A little background.

I was raised Protestant, as most of you know, and then went Calvinist, and
while I was a Calvinist, I was heavily involved in reconstructionist theology, which lays massive
stress on biblical Law. This background prepared me for Catholicism, and I converted in 2003.
After 4-5 years of Catholicism I became particularly interested in liturgy and Eastern theology, and
its contrast with Western theology. Immersed heavily in Thomism and then the Eastern Fathers, I
focused on apophatic theology and essence energy, as many of you know. The last two years, I
have become particularly interested in race, Hellenism, and the relationship between Judiasm and
Christianity, and that ever-presistent issue of the continuity between Old Testament and
New Testament. Indeed, it even seems to me that the reconstructionists seem to have a thing for
Jewish-ish penal sanctions, while the Catholics and Orthodox dont really care for that, but really
dig Jewish-ish liturgical ideas. So the last 8 months or so, Ive read about 10 books on Jewish
theology.

But thats an oversimplification. I already know all about typology, so we can avoid benign
responses such as, well, its a type, and get to the nitty gritty. I am asking some questions on a
bit more difficult level (though that is related). Again, the first thing that became difficult for me was
the Cappadocian conceptions of the Trinity as compared with Augustine and Thomas, which seem
more sensible, but also dont seem to be free from all difficulties. And so I list my difficulties,
beginning with theology proper (God) and branching out from there.

These are posed for discussion purposes. Keep the hate to a minimum, please. It is also posed for
the purpose of getting answers.

1. How is there one ontological will in God, while the Persons appear to do separate actions? For
example, the Son does actions in His Incarnation the Father doesnt do. The Spirit likewise. This
seems to require separate willings, but will is not hypostatic, its a property of nature. This is why
Damascene says there is one will and energy in God, inasmuch as there is one God acting.
Nahmanides makes this same objection, I came to find, that occurred to me. So how is it the three
act differently? Similarly, is generation not an eternal act? If its an eternal action, then it must be of
nature and of will. But the Nicene Fathers are adamant the Son is not a product of will in any
sense. He is of the Fathers nature. But He and the Spirit share that nature, and thus he is auto-
generated. But this makes no sense. Similarly, is spiration also an action? If so, it cannot be
hypostatic, it must be of nature, but again, nature is common in the Godhead. Also, if apophatic
theology is true, in a hardcore sense, then there can be no Incarnation, since it is not an energy
that became Incarnate, but the divine Son, with His divine nature, as Chalcedon says.

2. This leads to the next issue: the Neo-Platonic doctrine of trinity. A proto-trinitarian doctrine was
already taught in Hellenism in Proclus, Plotinus, and others, including a kind of version in Philo. It
is hard to accept that the Eastern Fathers were not Hellenistic as the Eastern apologists tell us,
when they cant even seem to figure out if God gave sex and human bodies as a *result of the fall.
The threefold power clearly has antecedents in Hellenism and Platonism. Did God really shift from
Jewish monotheism to Greek Hellenism to give the true doctrine? http://www.iep.utm.edu/
neoplato/ And if so, then why is it that Hellenism is the great enemy of the Maccabean period?
Remember the Maccabean books are in our canon. It is Philo from whence the Logos idea
comes.

3. Judaism always taught iconoclasm. The Law says not to make alliances with paganism and
certainly God forbade paganism as part of His acceptable worship. Yet by the time we are into the
second century, pagan basilicas have been converted and are now holy. In fact, Maximus the
Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa and Pope Benedict recently, even go so far as to say that the Trinity
reconciles Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism (emphasis). How far is this from the
declarations that God is God alone, and to destroy pagan altars?

4. The Law. The Law is said to be eternal. This cannot be typologized into some mystical meaning,
inasmuch as God Himself even warned against such an approach (Dt. 13, 17, 18). In fact, God
even says that the Law is near you, even unto your hearts, and is not so mystical and impossible
as to need to ascend heaven to grasp it. Yet somehow this is a prophecy of the ascension in St.
Paul. God promised blessings and cursings based on how the Jews functioned in that covenant.
When they obeyed, they were blessed, and when they failed, they were cursed. How is it this is
turned into a situation where God was for thousands of years tricking them, intending the Law to
be an impossible task (as Peter says it was), when God said it wasnt impossible, and it was never
intended as a means to merit eternal life?

