22 | I enjoy the 1928 BCP | Augustinian | Student of Scripture and the catholic Church | Strict Formulary Adherent | Aerospace Engineering Student
Joined May 2021
- Tweets5.7K
- Following238
- Followers413
- Likes11.3K
You people can never actually disprove the historical and theological claims of Christianity. You have no metaphysical backdrop to defend your worldview. All you offer is shallow commentaries on the social and political landscape as some profound proof of your worldview.
Part of the problem with these people is they don’t care to situate their beliefs in history or defend them with a robust metaphysic. It’s all posturing based on racial antipathy and animus. Type of talking points that lead one to worship Odin because “muh based white god.”
If Jews believe this then they’ve rejected the Prophet Isaiah’s testimony:
“He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”
Isaiah 53:3
There really are people who genuinely believe the whole argument is whether some guy was some thing.
But the Messiah in Judaism is not an inherent quality of a person to be detected or disproved through an empirical test. The Messiah, by definition, is the one whom Israel accepts as their Messiah.
Thus, the rejection of a given individual by the collective entity of Israel is not a “proof”that he was not the Messiah, the rejection itself - as the normative decision of the Jewish nation - is what constitutes him as non-messianic.
This is why Maimonides rules that the Messiah is not required to perform signs or wonders; he must simply be accepted by Israel, and if, upon that acceptance, he achieves the historical and physical redemption of Israel, that outcome itself constitutes him as the Messiah.
If he is accepted and acts, but fails to achieve that redemption, he is not a false messiah, but a failed messiah - a historical candidate who did not fulfill the task. But if he is rejected by Israel from the outset, he is a false messiah by virtue of being rejected.
Furthermore- if Israel rejects every candidate, and the historical redemption of the nation is achieved without any individual leader, then the view of Rabbi Hillel - that Israel has no Messiah to come - is what becomes constituted by Israel.
And of course, there is also the non Halakhic messiah who is always coming - upon whom our Sages said: “Let him come, but after I die”
Messiah already came:
“The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.”
Genesis 49:10
So it’s Jesus or nothing.
Iansenius retweeted
I really don’t find the Divine Hiddenness argument compelling at all. God could choose not to be in a relationship with us if He wanted to, and people are a lot less intellectually honest than they realize.
Plus ignorance could be a punishment for sin.
Am I missing something?
Can someone actually give the difference between a broadly moderate realist account of universals vs an ockhamist/nominalist account of the same? Include primary references or at least reputable scholarship giving extensive explications that I can read.
Every time these uppity activist black people talk they make us look retarded.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Iansenius retweeted
To add: so dominant has been the misconception among Anglican clerics & laity that we don't anathematize those who oppose our binding authorities.
"Against any of which Articles whosoever doth oppose himself, and doth willfully continue in such his Opposition; we hold and judge them to be worthily subject to all those Censures, and Anathematisms, which the several Constitutions and Canons of the said Councils have justly laid upon them."
-Book of Convocation 1606
Iansenius retweeted
“Those names sound funny. Ever read the Bible?”
