OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 06:29:11 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Deal seriously with violent biblical texts, historian says  (Read 1571 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,753



« Reply #45 on: February 21, 2012, 06:20:39 PM »

More than that, both you and I were discussing Jesus and Mohammed.  For Mohammed you can get sources on him from the Koran, the Hadithas, and being a historical warlord there are likely going to be some Byzantine and Sassanid sources regarding him.

As for Christ, if you are going to discuss the actions of our Lord, I'd be interested to know which sources outside of the Scriptures Nektarios is using.  I use Sola Scriptura when discussing the earthly life of Christ because it is the only source I know of (as well as some Traditions of the Church - e.g. Christ's presence smashing the idols in Egypt).  Nonetheless, the New Testament is the largest, most complete set of information regarding the life of Christ that I know of, so it is what I use.  Information regarding our Lord from Suetonius and Tacitus is a bit too scant.

Actually there are a wide variety of sources about Mohammed.  That's what makes the book Hagarism so interesting.  Nonetheless it is unfair to compare an idealized Christianity to actual Islam.  If your thesis is that Christ rejected violence and terror, that would put you are direct odds with the history of the Orthodox Church.  The Orthodox Church has liturgical services dedicated to bloody tyrants.  So if you are going to argue against Islam with that tactic, you are just as strongly arguing against historic Christianity. 

But I could argue against Mohammed being a peaceful religious leader on his own merits, without even getting into the actions of his followers - past and present.  The same could not be done regarding Christ.  In all of the Scriptural and Historical evidence, and Traditions of the Church, I doubt you could name one city that Christ and his Disciples sacked.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #46 on: February 21, 2012, 06:29:44 PM »

More than that, both you and I were discussing Jesus and Mohammed.  For Mohammed you can get sources on him from the Koran, the Hadithas, and being a historical warlord there are likely going to be some Byzantine and Sassanid sources regarding him.

As for Christ, if you are going to discuss the actions of our Lord, I'd be interested to know which sources outside of the Scriptures Nektarios is using.  I use Sola Scriptura when discussing the earthly life of Christ because it is the only source I know of (as well as some Traditions of the Church - e.g. Christ's presence smashing the idols in Egypt).  Nonetheless, the New Testament is the largest, most complete set of information regarding the life of Christ that I know of, so it is what I use.  Information regarding our Lord from Suetonius and Tacitus is a bit too scant.

Actually there are a wide variety of sources about Mohammed.  That's what makes the book Hagarism so interesting.  Nonetheless it is unfair to compare an idealized Christianity to actual Islam.  If your thesis is that Christ rejected violence and terror, that would put you are direct odds with the history of the Orthodox Church.  The Orthodox Church has liturgical services dedicated to bloody tyrants.  So if you are going to argue against Islam with that tactic, you are just as strongly arguing against historic Christianity. 

But I could argue against Mohammed being a peaceful religious leader on his own merits, without even getting into the actions of his followers - past and present.  The same could not be done regarding Christ.  In all of the Scriptural and Historical evidence, and Traditions of the Church, I doubt you could name one city that Christ and his Disciples sacked.

So you are arguing that sola scricturists are the true heirs of Christ and not the Orthodox Church. 
Logged
Delphine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 136



« Reply #47 on: February 21, 2012, 06:30:06 PM »

If your thesis is that Christ rejected violence and terror, that would put you are direct odds with the history of the Orthodox Church.  The Orthodox Church has liturgical services dedicated to bloody tyrants.  So if you are going to argue against Islam with that tactic, you are just as strongly arguing against historic Christianity. 

I had read in this article that any killing of another person is sinful and must be repented of, even in the case of soldiers or self-defense. How long has this been the case in the Orthodox Church? Did this also apply to the Christian rulers who ordered the wars and executions, or just to the soldiers and executioners?
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,753



« Reply #48 on: February 21, 2012, 07:00:15 PM »

More than that, both you and I were discussing Jesus and Mohammed.  For Mohammed you can get sources on him from the Koran, the Hadithas, and being a historical warlord there are likely going to be some Byzantine and Sassanid sources regarding him.

As for Christ, if you are going to discuss the actions of our Lord, I'd be interested to know which sources outside of the Scriptures Nektarios is using.  I use Sola Scriptura when discussing the earthly life of Christ because it is the only source I know of (as well as some Traditions of the Church - e.g. Christ's presence smashing the idols in Egypt).  Nonetheless, the New Testament is the largest, most complete set of information regarding the life of Christ that I know of, so it is what I use.  Information regarding our Lord from Suetonius and Tacitus is a bit too scant.

Actually there are a wide variety of sources about Mohammed.  That's what makes the book Hagarism so interesting.  Nonetheless it is unfair to compare an idealized Christianity to actual Islam.  If your thesis is that Christ rejected violence and terror, that would put you are direct odds with the history of the Orthodox Church.  The Orthodox Church has liturgical services dedicated to bloody tyrants.  So if you are going to argue against Islam with that tactic, you are just as strongly arguing against historic Christianity. 

But I could argue against Mohammed being a peaceful religious leader on his own merits, without even getting into the actions of his followers - past and present.  The same could not be done regarding Christ.  In all of the Scriptural and Historical evidence, and Traditions of the Church, I doubt you could name one city that Christ and his Disciples sacked.

