Marus

O dovada pentru existenta lui Dumnezeu din filosofia mintii — un thread 🧵🧠

@Michael__Garten @JeromeChukwuwem YES!

Icons and the theology of icons in the 100s AD tomorrow. Thanks @JeromeChukwuwem looking forward to it

@TopGuyMihai @daily_romania Like?

@daily_romania There are some reservations regarding Telegram, though

Telegram founder Pavel Durov dismisses the EU's Chat Control as a 'banana republic trick' and says he won't scan users' private messages

@doofgeek4011 Thank you

@marus_55 Gordon Fee’s The First Epistle to the Corinthians (part of the NICNT series) Joseph Fitzmyer’s commentary on First Corinthians, published in the Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries

Framing 1 Corinthians 9:20 as "opportunistic deception" overlooks its context. Paul describes cultural adaptation (e.g., eating kosher with Jews, not requiring Gentile converts to follow Jewish law) to remove unnecessary barriers, while not compromising core gospel truths.

@ThePolemikOne What is "ecumenism" in your view? I've seen many differing interpretations of it so Im curious. I feel like the only one who doesnt know lol

@Jay_49erTikTok @InspiringPhilos @KhalilAndani

@InspiringPhilos I'm not sure why Khalil is trying to string scattered verses together and pretend they automatically control 9:29, when we know the Quran is not a clean, chronological legal code where that assumption just follows. The one question that is the Achilles heel is the one asked below. Question: What do the people who DO NOT wish to be fought against have to do, according to 9:29? 🔥If this is only a defensive war, why does the verse end the fighting with jizyah and humiliation rather than simply ending aggression? (1) The verse does not say “Fight them until they stop fighting you.” (2) The stopping condition is not peace, not non-aggression, not “they stopped attacking us.” The stopping condition is conversion or jizyah with subordination. (3) Ibn Kathir: “until they pay the Jizyah” means “if they do not choose to embrace Islam,” and ʿan yad means “in defeat and subservience,” while ṣāghirūn means “disgraced, humiliated, and belittled.” (4) 2:190 and 60:8–9 do not erase 9:29. He is importing 2:190 into 9:29, but 9:29 gives its own reasons and its own stopping condition. 🔥(6) And 9:123 makes the problem even worse for Khalil. It does not say, “fight only those who attack you.” It says, “fight those disbelievers who are near you, and let them find harshness in you.” Ibn Kathīr literally titles this: “The order for jihad against the disbelievers, the closest, then the farthest areas.” So Khalil’s neat “only defensive war” storyline collapses. The text is not merely about repelling an attacker; it lays out a sequence of fighting nearby disbelievers first, then expanding outward. On “Christianity did Crusades / Hebrew Bible herem” That is a tu quoque. It does not answer Qur’an 9:29. Also, the Christian comparison is sloppy. The Crusades are part of medieval Christian history, not a direct command from Jesus saying: “Fight Jews and Christians until they pay tribute while humbled.” The New Testament gives the Church no standing command to wage war for Christian domination. The Quran gives Muhammad and the Muslim community a legal war command with a tribute/submission condition in 9:29.

@IamJonte_ Me too!

I love the Essence-Energy distinction in orthodoxy!

@daily_romania Is Becali still coming after or no?

Romanian Orthodox Church says upcoming Pride parade in Bucharest to be viewed with non-acceptance, urges for defense of Christian values

@BishopJaxi x.com/i/status/20650… Lmaoo you cant make this up 🤣🤣🤣🤣

So, you don't want to accurately represent what we mean by the words we use? Interesting. It isn't often that we see Protestants being so honest about their dishonesty.

@Acolyte83349490 What were the primary sources you spent (most) time in and what was the best secundary literature you read?

