America was never Christian but it will be in the future. As people get wiser about what's going on, Orthodoxy is spreading faster and wider. The western man, living under the judaized freemasonic NWO, is realizing he's been duped and is thirsty for authentic Christianity. And as our Lord said those who seek Him shall find Him. We live in historic hard times and we're blessed for it.
Correct. The founding fathers were deists and the God they postulated is not the Christian Trinity but the masonic ambiguous deity (let's face it, that's Satan). The idea behind the great US experiment was to create a secular republic based on Enlightenment revolutionary and humanist ideas borrowing from the jewish orchestrated French Revolution and the newfound republic's left (jacobins - communists and illuminists) and right wing (girondins - classical liberals and libertarians) factions of parliament.
Historically, all Christian countries were governed as monarchies with the king and the Church assuming their respective roles of secular and spiritual governance (symphonia)*. This form of government is the direct reflection of the monarchy of the Father in the Trinity and of Christ being the divine King of kings. There are zero mentions of parliaments, presidents and democracy in the Bible but Christians (mostly Protestants) pretend that means nothing. The US is much like pagan Rome with some Christians living in it but it's yet to be truly Christianized.
The greatest jewsh feat was the toppling of the Christian monarchies which they achieved between the French Revolution and WWI. This is the origin of the NWO and this agenda has been disclosed in their Protocols. Then WWII completed the transition and this is when we got NWO proper. What happened next is obvious to everyone with a brain.
*It should be noted that in Christian monarchies, especially in Byzantium, the emperor also held a minor clerical office of a diakonos (deacon which translates to God's servant) which is exactly what Paul writes in Romans 13:4. So yes, monarchy is Biblical, republicanism and democracy is freemasonic and it inevitably leads to fake and gay one world technocratic governance.
This is a tough one. We are also told to love our enemies. The sense I can love my enemies is as lost people which I was before coming to Christ. But there is a line where someone is just a reprobate, and that's a bridge too far.
Exactly. There's a point where you're basically dealing with the sons of Belial. I'm sorry to burst some hippy-Jesus prots bubble here (not you) but you can't love demonically obsessed people. This is not what Jesus meant when He said love thy enemy. Satan is your ultimate enemy - are you supposed to love him too? Again, this is why context is key.
There are liberals who will never write anyone off, and Pharisees who will write people off too soon (while never questioning themselves). So the narrow road between those then.
Anyone that actually reads the bible knows Christians should do what Jesus said: Love your enemies, bless your enemies, and pray for your enemies that they repent.
Matthew 5:44-45 & Luke 6:27-28
If they do not, He will destroy them with divine prejudice.
Matthew 7:19, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 13:41–42, Luke 19:27, John 3:36, 2 Thessalonians 1:8–9
Dude, St. John Chrysostom was not only the patriarch of Constantinople, but also one of the Church Fathers who affirmed the 27 books of the NT and helped fleshing out the canon of Scripture. I think he knows what he's talking about.
You may love your enemies, but If you love and tolerate the enemies of Christ, you're an antichristian and you're one of them basically. If what you said was true, Christians wouldn't be allowed to fight in wars, killing their enemies. Yet many Christian saints were warriors because they fought the invading muslims. According to your interpretation, they must be destroyed then, right? Not to mention the examples of the OT where God commanded Israel to wage war and slaughter their enemies. Protestants can never get this correct with their quote mining arriving to heretical positions like pacifism, marcionism and origenism. That's why there's an apostolic Church which holds the authority on interpretation of Scripture.
22/12 edit: You never answered if you love your greatest enemy, who is Satan and his principalities?
You: "bUt yOu sHoUlD LovE yOUr eNeMieS huRR durRR!1!! Scripture says so, so I'll read it out of context and I'll tolerate and extend grace to the absolute demons who blaspheme, destroy my country and civilization and want to kill and enslave me and my family".
The problem is not about loving your enemy, but about what such a love entails and the literal naive understanding people like you have about what Christ means by those words. You're equivocating on the word love. It doesn't entail what the modern liberal thinks it does (surprise surprise, 'love is love' is not love). The love of your enemy doesn't prevent you from waging war against him and destroying him or delivering his soul to judgement.
When Chrystosom talks about hating the enemy, he doesn't contradict Christ. He only does if you don't understand words have different nuances depending on context. Chrystosom knows very well Christians can't really hate the way non-Christians understand hatred because we know everyone is an icon of Christ. Again, do you really believe you have more wisdom and spiritual insight the early Church fathers who were guided by the Spirit and who were crucial for spreading Christianity and made it possible for it to come to our day and age?
I'm rabbi for telling you you shouldn't love jews? Makes total sense.
