3 ms·

> The book of Revelation also cites various signs that are metaphorical enough to be applied to just about anything. If someone plans to, they should first rea

> The book of Revelation also cites various signs that are metaphorical enough to be applied to just about anything. If someone plans to, they should first read Revelation 22:18–19. And Revelations isn’t the only prophetic work. Try Ezekiel. > It's pointless to cite the Bible to defend a theological position Understandable, but citing the Bible is fairly important in theology, though it should be done within context. Sure, Judaism was word of mouth a long time, and that’s great. I personally can’t remember much, so I think referencing text is fine.

fluoridation 1y ago
>If someone plans to, they should first read Revelation 22:18–19. See, that's when you use literal reading. "I'm not adding anything to the text, I'm just interpreting it." >And Revelations isn’t the only prophetic work. Try Ezekiel. Ezekiel is clearly about events in our past, though. >Understandable, but citing the Bible is fairly important in theology, though it should be done within context. Meh. There's no internally consistent Christian theology that cites the Bible and doesn't involve generous amounts of cherry picking.
- stogot 1y ago
  Its systematic theology is internally consistent; amazingly consistent given three thousand years across 66 books and dozens of authors. It’s the cherry picking and overemphas that gets one into trouble
  - cindyllm 1y ago
    [dead]
  - fluoridation 1y ago
    >Its systematic theology is internally consistent It's not. Christian dogma doesn't even obey the law of identity.
    - stogot 1y ago
      are you talking about the trinity?
      - fluoridation 1y ago
        I'm talking about the divinity of Jesus.
        stogot 1y ago
        This is a widely researched topic by scholars. Is there something new or relevant you’re making a case for? Or is this purposefully obtuse
        fluoridation 1y ago
        LOL, "researched". >Is there something new or relevant you’re making a case for? New? Not, not really. It's not at all new that the official position of the church ("Jesus is entirely mortal and entirely divine") is inherently self-contradictory. I mean, what the hell. If I didn't know any better I'd think an atheist came up with it to troll early Christians. Try saying something similar about literally anything else. "The contents of this glass are simultaneously entirely water and entirely mercury." It says nothing good of either the followers or the clergy that that nonsense has been accepted for so long.
        svieira 1y ago
        It's not inherently self-contradictory for us to say "Jesus revealed Himself as the Son of God and the Son of Man ... how can we properly speak about that?" https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article2 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article2 - now that requires a lot of extra distinctions that we don't normally think about when thinking about being and essence, but it's certainly not impossible. "Mr. Archibald Potterfarthing is at the same time the Chair of the Committee and at the same time its most senior ranking member". Accidents, naturally, but co-existing in the same space-of-being. It turns out that "person" and "nature" are distinct (who knew?) and that it is possible for there to be one person with two natures just as well as there can be one person with two titles. But that presumes you believe the authority of the one who told you this - if not, it's useless to talk about it, because why would you ever need to distinguish person and nature unless you had encountered the reality of Christ? Nothing else we have encountered in the universe has (as far as we are aware) two natures. But nothing else behaves like a singularity either - uniqueness is not a proof of non-existence.

fluoridation 1y ago

>If someone plans to, they should first read Revelation 22:18–19. See, that's when you use literal reading. "I'm not adding anything to the text, I'm just interpreting it." >And Revelations isn’t the only prophetic work. Try Ezekiel. Ezekiel is clearly about events in our past, though. >Understandable, but citing the Bible is fairly important in theology, though it should be done within context. Meh. There's no internally consistent Christian theology that cites the Bible and doesn't involve generous amounts of cherry picking.

stogot 1y ago
Its systematic theology is internally consistent; amazingly consistent given three thousand years across 66 books and dozens of authors. It’s the cherry picking and overemphas that gets one into trouble
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
- fluoridation 1y ago
  >Its systematic theology is internally consistent It's not. Christian dogma doesn't even obey the law of identity.
  - stogot 1y ago
    are you talking about the trinity?
    - fluoridation 1y ago
      I'm talking about the divinity of Jesus.
      - stogot 1y ago
        This is a widely researched topic by scholars. Is there something new or relevant you’re making a case for? Or is this purposefully obtuse
        fluoridation 1y ago
        LOL, "researched". >Is there something new or relevant you’re making a case for? New? Not, not really. It's not at all new that the official position of the church ("Jesus is entirely mortal and entirely divine") is inherently self-contradictory. I mean, what the hell. If I didn't know any better I'd think an atheist came up with it to troll early Christians. Try saying something similar about literally anything else. "The contents of this glass are simultaneously entirely water and entirely mercury." It says nothing good of either the followers or the clergy that that nonsense has been accepted for so long.
        svieira 1y ago
        It's not inherently self-contradictory for us to say "Jesus revealed Himself as the Son of God and the Son of Man ... how can we properly speak about that?" https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article2 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article2 - now that requires a lot of extra distinctions that we don't normally think about when thinking about being and essence, but it's certainly not impossible. "Mr. Archibald Potterfarthing is at the same time the Chair of the Committee and at the same time its most senior ranking member". Accidents, naturally, but co-existing in the same space-of-being. It turns out that "person" and "nature" are distinct (who knew?) and that it is possible for there to be one person with two natures just as well as there can be one person with two titles. But that presumes you believe the authority of the one who told you this - if not, it's useless to talk about it, because why would you ever need to distinguish person and nature unless you had encountered the reality of Christ? Nothing else we have encountered in the universe has (as far as we are aware) two natures. But nothing else behaves like a singularity either - uniqueness is not a proof of non-existence.