Author Topic: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?  (Read 266756 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #495 on: May 06, 2014, 12:04:24 PM »
Your whole 'idea' is not just ignorant of modern science it's a complete fabrication!  Ironically, looking back through your posts is what brings to mind the terms "idiot" and "racist".

Why are you still flaming? 

Is it because you can't back up your original contention that I've said anything racist?
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,553
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #496 on: May 06, 2014, 12:05:53 PM »
Your whole 'idea' is not just ignorant of modern science it's a complete fabrication!  Ironically, looking back through your posts is what brings to mind the terms "idiot" and "racist".

Why are you still flaming? 

Is it because you can't back up your original contention that I've said anything racist?

It would be better for you both to back off and heed Peter's warning. 
This post gave me autism.

Since when has a Hierarch done anything for you? . . .

Apparently you can get the Juice or Power from a certain Icon.

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,788
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #497 on: May 06, 2014, 12:07:09 PM »
I see dots
so many green dots
they decorate the forum
and warn
those who have been bad
not to talk anymore

(please note: this goes best to the tune of 'I feel Pretty' from West Side story)
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #498 on: May 06, 2014, 12:08:53 PM »
I see dots
so many green dots
they decorate the forum
and warn
those who have been bad
not to talk anymore

(please note: this goes best to the tune of 'I feel Pretty' from West Side story)


I like it!  When's the CD coming out?  :)
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,642
  • You're my guardian angel hiding in the woods
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #499 on: May 06, 2014, 12:09:02 PM »
Your whole 'idea' is not just ignorant of modern science it's a complete fabrication!  Ironically, looking back through your posts is what brings to mind the terms "idiot" and "racist".

Be careful now, I'm one of those evil white men that is here to put you down and take your jobs, possessions, and your soul. Now, go check 'white' on the arbitrary census form please!

And you continue with the hot air.  I haven't said a single racist thing and you know it, so instead you just spew this drivel.  "Looking through my posts" you might've noticed the actual scientific material I posted to substantiate what I've written.  "Angry white men" with a racial chip on their shoulder aren't scary in the slightest to me.  In fact, they're usually quite pathetic, and you're no exception.  I repeat: show me one thing about the post in question that's "racist".

Why are you still flaming?  Is it because I'm a pathetic white man with a chip on my shoulder?

What kind of chip?  Potato, Dorito, Pringles, what?
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Hamartolos

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 809
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #500 on: May 06, 2014, 12:12:20 PM »
Your whole 'idea' is not just ignorant of modern science it's a complete fabrication!  Ironically, looking back through your posts is what brings to mind the terms "idiot" and "racist".

Why are you still flaming?

Is it because you can't back up your original contention that I've said anything racist?

You PM me and then block me so I can't respond outside of this thread?  Nice.  I have two example but can't use them here now.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #501 on: May 06, 2014, 12:13:47 PM »
Your whole 'idea' is not just ignorant of modern science it's a complete fabrication!  Ironically, looking back through your posts is what brings to mind the terms "idiot" and "racist".

Why are you still flaming?

Is it because you can't back up your original contention that I've said anything racist?

You PM me and then block me so I can't respond outside of this thread?  Nice.  I have two example but can't use them here now.
I have no idea what the two of you are going on about, but allow me to voice my strong opinion on the matter.

God bless!

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #502 on: May 06, 2014, 12:20:13 PM »
You PM me and then block me so I can't respond outside of this thread?

I pm'd you to ask - very nicely - "Why the hostility?" and you responded with more aggression and hostility.  That's why I blocked you. 

If you disagreed with me you could have said so without coming out of the gate like - to quote Charles - some internet tough guy.

I have two example but can't use them here now.

How convenient.

Look, I'm trying to heed the double warning here, so when you're ready to resume in a civil manner, let me know.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Hamartolos

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 809
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #503 on: May 06, 2014, 12:23:14 PM »

Look, I'm trying to heed the double warning here, so when you're ready to resume in a civil manner, let me know.

 ::)
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 12:24:37 PM by Hamartolos »

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Rambam

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 718
  • Sink me, I can hardly bring myself to look upon it
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #505 on: May 06, 2014, 12:32:53 PM »
If I could come back to this response from last night ...

Maybe this is what's at the heart of the divide between us? I take the moral of the "stone throwing" story from John to be about the stone throwers. You take the moral to be about the woman?

Not saying anyone's wrong or right here -- heck, both views are probably 'right' (whatever 'right' means). It just never ceases to amaze me how the same piece of text can create two very strong, opposing perspectives.



You mean Matthew 18:15?

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother."

Between thee and him alone. 

When you buy a quality Bible, it comes with Matthew 18.16-17 as well:

Quote
16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Quote
I don't recall where he said go and create Facebook groups and write press releases. I also recall a certain passage in John about throwing stones. Couldn't be clearer what he said.

Yeah:

Quote
John 8

10 Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.”

Not:

Quote
10 Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; now let's get you back to your brothel, you've got a lot of work to do.”

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #506 on: May 06, 2014, 12:43:46 PM »
Perhaps I am missing something, but the entire matter regarding Mr. Heimbach and his public beliefs regarding race and the role of the Church do not seem to require any form of detailed cultural or racial analysis for the Church to conclude that they are in error. By associating the cross on Bright Monday of all days with violence and posting the pictures and by claiming on more than one occasion that Orthodoxy and fascism are compatible (if not in concert)  he offered actions and beliefs that ought to be easily understandable and straight forward in their error and they should be objectionable to all true believers as opening up the Church to scandal and error. He is wrong, his public actions post conversion warranted swift action, by - if not his parish priest, then by that priest's bishop. That was done. Given the public nature of Mr. Heimbach's behaviors, a public response was warranted.

The rest of this bickering is senseless and counterproductive.

Seems like its time to move on.....
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 12:44:31 PM by podkarpatska »

Offline methodius

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #507 on: May 06, 2014, 01:04:12 PM »
@ podkarpatska: your last two lines are the most sensible ones I've seen so far.
kyrie eleison

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,553
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #508 on: May 06, 2014, 02:38:39 PM »
If I could come back to this response from last night ...

Maybe this is what's at the heart of the divide between us? I take the moral of the "stone throwing" story from John to be about the stone throwers. You take the moral to be about the woman?

Not saying anyone's wrong or right here -- heck, both views are probably 'right' (whatever 'right' means). It just never ceases to amaze me how the same piece of text can create two very strong, opposing perspectives.

This is an interesting tangent to pursue. 

I don't think the "moral" of John 8.1-11 is "about the woman" as opposed to "the stone throwers".  I think it is about reconciliation--not just "forgiveness", but reconciliation. 

I suppose we could speculate as to how the woman was caught in the very act of adultery by supposedly righteous people (perhaps she was caught in a sting, or spied upon until just the right moment, etc.) and whether it was "right" to expose her, but this doesn't seem to be the focus of the story.  Jesus doesn't say that the way she was apprehended was illegitimate and therefore she needs to be let go whether or not she was guilty.  That the woman was in fact guilty of what she was accused of seems to be taken as a given by all in the story, including Jesus, without any significant consideration of how that knowledge was acquired.   