Why did Jesus command His followers to buy a sword? Why did He call the pharisees vipers and sons of the Satan? Why did He whip the moneychangers in the Temple? Because He loved them so much?
Is Christ the God of the OT who gave the Mosaic law?
Face it - you don't follow the Christianity of the early Church established by Christ. You follow the judaized subverted fake and gay Christianity that came 15c after Christ where each individual is their own Pope with zero regard for tradition. Your translation of the OT is based on the Masoretic texts (jewish Torah) and not on the Septuagint which was used in the NT. Do you care to guess why is that?
Except you're wrong. All those questions with zero Scripture to corroborate your bad opinion. It's almost like you are leaning on your own understanding. Proverbs 3:5-6
I'm not interested in your opinion about the Word of God. I'm only interested in the Word of God. You can have a vengeful heart if you so choose though but.. first consider the levity of the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:23-35. Right now, you're the unforgiving servant.
Except you're wrong. All those questions with zero Scripture to corroborate your bad opinion.
I assumed you knew where they're from since you're such a Bible enjoyer.
It's almost like you are leaning on your own understanding
Hilarious projection. I follow the Church Father's interpretation of Scripture which is the apostolic tradition of the Church. Personal opinions are meaningless.
I'm not interested in your opinion about the Word of God. I'm only interested in the Word of God.
Does the Word of God interpret itself or does it require interpretation? How do you determine which interpretation is correct if everyone reading it has equal authority on interpretation?
You can have a vengeful heart if you so choose though but.. first consider the levity of the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:23-35. Right now, you're the unforgiving servant.
You're not holier than St. John Chrysostom, but go on and piety signal all you like. This weak pussified subverted Christianity is why you deserve to be enslaved by your enemies.
Do you understand that quote mining is not proving anything? Scripture outside of the tradition which holds its correct interpretation leads to heresy and delusion (which St. John speaks about in the video, because jews have the OT and yet they misinterpret it and use it for evil).
I also noticed you didn't answer my questions - is the God of the OT Jesus Christ? Have you read Psalms? Who is David talking about in Psalm 110 "The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”? Psalm 58: “The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.” Why does King David say this in Psalm 139: “Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? … I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies.” Do you consider yourself above David?
What protestants like you don't understand that everything in Scripture is within context and no command is universally applied in the same way. Lying can be virtuous if you do it to save someone from the gestapo. Even killing isn't sinful in the proper context just like loving someone could mean punishing him and causing him suffering. Protestants tend to have a very modernized, reductionist and naive worldview based on word-concept fallacies and generalizations and that's why it's a good idea to look at what the early Church Fathers taught because only the Church has the fullness of the faith.
Lying can be virtuous if you do it to save someone from the gestapo.
Nota bene: Corrie ten Boom didn't lie to the gestapo when they asked if there were any Jews in her house, she said "Search for yourself". Athanasius didn't lie to the government when they asked if he had seen Athanasius, he said "He's very near, you can still catch him."
It doesn't matter. The point is even if they had lied, what matters is the intention because God sees our heart and judges according to it. For example if a man comes to kill your friend you actually have a duty to lie to him and save your friend (supposing fighting is not an option).
The commandments are general rules of behavior but they are not absolute because there are always exceptions. Judging how to apply them correctly requires wisdom and spiritual knowledge. As a general rule we're commanded to love our enemy and to turn the other cheek but that's not always appropriate. Why? Because that may lead to the enemy destroying our loved ones that we have a duty to protect. And yet idiot protestants don't seem able to grasp this line of reasoning somehow but always speak in absolutes. It's like their minds are broken and they can't apply nuance and discernment.
I’m not the one appealing to my own understanding here. I’m appealing to the final and controlling authority Christ and the apostles themselves appealed to.
Jesus didn’t say “you have heard from the fathers,” He said “it is written.” And when Satan quoted Scripture correctly but applied it wrongly, Jesus didn’t defer to tradition. He corrected the interpretation with more Scripture.
Yes, the God of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ. John 1, Colossians 1, and 1 Corinthians 10 are explicit about that. No argument there. But acknowledging that doesn’t mean every covenantal command given to Israel applies unchanged to Christians after the cross. The apostles explicitly say otherwise. Hebrews exists for this exact reason, and it wasn’t written by modern Protestants.
Psalm 110 is messianic. Jesus Himself says so in Matthew 22. David is speaking prophetically about Christ’s exaltation and God subduing His enemies. But notice something important: Christ Himself tells us how that psalm is fulfilled, and it’s not by His followers taking vengeance. He reigns until His enemies are made a footstool.. by the Father. That’s divine judgment, not Christian retaliation. The same distinction applies to Revelation, the Psalms of judgment, and prophetic language throughout Scripture.
