Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Banbardi]

theodicy sounds awfully similar to theoidiocy

Theodicy.

The other one is your own invention. If it means "I know nothing about God" it might catch on!

If being Christian means "I love gay marriage" you're on the right track to heaven.

[The Marlborough]

Alright, in all seriousness, today is the feast of St. Brigid of Kildare, my named Saint.

Sláinte

I am overcome by the colour orange for some reason... (this is meant to be a harmless joke pls no bulli)

[Ethel mermania]

We're all members of the universal priesthood, with Christ as our high priest.

Yes! So our role as the laity matters just as much as all members of the clergy.

So you guys are protestants now?

[Rosmana]

Sounds great! What's the book about?

It's about me!

Haha, that made me chuckle.

[Santheres]

We're not ignoring theodicy, we're ignoring you, most likely in a similar manner to that in which your peers ignored you throughout childhood and adolescence.

theodicy sounds awfully similar to theoidiocy

*** Warned for trolling ***

For the second time in the same thread. If you want to keep posting here, you're going to want to figure out how to converse without trolling or baiting.

[Punished UMN]

While thinking about the lash out of Banbardi, a crass example to explain Hell came to mind.
(WARNING FOR SENSIBLE ENGLISH PEOPLE: colorful language ahead)


Going to Hell is self inflicted.

The commandments of God, are like a parent telling their child to don't eat crayons.
Hell is the existential state of shitting crayons.

Crayons exist for a reason. The human body exists for a reason. Eating crayons wasn't part of the will of God.
God wills better usages of both crayons and humans. But as a loving parent, God wants his childs to figure it out themselves, and allows mistakes to happen as learning lessons.
As a loving parent, God warns about the most idiotic and self-destructive usages of his creation. Everything else is there to be explored.

But if one wants to eat crayons, they are going to shit crayons. That's Hell, the existential state of self-destructive idiocy.



(actual hell is when that existential state becomes permanent, by the permanent will of eating crayons, eating and shitting crayons for all eternity, together with others doing the same, with wagons of new others coming over time and doing the same)

Tbh I don't think a permanent hell in which the sufferer cannot repent is logically compatible with Christianity unless hell is the will of God for those who disobey him. Because I largely agree with your post's point that hell is self-inflicted, I can only conclude that there exists the opportunity to repent in hell.

[Tarsonis]

Yes! So our role as the laity matters just as much as all members of the clergy.

So you guys are protestants now?

No The Priesthood of All Believers is Catholic Dogma.

[Tarsonis]

While thinking about the lash out of Banbardi, a crass example to explain Hell came to mind.
(WARNING FOR SENSIBLE ENGLISH PEOPLE: colorful language ahead)


Going to Hell is self inflicted.

The commandments of God, are like a parent telling their child to don't eat crayons.
Hell is the existential state of shitting crayons.

Crayons exist for a reason. The human body exists for a reason. Eating crayons wasn't part of the will of God.
God wills better usages of both crayons and humans. But as a loving parent, God wants his childs to figure it out themselves, and allows mistakes to happen as learning lessons.
As a loving parent, God warns about the most idiotic and self-destructive usages of his creation. Everything else is there to be explored.

But if one wants to eat crayons, they are going to shit crayons. That's Hell, the existential state of self-destructive idiocy.



(actual hell is when that existential state becomes permanent, by the permanent will of eating crayons, eating and shitting crayons for all eternity, together with others doing the same, with wagons of new others coming over time and doing the same)

Tbh I don't think a permanent hell in which the sufferer cannot repent is logically compatible with Christianity unless hell is the will of God for those who disobey him. Because I largely agree with your post's point that hell is self-inflicted, I can only conclude that there exists the opportunity to repent in hell.

There's an old saying that the doors in hell aren't even locked. Is it possible I'd say theoretically. Ultimately the one who keeps you there is you.

[Lost Memories]

Tbh I don't think a permanent hell in which the sufferer cannot repent is logically compatible with Christianity unless hell is the will of God for those who disobey him. Because I largely agree with your post's point that hell is self-inflicted, I can only conclude that there exists the opportunity to repent in hell.

