/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Be not deceived

Why did Jesus quote from the books of the Old Testament if they were not important to him?

>>620958

I'm not for women priests, but what's the real deal on women deacons? There were examples of them in scripture so I'm not really sure why they aren't allowed.

Whether God spoke through the Old Testament prophets, in the person of Christ, or through Paul by the Holy Spirit, all of His words carry equal weight. The only caveat to this statement is that the Old Covenant is no longer in effect.

>>620958

She's not presiding bishop anymore, TEC is moving right

>>620958

>Jesus agreed with the proper definition of marriage, and as part of the Trinity sort of "wrote" the whole OT.

>Jesus only selected men as disciples full well knowing as the infinite and timeless God only men would be priest, and saw it fit to purposefully allow this by not specifically saying women could be priest.

>Jesus sanctioned all Paul did and chose him as an Apostle by purposefully choosing to appear to him, full well knowing all he would write down.

>>620958

Argument 3 denies the inspiration of Scripture written by Paul. It cannot be made by anyone who calls himself a Christian with any degree of seriousness. This also applies to arguments 1 and 2 because Paul wrote against homosexuality and barred women from priesthood.

>Respond.

Why bother?

>>620958

skip to 57:37

>>620958

>>Jesus never said anything about gay people

IT IS THE FIRST AND FOREMOST THING MENTIONED WHENEVER WE TALK ABOUT SODOM

>Jesus never said woman couldn't be priests!

SHALL NOT SUFFER A WOMAN TO TEACH

>Paul was a homophobic misogynist who twisted Jesus's message of love!

YEAH RIGHT

>>621008

This anon gets it. It's the argument from silence fallacy.

>>620958

I think that he could have ordained some priestess among the 12 but he didn't do it on purpose.

The other theory is that Jesus wasn't progressive enough because his sociocultural background. This theory makes him a little bit less than God. So he was just a enlightened human touched by God or something like that. And so we are with some protestant branches. The gates of hell prevailed for some, I think.

>>621055

today Jesus could be easily a SWJ, egalitarian feminist, vegan, and so we are.

>>621062

*SJW

>>620968

There is nothing wrong with deaconesses. They were there in the early church, and they are here in orthodoxy.

>>620958

>Jesus never said anything about gay people, it must've not been that important to him.

Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?

>Jesus never said woman couldn't be priests!

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them (that is twelve), saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Whose sins you (that is eleven) shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

>Paul was a homophobic misogynist who twisted Jesus's message of love!

Christ was more "homophobic", for he commanded gays to be stoned in the first place.

He was "misogynist" for the only women that he spoke to not from position of absolute supremacy was his mother.

And finally his massage of love is charity. Not eros, not philia not storge even but Charity. And Charity is love thst is harsh and demanding.

>>621451

>not philia

>not storge

>not eros

nigga, Christ's love is not bound up only in charity. What the phuc do you think that was when Christ cried at the tomb of Lazarus? What do you think that was when our Lord gave His life for us? This is a husband who sees that His bride is dying and weeps. And who goes to the greatest lengths imaginable to save her. With the bride being mankind/the church, Christ's love is deep eros. And philia and storge are there too. Charity/philanthropic love is hardly the extent of Christ's message.

>>621488

>nigga, Christ's love is not bound up only in charity.

Considering that Christ is charity or agape in greek then I beg to differ.

> What the phuc do you think that was when Christ cried at the tomb of Lazarus?

Charity.

>What do you think that was when our Lord gave His life for us?

Charity.

>This is a husband who sees that His bride is dying and weeps. And who goes to the greatest lengths imaginable to save her.

With charity.

> With the bride being mankind/the church, Christ's love is deep eros. And philia and storge are there too.

Anything worthy in natural loves are multiplied and made alive by charity.

>Charity/philanthropic love is hardly the extent of Christ's message.

Christ is God. God is Charity. God said to charity God with all your mind, soul and heart and to charity your neighboor as yourself.

>>621063

SJeW

>>621553

Before, you said God's love is agape without eros, philia, sorge.

Now, you're saying God's love is agape with eros, philia, sorge.

So while I see a number of problems with your comment, I think we're nearly on the same page.

But I would order them differently. The orthodox, along with the fathers, would say God's love is eros with philia, agape, sorge.

Before we go any further, I need you to know I love you brother.

>>621646

>Before, you said God's love is agape without eros, philia, sorge.

What I said:

<And finally his massage of love is charity. Not eros, not philia not storge even but Charity.

Agape is not philia/eros/storge. But aspects of storge, philia and eros are in agape. And only those matter.

>Now, you're saying God's love is agape with eros, philia, sorge.

What I said:

<Anything worthy in natural loves are multiplied and made alive by charity.

Agape is not philia/eros/storge. But aspects of storge, philia and eros are in agape. And only those matter.

>But I would order them differently. The orthodox, along with the fathers, would say God's love is eros with philia, agape, sorge.

ho mē agapōn ouk egnō ton Theon hoti ho Theos agapē estin

>Before we go any further, I need you to know I love you brother.

And I agape you to. Not eros, phila or storge but agape. Christ's love. That's why I call upon your bullshit for if Christ love was eros then I would not.

The only sin is gay sex, being gay is fine.

>>620967

OT is not for us, judaizer.

>>621892

>OT is not for us, judaizer.

But that's wrong. The book of Matthew is almost entirely about how Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT messianic prophesies.

>Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.. I have come not to abolish but to complete them. I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved.

Matthew 5:17-18