Dyerian philosophy and metaphysics remains unrefuted.The Orthodox Trinitarian God is the one and only coherent worldview paradigm and epistemic system. It has survived almost 10 years of debate against high tier intellectuals and academics, with many of them failing to even grasp the concept or need of accounting for transidental categories. The history of philosophy ends in the Orthodox Church, all dissidenters are simply coping or are intellectually dishonest. If you try and argue you will simply pre-suppose logic, btw When are you starting your catechism, anon?https://youtube.com/watch?v=QEPSQNaG848&pp=ygUfanF5IGR5ZXIgdHJpbml0eSBzcHZlcyB0aGUgdGFnINIHCQkpDAGHKiGM7w%3D%3D
>>18773046>The Orthodox...God is...coherentLmao
>>18773046The only reason Jay Dyer has an audience is because of Alex Jones and infowars.
Is it really true that the earth is flat?
>>18773051>>18773055>>18773058Weak bait and not arguments, try again
>>18773061Ok.The trinitarian God isn't orthodox.
>>18773061“And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26)Notice they weren't called Orthodox, they were called Christians.
>>18773046>accounting for transidental>transidentalAs usual, Dyer bozo doesn't even know what these words are, or how they're spelled
>>18773065This is a assertion not a argument, try again!>>18773069Does the word Trinity appear in the Bible? Or a list of the canon? That is a Word-Concept fallacy too. Also the Orthodox Chruch considers itself to be the only truly "Christian" church anyway.>>18773070*transcendentalI concede that point, I was lazy and didnt correct that, thank you!
>>18773075>This is a assertion not a argument, try again!the argument is here>>18773069 which you already read and followed up with just an assertion with no argument.The bible says it's a waste of time to argue with fools.
>>18773061Arguments from faith aren't worth trying to refute. If you were open to logic, you wouldn't have that position in the first place.
>>18773081Again you are conflating the word Christian and Orthodox, they are simply referents, and therefore you are comitting a word-concept fallacy. Can you restate what that fallacy is and why it cpuld apply to your statment? Also I brought it up examples of key Christian concepts and theology that are not explicitly spelled out in the Bible, which is part of my argument, obviously. And the final point if my argument was that the Orthodox consider themslvles to be the ony Christians, and any referant in the bible is pointing to them, so you fail at a internal critque as well. That is three arguments
>>18773086Logic is what brought me to this position, how do you account for logic? is it simply something that just "is"? Is logic universally the case in all times? How do you know that?
>>18773100>Jesus says words don't matterWhen did Jesus ever say words didn't matter? If you can't follow a simple naming convention for being a Christian then you are more likely going to fall for these false man made traditions.How can you be a true follower of Christ if you can't even follow the traditions given to us by the apostles?2 Thessalonians 2:15"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
>>18773100The argument that Orthodox most likely make against it is that their Icons contain the true word of God, yet the Apostles said that anyone giving you a different Word then what they were given they are cursed.Galatians 1:8-9"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."So have your icons and image worship all you want, but if it goes against the traditions that Christ gave us you are indeed going to be deceived by the Antichrist, being deceived by deceptive words.
>>18773104Which traditions? Do those include those that Paul passed fown to Timothy and he told him to lay his hands on those worthy, some kind of apostolic sucession perhaps? Furthermore by what epistemic criteria are we to judge that 2 Thessalonians is inspired scripture? Who complied the canon and who gave them the authority to do that?
>>18773107Where do the Orthodox say icons have the true word of God in them? Also are you aware the Bible is a type of icon as well? Do Christians have to be literate to be saved?Again you appeal to traditions and scripture but how do we know which traditions to follow and what canon? Maybe the Gospel of Thomas or Judas is true
>>18773109>which traditionsThe ones the apostles gave us.>Apostolic sucession,It's apostolic succession you dolt, learn to spell. And no, apostolic succession doesn't supersede the Word. That is why Paul explicitly states that anyone teaching something other than the Word is cursed.