Sin brings on alienation: when we sin, we find that we have alienated ourselves from God, from one another, and indeed from all creation.  Different sins manifest this alienation in different ways, but nevertheless, we become alienated and isolated.  The woman was alienated from God and from the community by her sin.  That the community recognised this effect of sin was a good thing; where they failed was in regarding her as lost and worthless.  Sin alienates the sinner from the community, but it should not, except under extraordinary circumstances, cause the community to alienate itself from the sinner anymore than it would cause God to abandon the sinner.  Sin requires the community even more to reach out to the sinner and save him.  They forgot they were the sons of Shem in order to act like Ham.  They considered her worthless except as bait to ensnare the Lord.

What Christ does is to call all back to reconciliation.  St John notes that Jesus wrote on the ground at least twice during this incident, but without telling us what was written.  I've read a tradition which says that he was writing the names and secret sins of the accusers: whether that's actually what happened, I don't know.  But by inviting the one without sin to cast the first stone, he manifested at least three things:

1.  He reminded them that all sin effects the alienation of which the woman was a victim, and that they too were in that woman's place, whether they understood it or not.  Now that they are all "in it together", there is no more "us vs. them".  The alienation of the sinner from the community, and vice versa, is abolished, and in its place unity has been restored.
   
2.  He, the only one without sin in that crowd, could have legitimately stoned her, but he did not.  Rather than take her life, he gave it back to her, restored and raised her up with a call to repentance, and sent her back into the community reconciled with it ("Is there no one to condemn you?...Go, and sin no more") and with God ("Neither do I condemn you").  He revealed the mercy of God which doesn't merely cancel a debt but adds funds to the account. 

3.  He has called the woman's accusers to the same repentance.  The woman's sinfulness is also our sinfulness.  The mercy offered to her is also offered to us.  Her acceptance of it can also be ours.   

To understand the "moral" of this story as being exclusively about "the woman" or about "the stone throwers" is to miss the point and to come into conflict with the rest of the Gospels.           
This post gave me autism.

Since when has a Hierarch done anything for you? . . .

Apparently you can get the Juice or Power from a certain Icon.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #509 on: May 06, 2014, 03:08:55 PM »
Perhaps I am missing something, but the entire matter regarding Mr. Heimbach and his public beliefs regarding race and the role of the Church do not seem to require any form of detailed cultural or racial analysis for the Church to conclude that they are in error. By associating the cross on Bright Monday of all days with violence and posting the pictures and by claiming on more than one occasion that Orthodoxy and fascism are compatible (if not in concert)  he offered actions and beliefs that ought to be easily understandable and straight forward in their error and they should be objectionable to all true believers as opening up the Church to scandal and error. He is wrong, his public actions post conversion warranted swift action, by - if not his parish priest, then by that priest's bishop. That was done. Given the public nature of Mr. Heimbach's behaviors, a public response was warranted.

The rest of this bickering is senseless and counterproductive.

Seems like its time to move on.....

Point taken.

If I could come back to this response from last night ...

Maybe this is what's at the heart of the divide between us? I take the moral of the "stone throwing" story from John to be about the stone throwers. You take the moral to be about the woman?

Not saying anyone's wrong or right here -- heck, both views are probably 'right' (whatever 'right' means). It just never ceases to amaze me how the same piece of text can create two very strong, opposing perspectives.

This is an interesting tangent to pursue. 

I don't think the "moral" of John 8.1-11 is "about the woman" as opposed to "the stone throwers".  I think it is about reconciliation--not just "forgiveness", but reconciliation. 

I suppose we could speculate as to how the woman was caught in the very act of adultery by supposedly righteous people (perhaps she was caught in a sting, or spied upon until just the right moment, etc.) and whether it was "right" to expose her, but this doesn't seem to be the focus of the story.  Jesus doesn't say that the way she was apprehended was illegitimate and therefore she needs to be let go whether or not she was guilty.  That the woman was in fact guilty of what she was accused of seems to be taken as a given by all in the story, including Jesus, without any significant consideration of how that knowledge was acquired.   

Sin brings on alienation: when we sin, we find that we have alienated ourselves from God, from one another, and indeed from all creation.  Different sins manifest this alienation in different ways, but nevertheless, we become alienated and isolated.  The woman was alienated from God and from the community by her sin.  That the community recognised this effect of sin was a good thing; where they failed was in regarding her as lost and worthless.  Sin alienates the sinner from the community, but it should not, except under extraordinary circumstances, cause the community to alienate itself from the sinner anymore than it would cause God to abandon the sinner.  Sin requires the community even more to reach out to the sinner and save him.  They forgot they were the sons of Shem in order to act like Ham.  They considered her worthless except as bait to ensnare the Lord.

What Christ does is to call all back to reconciliation.  St John notes that Jesus wrote on the ground at least twice during this incident, but without telling us what was written.  I've read a tradition which says that he was writing the names and secret sins of the accusers: whether that's actually what happened, I don't know.  But by inviting the one without sin to cast the first stone, he manifested at least three things:

1.  He reminded them that all sin effects the alienation of which the woman was a victim, and that they too were in that woman's place, whether they understood it or not.  Now that they are all "in it together", there is no more "us vs. them".  The alienation of the sinner from the community, and vice versa, is abolished, and in its place unity has been restored.
   
2.  He, the only one without sin in that crowd, could have legitimately stoned her, but he did not.  Rather than take her life, he gave it back to her, restored and raised her up with a call to repentance, and sent her back into the community reconciled with it ("Is there no one to condemn you?...Go, and sin no more") and with God ("Neither do I condemn you").  He revealed the mercy of God which doesn't merely cancel a debt but adds funds to the account. 

3.  He has called the woman's accusers to the same repentance.  The woman's sinfulness is also our sinfulness.  The mercy offered to her is also offered to us.  Her acceptance of it can also be ours.   

To understand the "moral" of this story as being exclusively about "the woman" or about "the stone throwers" is to miss the point and to come into conflict with the rest of the Gospels.           

POM ^
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Rambam

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 718
  • Sink me, I can hardly bring myself to look upon it
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #510 on: May 06, 2014, 03:57:31 PM »
Well, that's certainly a mellifluous post. I like simple bullet points, I like to stick with what we see in the text, and I'll try link it back to the Heimbach affair.

- The woman's sin was bad enough to froth up a crowd, and the crowd aimed to kill her. Pharisees gave Jesus the opportunity to condemn the woman. He didn't. Her sin was evidently a public one, she was guilty, and the punishment was death. Even then, Jesus refused to condemn the woman. Would Jesus refuse to condemn Heimbach, whose sins do not carry the death penalty and were less public? (Many of you shouted that the horribleness and publicness of Heimbach's sins were exactly why he should be condemned.)  

- When Jesus persuaded everyone that they were as sinful as the woman, they, too, refused to condemn the woman. I've also heard the bit about the dust -- that he wrote the names and sins of everyone in the crowd. So, if we're all sinners, should we be rushing to condemn Heimbach -- a man who is no more sinful that any of us are? Each week, in our prayers, we call ourselves the 'chief of sinners' -- are we just saying this out of a false sense of humility, or do we mean it? And if we mean it, what right do we have to condemn others? Even Jesus refused to condemn the woman or the men who were about to execute the woman.

