2,929 reputation
52566
bio website
location Taiwan
age
visits member for 4 years
seen 46 mins ago

I often chose best answers not because they are the best, but because I have to choose a best answer. Please, don't take offense to it.


May
11
comment How do Protestants explain the incorruptibility of Catholic and Orthodox saints?
"To attribute this condition to a particular level of piety in certain individuals on the one hand, but to seek to explain it via naturalistic processes in cases like Otzi the Iceman on the other, would seem to require no small measure of logical inconsistency" - Isn't Otzi preserved thanks to the ice? The cases that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics point out are the cases, in which - at least, as they claim - the saints' bodies didn't decay (didn't fully decay) without any such "help" like ice or salt or anything similar to that.
May
11
comment How do Protestants explain the incorruptibility of Catholic and Orthodox saints?
"To apply to a dead body ... the term "incorrupt" is a serious perversion" - They don't mean to say that those not fully decomposed relics of the saints' dead bodies are in the state of that incorruptibility that pertains solely to the resurrected bodies as described in 1 Corinthians 15. They just point out the fact of having unusual cases, in which, unlike in other cases with other dead bodies, some of their saints' bodies don't fully decay. They consider it to be a miracle - just like other miracles - and repetitively say that protestants don't have such miracles.
May
9
comment How do Protestants explain the incorruptibility of Catholic and Orthodox saints?
"its Elisha's bones in the sepulchre, not an uncorrupted body" - In fact, the word "relics" (when speaking about the dead bodies of the dead saints) in the early centuries of Christianity - well, at least, I can say that for the Eastern Christianity - always meant only the bones (perhaps, hair and nails), but never the flesh. They started meaning "not decomposed pieces of flesh or skin" by the word "relic" much much later.
May
9
comment How do Protestants explain the incorruptibility of Catholic and Orthodox saints?
"What is the basis of belief in incorruptibility of saints in Eastern Orthodoxy anyway?" - Besides the versus you site, they also quote 2Ki 13:21 saying that any miracle that is present with the dead body of a person is somehow indicative of that person's being close to God or having his service to God during his life course been approved by God.
May
7
comment What do the Apologists mean by three persons as “one in nature” if the Son and Spirit are not eternal?
"I totally believe that there exists an eternal Triad: Father, Son and Spirit" - Then the next step must be all the more easy: only God is eternal - if there is anyone who used to be not existing, then that one is a creature and not God. Now, Bible clearly states many times that there exists only One God. Hence, if Those Three are all eternal, and only God is eternal, and there is only One God, summing up these three prepositions in one syllogism, we come to the conclusion that Those Three are One God. Consequently, their nature is divine, i.e. that of God, not of creation.
May
7
comment What do the Apologists mean by three persons as “one in nature” if the Son and Spirit are not eternal?
"was born" doesn't mean "began to exist". In fact, it's exactly when we talk about the "nature, essence and substance" that we can claim that ALL Three are Eternal, and ALL Three are ONE and the Same God. Being Father, that is, the divine Fatherhood, is neither the essence, nor the substance; being the Son, that is, the divine Sonship, is neither the essence, nor the substance. That's why it is okay to say that Father is distinct from the Son, and the Son is distinct fromthe Father. And why on earth the Spirit is not eternal?! The Bible says clearly that the Spirit is eternal (Heb. 9:14).
Apr
16
comment Was Adam mortal before he partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
Ah! I got it now. Thank you!
Apr
15
comment Was Adam mortal before he partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
@Flimzy "Adam never existed, and the story is a metaphor" - Do you claim this to be possible within the context of the Bible or outside of it?
Apr
14
comment Was Adam mortal before he partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
"...his disobedience was according to the Bible" - What do you mean by this last phrase in your answer?
Apr
13
comment Why did God need to plant the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden in the first place?
So, the question is still there: Why on earth He needed to plant that dangerous tree in the garden?
Apr
10
comment How do we know that Satan, Lucifer, and Devil are the same guy?
How can we be sure that what Jesus says in Mark 10:18 refers to what is described in Isaiah 14:12?
Mar
19
comment Why did God hide away the fact that He had the Son in the Old Testament times?
@user1361315 - "Read Luke 1:1, he is claiming to give his full account" - Sure, and you do need to give a full attention to his account, that is, to read the continuation of that account - the book of Acts (Acts 1:1), in which among other things he mentions that early followers of Jesus were praying to Jesus.
Mar
19
comment Why did God hide away the fact that He had the Son in the Old Testament times?
@user1361315 - "Meaning if Mathew was with Jesus, and he is writing his account of his life, it is kind of important to mention something like: "Oh by the way, he is God in the flesh and part of the trinity"" - Matthew's putting God, Son and the Holy Spirit on the same level in the very end of his gospel is the clear indication of the equality of the Three. Ironically, unlike Mark and Luke, both Matthew and John were with Jesus.
Mar
19
comment Why did God hide away the fact that He had the Son in the Old Testament times?
@user1361315 - "Why doesn't Mark say these things, its kind of important no?" - So, just because Mark doesn't mention this, you are about to discard what John mentions?!!! No book of the Bible contains the whole Bible, you know.
Mar
19
comment Why did God hide away the fact that He had the Son in the Old Testament times?
@user1361315 - "How can David be begotten, and then Jesus be the ONLY begotten" - It's just so simple: The ONLY begotten in the divinity, not in humanity. Bible says that God has many sons, however, all those many sons are not divine, not equal to God, and Bible says that God has ONLY One, that is, the only begotten Son who is divine and equal to God.
Mar
18
comment Why did God hide away the fact that He had the Son in the Old Testament times?
@user1361315 - "Sure, but David was also begotten" - Sure, but David has never been the ONLY-begotten and has never been considered as equal to God or at least making himself equal to God. Jesus, however, was. See my reply to you above.
Mar
18
comment Why did God hide away the fact that He had the Son in the Old Testament times?
@user1361315 - "Lord is a respectable person, so is the term "son of god" - Please read my reply to your comment above.
Mar
18
comment What “new-to-protestants” things has the Eastern Orthodox Church acquired with time?
@curiousdannii - "Do things which are shared by the Roman Catholic church count" - Sure. Of course, they also count.
Mar
18
comment What “new-to-protestants” things has the Eastern Orthodox Church acquired with time?
@Daи - All right. I will unaccept it for now and will wait for some more answers.
Mar
16
comment What “new-to-protestants” things has the Eastern Orthodox Church acquired with time?
@Daи - "The current answer is abysmal and does not answer the question. I'm not even sure why it was accepted" - I accepted this question because once in stackexchange somebody scolded me for not accepting answers for a long time saying that that was a bad practice causing me to be shunned upon by the community. However, I think the point about non-sainthood in the answer does hit the mark.