I think there are two three points which would be valuable to think over, to get a better understanding of the nature of Hell, and its permanent, or not, state.

1) the nature of the Will
(the Will is what uses and directs the personal Freedom)

2) the nature of the Spirit
(the eternal substance each person has, which doesn't stop existing at death)

3) how Will and Spirit operate in the afterlife
(how different is afterlife compared to life, or the difference between: reality before creation, and creation)

Some references to frame those three points, could be to compare them with beings which have Will and Spirit: God, the angels, the devils.
Comparing with God himself may be too much, so comparing with angels and devils could be more doable.


I'm just listing those points, I have to think over those myself.

[Tarsonis]

Alright, in all seriousness, today is the feast of St. Brigid of Kildare, my named Saint.

Sláinte

I am overcome by the colour orange for some reason... (this is meant to be a harmless joke pls no bulli)

The Irish flag literally is meant to represent peace(white] between Catholics (green) and Protestants (orange).


So no offense taken.

[Punished UMN]

Tbh I don't think a permanent hell in which the sufferer cannot repent is logically compatible with Christianity unless hell is the will of God for those who disobey him. Because I largely agree with your post's point that hell is self-inflicted, I can only conclude that there exists the opportunity to repent in hell.

There's an old saying that the doors in hell aren't even locked. Is it possible I'd say theoretically. Ultimately the one who keeps you there is you.

Yeah, I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call myself a universalist, because I also think that truly universal salvation would be taking a page out of TULIP, but I believe it is theoretically possible for all to repent and be saved beyond death, and I hope that that is what will happen.

[Tarsonis]

There's an old saying that the doors in hell aren't even locked. Is it possible I'd say theoretically. Ultimately the one who keeps you there is you.

Yeah, I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call myself a universalist, because I also think that truly universal salvation would be taking a page out of TULIP, but I believe it is theoretically possible for all to repent and be saved beyond death, and I hope that that is what will happen.

The Church, while not endorsing this position, also can't refute it either. We hold that the ordinary means of salvation is through Accepting Christ and participation in the church during life. But it also acknowledges there are Extraordinary means, some we know of, and some we potentially don't. What happens on the other side of the veil really is anybody's guess.

[Punished UMN]

Yeah, I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call myself a universalist, because I also think that truly universal salvation would be taking a page out of TULIP, but I believe it is theoretically possible for all to repent and be saved beyond death, and I hope that that is what will happen.

The Church, while not endorsing this position, also can't refute it either. We hold that the ordinary means of salvation is through Christ and participation in the church during life. But it also acknowledges there are Extraordinary means, some we know of, and some we potentially don't. What happens on the other side of the veil really is anybody's guess.

I mean, I would say a sort of response to that is that all salvation, including theoretical salvation after death, is through Christ, and that the Church exists after death as well, through the prayers of the living for the dead and the prayers of the saints.

[Insaanistan]

Peace be with you all:
I’d like to know what you all believe of the Gospel of Barnabas.

There are three pseudoepigraphical works ascribed to Barnabas.

The first, the Epistle of Barnabas, may date as early as the end of the 1st century, and while not canonical is therefore a vitally important document in understanding the development of early Christianity. It shows a very strong Jewish influence. Origen was one of several early figures who believed in its authenticity, and it seems to have only just missed out on forming part of the formal canon. Full text here.

The Acts of Barnabas is a 5th-century document that seems to have been designed to bolster the claims of the Church of Cyprus to apostolic foundation (in contrast to apostolic succession). It's of moderate interest for seeing how Christianity adapted to becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire in the later Classical period.

The Gospel of Barnabas is more difficult to date with confidence, but no records exist of it before the 17th century. The currently unanswerable questions are whether it's a deliberate post-medieval Italian forgery written by a student of Dante (whom it may paraphrase), a well-meaning but ultimately flawed late medieval / early post-medieval Spanish Morisco attempt to unite Christian and Islamic traditions, or a gradual Muslim reworking of a much earlier apocryphal document that changed over time as it was recopied. I think the Italian and Morisco hypotheses are by far the most likely.