As for Psalm 58 and Psalm 139, those are imprecatory psalms. They describe righteous longing for God’s justice, not a license for believers to cultivate hatred or take vengeance themselves. Paul, who knew those Psalms far better than either of us, still says plainly: “Bless those who persecute you… never avenge yourselves… leave room for the wrath of God.” If David’s emotional expressions override apostolic command, then Paul is contradicting Scripture.
Narrator: he isn’t.
You asked if I think I’m “above David.” No. That said, David himself was not above correction, which Scripture openly records. And keep in mind that David was not living under the New Covenant sealed in Christ’s blood. The apostles are not embarrassed to say this distinction matters. Hebrews 7, 8, 9, and 10 spell it out exhaustively.
On interpretation: Scripture interprets Scripture because Christ authorized the apostles, not an amorphous later tradition, to bind and loose doctrine. And those same apostles warn repeatedly that tradition can nullify God’s word. Jesus says that explicitly in Matthew 15. So “the fathers said so” is not an argument unless it agrees with apostolic teaching. Tradition is a witness, not a trump card.
On lying: Scripture never calls a lie virtuous. God can sovereignly use sinful actions to bring about good ends BUT that does not redefine the action itself as righteous. Rahab is commended for her faith, not for lying. The text is explicit about what is praised. Paul shuts this exact argument down in Romans 3: “Let us do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just.” Love does not require violating Christ’s commands; it requires trusting God with the outcome.
And this constant move of calling forgiveness “weak” just doesn’t survive contact with the New Testament. The cross is the interpretive center of Scripture, not tribal survival ethics. Christ had every right to retaliate and chose not to. Then He commanded His disciples to follow Him, not Moses’ civil code, not David’s war poetry, but Him.
You can keep accusing me of modernism, but the irony is you’re the one flattening Scripture into a single undifferentiated ethic and then calling nuance heresy. The apostles didn’t do that. Jesus didn’t do that. The New Testament doesn’t do that.
I’m not rejecting Scripture for Christ.
I’m reading Scripture through Christ, exactly the way He told us to.
I’m not the one appealing to my own understanding here. I’m appealing to the final and controlling authority Christ and the apostles themselves appealed to.
Oh, did Christ tell you you hold the correct interpretation? Or did He establish His apostolic Church and sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to guide it? Are you sure that same Church didn't have a synodal structure with sacraments and ordination of bishops? All this is evident in Acts and the Epistles. But I guess your infallible interpretation of Scripture missed that part.
Jesus didn’t say “you have heard from the fathers,” He said “it is written.” And when Satan quoted Scripture correctly but applied it wrongly, Jesus didn’t defer to tradition. He corrected the interpretation with more Scripture.
You just lost the debate. Oral and liturgical tradition was how the Church operated in the first centuries before the canon of Scripture was decided by the Church fathers you reject. I swear, Protestantism hinges on being ignorant of early Church history.
Yes, the God of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ. John 1, Colossians 1, and 1 Corinthians 10 are explicit about that. No argument there. But acknowledging that doesn’t mean every covenantal command given to Israel applies unchanged to Christians after the cross. The apostles explicitly say otherwise. Hebrews exists for this exact reason, and it wasn’t written by modern Protestants.
Sure, Christ changed the moral prescriptions. The question was if OT morality was still normative or if it was replaced by new evolved morality. Do you believe that capital punishment or war suddenly became unchristian because hippy-Jesus came to sing Imagine to the people? Of course nothing in Scripture was written by Protestants because the early Church didn't run on Protestant presuppositions, which destroys your entire position. The ideas of Protestantism are post-scholastic modern developments, reactionary to the degeneracy and errors of the RCC.
If you had any idea about history and philosophy of ideas, you'd know that Protestantism is based around nominalism, which is a late Medieval position on metaphysics. No one in the first centuries of the Church thought like Luther and Calvin. It's like applying Critical race theory to something that happened in the middle ages - you don't understand how ridiculously anachronistic and retarded all this is. Protestantism is ahistorical.
Psalm 110 is messianic. Jesus Himself says so in Matthew 22. David is speaking prophetically about Christ’s exaltation and God subduing His enemies. But notice something important: Christ Himself tells us how that psalm is fulfilled, and it’s not by His followers taking vengeance. He reigns until His enemies are made a footstool.. by the Father. That’s divine judgment, not Christian retaliation. The same distinction applies to Revelation, the Psalms of judgment, and prophetic language throughout Scripture.
As for Psalm 58 and Psalm 139, those are imprecatory psalms. They describe righteous longing for God’s justice, not a license for believers to cultivate hatred or take vengeance themselves. Paul, who knew those Psalms far better than either of us, still says plainly: “Bless those who persecute you… never avenge yourselves… leave room for the wrath of God.” If David’s emotional expressions override apostolic command, then Paul is contradicting Scripture.