- When Jesus and the woman are left together, he again refuses to condemn her -- just tells her to 'go and sin no more.' So, going back to Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus shows, by example, what he says in verse 15, not 16 or 17. Nor did he demand she publicly repent. Her sins was public -- a crowd gathered to kill her in the open. Can't get more public than that, can you? But did Jesus demand public repentance, as many in this forum demanded from Heimbach? No -- he's as gentle as he can be -- "Neither do I condemn thee -- go and sin no more." That's nothing like the message the Church, including all of us, sent to Heimbach.

- Interesting that Jesus wrote in the dust, isn't it? God chose to write in the dust -- and whatever he wrote was swept quickly away and forgotten. But in 2014, his bride, the Church, writes press releases and his brothers and sisters say things like "I want to bash his face in" in public forums. Whether Heimbach eventually repents or not, the press release will always be there and the public furor will always be there, reminding everyone  of his sin, whether 10, 20 or 50 years from now.

I see a lot to admire in this story. It's an example worth following, and it's an example I wished the Church or its members had remembered last week.  

When we rush to judgment and when we throw stones at our brothers and sisters instead of taking care of our own sins ... that is to miss the point and come into conflict with the rest of the Gospels.


If I could come back to this response from last night ...

Maybe this is what's at the heart of the divide between us? I take the moral of the "stone throwing" story from John to be about the stone throwers. You take the moral to be about the woman?

Not saying anyone's wrong or right here -- heck, both views are probably 'right' (whatever 'right' means). It just never ceases to amaze me how the same piece of text can create two very strong, opposing perspectives.

This is an interesting tangent to pursue.  

I don't think the "moral" of John 8.1-11 is "about the woman" as opposed to "the stone throwers".  I think it is about reconciliation--not just "forgiveness", but reconciliation.  

I suppose we could speculate as to how the woman was caught in the very act of adultery by supposedly righteous people (perhaps she was caught in a sting, or spied upon until just the right moment, etc.) and whether it was "right" to expose her, but this doesn't seem to be the focus of the story.  Jesus doesn't say that the way she was apprehended was illegitimate and therefore she needs to be let go whether or not she was guilty.  That the woman was in fact guilty of what she was accused of seems to be taken as a given by all in the story, including Jesus, without any significant consideration of how that knowledge was acquired.    

Sin brings on alienation: when we sin, we find that we have alienated ourselves from God, from one another, and indeed from all creation.  Different sins manifest this alienation in different ways, but nevertheless, we become alienated and isolated.  The woman was alienated from God and from the community by her sin.  That the community recognised this effect of sin was a good thing; where they failed was in regarding her as lost and worthless.  Sin alienates the sinner from the community, but it should not, except under extraordinary circumstances, cause the community to alienate itself from the sinner anymore than it would cause God to abandon the sinner.  Sin requires the community even more to reach out to the sinner and save him.  They forgot they were the sons of Shem in order to act like Ham.  They considered her worthless except as bait to ensnare the Lord.

What Christ does is to call all back to reconciliation.  St John notes that Jesus wrote on the ground at least twice during this incident, but without telling us what was written.  I've read a tradition which says that he was writing the names and secret sins of the accusers: whether that's actually what happened, I don't know.  But by inviting the one without sin to cast the first stone, he manifested at least three things:

1.  He reminded them that all sin effects the alienation of which the woman was a victim, and that they too were in that woman's place, whether they understood it or not.  Now that they are all "in it together", there is no more "us vs. them".  The alienation of the sinner from the community, and vice versa, is abolished, and in its place unity has been restored.
  
2.  He, the only one without sin in that crowd, could have legitimately stoned her, but he did not.  Rather than take her life, he gave it back to her, restored and raised her up with a call to repentance, and sent her back into the community reconciled with it ("Is there no one to condemn you?...Go, and sin no more") and with God ("Neither do I condemn you").  He revealed the mercy of God which doesn't merely cancel a debt but adds funds to the account.  

3.  He has called the woman's accusers to the same repentance.  The woman's sinfulness is also our sinfulness.  The mercy offered to her is also offered to us.  Her acceptance of it can also be ours.  

To understand the "moral" of this story as being exclusively about "the woman" or about "the stone throwers" is to miss the point and to come into conflict with the rest of the Gospels.            
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 03:58:34 PM by Rambam »

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #511 on: May 06, 2014, 04:05:44 PM »
Well, that's certainly a mellifluous post. I like simple bullet points, I like to stick with what we see in the text, and I'll try link it back to the Heimbach affair.

- The woman's sin was bad enough to froth up a crowd, and the crowd aimed to kill her. Pharisees gave Jesus the opportunity to condemn the woman. He didn't. Her sin was evidently a public one, she was guilty, and the punishment was death. Even then, Jesus refused to condemn the woman. Would Jesus refuse to condemn Heimbach, whose sins do not carry the death penalty and were less public? (Many of you shouted that the horribleness and publicness of Heimbach's sins were exactly why he should be condemned.)  

- When Jesus persuaded everyone that they were as sinful as the woman, they, too, refused to condemn the woman. I've also heard the bit about the dust -- that he wrote the names and sins of everyone in the crowd. So, if we're all sinners, should we be rushing to condemn Heimbach -- a man who is no more sinful that any of us are? Each week, in our prayers, we call ourselves the 'chief of sinners' -- are we just saying this out of a false sense of humility, or do we mean it? And if we mean it, what right do we have to condemn others? Even Jesus refused to condemn the woman or the men who were about to execute the woman.

- When Jesus and the woman are left together, he again refuses to condemn her -- just tells her to 'go and sin no more.' So, going back to Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus shows, by example, what he says in verse 15, not 16 or 17. Nor did he demand she publicly repent. Her sins was public -- a crowd gathered to kill her in the open. Can't get more public than that, can you? But did Jesus demand public repentance, as many in this forum demanded from Heimbach? No -- he's as gentle as he can be -- "Neither do I condemn thee -- go and sin no more." That's nothing like the message the Church, including all of us, sent to Heimbach.

- Interesting that Jesus wrote in the dust, isn't it? God chose to write in the dust -- and whatever he wrote was swept quickly away and forgotten. But in 2014, his bride, the Church, writes press releases and his brothers and sisters say things like "I want to bash his face in" in public forums. Whether Heimbach eventually repents or not, the press release will always be there and the public furor will always be there, reminding everyone  of his sin, whether 10, 20 or 50 years from now.

I see a lot to admire in this story. It's an example worth following, and it's an example I wished the Church or its members had remembered last week.  

When we rush to judgment and when we throw stones at our brothers and sisters instead of taking care of our own sins ... that is to miss the point and come into conflict with the rest of the Gospels.


If I could come back to this response from last night ...

Maybe this is what's at the heart of the divide between us? I take the moral of the "stone throwing" story from John to be about the stone throwers. You take the moral to be about the woman?

Not saying anyone's wrong or right here -- heck, both views are probably 'right' (whatever 'right' means). It just never ceases to amaze me how the same piece of text can create two very strong, opposing perspectives.

This is an interesting tangent to pursue.  

