So, if you found it all to be real and believable, then what proof, evidence, or anything to substantiate it do you have? What proof do you have that God incarnated on earth and human sacrificed itself to itself to fix the problem that was its plan to begin with? What's believable about a virgin birth? What proof or evidence do you have that God actually said any of the stuff attributed to it within the Biblical texts? What proof do you have that those books teach God's truth?
If what you stated is true, that good things don't need marketing. Then the mere existence of Christian missionaries would prove Christianity is not a good thing. That Christians force converted the Roman empire in 380 CE shows that it's not a good thing.
What do you think of the conclusions of Bible scholars surrounding the Disputed Letters of Paul? It's obvious that the same person did not write/dictate all of them. Are you familiar with the textual criticism of the Bible?
In John 2:13-22, the story of Jesus cleansing the temple is put at the beginning of an alleged ministry. In the Synoptic Gospels, the event is put at the end of the ministry. That's a contradiction. There weren't two temple cleansings. It's considered a theological Gospel, not historical one. The Jesus it portrays is greatly different than the ones the other Gospels do.
When it comes to Matthew's genealogy in Matthew 1, there are 3 sets of 14 generations. If this was to be taken historically, it'd be a lie. If accounts in the Chronicles were accurate, it'd be obviously wrong. In counting the generations, there are only 41 of them. Now, in the older readings of Luke 3:22, like in the Codex Bezae, it said "Your are my son, today have I begotten you.". This was the fulfillment of that 42nd generation, and when Jesus became at-one with God. The number 14 means Wholeness, and is equivalent to the gematria value for David in Hebrew. Jesus was of the House of David, because he achieved Wholeness across the three-fold self: Mind, Body, Soul. This is why there were 3 sets of 14 generations, but the final Soul birth didn't happen until the baptism. Such things are allegorical symbolism and not meant to be taken as literal history.
The Gospel of Luke's address to a Theophilus is symbolic for the reader, as they would be a lover of God. It's a litmus test showing the eyes are to be taken off of a historical interpretation to be viewed symbolically. In with that is the numbers at the beginning in the first chapter, when multiplied being equivalent to 4320. That was in part a kind of way of communicating the text was to be viewed allegorically. When done to a book like Joshua, in the first two chapters, when multiplied, those equal 432. The way that the texts are written, they're designed to go beyond the comprehension of those who would view them literally. It allowed things to be communicated and preserved, while protecting those that would meet the end of your potential sword.
There was no historical fall of man as recorded in Genesis. That's symbolic. The world isn't corrupted by something called sin, and we aren't in need of a Jesus-God to serve as a sacrifice to save us.
Have you looked into what the scientists involved with Quantum physics have been saying? They're just now arriving at what the mystics of the past taught. The Jesus portrayed in the Gospels is a symbolic portrayal of what we are to become ourselves. In Luke 11:52, it's stated that Jesus rebuked the lawyers for throwing away the key of knowledge. That word for knowledge meant gnosis. The texts of the OT are to be interpreted symbolically as a portrayal of our own Mind. Israelites came from the Canaanites. There wasn't a mass exodus from Egypt.
So you're saying that your explanation is to just read it again cuz I'll somehow think different and just like you after reading it again?
Do you understand that not everyone will arrive at the same conclusion when they read the same passage in something like the Bible?
Do you have autism?
What kind of Orthodox group do you belong to?
So would you agree that Orthodox Christianity is based on circular reasoning then? How do you know it's closer to the source, or that there even is a source, if you haven't proven the source to begin with?
Do you believe all the claims in that symbol of faith are true? Do you even care? Sounds like you aren't a part of Orthodox Christianity because you actually believe the tenets it's based on are true, but rather because you don't have an alternative to believe in and Orthodox is the most convenient for you to function in society given you're Russian. Is that accurate for you?
After talking to you and two other Orthodox Christians it's no wonder you're incapable of answering basic questions and engaging in a conversation. Your faith boils down to blindly believing what you're told and not questioning anything. You see asking basic questions as being some kind of affront against your God, and can't provide any kind of explanations.
Simply asking you to explain how the placement of the temple cleansing story of John doesn't contradict the placement of the same story in Matthew, Mark, or Luke is beyond your intellectual capacity to discuss.
It's impossible to hold a conversation with you when you offer nothing of value to converse with.
Are you incapable of answering those questions?
That whether or not what is a good decision?
That is why there is a very limited list of things that should be believed - Symbol of Faith. Everything else Orthodox Christians have to study and know, not believe
This stuff your symbol of faith? https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/prayers/symbol-of-faith
You champion reason, logic, critical thinking, and knowing in everything except the core stuff your religion is based on? You have to appeal to blind faith because you cannot prove the central tenets of your religion. Cult indeed
So why do you believe the Orthodox church is some kind of True Church? Cuz they say so?
Do you have any kind of proof or something to substantiate that God actually said those things? Sounds like you could use a new heart and spirit if you're going around calling people fools.
Yep, troll confirmed.
How doesn't a temple cleansing at the beginning of a Jesus ministry not contradict it happening before the end of a Jesus ministry?
Do you think the genealogy in Matthew is historically accurate or symbolic?
By humbling myself before the Most High, you mean to just shut up and blindly accept whatever you and other men say.
There's no such religion called a totalitarian sect. A sect is a subset of a religious group. And Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of the umbrella that is Christianity whether you like it or not. Look at how corrupt the Orthodox church is https://www.ecaglobal.org/facts-tell-another-story-in-orthodox-churches-of-russia-greece-and-serbia/. Protecting pedophiles. Your Church has killed people throughout history and force converted people, so you don't have a moral high horse to sit on. You're intentionally ignoring what JWs are a sect trying to save face.
Do you realize how stupid it is to just go around blindly believing all the claims people make in life? The article is right. You believe the claim that a Jesus-God lived and died and resurrected and served as some kind of sacrifice for something called sin for no other reason than someone claimed it, and you blindly accept that those who claim it are some kind of truth authorities. Thanks for admitting Orthodox Christians promote blind faith.
Watch the video. Pedophilia is an issue within the clergy of various Christian groups that gets ignored, downplayed, and covered-up.
Found it
Lets dig into this then. If we're taking these things as historical accounts, a temple cleansing at the beginning of a Jesus ministry horrendously contradicts it happening before the end of a Jesus ministry. Christians try to reconcile this by claiming there were two episodes of Jesus cleansing the temple, but none of the texts say there were two episodes of that and it would've been a pretty big ordeal to have recorded both. Instead of recognizing this as a contradiction, you appeal to this pre-conceived idea that the texts all harmonize together and any contradiction is just a misunderstanding, and to go with John as a final authority. Each of the four texts presents one temple cleansing as having happened, and since there's an irreconcilable difference in the placement of when it was supposed to have happened, Christians make up a notion that there were actually two of these events. That's not being intellectually honest. That's trying to twist everything to fit pre-conceived ideas that there aren't contradictions.
If you reply without providing a counter argument or something of value to discuss, I'll take that as an admission you're one of those online trolls.
There's the admission
But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.” – Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.24.7
Even way back the Gospel of John wasn't viewed as historical.
Make a post about it then.
I assume you're assuming that ?