So does Paul contradict himself when in Roman 13 where he says that the ruler has the sword and can exact justice? Or maybe Christ's teaching is not to avenge YOUR injuries YOURSELF and to be forgiving instead but when it comes to justice He never taught wrongdoing, crime and sin should go unpunished.
For the final time - your have a broken mind and you read Scripture as a set of either/or's when it's both/and's depending on context. If Jesus saved the woman from being stoned and made people realize they too have sins and should show mercy, it doesn't follow that therefore no one should ever be punished ever again or that now the death penalty is rendered immoral.
On interpretation: Scripture interprets Scripture And those same apostles warn repeatedly that tradition can nullify God’s word.
Scripture interprets Scripture? Do you know what a circle is? No, dude. Interpretation requires a person - an interpreter. What you basically said is the same as 'Scripture reads Scripture'. Does that seem rational to you?
because Christ authorized the apostles, not an amorphous later tradition, to bind and loose doctrine.
The irony of not realizing Sola Scriptura itself which you appeal to, is exactly such a later tradition and no one believed this for 15 centuries before Luther came.
Christ gave the apostles the keys to the Church and reassured them that the Church won't cease to exist even before the gates of hell. Yet you claim the apostolic tradition was lost and the Church capitulated shortly after they died. So what happened, was Christ wrong? Btw, that same 'amorphous later tradition' later compiled the Bible you appeal to as I already stated.
So “the fathers said so” is not an argument unless it agrees with apostolic teaching.
Lol, that's the point - it agrees with the apostolic teaching because it's part of the same uninterrupted tradition and the apostles laid hands on them so they can pass that tradition down the line. You have no way of knowing what the apostolic teaching is outside of that tradition because you lack the correct interpretation that goes along the text and is also part of the tradition.
You're reading your own wrong interpretation into the text because you hold the wrong presuppositions about what the teaching is. The Church fathers hold the correct interpretation of Scripture, not you. But you presuppose it's the other way around.
It's so funny and tragic at the same time looking at protestant being incapable of even entertaining the idea that their own personal interpretation of Scripture 20c later, may not be how the early Church of the apostles understood it. You're so full of pride that you can't even begin to repent.
It is clear you do not understand the difference in the old covenant and new covenant. Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. Before He sacrificed His life for us, He preached and preached about loving one another, praying for our enemies, and leaving judgement to Him. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING in the New Testament supports your narrative that's based all on the old covenant.
I reject both your appeal to authority and bad theology. I hope you'll spend more time trying to understand the messages and parables Jesus Christ left on your own instead of letting someone from hundreds of years ago think for you.
You are one of the following:
Actually ignorant of the Truth while growing in your faith
Poisoning the well with bad theology
Rabbi Kikelstein
I'm hoping you are 1 but you seem like 2+3=5. Have a blessed day, rabbi.
It is clear you do not understand the difference in the old covenant and new covenant. Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. Before He sacrificed His life for us, He preached and preached about loving one another, praying for our enemies, and leaving judgement to Him. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING in the New Testament supports your narrative that's based all on the old covenant.
He did, but that doesn't negate the moral teachings of the OT because it was Him who gave those. Unless you believe God's morality evolves with time which is a retarded heresy.
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING in the New Testament supports your narrative that's based all on the old covenant.
Are you sure about that? What if I were to tell you that lex talionis (eye for an eye) still applies in the NT and as Jesus said "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Revelation 13:10
Why is that? Because morality didn't somehow evolved between the OT and the NT and justice remained the same. What Jesus teaches us is not to retaliate for personal injuries (a literal or metaphoric slap on YOUR cheek) and to be forgiving. Idiot protestants like yourself take this out of context and turn it into a maxim that leads them to origenist pacifism and pussfied liberal interpretation of Scripture. You probably believe the death penalty is not applicable to the NT too (never mind Romans 13:4). This is not how the Church understood the text historically, this is your modernized heterodox take on it because you follow a subverted talmudic interpretation of Scripture.
I reject both your appeal to authority and bad theology. I hope you'll spend more time trying to understand the messages and parables Jesus Christ left on your own instead of letting someone from hundreds of years ago think for you.
"I won't listen to the apostles who Jesus Himself appointed to be His Church and their successors - the early Church Fathers, but to my own interpretation because I know better than those idiots hundreds of years ago". Do you realize how retarded and prideful you are? What makes your interpretation authoritative and why should we go along with yours and not the Church fathers? Are you holier and wiser than they are just because time has passed? Protestantism is literal brain damage.
Who is your greatest enemy? Is it perhaps Satan? Do you love him?
