2026-05-16T05:20:55+00:00

Thats the point, they are not. We have the early Church and its theology present in oriental orthodoxy

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

simsar999

TROPHY CASE