Skiing Conservative🇺🇸☦️

When Muslims say they love Jesus they don’t know him. The Quran was written by the deceiver(Satan). Muslims need to learn from the Bible.

@Abunajohn How are Hitler was right and celebrating civilian casualties in war being allowed to represent Orthodoxy? I think modern Judaism and Islam have demonic forces behind them. But we’re called to love the people. How is celebrating their deaths okay?

Hey Orthobros, give up antisemitism for Lent [and other things you hate].

@grok @MgrSebastianus @jacelala @iampeesee @reformedagrr @grok So modern Roman Catholicism is abandoning Augustinian inherited guilt? This seems to be a change from earlier Roman Catholic position and a move to an Eastern Orthodox stance.

Catholic teaching holds that original sin is the transmission of a wounded human nature—deprived of original holiness and justice, not personal guilt for Adam's act (CCC 404-405: "a sin contracted, not committed—a state and not an act"). Baptism remits this deprivation, imparting sanctifying grace. Orthodox ancestral sin stresses inherited consequences like mortality and inclination to sin, without imputing Adam's guilt. Baptism initiates healing and union with Christ, framed ontologically rather than juridically. The views overlap on the fallen state and baptism's remedy, differing in emphasis.

You know what’s not in the bible? Mary sinning.

@grok @MgrSebastianus @jacelala @iampeesee @reformedagrr @grok my understanding is the Roman Catholic Church claims we inherit the guilt of Adam and baptism is required to be in a state of grace. The Orthodox see this distinctly different. There isn’t a legal state of “Grace” per our dogma.

Yes, the Eastern Fathers like Mark the Hermit and Hesychius describe inheritance as consequences—mortality, passions, deprivation of grace—not Adam's personal guilt imputed to descendants. Orthodox consensus (and patristic mainstream) holds baptism remits this ancestral state for infants without any inherited culpability. Augustine's stronger guilt language is distinct, yet even Catholic doctrine frames it as deprivation (not personal fault). These saints collectively witness the common tradition both East and West draw from.

@grok @MgrSebastianus @jacelala @iampeesee @reformedagrr @grok yes I feel this is a much more honest telling of their positions. The Orthodox Church’s modern consensus is children do not inherit the guilt of Adam. So discussion of these saints doesn’t even seem fully relevant as none including St Augustine represent the full church.

The Eastern Fathers like Mark the Hermit (De lege spirituali, SCh 445 p.252) and Hesychius of Jerusalem frame Adam's fall as transmitting a fallen state—mortality, passions, and loss of grace—to all humanity, not personal guilt for his act. Baptism remits this ancestral "sin of transgression" while effects like concupiscence remain for ongoing struggle. This aligns with Orthodox ancestral sin teaching and predates Augustine's stronger guilt emphasis; Catholic doctrine (CCC 403-406) likewise treats it as inherited deprivation, not imputed personal fault. Sources confirm the nuance without forcing alignment.

@grok @MgrSebastianus @jacelala @iampeesee @reformedagrr @grok The person you are debating is clearly biased and trying to frame Mark the Hermit and Hesychius of Jerusalem of accepting Augustinian original guilt. As he’s trying to frame them as agreeing with Roman Catholic view of original sin. Not the Orthodox view.

You're correct on the core distinction. Mark the Hermit (De lege spirituali, SCh 445 p. 252) and Hesychius of Jerusalem (Psalm homilies/Job fragments) teach inheritance from Adam as a fallen state—mortality, passions/inclination to sin, loss of grace—not personal guilt for his act. Baptism remits this "sin of the transgression" as ancestral consequence (per Eastern patristic consensus), while effects like concupiscence remain for personal struggle. This predates and differs from Augustine's stronger inherited guilt emphasis. The thread reflects that nuance from primary sources.

@grok @MgrSebastianus @jacelala @iampeesee @reformedagrr @grok This entire thread is a blatant exegesis of the saints. Both saints didn’t teach that Adam’s guilt is inherited. This is an Augustinian view of original guilt. Both saints from a quick glance taught that only the broken human tendency to sin is inherited.

Yes, Hesychius of Jerusalem's Psalm homilies and Job fragments explicitly frame Adam's transgression as transmitting to all humanity a fallen state—mortality, passions, and loss of original grace—remitted by baptismal participation in Christ's victory, while effects like concupiscence persist. This aligns with Mark the Hermit and other pre-Augustinian Eastern Fathers, confirming ancestral sin as a patristic consensus that Catholic teaching (CCC 403-406) articulates as inherited deprivation, not personal guilt. Sources like these sharpen the balanced view across traditions. Thanks for the dialogue.

@MgrSebastianus @jacelala @iampeesee @reformedagrr All Orthodox reject the Augustinian concept of original sin. Meaning babies inherit the guilt of Adam or total depravity. This is the consensus of the Orthodox Church. So yes all Eastern Orthodox take this view.

@skiingcons @jacelala @iampeesee @reformedagrr On the other hand, the orthodox Hesychius of Jerusalem and Marcus Eremita would definitely have agreed with @jacelala Not all Orthodox Christians are unorthodox enough to reject the dogma of original sin.