5. The covenant with Israel is said in several places to be eternal. When this is all spiritualized to
mean the Church, it becomes a hermeneutical slippery slope, since the cursing passages are not
spiritualized, and are only applied to flesh Israel. The hermeneutic appears inconsistent and
arbitrary.

6. The LXX has flaws and problems and isnt the original text. Are we to just trust that Origen is
right when he says the evil Jews alterred their own prophets? But Origen was a heretic, and Justin
Martyr didnt even get the Trinity right, so is he any better when he makes this same charge
against Trypho?

7. How do we participate in divine nature and remain creatures? Its a mystery. Yet we say it is
pantheism when we deify creatures. If the divine nature is simple, then how do we participate in it
and remain creatures? we participate in the energies, not the nature. Ok, do we participate in 7
energies, and not 4? 8 and not 3? And for Catholics, what is the difference between supernatural
and natural gifts? Which was it the Spirit gave to Bezaleel to design the temple? At what point does
a virtue become supernatural and not natural?

8. Did Moses experience the divine radiance? Yes. But the Incarnation had not happened yet. But
theosis is supposed to occur only when the Incarnation occurs. If the response is that Moses was
deified because it was Christ there, then the Incarnation wasnt necessary.

9. If the only way eternal life is restored is through the resurrection of Christ, then why do angels
have eternal life, since Hebrews says they do not share in redemption? This means God can grant
eternal life without a human sacrifice. Indeed, Anselms theory of the Atonement is absurd, but the
same objections can be applied to a Neo-platonic or patristic idea that death could not be
overcome other than by the Incarnation. Why? God has always been immanent and present in the
world as all the theophanies show, and if Moses saw the divine radiance, then why does there
have to be an Incarnation or a human sacrifice?

10. God commanded the extermination of the Canaanites. This is hard for 90% of Christians to
accept, but denying this leads to absurdities. Acceptance of it means that God was racial. No
Christian churches really teach race. In fact, most churches actively work to oppose race. But
unless humans totally changed in the first century, men are still pretty much acting like they did
3,000 years ago. 90% of Christians feel the bizarre need to spiritualize the Canaanite conquest
and extermination, or even outright reject that God. That would be Marcionism, of course, but
acceptance of that God entails a God who told the Jews they could practice slavery as well as
enact usury on Gentiles. So all you conspiracy chaps who bitch about the Jewish bankers have to
admit they got this from God. God also condones slavery. Now, God says over and over how just
His law is, and if this is so, then slavery and usury must in some sense be just. So also must death
for adultery, homosexuality, etc. But the only Christians who will say this are heretics
(reconstructionists) and amount to nothing. It also doesnt work to say this was all temporary, since
mankind still operates pretty much like he did then, and we are told in Dt. 4 that the wisdom of
Gods law and its justice are a light to all nations. Did Gods social justice vanish in the New
Testament?

11. If the Messiah has come, then why has the Church been full of wars, splits, conquests, and evil
men, when the Messianic era is said to be one of peace? Its a spiritual peace, you will say. The
nations are supposed to no longer learn war. Do you notice how everything is constantly getting
spiritualized when it doesnt appear to match up? But arent we in the time of the reality, and not
the type? This brings me to the next big one.

12. If we are experiencing the realities in the New Testament, and the Law was the shadow, then
why is it we are still in a state of shadow? The Church building and elements are still considered
foreshadowings of heaven. Yet, the Temple was already heaven on earth. It was already the real
presence of God. So it appears we have moved from OT type > NT type > heaven. How many
heavenly liturgies are there? Theres one in heaven, we know. But on earth there are a thousand
different some shitty, some pretty. If we read Leviticus, it is hard to see how we get from Nadab
and Abihu to the Novus Ordo. It can be responded that this was necessary as the covenant was
opened to the Gentiles, but is the situation as dire as Lev. 10? Indeed, as the fathers argue, its far
worse, since thats the real presence. Well, if thats the case, then we should see far more Uzzahs.

13. Why is the book of Esther in the Christian canon? It specifically condones post-
Canaanite genocide and conversion to the supposedly corrupted Babylonian Judaism. From a
hardliner trad Catholic or Orthodox perspective, it is hard to see why this is in the canon, as well as
the Maccabees. However, once again we will see that the justification will be something along the
lines of how it is spiritualized or allegorized. Again the trend when in doubt, allegorize it.

