NationStates

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:This is actually what we're discussing right now in my systematics class, particularily how Christ is legitimately surprised on multiple occasions. It stands to reason an all knowing God would not be able to be surprised. It seems that Christ has limited knowledge.

Or He is just acting surprised for specific reasons. For example, when a sick woman who wanted to be healed touched His clothes and He asked "who touched Me?", He already knew who touched Him, but wanted the person to step out of the crowd of her own volition, rather than Him pointing her out.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:How would Christ's knowledge be limited? Is it like a Christ-the-Man/Christ-the-Divine dichotomy kind of thing?

God knows all things for all time, at all times. Christ, though possessing great swaths of knowledge, pertinent to his ministry also has limits to his knowledge. He experiences the human life and part of that humanity is not being omniscient. And there are times, such as with the centurion where he is supposed at the events taking place.

This is starting to sound way too close to the Nestorian heresy. Or possibly Arianism, depending on where you're going with it.

Christ, being God, was and is omniscient. He could act surprised, for effect, but wasn't actually surprised by anything. To suggest that Christ has limits to His knowledge either implies that Christ isn't God (Arianism) or that there's some sort of separation between Christ-the-Man and Christ-the-Divine so that they are like two entities with one knowing something that the other doesn't (Nestorianism).

And Nestorianism is very, very bad. Remember the Chalcedonian Definition: Christ the God-Man, one person in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:How would Christ's knowledge be limited? Is it like a Christ-the-Man/Christ-the-Divine dichotomy kind of thing?

God knows all things for all time, at all times. Christ, though possessing great swaths of knowledge, pertinent to his ministry also has limits to his knowledge. He experiences the human life and part of that humanity is not being omniscient. And there are times, such as with the centurion where he is supposed at the events taking place.

Christ is certainly human, but remember He is also GOD. He knows all and understands all, the difference between the Father and the Son is that the Son allowed Himself to experience humanity and the natural growth of a person. He is Omniscient, and because He is Omniscient He allows Himself to entirely live as a Human, because He knows perfectly that the Incarnation would have been the best way to bring humanity back to God.

Constantinopolis wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:This is actually what we're discussing right now in my systematics class, particularily how Christ is legitimately surprised on multiple occasions. It stands to reason an all knowing God would not be able to be surprised. It seems that Christ has limited knowledge.

Or He is just acting surprised for specific reasons. For example, when a sick woman who wanted to be healed touched His clothes and He asked "who touched Me?", He already knew who touched Him, but wanted the person to step out of the crowd of her own volition, rather than Him pointing her out.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:God knows all things for all time, at all times. Christ, though possessing great swaths of knowledge, pertinent to his ministry also has limits to his knowledge. He experiences the human life and part of that humanity is not being omniscient. And there are times, such as with the centurion where he is supposed at the events taking place.

This is starting to sound way too close to the Nestorian heresy. Or possibly Arianism, depending on where you're going with it.

Christ, being God, was and is omniscient. He could act surprised, for effect, but wasn't actually surprised by anything. To suggest that Christ has limits to His knowledge either implies that Christ isn't God (Arianism) or that there's some sort of separation between Christ-the-Man and Christ-the-Divine so that they are like two entities with one knowing something that the other doesn't (Nestorianism).

And Nestorianism is very, very bad. Remember the Chalcedonian Definition: Christ the God-Man, one person in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.

You could look through John's Gospel even for multiple times when Jesus asks people questions, and He already knows their answers.

Constantinopolis wrote:You know, I don't see any argument for Mormonism that wouldn't work equally well as an argument for Islam. Both religions claim to follow the supposed "original teachings" of Christ (and the other prophets), which are shockingly different from what Christianity has historically believed, and both religions claim to have been started by a new prophet who received a book from an angel that was intended to "correct" the "errors" of a corrupt Christian Church.

Both religions also deny the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Christ, and support these denials with the new books that were supposedly revealed by the respective angels.

As far as I'm concerned, Mormonism is Islam 2.0 - at least with regard to its claims to legitimacy.

Ironically, of course, Islam is far closer to Judaism than Christianity is.

I mean, I think you're trying to throw skepticism on Mormonism because to you it looks like Islam, and therefore must be bad but... from the point of view of both Islam and Judaism, it's the Greek scripture that's the odd puppy out.

Constantinopolis wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:This is actually what we're discussing right now in my systematics class, particularily how Christ is legitimately surprised on multiple occasions. It stands to reason an all knowing God would not be able to be surprised. It seems that Christ has limited knowledge.

