South Carolina, USA
Joined January 2025
- Tweets1.7K
- Following36
- Followers57
- Likes5.6K
St. Apollos retweeted
The recent scholarship has demonstrated it is authentic:
josephusandjesus.com/purchas…
retard YOU blocked me lmao. Holy hell. I couldn’t reply precisely because YOU blocked me after misrepresenting.
“Yes I am going to misrepresent the Orthodox position for the sake of an own. I will then block you.” If Wagner called ‘pope respecter’ a braindead monkey, then I wonder what that makes you. @papism101
St. Apollos retweeted
Everybody’s night 👁️👁️🍿with @muslimorthodoxy
St. Apollos retweeted
Here’s something they probably never taught you in Sunday school.
When Jesus died, several supernatural events were reported occurring in diverse locations, which seemed to collectively testify that a major revolution had occurred in the spiritual realms.
1. The veil of the Jewish Temple was torn from top to bottom. This occurred on Crucifixion Day.
2. The dead awoke and walked around in Jerusalem. This also occurred on Crucifixion Day.
3. The Roman historian Plutarch recorded that around the time of Jesus’ death, and certainly before 37 AD, it was publicly announced near the island of Paxi that “the Great Pan is dead”. Eusebius of Caesarea interpreted this as meaning that the whole pantheon of pagan gods had been overthrown.
4. Plutarch also recorded that, for the first time ever, the legendary oracles of Rome’s famous temples went silent after Christ’s death, asserting that the risen Christ had driven them out. The last Delphic oracle itself announced that its shrine had gone silent.
5. Back in Israel, immediately after Christ’s Crucifixion, four supernatural Jewish Temple rituals suddenly stopped working, although they had previously never ever failed to do so. (1) the lot for the Lord no longer came up in the high priest’s right hand, (2) the crimson thread tied to the Yom Kippur scapegoat ceased turning white, (3) the westernmost lamp of the menorah would not stay lit, and (4) the doors of the Hekhal would open by themselves at night. These unprecedented supernatural changes were all recorded in the Babylonian Talmud Yoma 39b. These signs are described in the Talmud as beginning right around the death of Christ, and then consistently continuing for the remaining 40 years until the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. The Talmud views these events as portents of impending destruction and loss of divine favor, which aligns nicely with both the announcement of the death of Pan and the silencing of the Roman oracles, which both occurred right around the same time as these supernatural changes in the Jewish Temple rituals.
St. Apollos retweeted
You lost.
There were like 50 different Messiahs during the Second Temple period. I don’t feel “stressed” that any of them were actually Moshiach. Why should I for Jesus?
Comparing the Gospels to other Jewish groups at the time, they’re nothing remarkable. His moral teachings are from Hillel. His legal teachings are from Shammai. He repeats a lot of what the Essenes said.
Do Christians ever worry that Mohammed was a prophet? No. Then I’m not concerned.
St. Apollos retweeted
“If you have such an allergic reaction to the rabbis, please go Eastern Orthodox”
I don’t normally engage with the comments section much. But I notice that the majority of guys down there seem to think that in my earlier post somehow I wasn’t aware of the Septuagint, which is kind of funny. So, let’s walk through this.
If you reread my post again you will see that I am addressing the Protestant church, or more specifically the Reformed. On Scripture, Westminster 1.8 reads “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.” You can’t hold this and insist on an Old Testament from the LXX at the same time.
The cry of the Reformation was ad fontes, back to the sources. The source of the Old Testament is the Hebrew text. And the Protestant church has been built on that assumption that we are going back to the source. I don’t think most of the guys commenting below have thought very hard about the implications of abandoning the Hebrew text. They are trying to get away from the Jews so hard, but what they don’t see is that it will cost them their Protestantism.
Now, yes, you can get a Bible with an Old Testament that is a translation of from the Septuagint. But you will gradually cease to be a Protestant, and you will instantly cease to be confessionally Reformed. So, by all means, if you have such an allergic reaction to the rabbis, please go Eastern Orthodox. Our churches will be better off.
But what you can’t do is continue using your ESV, or your NKJV, or your KJV, or whatever modern translation you use, while pretending that you are not relying on post-70 AD rabbis for your Bible.