I rest my case. You've been cooked. Come to the true apostolic Church.
PS: Btw, if we are supposed to leave all judgement to Christ, then why should we have a justice system put in place? Who are we to judge and administer punishments, right? Are you supposed to love the muslim immigrants who come to your home and rape your wife and daughter before brutally murdering them? Would you turn the other cheek and let them rape you too? Yeah, that's why the west is cucked and people believe Christianity is weak and feminized. Little do they know this is not the actual tradition of the Church but a gay ass liberal theology propped up by jesuits, freemasons and jews to destroy western civilization and enslave mankind.
u/SmithW1984 is an Eastern Orthodox Christian. That means he doesn't accept any external enumerations as they are all change to what came before.
Of course then I trump him by being a covenantalist and tracking my covenant all the way back to Adam so I have even earlier sources, but along the way the Orthodox Church (like the rest of us) had a little trouble getting all the way over the hump of the difference between an unconstituted and a constituted people. Going back and forth across the hump I learned to navigate it (time traveler joke there). "Ignorant" and "growing" might rightly be used for each of us, so feel free to put your further views out there, but I do chime in when I think it'll help.
The God of the Old Testament is the One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A good verse on this is Is. 48:16, "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me." If you start there you should be okay going over the hump.
America was never Christian but it will be in the future. As people get wiser about what's going on, Orthodoxy is spreading faster and wider. The western man, living under the judaized freemasonic NWO, is realizing he's been duped and is thirsty for authentic Christianity. And as our Lord said those who seek Him shall find Him. We live in historic hard times and we're blessed for it.
Never Christian??
Here's Jay Dyer schooling a libertarian on the same subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb-RJmFOdM8
Correct. The founding fathers were deists and the God they postulated is not the Christian Trinity but the masonic ambiguous deity (let's face it, that's Satan). The idea behind the great US experiment was to create a secular republic based on Enlightenment revolutionary and humanist ideas borrowing from the jewish orchestrated French Revolution and the newfound republic's left (jacobins - communists and illuminists) and right wing (girondins - classical liberals and libertarians) factions of parliament.
Historically, all Christian countries were governed as monarchies with the king and the Church assuming their respective roles of secular and spiritual governance (symphonia)*. This form of government is the direct reflection of the monarchy of the Father in the Trinity and of Christ being the divine King of kings. There are zero mentions of parliaments, presidents and democracy in the Bible but Christians (mostly Protestants) pretend that means nothing. The US is much like pagan Rome with some Christians living in it but it's yet to be truly Christianized.
The greatest jewsh feat was the toppling of the Christian monarchies which they achieved between the French Revolution and WWI. This is the origin of the NWO and this agenda has been disclosed in their Protocols. Then WWII completed the transition and this is when we got NWO proper. What happened next is obvious to everyone with a brain.
*It should be noted that in Christian monarchies, especially in Byzantium, the emperor also held a minor clerical office of a diakonos (deacon which translates to God's servant) which is exactly what Paul writes in Romans 13:4. So yes, monarchy is Biblical, republicanism and democracy is freemasonic and it inevitably leads to fake and gay one world technocratic governance.
Well said.
This is a tough one. We are also told to love our enemies. The sense I can love my enemies is as lost people which I was before coming to Christ. But there is a line where someone is just a reprobate, and that's a bridge too far.
Exactly. There's a point where you're basically dealing with the sons of Belial. I'm sorry to burst some hippy-Jesus prots bubble here (not you) but you can't love demonically obsessed people. This is not what Jesus meant when He said love thy enemy. Satan is your ultimate enemy - are you supposed to love him too? Again, this is why context is key.
There are liberals who will never write anyone off, and Pharisees who will write people off too soon (while never questioning themselves). So the narrow road between those then.
You're a White hating nigger, your opinion doesn't matter.
Anyone that actually reads the bible knows Christians should do what Jesus said: Love your enemies, bless your enemies, and pray for your enemies that they repent.
Matthew 5:44-45 & Luke 6:27-28
If they do not, He will destroy them with divine prejudice.
Matthew 7:19, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 13:41–42, Luke 19:27, John 3:36, 2 Thessalonians 1:8–9
Dude, St. John Chrysostom was not only the patriarch of Constantinople, but also one of the Church Fathers who affirmed the 27 books of the NT and helped fleshing out the canon of Scripture. I think he knows what he's talking about.
You may love your enemies, but If you love and tolerate the enemies of Christ, you're an antichristian and you're one of them basically. If what you said was true, Christians wouldn't be allowed to fight in wars, killing their enemies. Yet many Christian saints were warriors because they fought the invading muslims. According to your interpretation, they must be destroyed then, right? Not to mention the examples of the OT where God commanded Israel to wage war and slaughter their enemies. Protestants can never get this correct with their quote mining arriving to heretical positions like pacifism, marcionism and origenism. That's why there's an apostolic Church which holds the authority on interpretation of Scripture.