Ah. Quite interesting. Thank you!

[Tarsonis]

The Church, while not endorsing this position, also can't refute it either. We hold that the ordinary means of salvation is through Christ and participation in the church during life. But it also acknowledges there are Extraordinary means, some we know of, and some we potentially don't. What happens on the other side of the veil really is anybody's guess.

I mean, I would say a sort of response to that is that all salvation, including theoretical salvation after death, is through Christ, and that the Church exists after death as well, through the prayers of the living for the dead and the prayers of the saints.

Ah, I meant to say "Accepting Christ." Obviously any form of salvation will be through Christ.

[Insaanistan]

I mean, I would say a sort of response to that is that all salvation, including theoretical salvation after death, is through Christ, and that the Church exists after death as well, through the prayers of the living for the dead and the prayers of the saints.

Ah, I meant to say "Accepting Christ." Obviously any form of salvation will be through Christ.

Does believing in him as a Prophet of God count?

[Salus Maior]

Ah, I meant to say "Accepting Christ." Obviously any form of salvation will be through Christ.

Does believing in him as a Prophet of God count?

Alone? No.

[Ethel mermania]

So you guys are protestants now?

No The Priesthood of All Believers is Catholic Dogma.

As an outsider, that is not what I recall, and (I am not saying I am right mind you, the comments perked my interest)

I thought all catholics had to defer to the teaching of the church on religious matters. Where the protestants have more of a personal interpretation of the Bible as opposed to strictly following the teachings of the church fathers?

[Tarsonis]

Ah, I meant to say "Accepting Christ." Obviously any form of salvation will be through Christ.

Does believing in him as a Prophet of God count?

For the ordinary form? No. Extraordinary form? I don't know.

[Tarsonis]

No The Priesthood of All Believers is Catholic Dogma.

As an outsider, that is not what I recall, and (I am not saying I am right mind you, the comments perked my interest)

I thought all catholics had to defer to the teaching of the church on religious matters. Where the protestants have more of a personal interpretation of the Bible as opposed to strictly following the teachings of the church fathers?

IIIRC, you're Jewish correct?

[Ethel mermania]

As an outsider, that is not what I recall, and (I am not saying I am right mind you, the comments perked my interest)

I thought all catholics had to defer to the teaching of the church on religious matters. Where the protestants have more of a personal interpretation of the Bible as opposed to strictly following the teachings of the church fathers?

IIIRC, you're Jewish correct?

Yes. The rabbinic Jewish tradition in my mind would be similar to the catholic one as I am describing it.

[The Archregimancy]

There are three pseudoepigraphical works ascribed to Barnabas.

The first, the Epistle of Barnabas, may date as early as the end of the 1st century, and while not canonical is therefore a vitally important document in understanding the development of early Christianity. It shows a very strong Jewish influence. Origen was one of several early figures who believed in its authenticity, and it seems to have only just missed out on forming part of the formal canon. Full text here.

The Acts of Barnabas is a 5th-century document that seems to have been designed to bolster the claims of the Church of Cyprus to apostolic foundation (in contrast to apostolic succession). It's of moderate interest for seeing how Christianity adapted to becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire in the later Classical period.

The Gospel of Barnabas is more difficult to date with confidence, but no records exist of it before the 17th century. The currently unanswerable questions are whether it's a deliberate post-medieval Italian forgery written by a student of Dante (whom it may paraphrase), a well-meaning but ultimately flawed late medieval / early post-medieval Spanish Morisco attempt to unite Christian and Islamic traditions, or a gradual Muslim reworking of a much earlier apocryphal document that changed over time as it was recopied. I think the Italian and Morisco hypotheses are by far the most likely.

Ah. Quite interesting. Thank you!

Also, non-Greek speakers have likely been pronouncing Barnabas's name incorrectly for several centuries.

