Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Oh, yeah, monster is right.
Nonsense
Jewish mythology (my personal take).
Shouldn’t be. The theology of The Church is quite clear,
The theology of YOUR church is quite clear, and it is equally clear that it is in direct conflict with the teaching of Christ, the OT and Apostolic teaching of the NT.
MLG, as is the error of the West in worshiping a blood thirsty monster. Unless of course I’ve got it wrong and the West really doesn’t believe that Christ’s bloody sacrifice was meant to propitiate a wrathful and blood lusting god. Tell me I got it wrong, MLG. :)
Then my assessment is correct, you and the EO reject the clear teaching of the OT, Christ and the Apostolic teaching of the NT on the propitiatory nature of the Atonement.
Your slight of hand by using emotionally charged rhetoric, such as "a bloodthirsty monster" and "bllod lusting god" only serves to further demonstrate your avoidance of every passage cited to you of the Blood Sacrifice being neccessary for the remission of sin.
Take the blood out of the Atonement and you have no Atonement and no remission of sin.
Jewish mythology (my personal take).
Oh, so the OT Scriptures are "Jewish mythology".
You know not what you are talking about. Read only the text of the Divine Liturgy once and then dare to repeat this nonsense.
But what is really a nonsense is that every Protestant claims the "indwelling spirit" and believes something completely private and inadvertantly different from others! Thus Osteen would surely say that what he teaches about hell is from the Holy Spirit as much as you would disagree with him claiming the same Holy Spirit as the interpreter.
Protestantism is unbiblical private interpretation of the sicrptures. The New Testament prohibits it. It is an amateur adventure, FK. It promotes relativism. Relativism denies absolute truth. It's a wide road to finding the narrow path. Good luck.
***Unless of course I’ve got it wrong and the West really doesn’t believe that Christ’s bloody sacrifice was meant to propitiate a wrathful and blood lusting god.***
Well, two things. Christ’s blood was spilt to be a sacrifice for the sins of all those who God chose from the beginning of the world. Sin requires a perfect sacrifice to remove the stain of sin. The fact that man is sinful means that he cannot be that perfect sacrifice. As for God being wrathful and blood lusting, sin requires a sacrifice. Look at Adam and Eve, animals died to cover their sins. God’s justice requires a blood sacrifice. Can you tell God that this is wrong? I can’t. It is his requirement.
The other thing... Please do not denigrate our beliefs and our God by using a small “g”. I wouldn’t do it to you.
“Then my assessment is correct, you and the EO reject the clear teaching of the OT, Christ and the Apostolic teaching of the NT on the propitiatory nature of the Atonement.”
No, MLG, your assessment is wrong. Orthodoxy has never rejected the teachings of the scriptures. The Church defined what was and was not scripture. It was able to do that through the HS by Whom The Church understands scripture. As I said before, the sacrifice was propitiary, at least in form, and there is absolutely no question but that Christ had to die.
Now honestly, do you think my words were overcharged, MLG? The god you worship does demand innocent blood does it not? It does create human beings which are damned from the moment of creation, does it not? It hates sinners and kills them does it not? It sends sinners to hell for eternal torment, even though they were created for that end, does it not? Tell me MLG, how does one describe such a “Dagon” in polite terms?
You are missing the point. Theologoumenna are theological hypotheses expressed by individual fathers. They were not of themselves Church "doctrine." Concensus patrum or Ecumenical Council was required. St. Gregory of Nyssa, a student of Origen, for instance also taught for a while universal salvation of all souls, a serious Gnostic error, before he recanted of Origen's influence.
The Church as a whole did not teach or know anything called "Purgatory" in the first millennium, nor were there heresies that would have necessitated an eccelsial response to such errors.
The Church always believed that the souls of the departed are in an intermediate state followoing physical death and particular judgment immediately following), and always prayed for the departed souls to ease their discomfort.
The souls of the saved experience discomfort through shame as their unrepented sins are revealed in full and as they stand "naked" before God and all the saints. The period from particular to Final Judgment is a period of purification, through prayers, commemorative services, fasting, etc. not by being roasted to God's "satifaction." The fires they feel are not real fires, but God's love which burns all sinners confornted with Truth.