I don't think the "moral" of John 8.1-11 is "about the woman" as opposed to "the stone throwers".  I think it is about reconciliation--not just "forgiveness", but reconciliation.  

I suppose we could speculate as to how the woman was caught in the very act of adultery by supposedly righteous people (perhaps she was caught in a sting, or spied upon until just the right moment, etc.) and whether it was "right" to expose her, but this doesn't seem to be the focus of the story.  Jesus doesn't say that the way she was apprehended was illegitimate and therefore she needs to be let go whether or not she was guilty.  That the woman was in fact guilty of what she was accused of seems to be taken as a given by all in the story, including Jesus, without any significant consideration of how that knowledge was acquired.    

Sin brings on alienation: when we sin, we find that we have alienated ourselves from God, from one another, and indeed from all creation.  Different sins manifest this alienation in different ways, but nevertheless, we become alienated and isolated.  The woman was alienated from God and from the community by her sin.  That the community recognised this effect of sin was a good thing; where they failed was in regarding her as lost and worthless.  Sin alienates the sinner from the community, but it should not, except under extraordinary circumstances, cause the community to alienate itself from the sinner anymore than it would cause God to abandon the sinner.  Sin requires the community even more to reach out to the sinner and save him.  They forgot they were the sons of Shem in order to act like Ham.  They considered her worthless except as bait to ensnare the Lord.

What Christ does is to call all back to reconciliation.  St John notes that Jesus wrote on the ground at least twice during this incident, but without telling us what was written.  I've read a tradition which says that he was writing the names and secret sins of the accusers: whether that's actually what happened, I don't know.  But by inviting the one without sin to cast the first stone, he manifested at least three things:

1.  He reminded them that all sin effects the alienation of which the woman was a victim, and that they too were in that woman's place, whether they understood it or not.  Now that they are all "in it together", there is no more "us vs. them".  The alienation of the sinner from the community, and vice versa, is abolished, and in its place unity has been restored.
  
2.  He, the only one without sin in that crowd, could have legitimately stoned her, but he did not.  Rather than take her life, he gave it back to her, restored and raised her up with a call to repentance, and sent her back into the community reconciled with it ("Is there no one to condemn you?...Go, and sin no more") and with God ("Neither do I condemn you").  He revealed the mercy of God which doesn't merely cancel a debt but adds funds to the account.  

3.  He has called the woman's accusers to the same repentance.  The woman's sinfulness is also our sinfulness.  The mercy offered to her is also offered to us.  Her acceptance of it can also be ours.  

To understand the "moral" of this story as being exclusively about "the woman" or about "the stone throwers" is to miss the point and to come into conflict with the rest of the Gospels.            

Are you then an advocate of open communion?

Jesus will forgive everyone, if they repent.  I believe the woman repented. 

Or was John the Baptist out of line?

Offline Rambam

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 718
  • Sink me, I can hardly bring myself to look upon it
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #512 on: May 06, 2014, 04:11:09 PM »
Man, I must be totally unclear for you to think I advocate open communion. "That's not even the same sport!" -- to quote Jules from Pulp Fiction.

Also, the text doesn't say the woman repented. It just doesn't. What the text does say is: 'Jesus said unto her, 'Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.' '

Can't add words to the text, Yury, that's just not playing fair.



Well, that's certainly a mellifluous post. I like simple bullet points, I like to stick with what we see in the text, and I'll try link it back to the Heimbach affair.

- The woman's sin was bad enough to froth up a crowd, and the crowd aimed to kill her. Pharisees gave Jesus the opportunity to condemn the woman. He didn't. Her sin was evidently a public one, she was guilty, and the punishment was death. Even then, Jesus refused to condemn the woman. Would Jesus refuse to condemn Heimbach, whose sins do not carry the death penalty and were less public? (Many of you shouted that the horribleness and publicness of Heimbach's sins were exactly why he should be condemned.)  

- When Jesus persuaded everyone that they were as sinful as the woman, they, too, refused to condemn the woman. I've also heard the bit about the dust -- that he wrote the names and sins of everyone in the crowd. So, if we're all sinners, should we be rushing to condemn Heimbach -- a man who is no more sinful that any of us are? Each week, in our prayers, we call ourselves the 'chief of sinners' -- are we just saying this out of a false sense of humility, or do we mean it? And if we mean it, what right do we have to condemn others? Even Jesus refused to condemn the woman or the men who were about to execute the woman.

- When Jesus and the woman are left together, he again refuses to condemn her -- just tells her to 'go and sin no more.' So, going back to Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus shows, by example, what he says in verse 15, not 16 or 17. Nor did he demand she publicly repent. Her sins was public -- a crowd gathered to kill her in the open. Can't get more public than that, can you? But did Jesus demand public repentance, as many in this forum demanded from Heimbach? No -- he's as gentle as he can be -- "Neither do I condemn thee -- go and sin no more." That's nothing like the message the Church, including all of us, sent to Heimbach.

- Interesting that Jesus wrote in the dust, isn't it? God chose to write in the dust -- and whatever he wrote was swept quickly away and forgotten. But in 2014, his bride, the Church, writes press releases and his brothers and sisters say things like "I want to bash his face in" in public forums. Whether Heimbach eventually repents or not, the press release will always be there and the public furor will always be there, reminding everyone  of his sin, whether 10, 20 or 50 years from now.

I see a lot to admire in this story. It's an example worth following, and it's an example I wished the Church or its members had remembered last week.  

When we rush to judgment and when we throw stones at our brothers and sisters instead of taking care of our own sins ... that is to miss the point and come into conflict with the rest of the Gospels.


If I could come back to this response from last night ...

Maybe this is what's at the heart of the divide between us? I take the moral of the "stone throwing" story from John to be about the stone throwers. You take the moral to be about the woman?

Not saying anyone's wrong or right here -- heck, both views are probably 'right' (whatever 'right' means). It just never ceases to amaze me how the same piece of text can create two very strong, opposing perspectives.

This is an interesting tangent to pursue.  

I don't think the "moral" of John 8.1-11 is "about the woman" as opposed to "the stone throwers".  I think it is about reconciliation--not just "forgiveness", but reconciliation.  

I suppose we could speculate as to how the woman was caught in the very act of adultery by supposedly righteous people (perhaps she was caught in a sting, or spied upon until just the right moment, etc.) and whether it was "right" to expose her, but this doesn't seem to be the focus of the story.  Jesus doesn't say that the way she was apprehended was illegitimate and therefore she needs to be let go whether or not she was guilty.  That the woman was in fact guilty of what she was accused of seems to be taken as a given by all in the story, including Jesus, without any significant consideration of how that knowledge was acquired.    

Sin brings on alienation: when we sin, we find that we have alienated ourselves from God, from one another, and indeed from all creation.  Different sins manifest this alienation in different ways, but nevertheless, we become alienated and isolated.  The woman was alienated from God and from the community by her sin.  That the community recognised this effect of sin was a good thing; where they failed was in regarding her as lost and worthless.  Sin alienates the sinner from the community, but it should not, except under extraordinary circumstances, cause the community to alienate itself from the sinner anymore than it would cause God to abandon the sinner.  Sin requires the community even more to reach out to the sinner and save him.  They forgot they were the sons of Shem in order to act like Ham.  They considered her worthless except as bait to ensnare the Lord.