Also, one quick note about Jerome and the Vulgate. No, the Vulgate is not translated from the Septuagint. Jerome had started with a translation from the Septuagint, but he became convinced that the Septuagint had been corrupted by anti-Christian sentiments by the rabbis. So, he went back to what he termed the Hebraica veritas, the Hebrew truth and translated his Vulgate Old Testament from there.
St. Apollos retweeted
Dawah throughout the ages.
650 - The Bible contains Allah's revelation, the Christians and Jews distort the previous revelations to hide the truth of Muhammad.
1200 - The previous revelations are lost and completely corrupted.
2024 - The Bible contains the previous revelations in Jesus' words and most of the Torah. We cherrypick whatever agrees with the Qur'an as being Wahi from Allah.
2025 - Allah is consciously editing contradictions into the Qur'an intentionally to show corruption of the non-Wahi parts of the Bible that Allah sent.
2026 - MUHAMMAD IS THE SON OF MAN!!!
St. Apollos retweeted
YOU MIGHT WANT TO DELETE THIS POST!!
In that very same video, Richardson rejected the preterist reading of Daniel 2 as fulfilled and defends a more futurist reading in which the rock cut without human hands denotes the second Advent, of Jesus of course, and the establishment of the divine kingdom.
Richardson also identified Islam, not Rome, as better meeting the FOURTH KINGDOM criteria of Daniel 2:40-43 and Daniel 7:7 and 23, because he argued that Rome didn’t crush Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece together suddenly.
But what is the most funniest thing about this video, and what you had clipped out of context and are fallaciously now trying to paint this picture like this biblical eschatologist Joel Richardson said that Islam was the stone cut without hands, Richardson never identified Islam as the stone, since the stone struck the feet of iron and clay, obliterated the statue suddenly and simultaneously, and becomes a mountain filling the Earth as the kingdom set up by the god of heaven.
Richardson explicitly identified the Islamic Kingdom as the fourth hostile power that devours a whole earth and wages war on the Saints for time, times and half of time, not as the everlasting divine kingdom that you somehow think Islam is.
What is also funny is because in Daniel 7:11, 26-27, the beast is slain, and Dominion is given to the Son of Man and the Saints, which Richardson himself identifies as the second coming of Jesus and the establishment of God‘s kingdom, not the Islamic kingdom, that was formed by human intervention.
So in Richardson‘s model, Islam is the fourth beast and the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7.
NOT THE EVERLASTING KINGDOM MADE WITHOUT HANDS 😭😭😭😭🤡🤡🤡😭😭😭🤡🤡🤡😭😭😭
youtu.be/x5pjdmHsb7o?is=9cdi…
St. Apollos retweeted
The cope is real. Philippians 2 answers that how He receives authority.
I thought you guys said the stone was the Islamic kingdom? Now it’s only Muhammad? Muhammad is not an everlasting king so this is another fail. None of this matters, because the Son of Man is divine. You are committing shirk.
Keep taking what I said out of context because it shows you can’t stand on the truth. 😂
St. Apollos retweeted
They’re a great cloud of witnesses that… can’t witness anything? 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
The saints in heaven cannot hear us.
Other than the absence of this practice in Scripture, this is the strongest contention against prayer to the saints.
This doctrine requires that departed saints gain the ability to hear nonlocal communication, mental or verbal, from thousands of people all at once. We have zero evidence in Scripture of a command to pray to them, and zero evidence that people gain this ability once in heaven.
The pushback is typically “God can do anything," but this is incredibly weak. Just because God can do anything does not warrant the unsubstantiated claims we make about Him. That is arguing from a hypothetical.
We need positive proof that this doctrine is true, not the absence of evidence so the hypothetical can be presumed. For instance: just because God *can* make rainbow-colored elephants does not mean they must exist unless proven otherwise.
The other common argument is that there is no break in the body between saints in heaven and saints on earth, but that actually works against the doctrine.
Name a single instance where a nonlocal person on earth can hear your mental prayers and answer them. You can’t. It doesn’t happen because that ability does not exist here. So it does not follow that those in the unbroken body of Christ can hear nonlocal prayers either, unless we have been taught otherwise.
Gavin’s full video is excellent (link in replies).
