I’ve always loved the irony in the question:
“Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who doesn’t know what happened here in these days?”
That was the question the disciples asked to the risen Jesus on the road to Emmaus, not yet realizing that He was the only One who did know.
@AfiaDimple_ 45.
The form of the equation is:
A + B = C, and C + A = D
So,
1 x 4 = 4, and 4 + 1 = 5
2 x 5 =. 10, and 10 + 2 = 12
3 x 6 = 18, and 18 + 3 = 21
4 x 7 = 28, and 28 + 3 = 32
5 x 8 = 40, and 40 + 5 = 45
@HwsEleutheroi "...because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He determined, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead."
"The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man’s history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy." - J.R.R. Tolkien (On Fairy-Stories, 1947)
For a day that needs beauty and truth.
Historians analyze past events, often long after they’ve happened, in order to understand their significance and connection to the present. A historian doesn’t sit around waiting to document their own era as “history”. So the reason we don’t find “history books” that are contemporaneous for any historical figures at that time is not because those figures didn’t exist. It’s because a historian is studying the past, journalists and some biographers chronicle the present.
So for Jesus, you’d want to find things like letters, historical biographies, and other forms of journalism, kind of like we find for other historical figures at that time.
Those you can find compiled into the codex we now call the New Testament.
According to Orrhodoxy, when the church fathers themselves debated these issues, they did so out in the open, with the accountability of having to provide their argumentation face to face in front of other people at a church council. Obviously the topics discussed at Nicea 2 were serious enough to them to warrant the use of anathemas. Why is it that White is the one advocating for an in person debate with the accountability of crowd, like the church fathers did, but Jay is resisting it? How is it that the Protestant here is advocating for a synergistic debate setup, where both men get to pick a topic, so that it’s mutually beneficial, whereas the Orthodox is demanding a monergistic debate setup where he alone unilaterally gets to dictate all of the terms? Topic, format, location, date, etc.? I’ve learned a lot from Jay up to this point, but this really is embarrassing behavior. He should just do the debates as White has offered. 2 in person formal debates, each man gets to pick one of the topics. A Completely fair offer.
Nicea 2 is considered an Ecumenical Council... in which people debated. How can you dismiss Nicea 2 as a silly place to debate now, when the church fathers themselves considered the nature of what was being discussed at Nicea 2 so central to the faith as to warrant anathemas for all time moving forward? That actually sounds like a pretty critical thing to discuss.