What Christ does is to call all back to reconciliation.  St John notes that Jesus wrote on the ground at least twice during this incident, but without telling us what was written.  I've read a tradition which says that he was writing the names and secret sins of the accusers: whether that's actually what happened, I don't know.  But by inviting the one without sin to cast the first stone, he manifested at least three things:

1.  He reminded them that all sin effects the alienation of which the woman was a victim, and that they too were in that woman's place, whether they understood it or not.  Now that they are all "in it together", there is no more "us vs. them".  The alienation of the sinner from the community, and vice versa, is abolished, and in its place unity has been restored.
  
2.  He, the only one without sin in that crowd, could have legitimately stoned her, but he did not.  Rather than take her life, he gave it back to her, restored and raised her up with a call to repentance, and sent her back into the community reconciled with it ("Is there no one to condemn you?...Go, and sin no more") and with God ("Neither do I condemn you").  He revealed the mercy of God which doesn't merely cancel a debt but adds funds to the account.  

3.  He has called the woman's accusers to the same repentance.  The woman's sinfulness is also our sinfulness.  The mercy offered to her is also offered to us.  Her acceptance of it can also be ours.  

To understand the "moral" of this story as being exclusively about "the woman" or about "the stone throwers" is to miss the point and to come into conflict with the rest of the Gospels.            

Are you then an advocate of open communion?

Jesus will forgive everyone, if they repent.  I believe the woman repented. 

Or was John the Baptist out of line?

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #513 on: May 06, 2014, 04:15:04 PM »
Man, I must be totally unclear for you to think I advocate open communion. "That's not even the same sport!" -- to quote Jules from Pulp Fiction.

Also, the text doesn't say the woman repented. It just doesn't. What the text does say is: 'Jesus said unto her, 'Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.' '

Can't add words to the text, Yury, that's just not playing fair.



Well, that's certainly a mellifluous post. I like simple bullet points, I like to stick with what we see in the text, and I'll try link it back to the Heimbach affair.

- The woman's sin was bad enough to froth up a crowd, and the crowd aimed to kill her. Pharisees gave Jesus the opportunity to condemn the woman. He didn't. Her sin was evidently a public one, she was guilty, and the punishment was death. Even then, Jesus refused to condemn the woman. Would Jesus refuse to condemn Heimbach, whose sins do not carry the death penalty and were less public? (Many of you shouted that the horribleness and publicness of Heimbach's sins were exactly why he should be condemned.)  

- When Jesus persuaded everyone that they were as sinful as the woman, they, too, refused to condemn the woman. I've also heard the bit about the dust -- that he wrote the names and sins of everyone in the crowd. So, if we're all sinners, should we be rushing to condemn Heimbach -- a man who is no more sinful that any of us are? Each week, in our prayers, we call ourselves the 'chief of sinners' -- are we just saying this out of a false sense of humility, or do we mean it? And if we mean it, what right do we have to condemn others? Even Jesus refused to condemn the woman or the men who were about to execute the woman.

- When Jesus and the woman are left together, he again refuses to condemn her -- just tells her to 'go and sin no more.' So, going back to Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus shows, by example, what he says in verse 15, not 16 or 17. Nor did he demand she publicly repent. Her sins was public -- a crowd gathered to kill her in the open. Can't get more public than that, can you? But did Jesus demand public repentance, as many in this forum demanded from Heimbach? No -- he's as gentle as he can be -- "Neither do I condemn thee -- go and sin no more." That's nothing like the message the Church, including all of us, sent to Heimbach.

- Interesting that Jesus wrote in the dust, isn't it? God chose to write in the dust -- and whatever he wrote was swept quickly away and forgotten. But in 2014, his bride, the Church, writes press releases and his brothers and sisters say things like "I want to bash his face in" in public forums. Whether Heimbach eventually repents or not, the press release will always be there and the public furor will always be there, reminding everyone  of his sin, whether 10, 20 or 50 years from now.

I see a lot to admire in this story. It's an example worth following, and it's an example I wished the Church or its members had remembered last week.  

When we rush to judgment and when we throw stones at our brothers and sisters instead of taking care of our own sins ... that is to miss the point and come into conflict with the rest of the Gospels.


If I could come back to this response from last night ...

Maybe this is what's at the heart of the divide between us? I take the moral of the "stone throwing" story from John to be about the stone throwers. You take the moral to be about the woman?

Not saying anyone's wrong or right here -- heck, both views are probably 'right' (whatever 'right' means). It just never ceases to amaze me how the same piece of text can create two very strong, opposing perspectives.

This is an interesting tangent to pursue.  

I don't think the "moral" of John 8.1-11 is "about the woman" as opposed to "the stone throwers".  I think it is about reconciliation--not just "forgiveness", but reconciliation.  

I suppose we could speculate as to how the woman was caught in the very act of adultery by supposedly righteous people (perhaps she was caught in a sting, or spied upon until just the right moment, etc.) and whether it was "right" to expose her, but this doesn't seem to be the focus of the story.  Jesus doesn't say that the way she was apprehended was illegitimate and therefore she needs to be let go whether or not she was guilty.  That the woman was in fact guilty of what she was accused of seems to be taken as a given by all in the story, including Jesus, without any significant consideration of how that knowledge was acquired.    

Sin brings on alienation: when we sin, we find that we have alienated ourselves from God, from one another, and indeed from all creation.  Different sins manifest this alienation in different ways, but nevertheless, we become alienated and isolated.  The woman was alienated from God and from the community by her sin.  That the community recognised this effect of sin was a good thing; where they failed was in regarding her as lost and worthless.  Sin alienates the sinner from the community, but it should not, except under extraordinary circumstances, cause the community to alienate itself from the sinner anymore than it would cause God to abandon the sinner.  Sin requires the community even more to reach out to the sinner and save him.  They forgot they were the sons of Shem in order to act like Ham.  They considered her worthless except as bait to ensnare the Lord.

What Christ does is to call all back to reconciliation.  St John notes that Jesus wrote on the ground at least twice during this incident, but without telling us what was written.  I've read a tradition which says that he was writing the names and secret sins of the accusers: whether that's actually what happened, I don't know.  But by inviting the one without sin to cast the first stone, he manifested at least three things:

1.  He reminded them that all sin effects the alienation of which the woman was a victim, and that they too were in that woman's place, whether they understood it or not.  Now that they are all "in it together", there is no more "us vs. them".  The alienation of the sinner from the community, and vice versa, is abolished, and in its place unity has been restored.
  
2.  He, the only one without sin in that crowd, could have legitimately stoned her, but he did not.  Rather than take her life, he gave it back to her, restored and raised her up with a call to repentance, and sent her back into the community reconciled with it ("Is there no one to condemn you?...Go, and sin no more") and with God ("Neither do I condemn you").  He revealed the mercy of God which doesn't merely cancel a debt but adds funds to the account.  

3.  He has called the woman's accusers to the same repentance.  The woman's sinfulness is also our sinfulness.  The mercy offered to her is also offered to us.  Her acceptance of it can also be ours.  