22/12 edit: You never answered if you love your greatest enemy, who is Satan and his principalities?
You: "bUt yOu sHoUlD LovE yOUr eNeMieS huRR durRR!1!! Scripture says so, so I'll read it out of context and I'll tolerate and extend grace to the absolute demons who blaspheme, destroy my country and civilization and want to kill and enslave me and my family".
The problem is not about loving your enemy, but about what such a love entails and the literal naive understanding people like you have about what Christ means by those words. You're equivocating on the word love. It doesn't entail what the modern liberal thinks it does (surprise surprise, 'love is love' is not love). The love of your enemy doesn't prevent you from waging war against him and destroying him or delivering his soul to judgement.
When Chrystosom talks about hating the enemy, he doesn't contradict Christ. He only does if you don't understand words have different nuances depending on context. Chrystosom knows very well Christians can't really hate the way non-Christians understand hatred because we know everyone is an icon of Christ. Again, do you really believe you have more wisdom and spiritual insight the early Church fathers who were guided by the Spirit and who were crucial for spreading Christianity and made it possible for it to come to our day and age?
Settle down, rabbi. Jesus said what He said and there's no amount of kvetching you can do to change that.
I'm rabbi for telling you you shouldn't love jews? Makes total sense.
Why did Jesus command His followers to buy a sword? Why did He call the pharisees vipers and sons of the Satan? Why did He whip the moneychangers in the Temple? Because He loved them so much?
Is Christ the God of the OT who gave the Mosaic law?
Face it - you don't follow the Christianity of the early Church established by Christ. You follow the judaized subverted fake and gay Christianity that came 15c after Christ where each individual is their own Pope with zero regard for tradition. Your translation of the OT is based on the Masoretic texts (jewish Torah) and not on the Septuagint which was used in the NT. Do you care to guess why is that?
Except you're wrong. All those questions with zero Scripture to corroborate your bad opinion. It's almost like you are leaning on your own understanding. Proverbs 3:5-6
I'm not interested in your opinion about the Word of God. I'm only interested in the Word of God. You can have a vengeful heart if you so choose though but.. first consider the levity of the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:23-35. Right now, you're the unforgiving servant.
Denounce the talmud and have a great day.
I assumed you knew where they're from since you're such a Bible enjoyer.
Hilarious projection. I follow the Church Father's interpretation of Scripture which is the apostolic tradition of the Church. Personal opinions are meaningless.
Does the Word of God interpret itself or does it require interpretation? How do you determine which interpretation is correct if everyone reading it has equal authority on interpretation?
You're not holier than St. John Chrysostom, but go on and piety signal all you like. This weak pussified subverted Christianity is why you deserve to be enslaved by your enemies.
Do you understand that quote mining is not proving anything? Scripture outside of the tradition which holds its correct interpretation leads to heresy and delusion (which St. John speaks about in the video, because jews have the OT and yet they misinterpret it and use it for evil).
I also noticed you didn't answer my questions - is the God of the OT Jesus Christ? Have you read Psalms? Who is David talking about in Psalm 110 "The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”? Psalm 58: “The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.” Why does King David say this in Psalm 139: “Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? … I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies.” Do you consider yourself above David?
What protestants like you don't understand that everything in Scripture is within context and no command is universally applied in the same way. Lying can be virtuous if you do it to save someone from the gestapo. Even killing isn't sinful in the proper context just like loving someone could mean punishing him and causing him suffering. Protestants tend to have a very modernized, reductionist and naive worldview based on word-concept fallacies and generalizations and that's why it's a good idea to look at what the early Church Fathers taught because only the Church has the fullness of the faith.
Nota bene: Corrie ten Boom didn't lie to the gestapo when they asked if there were any Jews in her house, she said "Search for yourself". Athanasius didn't lie to the government when they asked if he had seen Athanasius, he said "He's very near, you can still catch him."
It doesn't matter. The point is even if they had lied, what matters is the intention because God sees our heart and judges according to it. For example if a man comes to kill your friend you actually have a duty to lie to him and save your friend (supposing fighting is not an option).
The commandments are general rules of behavior but they are not absolute because there are always exceptions. Judging how to apply them correctly requires wisdom and spiritual knowledge. As a general rule we're commanded to love our enemy and to turn the other cheek but that's not always appropriate. Why? Because that may lead to the enemy destroying our loved ones that we have a duty to protect. And yet idiot protestants don't seem able to grasp this line of reasoning somehow but always speak in absolutes. It's like their minds are broken and they can't apply nuance and discernment.