Or He is just acting surprised for specific reasons. For example, when a sick woman who wanted to be healed touched His clothes and He asked "who touched Me?", He already knew who touched Him, but wanted the person to step out of the crowd of her own volition, rather than Him pointing her out.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:God knows all things for all time, at all times. Christ, though possessing great swaths of knowledge, pertinent to his ministry also has limits to his knowledge. He experiences the human life and part of that humanity is not being omniscient. And there are times, such as with the centurion where he is supposed at the events taking place.

This is starting to sound way too close to the Nestorian heresy. Or possibly Arianism, depending on where you're going with it.

Christ, being God, was and is omniscient. He could act surprised, for effect, but wasn't actually surprised by anything. To suggest that Christ has limits to His knowledge either implies that Christ isn't God (Arianism) or that there's some sort of separation between Christ-the-Man and Christ-the-Divine so that they are like two entities with one knowing something that the other doesn't (Nestorianism).

And Nestorianism is very, very bad. Remember the Chalcedonian Definition: Christ the God-Man, one person in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.

I don't think I'm suggesting any thing of the sort really. (And keep in mind I'm more parroting the lessons in class than really asserting them as my earnest beliefs ((I go to Yale Div School which is very liberal ecumenical school with all manner of Christian thought taught)) The idea is not that Christ's is somehow eschewing his God nature, but rather in his ominipotence, limits his omniscience to fully partake in the human paradigmatic life.

The Gospel clearly states at times that Jesus was Amazed/Astonished/ Filled with Wonder. These are not things one can do with ominiscience. It fundamentally requires uncertainty of outcome, an unexpected occurrence. It also doesn't suggest that he was pretending or "acting." These were legitimate experiences Christ had. There are further examples, like in Gethseomone when he asks "if there is any other way" one could chalk it up as a poetic expression of his despair, but it could also be an acknowledged limit of his knowledge.

Christ does retain some manner of his omniscience, in regards to key aspects of his ministry, but he also has limits to his knowledge, that I would submit are selfimposed.

Luminesa wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
God knows all things for all time, at all times. Christ, though possessing great swaths of knowledge, pertinent to his ministry also has limits to his knowledge. He experiences the human life and part of that humanity is not being omniscient. And there are times, such as with the centurion where he is supposed at the events taking place.

Christ is certainly human, but remember He is also GOD. He knows all and understands all, the difference between the Father and the Son is that the Son allowed Himself to experience humanity and the natural growth of a person. He is Omniscient, and because He is Omniscient He allows Himself to entirely live as a Human, because He knows perfectly that the Incarnation would have been the best way to bring humanity back to God.

How can one experience the natural growth of a person with access to the full purview of omniscience? How can one experience humanity, while knowing the full breadth of God's knowledge?

Uncertainty is a fundamental part of the human experience. Uncertainty is a fundamental component of faith. Part of being human, is not knowing what is going to happen next. Christ could not fully partake in the human experience, without experiencing uncertainty. He couldn't experience fear, doubt, anticipation, nervousness, really ANY human emotion, without uncertainty. One of the key distinctions between God the creator, and us the creation, is that we don't know.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Luminesa wrote:Christ is certainly human, but remember He is also GOD. He knows all and understands all, the difference between the Father and the Son is that the Son allowed Himself to experience humanity and the natural growth of a person. He is Omniscient, and because He is Omniscient He allows Himself to entirely live as a Human, because He knows perfectly that the Incarnation would have been the best way to bring humanity back to God.

How can one experience the natural growth of a person with access to the full purview of omniscience? How can one experience humanity, while knowing the full breadth of God's knowledge?

Uncertainty is a fundamental part of the human experience. Uncertainty is a fundamental component of faith. Part of being human, is not knowing what is going to happen next. Christ could not fully partake in the human experience, without experiencing uncertainty. He couldn't experience fear, doubt, anticipation, nervousness, really ANY human emotion, without uncertainty. One of the key distinctions between God the creator, and us the creation, is that we don't know.

But Christ, being the Son, also had a perfect relationship with God. So His Faith was the strongest it could possibly be for a human. He certainly felt pain, anger, joy, sadness, and whatnot, but He was entirely aware of His destiny on earth (at least for a few years before His actual Passion and Resurrection, if we pull straight from the Four Gospels), and a person can entirely show nervousness while knowing what will happen next. Nervousness does not necessarily mean the person does not know what's happening next. You have to remember, Christ did take on our human nature in its entirety, but He did not take its fallen nature, which would include the human tendency toward doubt, due to our inherently finite knowledge. Christ, being human, would experience all of the physical and emotional states of a person, but being Divine, He never lost sight of His mission, and was aware entirely of what He was supposed to be doing.