To understand the "moral" of this story as being exclusively about "the woman" or about "the stone throwers" is to miss the point and to come into conflict with the rest of the Gospels.            

Are you then an advocate of open communion?

Jesus will forgive everyone, if they repent.  I believe the woman repented. 

Or was John the Baptist out of line?

I think one follows from the other.  Let's not debate.   How do the fathers interpret this passage?   Surely Chrysostom preached on it.  Are there any hymns commemorating this woman?  What do they say?

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #514 on: May 06, 2014, 04:23:07 PM »
Don't search too hard.  This passage is now believed to have been part of the oral tradition which was interpolated into Johns written gospel later.  Apparently no eastern father commented on it before the twelfth century in their scriptural exegesis.  So we have to find other parts of tradition to hopefully explain it.  

The Apostolic Constitutions of the Fourth Century does reference it, in Book 2, section 24, entitled "Repentance."   It is given as one example among many in how Christ treated repentant sinners, and exhorts bishops to do likewise. 

So I think the implication that she repented was key to these fathers although it didn't get expressly put into the text when the tradition, which may well have originally been taught by St. John, was later transcribed into the text of his gospel. 
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 04:28:26 PM by Yurysprudentsiya »

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,553
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #515 on: May 06, 2014, 04:31:33 PM »
Would Jesus refuse to condemn Heimbach, whose sins do not carry the death penalty and were less public? (Many of you shouted that the horribleness and publicness of Heimbach's sins were exactly why he should be condemned.)  

What sins of Heimbach?

Quote
- When Jesus persuaded everyone that they were as sinful as the woman, they, too, refused to condemn the woman. I've also heard the bit about the dust -- that he wrote the names and sins of everyone in the crowd. So, if we're all sinners, should we be rushing to condemn Heimbach -- a man who is no more sinful that any of us are? Each week, in our prayers, we call ourselves the 'chief of sinners' -- are we just saying this out of a false sense of humility, or do we mean it? And if we mean it, what right do we have to condemn others? Even Jesus refused to condemn the woman or the men who were about to execute the woman.

I don't know who in this thread is "condemning" Heimbach.  There's plenty of condemnation of his false teachings which he presumed to teach in the name of the Church, but I don't see condemnation of Heimbach himself unless we're no longer allowed to believe in the notion of truth.

Christ never condemned sinners who were ready and willing to repent once called to repentance.  He had plenty of criticism, harsh words, correction, judgement, and condemnation for false teachers.     

Quote
- When Jesus and the woman are left together, he again refuses to condemn her -- just tells her to 'go and sin no more.' So, going back to Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus shows, by example, what he says in verse 15, not 16 or 17. Nor did he demand she publicly repent. Her sins was public -- a crowd gathered to kill her in the open. Can't get more public than that, can you? But did Jesus demand public repentance, as many in this forum demanded from Heimbach? No -- he's as gentle as he can be -- "Neither do I condemn thee -- go and sin no more." That's nothing like the message the Church, including all of us, sent to Heimbach.

What does "public repentance" mean to you?  I don't think the Church or anyone else asked for Heimbach to have to wear a scarlet letter H(eretic), sit outside the church and be spit upon while asking for the prayers of the worshipers, do three hundred prostrations a day and eat dry foods once a day, etc.?  All that was asked, AFAIK, was a public repudiation of heretical beliefs.  I don't think that's too harsh in a Church which calls itself "Orthodox".  Why do you? 

"Go and sin no more" is itself the primary form of "public repentance".  That's not the same as "public suffering", "shame", "bloodlust", or whatever other crazy ideas you have substituted in its place.   

Quote
- Interesting that Jesus wrote in the dust, isn't it? God chose to write in the dust -- and whatever he wrote was swept quickly away and forgotten. But in 2014, his bride, the Church, writes press releases and his brothers and sisters say things like "I want to bash his face in" in public forums. Whether Heimbach eventually repents or not, the press release will always be there and the public furor will always be there, reminding everyone  of his sin, whether 10, 20 or 50 years from now.

Though you and I have heard similar interpretations of the dust-writing, the Gospel is silent about what it was except to mention that it happened.  So I'm not sure how useful it is to pick an interpretation and run with it as if it is the only possible interpretation.

The Church didn't need the internet to record bad things.  We have in all four Gospels the betrayal of Judas.  Was the Holy Spirit a big meanie for inspiring the four Evangelists to include that?  Or is it possible that "remembering bad things" can at times be a good thing?   

That the internet never forgets is not just a challenge for members of the Church in terms of forgiving those who repent and not resurrecting the past, but it is also a challenge to her members not to be jerks.  Maybe what the omniscience of God couldn't scare out of us can be shooed away by our fear of Youtube.   

Quote
I see a lot to admire in this story. It's an example worth following, and it's an example I wished the Church or its members had remembered last week.  

When we rush to judgment and when we throw stones at our brothers and sisters instead of taking care of our own sins ... that is to miss the point and come into conflict with the rest of the Gospels.

You presume to know the hearts of those whose condemnation of Heimbach's ideas you oppose.  You fall under your own curse. 
This post gave me autism.

Since when has a Hierarch done anything for you? . . .

Apparently you can get the Juice or Power from a certain Icon.

Offline Rambam

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 718
  • Sink me, I can hardly bring myself to look upon it
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #516 on: May 06, 2014, 04:32:49 PM »
Good find, Yury! I didn't know any of that. Thanks.

Don't search too hard.  This passage is now believed to have been part of the oral tradition which was interpolated into Johns written gospel later.  Apparently no eastern father commented on it before the twelfth century in their scriptural exegesis.  So we have to find other parts of tradition to hopefully explain it.  

The Apostolic Constitutions of the Fourth Century does reference it, in Book 2, section 24, entitled "Repentance."   It is given as one example among many in how Christ treated repentant sinners, and exhorts bishops to do likewise. 

So I think the implication that she repented was key to these fathers although it didn't get expressly put into the text when the tradition, which may well have originally been taught by St. John, was later transcribed into the text of his gospel. 

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #517 on: May 07, 2014, 12:19:34 AM »
Some ad hominems have been flying around.  I'm letting this one go, especially for two posters that have been going back and forth, but another ad hominem and I'll start giving warnings.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #518 on: May 07, 2014, 05:40:27 AM »
I love white people.  God was having a great day when he made white people.  It was only because of his faithfulness to King David that he sent his Son as a non-white.  Otherwise you know he wanted to be white.  Who doesn't?  White people are awesome.  I love white people.  Everyone else should love white people too.  

FALSE.  EVERYONE NOES THAT KING DAVID WAS NORSE. OTHERWISE, HOW WOULD JESUS LOOK LIKE THIS?



No one here on this forum or anywhere else KNOWS (not noes) exactly what Christ's physical features were.


The Roman Empire  was very a diverse entity at that point, yes there were parts that were more homogenous than others like Germania and some  of  the other isolated provinces, but Palestine was a crossroads for a variety of races and ethnicites, the Jews themselves had intermingled many times with the Gentiles throughout the centuries at that point, so no one can say for sure if some had a "Nordic" look or not. Remember, if you know your biblical history, Abraham the father of the Jews was not even from the Holy Land, he was an Iraqi or from that part of SW Asia in which many waves of them tribes migrated west past the Steppes into the heartland of Europe and perhaps northward from there, we're talking thousands of years ago, so who knows?