I’m not the one appealing to my own understanding here. I’m appealing to the final and controlling authority Christ and the apostles themselves appealed to.
Jesus didn’t say “you have heard from the fathers,” He said “it is written.” And when Satan quoted Scripture correctly but applied it wrongly, Jesus didn’t defer to tradition. He corrected the interpretation with more Scripture.
Yes, the God of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ. John 1, Colossians 1, and 1 Corinthians 10 are explicit about that. No argument there. But acknowledging that doesn’t mean every covenantal command given to Israel applies unchanged to Christians after the cross. The apostles explicitly say otherwise. Hebrews exists for this exact reason, and it wasn’t written by modern Protestants.
Psalm 110 is messianic. Jesus Himself says so in Matthew 22. David is speaking prophetically about Christ’s exaltation and God subduing His enemies. But notice something important: Christ Himself tells us how that psalm is fulfilled, and it’s not by His followers taking vengeance. He reigns until His enemies are made a footstool.. by the Father. That’s divine judgment, not Christian retaliation. The same distinction applies to Revelation, the Psalms of judgment, and prophetic language throughout Scripture.
As for Psalm 58 and Psalm 139, those are imprecatory psalms. They describe righteous longing for God’s justice, not a license for believers to cultivate hatred or take vengeance themselves. Paul, who knew those Psalms far better than either of us, still says plainly: “Bless those who persecute you… never avenge yourselves… leave room for the wrath of God.” If David’s emotional expressions override apostolic command, then Paul is contradicting Scripture.
Narrator: he isn’t.
You asked if I think I’m “above David.” No. That said, David himself was not above correction, which Scripture openly records. And keep in mind that David was not living under the New Covenant sealed in Christ’s blood. The apostles are not embarrassed to say this distinction matters. Hebrews 7, 8, 9, and 10 spell it out exhaustively.
On interpretation: Scripture interprets Scripture because Christ authorized the apostles, not an amorphous later tradition, to bind and loose doctrine. And those same apostles warn repeatedly that tradition can nullify God’s word. Jesus says that explicitly in Matthew 15. So “the fathers said so” is not an argument unless it agrees with apostolic teaching. Tradition is a witness, not a trump card.
On lying: Scripture never calls a lie virtuous. God can sovereignly use sinful actions to bring about good ends BUT that does not redefine the action itself as righteous. Rahab is commended for her faith, not for lying. The text is explicit about what is praised. Paul shuts this exact argument down in Romans 3: “Let us do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just.” Love does not require violating Christ’s commands; it requires trusting God with the outcome.
And this constant move of calling forgiveness “weak” just doesn’t survive contact with the New Testament. The cross is the interpretive center of Scripture, not tribal survival ethics. Christ had every right to retaliate and chose not to. Then He commanded His disciples to follow Him, not Moses’ civil code, not David’s war poetry, but Him.
You can keep accusing me of modernism, but the irony is you’re the one flattening Scripture into a single undifferentiated ethic and then calling nuance heresy. The apostles didn’t do that. Jesus didn’t do that. The New Testament doesn’t do that.
I’m not rejecting Scripture for Christ. I’m reading Scripture through Christ, exactly the way He told us to.
Oh, did Christ tell you you hold the correct interpretation? Or did He establish His apostolic Church and sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to guide it? Are you sure that same Church didn't have a synodal structure with sacraments and ordination of bishops? All this is evident in Acts and the Epistles. But I guess your infallible interpretation of Scripture missed that part.
You just lost the debate. Oral and liturgical tradition was how the Church operated in the first centuries before the canon of Scripture was decided by the Church fathers you reject. I swear, Protestantism hinges on being ignorant of early Church history.
Sure, Christ changed the moral prescriptions. The question was if OT morality was still normative or if it was replaced by new evolved morality. Do you believe that capital punishment or war suddenly became unchristian because hippy-Jesus came to sing Imagine to the people? Of course nothing in Scripture was written by Protestants because the early Church didn't run on Protestant presuppositions, which destroys your entire position. The ideas of Protestantism are post-scholastic modern developments, reactionary to the degeneracy and errors of the RCC.
If you had any idea about history and philosophy of ideas, you'd know that Protestantism is based around nominalism, which is a late Medieval position on metaphysics. No one in the first centuries of the Church thought like Luther and Calvin. It's like applying Critical race theory to something that happened in the middle ages - you don't understand how ridiculously anachronistic and retarded all this is. Protestantism is ahistorical.
So does Paul contradict himself when in Roman 13 where he says that the ruler has the sword and can exact justice? Or maybe Christ's teaching is not to avenge YOUR injuries YOURSELF and to be forgiving instead but when it comes to justice He never taught wrongdoing, crime and sin should go unpunished.