Lady Scylla wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:Belief in a thing is a beautiful and terrible motivation. People die for every kind of belief - belief in faith, lack of faith (I think?), nations, races, what have you.

I don't see how that's possible.

Well, I mean, you know, technically speaking I guess it might be possible????

Luminesa wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

How can one experience the natural growth of a person with access to the full purview of omniscience? How can one experience humanity, while knowing the full breadth of God's knowledge?

Uncertainty is a fundamental part of the human experience. Uncertainty is a fundamental component of faith. Part of being human, is not knowing what is going to happen next. Christ could not fully partake in the human experience, without experiencing uncertainty. He couldn't experience fear, doubt, anticipation, nervousness, really ANY human emotion, without uncertainty. One of the key distinctions between God the creator, and us the creation, is that we don't know.

But Christ, being the Son, also had a perfect relationship with God. So His Faith was the strongest it could possibly be for a human. He certainly felt pain, anger, joy, sadness, and whatnot, but He was entirely aware of His destiny on earth (at least for a few years before His actual Passion and Resurrection, if we pull straight from the Four Gospels), and a person can entirely show nervousness while knowing what will happen next. Nervousness does not necessarily mean the person does not know what's happening next. You have to remember, Christ did take on our human nature in its entirety, but He did not take its fallen nature, which would include the human tendency toward doubt, due to our inherently finite knowledge. Christ, being human, would experience all of the physical and emotional states of a person, but being Divine, He never lost sight of His mission, and was aware entirely of what He was supposed to be doing.

Been thinknig about it, and I think my understanding of expressions hinting at Christ's possibly "limited" knowledge were just ways the Gospel writers attempted to understand a being that was, in their eyes, superhuman and divine. Imagine a dog trying to understand its master. The dog doesn't hear "sit," it hears a noise that a dog translates into a "woof" that means "sit."

Salus Maior wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:Bit of an odd thing if there have. Antitheists ones, perhaps. But I never like including them into general Atheism. I just have a lack of faith, I feel it's a bad thing to have if led by blindly. I can't foresee myself sacrificing my life because I don't have faith. Just seems paradoxical.

I imagine some atheists would die for their lack of belief out of some sort of principle. Not bowing down to religion or some such.

There are countries where atheists are being persecuted for their lack of faith. And sometimes this does end in death.

Constantinopolis wrote:You know, I don't see any argument for Mormonism that wouldn't work equally well as an argument for Islam. Both religions claim to follow the supposed "original teachings" of Christ (and the other prophets), which are shockingly different from what Christianity has historically believed, and both religions claim to have been started by a new prophet who received a book from an angel that was intended to "correct" the "errors" of a corrupt Christian Church.

Both religions also deny the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Christ, and support these denials with the new books that were supposedly revealed by the respective angels.

As far as I'm concerned, Mormonism is Islam 2.0 - at least with regard to its claims to legitimacy.

Joseph Smith did say once that he was the new Mohammed.

Constantinopolis wrote:You know, I don't see any argument for Mormonism that wouldn't work equally well as an argument for Islam. Both religions claim to follow the supposed "original teachings" of Christ (and the other prophets), which are shockingly different from what Christianity has historically believed, and both religions claim to have been started by a new prophet who received a book from an angel that was intended to "correct" the "errors" of a corrupt Christian Church.

Both religions also deny the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Christ, and support these denials with the new books that were supposedly revealed by the respective angels.

As far as I'm concerned, Mormonism is Islam 2.0 - at least with regard to its claims to legitimacy.

The historical analogy doesn't really work because 'restorationism' draws on traditions predating the arrival of Islam. Acknowledging both that I'm not claiming a continuous history, and that the issue is muddied due to most of what we know about early heresies was written by opponents of that heresy, Mormonism draws on strands that seem to have existed within Christian heresies (using the latter term in the narrow technical sense) dating back to Montanus and Marcion.

There are new elements as well in Mormonism, of course. Neither Marcion nor Montanus had access to the unpublished novels of Solomon Spalding, for one. But there's no need to go looking outside of Christianity for the core theological strands that Smith eventually drew on to form his new religion.

Today is precisely 40 days after Christmas, and that means we are celebrating a feast day that marks the official end of the "extended Christmas season", as it were - the time of the year related to the birth and early life of Christ. In the English-speaking Latin Christian tradition, today's feast is usually called Candlemas. But it is also one of the 12 Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church, officially known as...