But one thing for sure, you can't with certainty  eliminate the possiblity that Jesus had lighter and fairer features, the bible even mentions in the O.T. about David having what we would consider "white" features and I have heard even from some ancient Hebrew commentaries about Moses striking physical features with piercing blue eyes and lighter hair.I think some of the ancient Hebrews did have some "nordic" type features and some others were very dark, I have no problem with that either way. but to say none were "white" is being ignorant of history and intellectually dishonest.
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #519 on: May 07, 2014, 09:36:25 AM »
The Roman Empire  was very a diverse entity at that point, yes there were parts that were more homogenous than others like Germania and some  of  the other isolated provinces, but Palestine was a crossroads for a variety of races and ethnicites, the Jews themselves had intermingled many times with the Gentiles throughout the centuries at that point, so no one can say for sure if some had a "Nordic" look or not.

It's true that the Roman Empire was very diverse and that Palestine was a cultural crossroads.  It's also true that the Hebrews had intermingled with a variety of local civilizations during the course of their history.  That said, I think it's far more likely that most of the societies with which they intermingled were of local Semitic and other Mediterranean stock.  I'm not completely disallowing the possibility that there was the odd Germanic slave or other straggler in there somewhere, but I'd hardly say that was a common thing.  I think it's much more probable that - next to Asiatic and Mediterranean stock - Africans were more numerous in the region.

The Bible itself - as well as other historical sources - attest that the Egyptians maintained large Nubian (alternatively designated "Ethiopian" or "Kushite") mercenary garrisons in Palestine in their wars against the Hyksos, the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Chaldeans and other regional powers.  And during the 25th Dynasty, Taharqa and other black kings ruling Egypt also maintained a formidible presence in Palestine.


Remember, if you know your biblical history, Abraham the father of the Jews was not even from the Holy Land, he was an Iraqi or from that part of SW Asia in which many waves of them tribes migrated west past the Steppes into the heartland of Europe and perhaps northward from there, we're talking thousands of years ago, so who knows?

The ancient homeland of the Hebrews and all Semites was ultimately the Arabian peninsula from which they wandered into Mesopotamia (Iraq).  The Indo-European tribes (which were themselves likely more akin to modern Persians than modern Swedes) didn't migrate into Mesopotamia until centuries later.

But one thing for sure, you can't with certainty  eliminate the possiblity that Jesus had lighter and fairer features, the bible even mentions in the O.T. about David having what we would consider "white" features and I have heard even from some ancient Hebrew commentaries about Moses striking physical features with piercing blue eyes and lighter hair.I think some of the ancient Hebrews did have some "nordic" type features and some others were very dark, I have no problem with that either way. but to say none were "white" is being ignorant of history and intellectually dishonest.

King David is described as "red" or "ruddy", a term still used in Ethiopia, Eritrea and other parts of Northern Africa to describe Middle Eastern or other people who are lighter than Africans but still not altogether white.

You're right to say that we can't rule out the remote possibility that Christ had some "Nordic" features, but there's a greater probability that He had some features some today might identify as "black" since there was a greater African presence in Southwest Asia than a Northern European presence at the time.  In other words, there's a better chance He looked like these ancient mosaics and icons than like those Nordic images previously posted:





We should also remember that His genealogy contained several Gentiles, embracing completely the lineage of Ham, Shem, and Japheth, in other words, the whole of humanity.

All that said, however, if I were a betting man, I'd say He probably looked more like Ahmed Helmy than Brad Pitt or Don Cheadle.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #520 on: May 07, 2014, 10:42:26 AM »
The bread we use for the Bloodless Sacrifice is white. Case closed.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #521 on: May 07, 2014, 10:50:26 AM »
The bread we use for the Bloodless Sacrifice is white. Case closed.

Funny!  ;D

The sad part is, some people would take you seriously though.

"Yeah, I don't see any pumpernickel up there on the altar!" lol
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 10:53:29 AM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,642
  • You're my guardian angel hiding in the woods
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #522 on: May 07, 2014, 11:15:50 AM »
The bread we use for the Bloodless Sacrifice is white. Case closed.

Funny!  ;D

The sad part is, some people would take you seriously though.

"Yeah, I don't see any pumpernickel up there on the altar!" lol

Mmmm, I could go for a pumpernickel bagel.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #523 on: May 07, 2014, 12:01:37 PM »
Mmmm, I could go for a pumpernickel bagel.

Judaizer!  ;)
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,642
  • You're my guardian angel hiding in the woods
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #524 on: May 07, 2014, 12:39:45 PM »
Mmmm, I could go for a pumpernickel bagel.

Judaizer!  ;)

Toasted and with some butter. 
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline methodius

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #525 on: May 07, 2014, 01:16:09 PM »
Must the prosphora be white flour - say as opposed  to unbleached A/P flour (not bread flour)
kyrie eleison

Offline Marc1152

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,838
  • Probiotic .. Antibiotic
  • Jurisdiction: Rocor
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #526 on: May 07, 2014, 03:22:55 PM »
I love white people.  God was having a great day when he made white people.  It was only because of his faithfulness to King David that he sent his Son as a non-white.  Otherwise you know he wanted to be white.  Who doesn't?  White people are awesome.  I love white people.  Everyone else should love white people too.  

It was only because of his faithfulness to King David that he sent his Son as a non-white.

Full stop.

What?
Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,553
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #527 on: May 07, 2014, 04:48:43 PM »
I love white people.  God was having a great day when he made white people.  It was only because of his faithfulness to King David that he sent his Son as a non-white.  Otherwise you know he wanted to be white.  Who doesn't?  White people are awesome.  I love white people.  Everyone else should love white people too.  

It was only because of his faithfulness to King David that he sent his Son as a non-white.

Full stop.

What?

What exactly are you confused about? 
This post gave me autism.

Since when has a Hierarch done anything for you? . . .

Apparently you can get the Juice or Power from a certain Icon.

Offline rakovsky

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,146
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #528 on: May 07, 2014, 05:01:53 PM »
The bread we use for the Bloodless Sacrifice is white. Case closed.
It's golden tan.



Same color:

I have no idea what that says. Please translate.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 05:05:01 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,553
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #529 on: May 07, 2014, 05:04:30 PM »
The bread we use for the Bloodless Sacrifice is white. Case closed.
It's golden tan like a Palestinian.



That looks more like an American with a bad spray-on tan than a golden Palestinian. 
This post gave me autism.

Since when has a Hierarch done anything for you? . . .

Apparently you can get the Juice or Power from a certain Icon.

Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,829
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #530 on: May 07, 2014, 05:17:29 PM »
The bread we use for the Bloodless Sacrifice is white. Case closed.
It's golden tan like a Palestinian.



That looks more like an American with a bad spray-on tan than a golden Palestinian. 

Or a Japanese ganguro girl.


Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,553
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #531 on: May 07, 2014, 05:23:35 PM »
Or a Japanese ganguro girl.



I wish I never saw that.  In one second, it destroyed every positive stereotype of Japanese women I ever had. 
This post gave me autism.