>>18773111>Do Christians have to be literate to be savedDoes a Christian have to read to hear the Gospel?When has a person ever read something with their ears?
>>18773114I am on mobile and don't care to correct cope>>which traditions>The ones the apostles gave us.Begging the questionAlso Paul pass oral tradition as well to Timothy, where did that go? Perhaps at the church in Ephesus that is still there Ephesus?Both you and >>18773115 dodge the Canon issue because its a kill shot, low tier
>>18773130>Paul pass oral traditionAnd he included written instructions to not listen to anyone claiming apostolic succession that wasn't teaching the Gospel correctly, changed the Gospel, or changed how the Gospel was presented. That even an angel from Heaven teaching something else is cursed.Just read about Orthodox fathers and some of the crazy shit they taught and then you will leave the church.
>>18773132Again, which Gospel are we talking about here and how do we know?The Gospel of Thomas? Judas?
>>18773146Paul taught the Gospel is not complicated.2 Corinthians 11:3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.You complicate it with your catechisms which take a year and to top it off you make people pay for it.
>>18773160Sorry friend but since you refuse to address my argument abput the canon, I willl not engage in your quote mine, sorry!
>>18773046I don't understand how anyone takes this fag seriously. I can't even watch him he's so cringe. Come to think of it, he's quite literally the most odious person I know of.
>>18773175>the most odious person I know of.The sanctifying power of the holy spirit...
>>18773061>not an argumentYeah, of course. It's a genuine question.After I converted, and found out about the true age of the Earth. I have been having my doubts about the shape of the Earth as well.
>>18773221He doesn't have the holy spirit. He's a hell-bound reprobate. Easily in the top .1% most wicked "people" in the world.
>>18773237says you lol
>>18773173Since you refuse to care about your own spelling you should go touch some grass.
>>18773256Says Jesus.
>>18773058Yes. Source: it came to me in a dream
>>18773075>Also the Orthodox Chruch considers itself to be the only truly "Christian" church anyway.It isn’t, I don’t even think it is a Christian church. Also this is basically Donatism.
>>18773109Not him, by the way.>Do those include those that Paul passed fown to Timothy and he told him to lay his hands on those worthy, some kind of apostolic sucession perhaps?Yes there is ordination of Christian ministers which is to be done by those who are also Christian ministers, but no there is no special priestly mark or other ontological change, or secret tradition passed down by the bishops, or special magisterial ecclesiastical authority over the scriptures, or any of the other dangerous unbiblical baggage that is typically attached to the term “apostolic succession”. What’s more the traditions Paul here speaks of are only what are called “written” traditions, while what are called “unwritten” traditions are only condemned in the harshest terms (see Mark 7).>Furthermore by what epistemic criteria are we to judge that 2 Thessalonians is inspired scripture? Who complied the canon and who gave them the authority to do that?There are here three questions, each an erroneous attempt to assault the authority of sacred scripture, by which alone the Church is to be guided until the return of the Lord. First the means by which the saint attains a knowledge of scripture are numerous, including many proofs whereby it shows itself to be the word of God. But none of these proofs would be of any avail if the Holy Spirit did not also bear witness in the heart of the elect that this is His word. This is the supreme evidence which alone convinces the believer and through which he knows the scriptures to be the word of God and without which he could never believe it, and then scripture reveals to him that he has been so enlightened by God. Thus the scriptures are self-authenticating and do not require any external authority.(1/3)