***Now honestly, do you think my words were overcharged, MLG? The god you worship does demand innocent blood does it not? It does create human beings which are damned from the moment of creation, does it not? It hates sinners and kills them does it not? It sends sinners to hell for eternal torment, even though they were created for that end, does it not? Tell me MLG, how does one describe such a “Dagon” in polite terms?***
I would say yes to all your questions. Yes, God does demand innocent blood. Yes, God hates sinners and kills them. Yes, God sends sinners to eternal hell, even though they were created SPECIFICALLY for that end. How do I describe Him? Majestic, awesome, supreme, Holy, perfect, righteous, loving , gracious, merciful, kind, Lord.
PS. It’s God to you. Not god.
No, MLG, your assessment is wrong. Orthodoxy has never rejected the teachings of the scriptures.
Of course you have, you reject every bit of Scripture that teaches the Blood Atonement of Christ to pay the penalty of death owed by the Elect for sin.
Hello GoLightly,
To answer your question, I do, however, it is so far off topic after reading this entire thread that I’m exhausted and have no desire to stir the pot.
Google: “The Scriptural Doctrine Concerning Hell”, By Thomas B. Thayer, (1862), for the gist of my essay on languages and translations. I am, by-the-way, not a practitioner of Universalism, but simply a longtime student of Church history and all Christian beliefs and in my own heart and publically, a believer in the Saviour, (which is, I believe the only prerequisite to salvation and eternal life). Doctrinal arguments like these loose sight of the true promise of God’s yet to be bestowed Covenant with Abraham.
“PS. It’s God to you. Not god.”
No, to be more precise, Dagon, or something very like it.
What or who is dagon?
No, MLG, your assessment is wrong. Orthodoxy has never rejected the teachings of the scriptures.
Of course you have, you reject every bit of Scripture that teaches the Blood Atonement of Christ to pay the penalty of death owed by the Elect for sin.
It is noted that in every example, he has completely avoided those passages as if they do not exist, and just as the Roman Catholic does, points to "tradition", when confronted with the clear teaching of Christ and Apostolic teaching in the Scriptures, a "tradition" that is contrary to the Scriptures, even going so far as to blaspheme God as a "blood lusting god".
Please pray for the EOs.
In part yes. There is no evidence of any mass Exodus from Egypt, or that Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. The son of Ramses II, whose army was drowned by the fleeing Hebrews, conquered Caanan and found Israelites living peacefully next door to them (and decided to defeat them too -- but he never took any revenge on the people who allegedly humiliated his father as the Jewish mythology would have us believe).
We also know today that Kind David's vast empire was but a coupel of small villages. Mythology was very much part of the old biblical world, MLG.
Now, I am speaking about this privately. I am sure the Curch would disagree with me. Nonetheless, the facts simply don't match. The Bible is froth with many mythological stories and events and apparitions. Not everything in the OT is God's message fully revealed by Christ. The Bible is after all a Holy Spirit inspired work of many authors (some pretending to be one) but written in human language and human cultural surroundings. It is inspired by written by human hands and human minds and perceptions. In addition to that, it has been corrupted by various copies and translations. Do you claim the translations and the translators to be inspired as well? The KJV authors admit they were not and admitted to their own mistakes, numbering a few hundred. If the Bible is inerrant than the Bible is God. Do you worship the Bible?
Dagon was a canaanite god.
“Of course you have, you reject every bit of Scripture that teaches the Blood Atonement of Christ to pay the penalty of death owed by the Elect for sin.”
You’ve really got to tell me why you think Orthodoxy rejects the teaching that Christ died on the Cross, suffered the penalty of sin which is death, in a very bloody manner, on account of our sins? MLG, The Church understands what it determined you would read for scripture, honest, it does. So why don’t you tell me what we reject. Oh and while you’re at it, do you really believe that Eve and Satan had sex which resulted in Cain? That’s one I admit I had never heard before.
And for good reason.
“What or who is dagon?”
It was an Amorite/Philistine god particularly fond of human sacrifice. Its mentioned a number of times in the OT. See, for example, Joshua 19.27.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.