Since when has a Hierarch done anything for you? . . .

Apparently you can get the Juice or Power from a certain Icon.

Offline rakovsky

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,146
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #532 on: May 07, 2014, 05:42:38 PM »
The bread we use for the Bloodless Sacrifice is white. Case closed.
It's golden tan.



Same color:

I have no idea what that says.
Please translate?
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,553
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #533 on: May 07, 2014, 05:54:42 PM »
Please translate?

Top, from right to left: Jesus Christ
Bottom, from right to left: Christ of the Desert/Wilderness
This post gave me autism.

Since when has a Hierarch done anything for you? . . .

Apparently you can get the Juice or Power from a certain Icon.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,624
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #534 on: May 07, 2014, 06:57:39 PM »
I love white people.  God was having a great day when he made white people.  It was only because of his faithfulness to King David that he sent his Son as a non-white.  Otherwise you know he wanted to be white.  Who doesn't?  White people are awesome.  I love white people.  Everyone else should love white people too.  

FALSE.  EVERYONE NOES THAT KING DAVID WAS NORSE. OTHERWISE, HOW WOULD JESUS LOOK LIKE THIS?



No one here on this forum or anywhere else KNOWS (not noes) exactly what Christ's physical features were.


The Roman Empire  was very a diverse entity at that point, yes there were parts that were more homogenous than others like Germania and some  of  the other isolated provinces, but Palestine was a crossroads for a variety of races and ethnicites, the Jews themselves had intermingled many times with the Gentiles throughout the centuries at that point, so no one can say for sure if some had a "Nordic" look or not. Remember, if you know your biblical history, Abraham the father of the Jews was not even from the Holy Land, he was an Iraqi or from that part of SW Asia in which many waves of them tribes migrated west past the Steppes into the heartland of Europe and perhaps northward from there, we're talking thousands of years ago, so who knows?

But one thing for sure, you can't with certainty  eliminate the possiblity that Jesus had lighter and fairer features, the bible even mentions in the O.T. about David having what we would consider "white" features and I have heard even from some ancient Hebrew commentaries about Moses striking physical features with piercing blue eyes and lighter hair.I think some of the ancient Hebrews did have some "nordic" type features and some others were very dark, I have no problem with that either way. but to say none were "white" is being ignorant of history and intellectually dishonest.

The iconographic record for Christ is overwhelmingly consistent: dark brown hair, dark  brown beard, and, in the main, dark eyes. Your attempt to "aryanize" Christ is sickening.  >:(
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 06:58:28 PM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #535 on: May 07, 2014, 07:10:09 PM »
I believe in the Shroud of Turin.   I believe that it is the burial cloth of Our Lord and that it is the original Icon of Christ Made Not With Hands.  I believe that it went through Edessa to Constantinople and was plundered by the Crusaders.  I believe the Templars acquired it and when they were accused of worshipping a cloth during their suppression, it was the shroud.  I believe that the Carbon tests are inaccurate because they were taken from a repaired fragment; the cloth has been through at least one fire.

3-D Reconstruction of the face on the cloth presents a typical bearded Semitic man such as we might picture inhabited Roman Palestine in the 1st century.  Isaiah says in chapter 53 that he had no stately form or comeliness, nothing by which we would be drawn to Him. 

Our Lord was a common Palestinian Jew in appearance.  This I firmly believe.   But while interesting, what difference does it make?  He is above our feeble ideologies.  In Him is all humanity.  And divinity.  Would his physical features, if different, make you esteem Him more or less?  Than it is your ideology, not his appearance, which is deficient. 

DNA now proves that we are an endless string of combinations of our ancestors.  White skin selected from colder climates and probably descends independently from a host of migrants who were not closely related and whose descendants intermarried.  It signifies nothing genetically.  It is bound by no common culture nor heritage.  Pushkin was as much a Russian as Dostoevsky, no?   And Dumas as much a Frenchman as Hugo, no?

Race is only a concept to justify repressing a group of people based upon a narrow migratory origin.  African Americans probably have more in common with their European American kinsmen (yes, kinsmen) than they do with black or white inhabitants of the African continent.   Such generalizations about race, as if it defined anything or explained anything, are silly. 


Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,788
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #536 on: May 07, 2014, 07:18:24 PM »
Or a Japanese ganguro girl.



I wish I never saw that.  In one second, it destroyed every positive stereotype of Japanese women I ever had. 

Lord have mercy! Oompa Loompas!
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #537 on: May 07, 2014, 07:36:17 PM »
The iconographic record for Christ is overwhelmingly consistent: dark brown hair, dark  brown beard, and, in the main, dark eyes. Your attempt to "aryanize" Christ is sickening.  >:(

+1

I believe in the Shroud of Turin.   I believe that it is the burial cloth of Our Lord and that it is the original Icon of Christ Made Not With Hands.  I believe that it went through Edessa to Constantinople and was plundered by the Crusaders.  I believe the Templars acquired it and when they were accused of worshipping a cloth during their suppression, it was the shroud.  I believe that the Carbon tests are inaccurate because they were taken from a repaired fragment; the cloth has been through at least one fire.

3-D Reconstruction of the face on the cloth presents a typical bearded Semitic man such as we might picture inhabited Roman Palestine in the 1st century.  Isaiah says in chapter 53 that he had no stately form or comeliness, nothing by which we would be drawn to Him.  

Our Lord was a common Palestinian Jew in appearance.  This I firmly believe.   But while interesting, what difference does it make?  He is above our feeble ideologies.  In Him is all humanity.  And divinity.  Would his physical features, if different, make you esteem Him more or less?  Than it is your ideology, not his appearance, which is deficient.  

DNA now proves that we are an endless string of combinations of our ancestors.  White skin selected from colder climates and probably descends independently from a host of migrants who were not closely related and whose descendants intermarried.  It signifies nothing genetically.  It is bound by no common culture nor heritage.  Pushkin was as much a Russian as Dostoevsky, no?   And Dumas as much a Frenchman as Hugo, no?

Race is only a concept to justify repressing a group of people based upon a narrow migratory origin.  African Americans probably have more in common with their European American kinsmen (yes, kinsmen) than they do with black or white inhabitants of the African continent.   Such generalizations about race, as if it defined anything or explained anything, are silly.  


Amen to every single point, Yury.  Fantastic post.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 07:38:43 PM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #538 on: May 07, 2014, 07:45:34 PM »
12 pages discussing a non-issue.

Welcome to oc.net.

Bottom line: Br. Nathanael > Reactionary Round Wonder, no matter how many posters here Heimat speaks for.

Once Heimat gets me rolling on the floor in laughter, I'll care, till then, I'm tuning into to Br. Nate for my dose of odox hate.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Matthew Heimbach - the next Brother Nathanael?
« Reply #539 on: May 07, 2014, 07:51:04 PM »
12 pages discussing a non-issue.

Welcome to oc.net.

Bottom line: Br. Nathanael > Reactionary Round Wonder, no matter how many posters here Heimat speaks for.

Once Heimat gets me rolling on the floor in laughter, I'll care, till then, I'm tuning into to Br. Nate for my dose of odox hate.
Doesn't this sum up most threads on oc.net?  :D
God bless!