For the final time - your have a broken mind and you read Scripture as a set of either/or's when it's both/and's depending on context. If Jesus saved the woman from being stoned and made people realize they too have sins and should show mercy, it doesn't follow that therefore no one should ever be punished ever again or that now the death penalty is rendered immoral.
Scripture interprets Scripture? Do you know what a circle is? No, dude. Interpretation requires a person - an interpreter. What you basically said is the same as 'Scripture reads Scripture'. Does that seem rational to you?
The irony of not realizing Sola Scriptura itself which you appeal to, is exactly such a later tradition and no one believed this for 15 centuries before Luther came.
Christ gave the apostles the keys to the Church and reassured them that the Church won't cease to exist even before the gates of hell. Yet you claim the apostolic tradition was lost and the Church capitulated shortly after they died. So what happened, was Christ wrong? Btw, that same 'amorphous later tradition' later compiled the Bible you appeal to as I already stated.
Lol, that's the point - it agrees with the apostolic teaching because it's part of the same uninterrupted tradition and the apostles laid hands on them so they can pass that tradition down the line. You have no way of knowing what the apostolic teaching is outside of that tradition because you lack the correct interpretation that goes along the text and is also part of the tradition.
You're reading your own wrong interpretation into the text because you hold the wrong presuppositions about what the teaching is. The Church fathers hold the correct interpretation of Scripture, not you. But you presuppose it's the other way around.
It's so funny and tragic at the same time looking at protestant being incapable of even entertaining the idea that their own personal interpretation of Scripture 20c later, may not be how the early Church of the apostles understood it. You're so full of pride that you can't even begin to repent.
It is clear you do not understand the difference in the old covenant and new covenant. Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. Before He sacrificed His life for us, He preached and preached about loving one another, praying for our enemies, and leaving judgement to Him. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING in the New Testament supports your narrative that's based all on the old covenant.
I reject both your appeal to authority and bad theology. I hope you'll spend more time trying to understand the messages and parables Jesus Christ left on your own instead of letting someone from hundreds of years ago think for you.
You are one of the following:
Actually ignorant of the Truth while growing in your faith
Poisoning the well with bad theology
Rabbi Kikelstein
I'm hoping you are 1 but you seem like 2+3=5. Have a blessed day, rabbi.
He did, but that doesn't negate the moral teachings of the OT because it was Him who gave those. Unless you believe God's morality evolves with time which is a retarded heresy.
Are you sure about that? What if I were to tell you that lex talionis (eye for an eye) still applies in the NT and as Jesus said "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
Revelation 13:10
Why is that? Because morality didn't somehow evolved between the OT and the NT and justice remained the same. What Jesus teaches us is not to retaliate for personal injuries (a literal or metaphoric slap on YOUR cheek) and to be forgiving. Idiot protestants like yourself take this out of context and turn it into a maxim that leads them to origenist pacifism and pussfied liberal interpretation of Scripture. You probably believe the death penalty is not applicable to the NT too (never mind Romans 13:4). This is not how the Church understood the text historically, this is your modernized heterodox take on it because you follow a subverted talmudic interpretation of Scripture.
"I won't listen to the apostles who Jesus Himself appointed to be His Church and their successors - the early Church Fathers, but to my own interpretation because I know better than those idiots hundreds of years ago". Do you realize how retarded and prideful you are? What makes your interpretation authoritative and why should we go along with yours and not the Church fathers? Are you holier and wiser than they are just because time has passed? Protestantism is literal brain damage.
Who is your greatest enemy? Is it perhaps Satan? Do you love him?
I rest my case. You've been cooked. Come to the true apostolic Church.
PS: Btw, if we are supposed to leave all judgement to Christ, then why should we have a justice system put in place? Who are we to judge and administer punishments, right? Are you supposed to love the muslim immigrants who come to your home and rape your wife and daughter before brutally murdering them? Would you turn the other cheek and let them rape you too? Yeah, that's why the west is cucked and people believe Christianity is weak and feminized. Little do they know this is not the actual tradition of the Church but a gay ass liberal theology propped up by jesuits, freemasons and jews to destroy western civilization and enslave mankind.
Of course then I trump him by being a covenantalist and tracking my covenant all the way back to Adam so I have even earlier sources, but along the way the Orthodox Church (like the rest of us) had a little trouble getting all the way over the hump of the difference between an unconstituted and a constituted people. Going back and forth across the hump I learned to navigate it (time traveler joke there). "Ignorant" and "growing" might rightly be used for each of us, so feel free to put your further views out there, but I do chime in when I think it'll help.
The God of the Old Testament is the One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A good verse on this is Is. 48:16, "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me." If you start there you should be okay going over the hump.