14. We condemn Pharisee tradition but we rely on that tradition in many places, just like
Protestants rely on Catholic tradition.

15. It is hard to see why any Jew would have been expected to convert to the Church of the first
2-3 centuries, since it was so full of bizarre and absurd teachings. For example, denying the death
penalty was normative, as well as weird views of sexuality. Can you blame any Jew for not joining
this group, when they had been warned in the Deuteronomy passages above to have a healthy
skepticism about newly rising movements among them?

16. God made man as a man, yet Catholicism and Orthodoxy want men to live like angels. But
God reproved the angels who sought to change their habitation. Why should he expect man to
become an angel?

17. David, and most of the fathers of the OT of necessity lived most of their lives in mortal sin, if the
moral law is a reflection of Gods essence (as in Catholicism). This is because David had numerous
wives, and such an action, if presently a mortal sin, must always have been one, since it is a
reflection of Gods essence, which cannot change.

Many more can be listed, but these should generate a good discussion.

1. The doctrine of a third Person was not clearly taught in the first few centuries. Indeed, even
by Basils time, he expressed hesitation about declaring for sure that the Spirit was a third
hypostasis in the godhead. The problem with this is that we must either admit a very extreme form
of doctrinal development, which few are willing to admit, or we must say that in some way the
fathers of the 1-3 centuries were utterly deficient in their doctrine of God. How did they carry on the
apostolic Tradition, if many of them did not even grasp the divinity and Personhood of the Spirit? In
fact, Justin Martyr posited a Dyad. Consider also the development of the notion from Athanasius
that the Son is generated from the essence of God, to the Cappadocian idea that He is generated
from the Father proper. Once you read Plotinus, though, it becomes clear how influential the
Platonic tradition was on the Alexandrians and the Latins in their triadic formulations. But once we
admit this, we have moved far from the Hebraic and Mosaic tradition, into what appears to be a
Greek Hellenic mystery religion. Indeed, if you pay attention to Christian writers, notice how often
when speaking of God, it is a singular Person, with a singular will acting. Yet when we come to
Trinitarian theology and God acting, we are immediately caught in a whirlwind of explaining how
three Persons act in different way, yet dont. Its a maze that ends up being miles away from the
Shema. Peruse the 5th Ennead for yourself, which Augustine openly borrowed heavily from: http://
classics.mit.edu/Plotinus/enneads.5.fifth.html

2. Can we pray impreccatory prayers now? C.S. Lewis found them offensive and demanded we
cannot. Aquinas says we must in no wise despise our enemies. If no, this would be absurd, since
it would mean God composed many prayers in the Psalms that are now useless. Although some
might resort to lengthy explanations as to how we can pray them, this would run counter the
tradition of many of the saints, who forbid such an idea. And based on a simple reading of the
Sermon on the Mount, it would appear we cannot pray them. Other examples of how this is fuzzy
would be something like martyrdom does God want me to fight my opponents and possibly save
the lives of others, or am I bound to martyrdom? When we look at the Church of the first few
centuries, pacifism was almost the absolute law. Why such a radical change in Gods social rules?

3. The sexual views of the fathers of the first few centuries are generally somewhat bizarre. Sex is
viewed in some form as evil, and even up to Maximus time, it is somehow dirty and base. It is not
hard to see why this is when you read the 5th Ennead of Plotinus. Augustine borrowed from this in
large chunks. This is the source of the idea that the Spirit is the glue between the One and its
generated image. The generated nous returns the love to the One and this is a pure, spiritual
love. Plotinus and Augustine and many fathers in the East too, conceive of love in an Eros or
sexual way apart from purely procreative ends as evil. If youve ever wondered where the Church/
Augustine got this, read the 5th Ennead. And I neednt explain how different this view is from the
Law and Prophets views on sexuality. This is why the Church has to spiritualize all the texts in the
Law and wisdom texts about the importance of having sons. What God really wants is spiritual
sons in the Church, since sex is lesser and base. No one can tell me this isnt the case with the
fathers, East and West, as top Eastern theologian Phillip Sherrard admits:
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/
The_Sexual_Relationship_in_Christian_Thought-by_Philip_Sherrard.aspx