The Meeting of the Lord in the Temple
(also called the Presentation of the Lord in the Temple)



This Great Feast celebrates the event described in Luke 2:22-35, when the infant Christ was taken to the Temple of Jerusalem by His parents, in accordance with the purification rites of the Law of Moses (Leviticus 12:2-8). It was one of the many acts of obedience to the Law carried out by Christ and His mother, in order to fulfill the Law. And so this Feast is primarily about the transition from the Old Law to the New Law. The appointed Epistle reading (Hebrews 7:7-17) reflects this, as it talks about the old priesthood and the new priesthood.

When Christ's earthly parents arrived with Him at the Temple, they were met by the Elder Simeon and the Prophetess Anna, who happened to be there by divine providence. The Elder Simeon had been told in a prophecy that he would not die until he saw the Messiah. And so, as he picked up the infant Christ in his arms, he said the famous prayer that we recite near the end of every service of Vespers:

"Lord, now let Your servant depart in peace, according to Your word, for my eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared before the face of all people, a light to enlighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel."

The Prophetess Anna also testified that Jesus was the Messiah, and Simeon told Mary that her Son would be the cause of the rising and falling of many in Israel, that He will be "a sign which shall be spoken against", and furthermore that "a sword shall pierce through your own soul also". This is considered to be a prophecy about the Passion of Christ, and about the great suffering that Mary herself would endure at the Cross. It is also the source of this type of icon.

The Feast of the Meeting of the Lord is very ancient - in fact, you might be surprised by how old it is, considering the fact that it's generally not very well known. We have sermons written for this Feast in the early 300s. It became a particularly important Feast in Constantinople after the year 542, as it was associated with thanksgiving for the end of the Plague of Justinian.

There is a lot of spiritual significance in this Feast. It is important to notice that both of the people involved in meeting Christ in the Temple - Simeon and Anna - were very old. They represent the Old Covenant, and Simeon's words allude to the fact that the Old Covenant is about to pass away and be replaced by the New. Just as Simeon himself is about to pass away from this life. Now that he has held the Messiah in his arms, he is ready to die. So, too, the Law of Moses is about to pass away, having witnessed the arrival of He who represents the fulfillment of the Law. Among the Great Feasts of the Orthodox calendar, the Meeting of the Lord marks the end of the part of the year when we celebrate the birth, infancy and early life of Christ. From now on, we look towards Great Lent, the Cross and the Resurrection.

There is an ancient custom to have a formal blessing of the candles on this occasion - ideally the whole supply of candles for the next year should be blessed today. This custom has been preserved in both the Orthodox Church and the Latin Christian traditions (Catholic and Anglican), and is the reason for the name "Candlemas" given to this holiday. It may seem random to connect this Feast with candles, but actually it flows from the words of the Elder Simeon, who said that Christ would be "a light to enlighten the Gentiles" (Luke 2:32). So, candles and their light are in this case a symbol of the revelation that Christ has brought to the whole world.

As usual when I post to mark a Great Feast, here are some hymns for the occasion on YouTube:

Troparion for the Meeting of the Lord (in Greek and Arabic)
Troparion for the Meeting of the Lord (in Romanian)
That which came to pass in Thee - 9th Ode for the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord (in English)
That which came to pass in Thee - 9th Ode for the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord (in Arabic)
The entire service of Matins for the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord (in Arabic; this is one of the best collections of Arabic Orthodox chants that I have ever found on YouTube!)

Troparion:

Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos, full of grace!
From you shone the Sun of Righteousness, Christ our God.
Enlightening those who sat in darkness!
Rejoice, and be glad, O righteous elder;
You accepted in your arms the Redeemer of our souls,
Who grants us the Resurrection.

Kontakion:

By Your nativity, You did sanctify the Virgin's womb,
And did bless Simeon's hands, O Christ God.
Now You have come and saved us through love.
In the midst of wars grant peace to Your people,
And strengthen your Church, O only Lover of mankind!

Constantinopolis wrote:<snip for brevity>

The Presentation of the Lord in the Temple... Interesting. But today also marks the presentation of something else. A furry creature called Punxsutawney Phil. The Christian feast lights candles, Punxsutawney Phil is supposedly scared of his shadow. Both are thus, light related.

And indeed, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punxsutaw ... _Phil_lore they are related.

