1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

Christ is likened to the sun by some Early Church fathers. Being the second person of the Godhead, He is eternal and the light He brings is also eternal and uncreated. The sun is an astronomical created inanimate object and the light it emits is purely physical.

So no, Christ is not the sun but the fathers liken Him to it as an analogy and a symbol. Christ is a divine person who assumed human nature in order to save humanity from death (the result of Adam's fall) and bring it in communion with God. He is not similar to Ishtar, Osiris, Apollo, Saturn, Mithra or any of those demon gods that pagans worship. Even if other religions had some notion of God their knowledge was incomplete led them to erroneous doctrines. Christianity is not sun worship in any way shape or form. The Christian calendar is cyclical because God made the world that way, so it reflects that basic reality of nature.

3
SmithW1984 3 points ago +3 / -0

Maybe people deserve the punishment or maybe they bring it on them through their own sin and willful ignorance. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah.

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

He's right though. According to OUR Church Fathers, Christ was born on 25th of December and this has been the Christian tradition since the IVc. I'm not sure who made you the authority on this one and how does your interpretation trump that of the Church Christ established Himself?

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

Doesn't sound like Christ is the Sun then because He was resurrected in the spring.

0
SmithW1984 0 points ago +1 / -1

Utter bullshit.

Christians have been celebrating the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ on 25th of December since the IVc. (under pope Sylvester). St. John Chrysostom explains how that date was arrived at - John the Baptist was conceived during the Feast of Tabernacles (23 September). According to Luke 1, Annunciation was 6 months after that on 25 of March + 9 months of pregnancy = 25 December.

Jeremiah 10:2-5 is about making idols out of wood and metals, not about decorating a fir tree no matter how hard you weird sectarians try to shoehorn such an interpretation in. Christmas is not rooted in pagan traditions - it coincided with Sol Invictus and incorporated/consecrated it thus making it way easier to convert pagans to Christianity.

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think it's a good thing because more prots will realize how fake and gay their Christianity is. This will incentivize them to seek out actual traditional Christianity within the true historical Church that has kept the faith uncorrupted for 2000 years.

2
SmithW1984 2 points ago +2 / -0

This guys looks like he's working for the jews though. He's the perfect ADL "Look at all the rampant antisemitism in the West - we must do something about it" goon.

4
SmithW1984 4 points ago +4 / -0

Gospels first and foremost.

2
SmithW1984 2 points ago +2 / -0

The Church has declared 25th of December to be Christ's birthday in the IVc. St. John Chrysostom explains how that date was arrived at - John the Baptist was conceived during the Feast of Tabernacles (23 September). According to Luke 1, Annunciation was 6 months after that in 25 of March + 9 months of pregnancy = 25 December.

3
SmithW1984 3 points ago +3 / -0

I don't. All I know is there is a contradiction there and RFK will either abandon his big pharma crusade or Trump's admin will join it. A lot of anti-establishment people (both left and right) support RFK and if he does a 360 on this it will look very bad. That's basic logic.

3
SmithW1984 3 points ago +3 / -0

Tech is the only truthful thing in our world. It can't lie or depend on lies. You can't build working car engine on lies, it will not work regardless of how many money and effort you spent on creating that lies. This is highly disturbing to those who want to thrive on lies, so they thinking out non-existing magical tech and sell it around, at the same time convincing people that they don't have to know how things work.

I hammer on this point all the time. The only true science is engineering - application of math, logic and natural laws for building things that serve a specific function. Everything else is mostly propaganda, ungrounded speculation and myth-creation, aka scientism. Of course I wouldn't say tech is the only truthful thing in this world because God is the standard for truth and the ultimate truthful being and the truthfulness of everything is contingent on Him. But as far as the creation and science goes, I'd agree.

The computer is to AI what engineering and true science is to scientism. The notion of AI is based on some wild unjustified assumptions that have never been demonstrated empirically (and they never will, because those are presuppositions about metaphysics).

3
SmithW1984 3 points ago +3 / -0

Exactly. People have been programmed to entertain the idea that AI is borderline "alive", self aware and employs some quasi free-will kabbalistic thinking and decision making.

They fall for jew magic and transhumanism. It's a program running many simple algorithms at the same time - a conglomeration of algorithms. It has no identity or intelligence and whatever it does, it was programmed and trained to do it.