St. Apollos retweeted
You’re either a liar or retarded. The Bible says none of this.
1. Mary’s age is never given.
2. The Holy Spirit came upon Mary, then the conception of Jesus occurred (Luke 1:34-38).
3. Pedophilia is defined as a sexual interest in prepubescent children. Mary was a virgin, so there was no sex or sexual interest. You’re just thinking of your pedo prophet.
4. There was no semen. Seriously, are you retarded?
5. You pretend to be an ex-Christian, but clearly have no idea what the Bible says. You are an embarrassment to Islam.
St. Apollos retweeted
100% factual and literal Jesus:
Jesus: The kingdom of heaven is like an algae seed from the pond, which a man took and—
Jew 1: Hold on. An algae seed? What’s that? We plant mustard, wheat, barley. Never heard of algae seeds.
Jesus: Right, so algae don’t actually make seeds you plant in a field. They’re these tiny little reproductive bits, more like spores, about 0.01 millimeters. You can’t even see them properly. They just float around in water and—
Jew 2: So they’re not seeds.
Jesus: Technically no. Algae reproduce by spores or splitting or fragments. No coat, no stored food like a proper seed. Completely different from mustard.
Jew 3: Then why did you call it a seed?
Jesus: Because I was going for “smallest thing that grows into something big.” Mustard is the smallest thing you plant. Algae bits are smaller, but you don’t sow them in a field. They just-
Jew 1: So the kingdom of heaven is like something nobody plants, that nobody’s ever seen, that isn’t even a seed?
Jesus: Look, the point is it starts tiny and ends up huge, with birds in the branches.
Jew 2: But algae don’t become trees. They stay slimy.
Jesus: I know they stay slimy. That’s why I usually say mustard but in 2000 years atheists will fact check me.
St. Apollos retweeted
His own brother was at his death, he did not vomit fecal matter. This is simply a demonic lie.
“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, into Thy hands I commit my spirit.”
— John Eugenikos, Final words of St. Mark, St. Mark of Ephesus and the False Union of Florence, p. 366.
Mark of Ephesus is celebrated in Eastern Orthodoxy for resisting reunion with Rome. But a fifteenth-century account describes him dying while vomiting fecal matter.
At the end of Vindicating the Filioque, Fr. Thomas Crean asks whether this terrible end carried a particular significance for Catholics.
He quotes Joseph Plousiadenos, the bishop of Methone, who contrasts Mark’s death with that of Patriarch Joseph II. According to Plousiadenos, Joseph embraced union with Rome and died giving thanks to God. Addressing the deceased Mark, he writes:
“But you, who so insolently abuse him and those who were with him, did not so die, but rather, you breathed forth your soul along with the filth of the latrine. The whole city knows it. For the justice of God knows how to pay back each one for the faith which he has, just as once happened with Arius, that byword for madness. For he sent forth his bowels beneath him, while you expelled the filth upwards.”
Those are severe words. Plousiadenos supported union with Rome, and his account is openly polemical. Crean’s footnote also cites a similar description by Ubertin Pusculo, an Italian whom Crean identifies as having been in Constantinople at the time. That deserves historical examination.
The medical detail is plausible. Copremesis, or fecal vomiting, is a recognized phenomenon. It can occur with severe intestinal obstruction, and fatal cases involving feculent vomiting are documented in the medical literature. Its existence establishes that such an account is medically possible; assessing the historical sources remains a separate question.
So what is the significance Crean sees?
The Filioque concerns the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Crean invokes St. Anastasius I of Antioch’s interpretation of the Psalm’s phrase “breath of his mouth”: the Spirit is the breath, and the divine “mouth” represents the only-begotten Son.
If the account is accurate, the symbolism is disturbing. Mark denied that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the divine “mouth.” His own mouth reportedly became the means by which he expelled filth as he died.
Crean closes with this question:
“Is it possible to see in this wretched end of Mark Eugenikos, notorious throughout Constantinople, a sign of heaven’s displeasure with one who had so determinedly denied to the divine mouth the honor of breathing forth the consubstantial Spirit, and who has passed on this denial to his posterity?”
—Fr. Thomas Crean, Vindicating the Filioque, pp. 428–429.