So you are arguing that sola scricturists are the true heirs of Christ and not the Orthodox Church. 

Oh no, I am arguing three things - first that Mohammed was a warlord.  I think historical evidence can back this up.  Sure, we'd have to define the term "warlord", but I think most accepted definitions would suffice and would prove me correct in this assertion.  Second, I am arguing that Christ was not a warlord.  Once again, I believe that using all accepted definitions of "warlord", Christ would not fit this description.

Third, I am arguing that there are scant written sources on the life of Christ.  I am arguing that the four canonical Gospels contain the most reliable, and are the largest source by volume, regarding the life of Christ.  All other sources - Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, and various inscriptions are minor in comparison to the Gospels.  Likewise, I do not accept any of the Gnostic Gospels, or other heretical (or at least non-canonical) writings to be worth discussing.  If the various Traditions of the Church regarding the life of Christ were compiled into one written source they would be a valuable source, but I do not have access to any such compilation, so I have to use what I have.

Since I am a reasonable person, if you can provide ANY historical examples that would show Christ to be a conqueror in the same manner as Mohammed I would be interested to hear them.  Fortunately for me, I don't think they exist, seeing as that such a claim would be exceptionally blasphemous.



And as a final point, I believe that you are trolling me - seeing as that you have skirted the issue entirely, up to this point.  If so, I recognize this to be in response to me trolling you on another thread.  So - good game.  If you would like, you can just whistle the Horst Wessel Lied and I will admit to being a Sola Scripturist, then we will both have won.  (FWIW, I would be lying to admit such a thing, just as I'm sure that you are not actually a member of the NSDAP.)   Kiss 
Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #49 on: February 21, 2012, 07:08:51 PM »

Of course the OT has violence in it. However, Christ changed everything, Mohammed expanded it.

PP

As a former practicing Muslim and now a practicing Orthodox Christian, this is probably the most truest, most articulate piece I've read regarding the two faiths and violence.  For Christians, the OT cannot be properly understood without the lens of the NT.  Well said, primuspilus!!!!!!!
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #50 on: February 21, 2012, 07:45:21 PM »

Oh no, I am arguing three things - first that Mohammed was a warlord.  I think historical evidence can back this up.  Sure, we'd have to define the term "warlord", but I think most accepted definitions would suffice and would prove me correct in this assertion.  Second, I am arguing that Christ was not a warlord.  Once again, I believe that using all accepted definitions of "warlord", Christ would not fit this description.

I don't disagree with this.  My disagreement is that this information can be used to draw any sort of conclusion. 

Since I am a reasonable person, if you can provide ANY historical examples that would show Christ to be a conqueror in the same manner as Mohammed I would be interested to hear them.  Fortunately for me, I don't think they exist, seeing as that such a claim would be exceptionally blasphemous.

My point though is that you are comparing apples to oranges.  The nadir of Islam to the pinnacle of Christianity.  Islamic internet apologists do the same. 

And as a final point, I believe that you are trolling me - seeing as that you have skirted the issue entirely, up to this point.  If so, I recognize this to be in response to me trolling you on another thread.  So - good game.  If you would like, you can just whistle the Horst Wessel Lied and I will admit to being a Sola Scripturist, then we will both have won.  (FWIW, I would be lying to admit such a thing, just as I'm sure that you are not actually a member of the NSDAP.)   Kiss 

It's late, and I honestly don't have any idea what you are talking about with other threads and trolling.   

What I'm saying is that there is no use in making an ad hoc proof text style argument against Islam that can easily be turned around against Orthodoxy.  I think real debate with Muslims has the potential to be edifying, but instead most of what I see amounts to name calling and arguments over obscure historical matters rather than any sort of theological substance. 
Logged
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Time-wasting self-embarrassing anti-Christian hater
Posts: 4,351



« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2012, 07:48:42 PM »

Oh no, I am arguing three things - first that Mohammed was a warlord.  I think historical evidence can back this up.  Sure, we'd have to define the term "warlord", but I think most accepted definitions would suffice and would prove me correct in this assertion.  Second, I am arguing that Christ was not a warlord.  Once again, I believe that using all accepted definitions of "warlord", Christ would not fit this description.

I don't disagree with this.  My disagreement is that this information can be used to draw any sort of conclusion. 

Because liturgical veneration of saints is essential to Orthodoxy?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #52 on: February 21, 2012, 07:55:40 PM »

Oh no, I am arguing three things - first that Mohammed was a warlord.  I think historical evidence can back this up.  Sure, we'd have to define the term "warlord", but I think most accepted definitions would suffice and would prove me correct in this assertion.  Second, I am arguing that Christ was not a warlord.  Once again, I believe that using all accepted definitions of "warlord", Christ would not fit this description.

I don't disagree with this.  My disagreement is that this information can be used to draw any sort of conclusion. 

Because liturgical veneration of saints is essential to Orthodoxy?

Because both Islam and Christianity are diverse faiths with both great strengths and embarrassing moments.  In both cases there have been those who gloss over the latter and emphasize the pacific nature of Islamic / Christian traditions.  There have been other times where those who have openly fallen short of the Christian ideal are worshipped as saints.  This whole idea of prooftexting from history is weird. 
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.064 seconds with 35 queries.