>>18773109Second, it is erroneous both historically and theologically to speak of a “compilation” of the canon, because this implies some monolithic authority at some time unilaterally decided the content of scripture for all time. This never happened, and if it had happened it would only be the most vile blasphemy. The canon was gradually accepted and by all Christians equally, the first person to attempt to exert authority over the canon in church history was the arch-heretic Marcion, and the church fathers raked him over the coals for it. But the holy scriptures are the words of God and therefore the sole criterion for inclusion in the canon is divine inspiration: if this book is divinely inspired, then it ought to be in the canon, if it is not, then it ought not, and the opinion of any authority is immaterial. For a list of canon to be correct, by definition it is absolutely contingent on the inspiration of the books, not the approval of some false authority. And for mere men to pretend to God’s throne and claim for themselves the authority to “decide” what He has spoken is the most heinous blasphemy, nor would we have any reason to believe them. Not that it is blasphemous to define a list of canonical scripture, but it is blasphemous to claim to authenticate the holy scriptures. Because they are the very words of God they derive their authority from the fact God speaks them alone, and on that basis alone our duty is to absolutely obey and believe them. Now, I am aware that in the eastern churches the canon varies from church to church, so it seems your priests have not heard of this supposed “compilation”. (2/3)
>>18773109Third, the Church indeed has authority, including the authority to declare the canon of scripture, but this authority is ministerial only. The authority of an enforcer, and not a lawmaker, which if the enforcer abuses and pretends to make laws of their own, they are guilty of a crime. And so it is with the Church, for scripture prohibits with harsh penalties adding to its authority, Deu. 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I am commanding you.” Prov. 30:6 “Do not add to His words, lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar.” Rev. 22:18 “I bear witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book.”Therefore, those who would prostitute other authorities besides scripture as being equal with scripture, whether invested in themselves or in traditions of men, stand condemned. (3/3)
>>18773331>holy scriptures are the words of GodSome of it is the Word of God, but not all of scripture is the Word of God. It's important to not take all of it as the Word or you end up thinking all of Leviticus or other words are words God spoke.
>>187733332 Timothy 3:16. You are a heretic.
>>18773337>All scripture is given by inspiration of GodI didn't say it wasn't, scripture was inspired by God, but not all of it is the Word. It's like saying the words of Paul are the Word of God, when it is Paul's words not God's. God just inspired him to write it.
>>18773330Tbis is all a very nice text wall bur you refute yourself by saying the scriptures are self authenticating by a "feeling" Do you understsnd that Mormons use the same argument to prove the book of Mormon? They instruct them to read and to then feel the "buring of the bosom,". Completely incoherent and the rest of your arguments is based on that.Literally "Trust me bro it will be revealed to you if you read it lol"
>Think about it though, anon - married for twelve years, no kids...
>>18773288Ad homenium. Just say you dont have answer lmao
>>18773340Firstly, the word “inspired” does not appear in 2 Timothy 3:16. The Greek word is theopneustos, which literally means “breathed out by God”, that is, spoken. Second, this distinction is absolutely false. For scripture to be inspired means that it is the word of God, His very speech. When we say scripture is inspired, we do not mean it in sense of a mean being “inspired”, this is an equivocation fallacy. The theological sense of inspiration is the verbal revelation of God through human instruments. >>18773343>you refute yourself by saying the scriptures are self authenticating by a "feeling"Where did I say that? Can you show me where the word “feeling” was in that post? This is a strawman fallacy. This is not an enthusiastic, private spirit, but the testimony of the Holy Spirit of which the scriptures speak. I grant that it is outside of scripture, but it is not apart from scripture because our knowledge of it comes from the scriptures themselves. It is less a “burning of the bosom” than it is a simple recognition that men cannot see without eyes. The Lord Jesus said “A stranger they will never follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.” (John 10:5) and “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” (John 14:26) Therefore the believer is brought to the knowledge and recognition of the truth by the Holy Spirit. While it is impossible for those who are in the flesh to believe the gospel, unless they are born again.
>>18773343Also, why don’t you tell us for what reason we should believe the claims of the Greek church? I happen to think there is no reason, and it is as flimsy as tissue paper, but your strategy is to assume it and not defend it while attacking the authority of scripture to emotionally motivate acceptance of it.
>>18773333Enjoy Hell.
>>18773046Thanks for the comedy