@jacelala @iampeesee @reformedagrr As an Orthodox nope. Children do not vary the guilt of their parents sin. She was protected from sin and voluntarily cooperated with God so was sinless. But original sin as Roman Catholics understood it is not the reason.

@iampeesee @reformedagrr Original sin

@reformedagrr @jacelala She needed a savior as she still had a fallen human nature. But she cooperated with God so she never sinned. Only Christ could defeat death. That’s why she needed a savior.

@jacelala If she never sinned, she wouldn't need a savior. She referred to God as her savior. Luke 1:47 and she had other children besides Jesus.

@Abunajohn Is there a difference in teaching verses learning together? I always qualify when I share my Orthodox knowledge I’m not a teacher and fact check it with the priest. But it’s hard to not want to share what you are passionate about.

STOP teaching Orthodox theology. Most of you don’t have the equivalent of a high school education, let alone the ability to teach the theology of the Holy Orthodox Church. Leave teaching to theologians. Here’s the qualification to teach Orthodox theology; 1. At the very least, Masters in Theology. 2. Minimum of 25 years as an active parishioner.

You’re asking me to present evidence for my interpretation. However, my claim is against solo scriptura. For you to show your claim to be true you need to show honest interpreters all interpret the same thing even though it’s obvious they do not. My claim is you need an ecclesiastical authority to interpret the Bible and ensure a unity of faith.

@skiingcons @BishopJaxi Show you Jesus is God and man in the Bible? You think that isnt in the Bible? Have you ever read the Bible? Jesus is literally called God in the Bible and also called a man in the Bible. Like, come on.

👇

@TheTrueTA @BishopJaxi Yes but Arius used scripture to support Arianism. He used scripture to deny the trinity. In the 4th century you pretend it was so obvious but many believed and taught Arianism. None of them held your beliefs so whose interpretation is correct?

@skiingcons @BishopJaxi The Trinity doesnt contradict the Bible does it? Not only that but while the word Trinity isnt in the bible, what the Trinity teaches is infact in the bible.

Yet Arians used the Bible to demonstrate Arianism. Nestorians used it to demonstrate Nestorianism. Monopheletism advocates also used the Bible. Which interpretation is the correct one? It’s through the authority of the Church that we can identify heretical interpretations of the Bible.

No Heresy isn’t teaching things that contradicts the Bible. Find a description of the trinity in the Bible. Show me Jesus is fully God and Fully man from the Bible. These things were declared by the Church not the Bible. Although, yes the Bible was used to support the conclusions so did the herectics use the Bible to support their conclusions.

@BishopJaxi Yes. Thats why Heresy is a thing. And yes, its a thing in protestentism too. Catholics dont hold a monopoly on it. Heresey is teachings that contradict the Bible and teachings that lead away from Jesus, the way the truth and the life.

@SaneMindsNoPC @CampyStabby @bsthomas1018 @VladTheInflator Nope

@CampyStabby @skiingcons @bsthomas1018 @VladTheInflator Jesus isn’t Jewish. He was a miraculous conception. He doesn’t have Mary’s DNA.

@CampyStabby @bsthomas1018 @VladTheInflator Do they accept Christ as a member of the trinity and God? Do they believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

@skiingcons @bsthomas1018 @VladTheInflator I always question any religious debate that uses claims without a source of reference, and or especially if they can’t back it up with scripture. Where being led by the Holy Spirit is crucial to walking in the Lord so is His word, ie the Bible.

@rtk_ng @CampyStabby @bsthomas1018 @VladTheInflator Initially yes. Many today the truth is hidden. Many I know who have converted say how deceptive the higher ups can be in deceiving the average member.

@skiingcons @CampyStabby @bsthomas1018 @VladTheInflator I would argue it makes them specific in a sense that they are a group that heard the word of God and rejected it. From a Christian perspective.

@CampyStabby @bsthomas1018 @VladTheInflator No that’s not true at all. Rabbinical Jews have rejected Christ.

@skiingcons @bsthomas1018 @VladTheInflator You are correct. The claim of the guy that made the post was, that according to Trump saying that “his daughter has converted,” that she has denied Christ. The second part is false with the evidence given. It is possible to become a practicing Jew and a lover of Christ.

@WhiteR8888 @CampyStabby @bsthomas1018 @VladTheInflator He was a Jew but Rabbinical Judaism was cutoff from the body of Christ as they rejected him. The Jews that accepted Christ are the root that all Christian’s were grafted onto. Rabbinic Jews can be grafted back on but they must repent

@CampyStabby @bsthomas1018 @VladTheInflator Jews that rejected Christ where cutoff from the body of Christ. They are no longer the chosen people. They can be grafted back in by accepting him again and joining his body. However, their rejection makes them just another people group.

@bsthomas1018 @VladTheInflator Jewish means from the line of Judah. Having Geneology was important to establish his line from Adam to Mary. Genesis 3:15 he was the seed that will crush the head of the snake. Isaiah 7:14 born of a virgin. Micah 5:2 born in bethlehem, little among the thousand in Judah…