I get that normies fall for that but thinking people should stop with this nonsense.

That being said AI can be used as a tool for demonic influence, especially when you consider what kind of people are behind it all.

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +2 / -1

As if your own eyes can't be deceived. This is exactly what Blue Beam is about - people will see the gayliens coming from the sky while looking up.

4
SmithW1984 4 points ago +4 / -0

I don't see how he could go on with the clotshot script now that RFK is head of HHS.

3
SmithW1984 3 points ago +3 / -0

I bet it was a hacked car and not a filthy sand nigger in there.

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

Who's your God, you retarded heretic? You've made your own religion that has nothing to do with the Christian God who is Trinity, who established His Church which keeps that tradition alive until the end of times.

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

Can’t find it huh?

You assume just because something isn't spelled out it's not in the text. That's a hermeneutical problem and the problem is yours.

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

I follow the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity because I believe it to be the true unchanged apostolic tradition going back to Jesus Himself and the true historic Church Christ established and where the Holy Spirit resides after He was sent by Christ on Pentecost.

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

There is something to that but still you intertwine it with idiosyncratic interpretation which causes problems. Monarchical Trinitarianism is a thing and there is what we call in Orthodoxy Monarchy of the Father where the Son is eternally begotten from the Father and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. Thus everything comes "from the Father," "through the Son," and "in the Holy Spirit." That doesn't mean the Father is superior or has anything the other persons don't have though - all three persons are equally God and they share the same power and will (and they have identical perspective on things).

The Trinity is probably the most complex doctrines in Christianity and it's easy to get things wrong if you don't read what the Church fathers wrote about it but go on intuition and your own reasoning. The nature of God transcends the limits of time, space and our limited mortal reasoning. We didn't come to knowledge of Him through reasoning and observation of the world but through divine revelation. God is the ultimate mystery. But gnostics believe they can arrive to knowledge about God (the Truth) through rational means, denying the limits of their reason. Gnosticism is the ultimate folder-chasing and many conspiracy people fall pray to it. It's all because of bad theology and lack of humility.

3
SmithW1984 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's well known. 33 is also the number after 32 and before 34 so there's that.

1
SmithW1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

Long story short, I found that the Father doesn’t need a name as there is only one but I AM is a sort of descriptor name because the Father is infinite life itself and therefore the Father can point to anything in reality and say “I am that tree” or “I am that table”. Even the Christ, the lesser creation of God is made out of the fabric of the “I am”.

You started good and then crashed miserably by saying Christ is "a lesser creation of God". If Christ shares the nature of the Father (and you say He does), He can't be a creation or lesser than the Godhead. No, Christ sharing the divine nature means He's uncreated just like the Father and the Spirit while also being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. The Trinity can't be separated. This is evident from John 1 where it is stated that the Word was in the beginning before all creation and He was in God and He was with God and everything was created through Him - there wasn't a time when Christ didn't exist.

Just like with other folks here, who come from protestant and gnostic background you fall prey to ancient heresies that have been refuted by the Church fathers. This particular heresy is called Arianism and was condemned by the 1st Nicaean ecumenical council where St. Nicholas (Santa Klaus) went on to slap archbishop Arius who was the originator of the heresy.

0
SmithW1984 0 points ago +1 / -1

Is this why the NT is filled with references to the OT and is literally the fulfilment of all the prophecies there? Jesus Himself refers to the OT and both Mathew and Luke give us His genealogy from king David.

You're doing freestyle interpretation of a text while being outside of the tradition that conceived it, kept it, and posses the correct interpretation of it - the Apostolic Church where the Holy Spirit resides. The chances of you getting to the correct interpretation on anything concerning it are very slim and you, as every other Bible enjoyer gnostic or protestant out there who thinks they are the sole authority on scriptural interpretation, immediately fall pray to ancient heresies. Rejecting the OT is known as Marcionism and the Church fathers deboonked it a long time ago.

0
SmithW1984 0 points ago +1 / -1

Didn't you read my previous reply? What do you think Jesus means by "Before Abraham was, I AM?"

If "No one has seen the Father" and "No one comes to the Father except through Me (Jesus)", then who did Abraham and Moses see and talk to?

Show me a single statement by Jesus that says “Yahweh is my father”

This sounds a lot like "show me where in the Bible the word Trinity is used?" argument against the Trinitarian nature of God.

view more: Next ›