The birth name of the Cypriot Hellenistic Jew we call 'Barnabas' was Joseph (see Acts 42:36-7). After he sold his land and gave it to the early Christian commune, the Apostles called him 'Barnabas', which - according to your translation - means either 'Son of Encouragement' or 'Son of Consolation'. Assuming the name is Aramaic (and it's obviously not Greek), then this would most likely give us 'Bar Nehma'; the terminal 's' in 'Barnabas' is Greek nominative case [ie, the ending for a subject of a sentence] added to an Aramaic stem, and can therefore be dropped in other languages.

So we should probably all be calling him Saint Bar Nehma.

[Tarsonis]

IIIRC, you're Jewish correct?

Yes. The rabbinic Jewish tradition in my mind would be similar to the catholic one as I am describing it.

Right so, The confusion over the "Priesthood of all believers" is largely due to language. English is the worst language to have this conversation, particularly because of the word Priest. The word Priest is a shortening of the word Presbyter, derived from the greek word πρεσβύτερος which is one of 3 holy orders established in the New Testament. Deacons, (διάκονος) Presbyters, (πρεσβύτερος) and Bishops (ἐπίσκοπος). But somewhere along the line, the word "Priest" became expanded to include any position that fulfills a similar function as the Presbyters, like Buddhist, Greek, or Levitical Priests, leading to the confusion.


Greek is a much better language for this, because there is a distinction between those holy orders, named by those three terms, and ἱερεύς which is the word used in the Septuagint to identify Levitical Priests, and the ἀρχιερεύς or "high priest."

When we say there is a priesthood of all believers with Christ as our high priest, we mean that we are all ἱερεῖς, with Christ as our ἀρχιερεύς. We all partake in the sacramental role that the Levitical Priests did, principally the Sacrifice, (Communion is actually a sin offering as outlined in Leviticus.)

Our "Priests" are actually Pastors and take on the Rabbinic Role in addition to the Priest Role. So while we are all priests, we still defer to the teachings of the Church which is our earthly Rabbi.

[Old Tyrannia]

No The Priesthood of All Believers is Catholic Dogma.

As an outsider, that is not what I recall, and (I am not saying I am right mind you, the comments perked my interest)

I thought all catholics had to defer to the teaching of the church on religious matters. Where the protestants have more of a personal interpretation of the Bible as opposed to strictly following the teachings of the church fathers?

As I've pointed out before, in the classical Protestant traditions, it's not really the case that each individual is free to interpret scripture themselves. The church is not regarded as being infallible in its teachings as it is in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditions, but still plays a role in defining orthodox belief. This is reflected in the importance early Protestants placed in their confessions. The difference is that Protestant churches believed in testing their churches' teachings against scripture and held that since it was possible for churches to err, it was necessary to continuously scrutinise the church's teachings for anything that contradicted or lacked support in scripture; on the other hand Catholics and the Orthodox view scripture more as a part of the tradition of the church and holds no higher authority than the rest of the church's teaching. The idea that anyone can open a Bible and reliably interpret it correctly is more a modern Evangelical conceit.

[Tarsonis]

As an outsider, that is not what I recall, and (I am not saying I am right mind you, the comments perked my interest)

I thought all catholics had to defer to the teaching of the church on religious matters. Where the protestants have more of a personal interpretation of the Bible as opposed to strictly following the teachings of the church fathers?

As I've pointed out before, in the classical Protestant traditions, it's not really the case that each individual is free to interpret scripture themselves. The church is not regarded as being infallible in its teachings as it is in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditions, but still plays a role in defining orthodox belief. This is reflected in the importance early Protestants placed in their confessions. The difference is that Protestant churches believed in testing their churches' teachings against scripture and held that since it was possible for churches to err, it was necessary to continuously scrutinise the church's teachings for anything that contradicted or lacked support in scripture; on the other hand Catholics and the Orthodox view scripture more as a part of the tradition of the church and holds no higher authority than the rest of the church's teaching. The idea that anyone can open a Bible and reliably interpret it correctly is more a modern Evangelical conceit.

While that's a mostly accurate assessment of our view of Scripture, it leaves out that Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium must always be in harmony. So our Traditions are still tested against Scripture in a similar way.