4. Related to that last issue, it now casts a new light on the matter of the rise in the position of
women in Christianity, and this is concurrent with the place of the Virginal Queen of heaven, who
over the centuries achieves a progressively higher place of veneration in the Church. It is not
surprising, then, that this religion emasculates men, and has progressed to a point where large
numbers of the priests in the Latin tradition are now homosexual. One can say that it was not
always this way, but I suspect the sublimation of sexuality as dirty and in some form involving some
degree of sin (as Augustine says), has lent great impetus to this being the end result. We can
blame Masons all day long, but at a certain point, that is just a bunch of excuses. Stepping back
and looking at the issues, it becomes apparent that a Latin tradition that exalts celibacy, derives its
theism largely from Plotinus, raises women to the status of virtual goddess, and promotes monastic
asceticism as the higher calling that this tradition would eventually fall into mass homosexuality
and perversion. Why shouldnt it? It holds that the good things of nature race, sex, beauty, are
actually bad and despised by the God who purportedly gave them. God has chosen the base
things of the world the stupid, the inane, the poor, right? So why is it surprising that when I attend
the local Novus Ordo, its a communistic, college girl led, fag fest? The Orthodox Christians may
escape some of this, but they cannot even tell us whether God punishes or not, so I am not as
thrilled about them as seeking Latin Catholics might be.

5. Thus the next issue Lex talionis. God Himself operates on the eye for an eye principle in
many texts in the Law and prophets and writings. Most Christians, however, have read Jesus
sermon as a rejection of this approach. There have been many exegetes who explain and qualify
this as meaning that we as individuals are forbidden to operate this way, but God still does. Well,
who believes this anymore? If they did, they would execute homosexuals, since that is the
requirement of the Law for this sin crying to heaven for vengeance, but no Catholic or Orthodox
would dare have the balls to say this (aside for me and a friend or two). What this makes clear is
that Christianity, for all its ad nauseam touting of its practicality cannot even get off the ground on
basic moral issues. Indeed, after 2,000 years, we dont know what to do with imprecatory prayers
or the death penalty. Within the first few centuries, we ended up having to debate the very issues
(such as justified lying) the rabbinate had already debated.

6. Why does the Church retain Pentecost as a feast, and not other feasts of the Law? Why do we
retain holy water and not other aspects that are found in Numbers? It becomes clear this is ad
hoc and arbitrary. I know the answer that the Apostles, via their apostolic authority, confirmed
these elements (supposedly we dont see holy water in the fathers), and not others. The problem
is that we have no consistent hermeneutic for determining why we utilize these ceremonial
elements, and reject other elements such as the priestly ephod, as fulfilled. This is why in the
history of the church, you see new elements become incorporated that were formerly ceremonial
(such as holy water or the tabernacle).
7. The early church for the first 3 centuries was the persecuted, pilgrim church. After that period, it
becomes the imperial church that begins to justify its notion of Christendom by saying that the
kingdom is now united to the Empire. The kingdom becomes a step more worldly, and the notion of
Christian Emperors arises, and ruling as a Christian king. The idea of persecuting heretics by the
state is first justified by Ambrose and then Augustine. So the poor church becomes the state
church, and Rome more and more takes on the appearance of an alter-Israel. The texts are then
read, not of spiritual Israel, but of the state church which can execute or banish heretics and
wizards. So the typology of the heavenly Jerusalem becomes more earth-grounded, and Rome, by
the time of the papal states, looks more and more like Israel, to the point where the churchs locus
is identified with a city-state Vatican City, replete with its own huge bank, etc. So we have a new
church/state/nation, yet the Church was supposed to be the eternal, spiritual eschatological reality,
and not another historical institution operating more and more like historical Israel over time.
Indeed, the types of the loss of land in Leviticus apply to Israel, but somehow not the curses to the
Church. Yet we turn around and end up using these texts for Gods judgments on the church at
different points in history. The hermeneutic is again inconsistent. The textual arguments for the
Messianic age uniformly tell us of an end to idolatry, yet the Church took numerous pagan
elements that God in Deuteronomy 12 says are forbidden, and Christianizes them. In other
words, the very things defined as idolatry in the Law and used by the fathers as proof of
Christianity as the fulfillment of the covenant (the end of idolatry), become the norm in the Church
and are somehow a proof of the spread of the messianic age!