/lit/ - Literature

Take the Thomism pill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Ik1ea8yUI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL_JygxcSYU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmeaLhq7rXs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjYJaTT5OkU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppbXsyTE3TI

>>19153929
Perfect knowledge is never possible outside of the true source of knowledge whom is the Logos. If you leave this as a basic foundation, you will run into all sorts of errors.
Your evidence is only evidence within this specific framework (with false assumptions) you have constructed to exclude true knowledge from the very beginning. If you take different assumptions, like God actually existing and doing the things He said He did, you still have all the facts, but with a correct interpretation of them.

>Untrue. Many scholars are Christians or Jews/practice Judaism.
You can be a self-professed Christian but still have atheistic assumptions as your base building blocks. Just look at the diversity in opinions on traditionally held beliefs among earlier Christians. And the kinds of Jews you talk about don't even believe in the divinity of the Torah generally.

>Untrue. Scholarship analyses and documents this phenomenom.
But it still assumes without proof that this borrowing was from idolatrism into Judaism and not the other way around. It assumes multiplicity and degeneration as more primal than unity, that Adam and Cain, etc didn't exist as a historical persons whose descendants degenerated into paganism and from whom later the nation of Israel was formed. If you want my opinion on this matter you can check out this video - https://youtu.be/kx_C6oKNOWA
>>A discussion of the popular higher-critical idea that "Israelite monotheism" is a late development. Here we talk about the crucial ideas under the surface of the conventional view- how do we read the biblical text? How do we read ancient religion? What is our interpretation of ancient civilization in general? In short, it is my argument that the conventional higher-critical view is strongly anachronistic in terms of its rootedness in anthropological models which have been obsolete for more than a century, and against which there is an ocean of evidence. Part one of a hopefully two part discussion.

>Do you have a literal understanding of the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments?
I have an understanding that it is both literal and has allegorical/higher spiritual meanings, without pitting the two against each other to conform to incompatible modern understandings. I do believe absolutely in creation as described in Genesis (Adam and human nature being created without using previous living beings, world being about 7000 years old, no death/suffering existing before Adam's fall) as understood by the Holy Fathers of the Church. It's a hard pill to swallow for some, but I believe in this because Christ has shown Himself to me to be real, so why should I distrust all the other information He has enlightened saintly Christians with?

>Many denominations, including the Catholic church do not take this view
I think it is safer to stick to what has been believed by saints for all of the Orthodox Church's history. This way you will not fall into innovations and always be on the correct path.