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.
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).
Many have weighed in differently on the issue, which is why I gave the note. Perhaps you have a magisterial citation about my duty to tell lies as if one man can compel another man's testimony. I appeal to Is. 54:16-17 that no entrapment to lie can succeed:
Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
Further, no command can contradict another, so if you are faced with an apparent contradiction it is your own failure of discernment, Matt. 22:39-40:
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
You and I denounce Origen, and yet the introduction into Christianity of the thought that Christians have a "right of reserve" to not tell the whole truth is Origenism.
Further, no command can contradict another, so if you are faced with an apparent contradiction it is your own failure of discernment
That's false. I can easily refute you by saying you should defend your family (or country) with lethal force if necessary. In this case the command not to kill is contradicted by the command to love and serve your family. Choosing not to kill in this instance could actually be sinful.
You and I denounce Origen, and yet the introduction into Christianity of the thought that Christians have a "right of reserve" to not tell the whole truth is Origenism.
Not at all. You hold the Augustinian position which is the basis for the western Church. But the Eastern fathers agree concealment of truth and even deception is permissible in certain situations (pastoral flexibility) - precisely what Athanasius did in your anecdote.
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.
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.
This snippet is from one of the sermons I listened to this morning and it made me think of not just our exchange, but how I interact online:
This is a very base, coarse, rancorous, angry, hate-filled, volatile, pejorative culture in which we live. It seems as though all normal restrained discourse has been replaced by ugly, bitter, attacking, devouring speech at all levels; and that has, as it seems everything does in the culture, made its way to church. And the Internet seems to be where all that is played out with a measure of escapability and anonymity where you can pour out your animosity, your hate and your ad hominem attacks and feel good about it, when, in fact, you should not. Doesn’t honor the Lord for Christians to be having a food fight on the Internet over every issue and pointing what’s wrong with everybody else, while the world watches this betrayal of everything that we say we believe and everything the Lord would have to be true about us as His people.
This snippet is from one of the sermons I listened to this morning and it made me think of not just our exchange, but how I interact online: This is a very base, coarse, rancorous, angry, hate-filled, volatile, pejorative culture in which we live. It seems as though all normal restrained discourse has been replaced by ugly, bitter, attacking, devouring speech at all levels; and that has, as it seems everything does in the culture, made its way to church. And the Internet seems to be where all that is played out with a measure of escapability and anonymity where you can pour out your animosity, your hate and your ad hominem attacks and feel good about it, when, in fact, you should not. Doesn’t honor the Lord for Christians to be having a food fight on the Internet over every issue and pointing what’s wrong with everybody else, while the world watches this betrayal of everything that we say we believe and everything the Lord would have to be true about us as His people. Have a blessed day, brother.
Absolutely! Looking forward to meeting you shortly under your new username then. :)
I think I made my point. Nobody can force you to come to the truth. I'd rather be rude and disrespectful but give you the truth than be all tolerant and nice and make compromises on it. I hate falsehood and lies, not people. If you truly love your neighbor you direct them towards the truth even if it's not dressed in niceties and false unity.
I think people should grow a back bone and not be all feminine in their exchanges because Christianity is not about being nice but about the Truth - otherwise we get Nice-ianity). I'd go even further - If you're afraid you could hurt someone's feelings by telling the truth, you can't be a Christian. If I call you a fool and you're acting like one, that's not unchristian in the slightest. Scripture and the Church fathers used very harsh language when dealing with heresies and false teachings (and not just language but physical aggression too).
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.
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.
Many have weighed in differently on the issue, which is why I gave the note. Perhaps you have a magisterial citation about my duty to tell lies as if one man can compel another man's testimony. I appeal to Is. 54:16-17 that no entrapment to lie can succeed:
Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
Further, no command can contradict another, so if you are faced with an apparent contradiction it is your own failure of discernment, Matt. 22:39-40:
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
You and I denounce Origen, and yet the introduction into Christianity of the thought that Christians have a "right of reserve" to not tell the whole truth is Origenism.
That's false. I can easily refute you by saying you should defend your family (or country) with lethal force if necessary. In this case the command not to kill is contradicted by the command to love and serve your family. Choosing not to kill in this instance could actually be sinful.
Not at all. You hold the Augustinian position which is the basis for the western Church. But the Eastern fathers agree concealment of truth and even deception is permissible in certain situations (pastoral flexibility) - precisely what Athanasius did in your anecdote.
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.
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.
This snippet is from one of the sermons I listened to this morning and it made me think of not just our exchange, but how I interact online:
This is a very base, coarse, rancorous, angry, hate-filled, volatile, pejorative culture in which we live. It seems as though all normal restrained discourse has been replaced by ugly, bitter, attacking, devouring speech at all levels; and that has, as it seems everything does in the culture, made its way to church. And the Internet seems to be where all that is played out with a measure of escapability and anonymity where you can pour out your animosity, your hate and your ad hominem attacks and feel good about it, when, in fact, you should not. Doesn’t honor the Lord for Christians to be having a food fight on the Internet over every issue and pointing what’s wrong with everybody else, while the world watches this betrayal of everything that we say we believe and everything the Lord would have to be true about us as His people.
Have a blessed day, brother.
Absolutely! Looking forward to meeting you shortly under your new username then. :)
I wonder how it makes you feel knowing that I stopped reading your heresies 2 comments ago. lol
I think I made my point. Nobody can force you to come to the truth. I'd rather be rude and disrespectful but give you the truth than be all tolerant and nice and make compromises on it. I hate falsehood and lies, not people. If you truly love your neighbor you direct them towards the truth even if it's not dressed in niceties and false unity.
I think people should grow a back bone and not be all feminine in their exchanges because Christianity is not about being nice but about the Truth - otherwise we get Nice-ianity). I'd go even further - If you're afraid you could hurt someone's feelings by telling the truth, you can't be a Christian. If I call you a fool and you're acting like one, that's not unchristian in the slightest. Scripture and the Church fathers used very harsh language when dealing with heresies and false teachings (and not just language but physical aggression too).
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.
ok