Once again, Jacob just makes lots of assertions and offers no support. So let’s just do some preliminaries here. First, what does “death” actually entail here? How is this Muslim that Jacob is utilizing understand the term? We aren’t told in the text. As long as the term is undefined, the dilemma goes nowhere. Usually though Muslims and others use the term death to entail cessation of existence. But of course they don’t get to assume annihilationalism without argument, especially when Christianity rejects this idea. So this just ends up being begging the question on their part. In the video it is a bit better but it still trades on some confusions and disputed assumptions. In the video the Muslim claims that in his death, God the Word loses “control” over his body while his soul departs. But God can’t lose control over anything. The overall problem is that he is tacitly modeling the death of God the Word on a purely human anthropology and human person, reducing God the Word to the human soul, but this is a misrepresentation and so a strawman. First, on the Hypostatic union it is true that the human soul of Christ is separated from his body and it exercises no “control” or power over his body during that period. But notice, the objector is speaking of God the Word qua deity, not qua humanity. Things can be true of a part while not being true of the whole. Consequently it is possible that the human soul of Christ during that period exercises none of its natural powers relative to his body, but this does not entail or imply a loss of control qua divinity and by the divine person. It only entails that the divine person of God the Word undergoes a human death by his humanity. In this way the death of Christ has this natural state in death that we all do relative to our body/soul relation while at the same time maintaining the union of both body and soul relative to his divine hypostasis. This is in part because a hypostasis is self-subsistent and is distinguished from its constituents which are not necessarily self-subsistent. In this way, God the Word undergoes a genuine human death but he does it divinely by maintaining the hypostatic union through death, thereby transforming human death away from annihilation towards resurrection. In this way, he takes death “captive” and separates it from the power of sin. Second, the dilemma utilizes the term “God” in a qualitative sense. That’s fine for our purposes right now. But notice that the second lemma “If Jesus Is God, then he didn’t die” needs to be tighter. It needs to be he is only deity or divine and it needs to be speaking of not of him qualitatively, but hypostatically. This reveals that the dilemma trades on reducing persons to an instance of a nature. But this is the very position that the hypostatic union precludes. By which he suffers and that which suffers are different concepts. So we are back to begging the question…again. Now why am I able to just fisk this so easily? It is not because I am super smart. It is because I spend time in the primary sources and I try to read the best secondary literature I can. More to the point, I spend most of my time reading on core areas of Christian theology rather than lesser matters. Lastly, we are told by Jacob that Joseph Smith was able to “solve” this problem, but we aren’t told what the supposed “solution” is supposed to be. It is difficult to see how Corporealism and Newtonian Atomism could solve this problem. If you make claims like this, you need to at least gesture at where the solution is expressed or in sum what it is. But we get nada. I understand why Jacob has to keep pumping out content like this to work the algorithm, but it will only convince those who are underinformed and then they are being set up to get nailed. What Jacob needs to do is spend time in the literature and craft a careful argument but then he won’t have time to work the algorithm.

@BishopJaxi Glory to God. Keeping you and your family in my prayers 🙏☦️

Update on my father: First, thank you to everyone who has prayed for him and for our family. It has meant more than I can say. My father had the clots in his lungs removed and is now on blood thinners. On Tuesday, they are going to do one more procedure to check the clot near his heart and see whether it will require stents, or whether it has reduced enough that blood thinner medication can keep it under control. Right now, his spirits are much higher, and thankfully, his sense of humor is still fully intact. Please continue to keep him in your prayers as we wait for the next procedure. I’ve taken a small break from X while being with him and family, but I will resume posting and interacting with everyone again very soon. Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy.

@economic_eth "They're no longer under the radar" is really telling. They have seen and currently see us as a real threat and this is why they resort to such 💩 tactics — the lies about "simony", the slander etc.

You’re doing well Wormwood, rough around the edges but keep up the work. Careful now though, you’ll need to sound more credible if we’re to pull more people away. Right now its entertaining even for your other cousins - Your affection Uncle, Screwtape

@IamJonte_ Congratulations Many years my friend ☦️

Update: I am officially an Orthodox Christian!

@BishopJaxi Praying right now

My father is currently in the hospital due to blood clots in his lungs, knees, and near his heart. I humbly ask for your prayers, that the Lord’s healing touch would embrace him and strengthen my family during this time, and above all, that God’s will be done. Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy.

@ThePolemikOne Post baptism gyro lmaooooo

@2Philosophical_ @zachenglish91 They're like a postmodernist who redefines "truth" to mere "opinion" while constantly using "truth" as if it's objective

@zachenglish91 That’s right. I’ve yet to meet a consistent moral relativist or anti-realist.

Simple proof of moral realism: 1. Torturing babies for fun is in-itself wrong. 2 If torturing babies for fun is in-itself wrong, then moral realism is true. So, 3. Moral realism is true. Easy peasy.

I just called them and spoke with them. This is for supplies, icons, candles, etc. for baptism parties that are not on Sundays. They have to pay someone to clean and pay chanters. The priest receives no money. @needGod_net @bannedpastor You are liars and deceivers

I can assure everyone that such requests for money are not preventing baptisms. They cover costs of events in parishes. Yes, they also were a historical method to pay the priest who was impoverished himself. If someone had no money then they would not be denied. My personal policy is not to ask for anything but I did not refuse a gift if it is offered.

Protestants are making a nothingburger out of a minimal fee many Greek Churches have because baptisms are usually large celebrations, not empty “symbols.” This covers baptismal robe, candles, perhaps icons, and the celebration feast after. Many churches simply ask for a donation. This is nothing, btw, compared to most fundie churches which demand 10% tithe whereas most orthodox churches leave it all voluntary. This is just more ignorant moral gotchas because they have no intellectual arguments for their sects.

@ThePolemikOne Why do you say that?