Now I'm desperately looking for groundhog shaped candles. There's no need to exclude one on behalf of the other

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Constantinopolis wrote:<snip for brevity>

The Presentation of the Lord in the Temple... Interesting. But today also marks the presentation of something else. A furry creature called Punxsutawney Phil. The Christian feast lights candles, Punxsutawney Phil is supposedly scared of his shadow. Both are thus, light related.

And indeed, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punxsutaw ... _Phil_lore they are related.

Now I'm desperately looking for groundhog shaped candles. There's no need to exclude one on behalf of the other

EVEN THE GROUNDHOG SHALL CELEBRATE THE PRESENTATION OF BEHBEH JESUS!!!

Luminesa wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

How can one experience the natural growth of a person with access to the full purview of omniscience? How can one experience humanity, while knowing the full breadth of God's knowledge?

Uncertainty is a fundamental part of the human experience. Uncertainty is a fundamental component of faith. Part of being human, is not knowing what is going to happen next. Christ could not fully partake in the human experience, without experiencing uncertainty. He couldn't experience fear, doubt, anticipation, nervousness, really ANY human emotion, without uncertainty. One of the key distinctions between God the creator, and us the creation, is that we don't know.

But Christ, being the Son, also had a perfect relationship with God. So His Faith was the strongest it could possibly be for a human. He certainly felt pain, anger, joy, sadness, and whatnot, but He was entirely aware of His destiny on earth (at least for a few years before His actual Passion and Resurrection, if we pull straight from the Four Gospels), and a person can entirely show nervousness while knowing what will happen next. Nervousness does not necessarily mean the person does not know what's happening next. You have to remember, Christ did take on our human nature in its entirety, but He did not take its fallen nature, which would include the human tendency toward doubt, due to our inherently finite knowledge. Christ, being human, would experience all of the physical and emotional states of a person, but being Divine, He never lost sight of His mission, and was aware entirely of what He was supposed to be doing.

And I never said he did. He didn't need to experience our fallen nature to experience humanity. He was still tempted even as perfect being, and as God incarnate. That being said, I do not believe an emotional spectrum can really be experienced without uncertainty.

And even if we assume for a moment that it can be, as God shows quite a bit of emotion in the OT, Surprise, cannot. Fundamentally, surprise is a response to an unforeseen occurrence. In order for Christ to be surprised, he must have some level of ignorance. I implore one to show me where in the Old Testament, that God is shocked or surprised.

Constantinopolis wrote:-snip-

Christians really had some weird fashion choices back then, I mean, those hates look uncomfortable as hell.

Lady Scylla wrote:

Constantinopolis wrote:-snip-

Christians really had some weird fashion choices back then, I mean, those hates look uncomfortable as hell.

hate usually is.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:
Christians really had some weird fashion choices back then, I mean, those hates look uncomfortable as hell.

hate usually is.

Oof! I meant hats. There went my joke.

Lady Scylla wrote:

Constantinopolis wrote:-snip-

Christians really had some weird fashion choices back then, I mean, those hates look uncomfortable as hell.

Try it once, maybe you will love it.

Gondolaulus wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:
Christians really had some weird fashion choices back then, I mean, those hates look uncomfortable as hell.

Try it once, maybe you will love it.

It's a recurring nomos, the bigger the hat, the more important the person.

Gondolaulus wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:
Christians really had some weird fashion choices back then, I mean, those hates look uncomfortable as hell.

Try it once, maybe you will love it.

Goooood. Use your aggressive feelings. Let the hate flow through you...

The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger.... With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant.


That's the sort of hate we're talking about, right?

The Archregimancy wrote:

Gondolaulus wrote:Try it once, maybe you will love it.

Goooood. Use your aggressive feelings. Let the hate flow through you...

The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger.... With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant.


That's the sort of hate we're talking about, right?

The Sith, er *ahem* Orthodox Conspiracy will never succeed.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Gondolaulus wrote:Try it once, maybe you will love it.

Goooood. Use your aggressive feelings. Let the hate flow through you...

The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger.... With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant.


That's the sort of hate we're talking about, right?

*Jumps front behind Arch, with a purple saber.* CHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Luminesa wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
Goooood. Use your aggressive feelings. Let the hate flow through you...

The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger.... With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant.


That's the sort of hate we're talking about, right?

*Jumps front behind Arch, with a purple saber.* CHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Too late - you're outnumbered.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Gondolaulus wrote:Try it once, maybe you will love it.

It's a recurring nomos, the bigger the hat, the more important the person.

According to that logic women are superior to men in Islam. They always wear hats anyway.

Atheists 0 Muslims 1