/lit/ - Literature

>>19367849
Ok, so, talk about your faith. What's bothering you? Why are you struggling? Be sincere and surrender to a divine answer even if it may come through this cesspool.

>>19367849
Does this look like a place where priests hang out or a place where people barely manage to recommend each other books in between telling tripfags to fuck off?

>>19367875
This might be the only place priests hang out anon.....

You can ignore people who recommended you a reference work. It puts them as a tradcath pseud. The could have recommended you something much more practical if they actually read.

I’m not Catholic, I’m Protestant but it appears to me Catholics are always struggling with Assurance. I recommend Beeke’s Knowing and Growing in Assurance of Faith.

Read books of Etienne Gilson + Garrigou Lagrange OP.

>>19367849
So? Are you serious about answering the questions of your faith or is a long book enough to put you off?

>>19367860
Maybe insincerity is my problem. I've spent so much time investing in the wrong things and turning to what only hurts me that I'm no longer sure what it is that I'm looking for. I just know that I'm fucked up and I need help, and I'm open to the idea that God is what I need.
>>19367875
I don't know about you but I've gotten a ton of great recommendations from this board. I like to believe that most of the posters here truly do read, shitposters exist on every board.

>>19367915
It's not only the fact that its long. But I already know I won't understand it right away and I feel that the I would spend trying to grasp what I'm reading could be better spend just looking elsewhere.

>>19367894
>>19367908
Thank you, I am looking into these now.

>>19367908
Additionally you can buy this book.

>>19367943
Gilson is a total must. Garrigou Lagrange was the greatest thomist of 20th century. If you read italiano you can also buy books of fr Cornelio Fabro.

OP, sincerely, I don't think reading will ever help you come to terms with your faith. When I converted to Christianity, I first dipped my toe into the Bible on my own, trying to read through the entire collection of books in chronological order. That is not how religion works, it is nigh on impossible to come to reasonable coherent conclusions about God when you read through dozens of different books written by different people with different perspectives, time periods, beliefs, backgrounds ,etc. That doesn't mean it isn't true, just that you won't be able to make heads or tails of it on your own.

For me, I picked a church, I went there, I heard the liturgy, I spoke to the priest, I heard the choir sing, I listened to the priest read the gospels out in the middle of the church in front of the altar, and I believed. I really did. You can see God in the Christians. You can hear him in their voices. God is not to be binged in a 700 page book.

Don't forget Lonergan and transcendental thomism

>>19368095
Stop bullshitting him. Philosophy is needed to enlighten yourself. For example when Richard of St Victor writes "Ubi amor ibi oculus", you will not find those kinds of insights in church or the Bibel.

>>19368159
Trying to discern the truth about life in general is different from trying to figure out whether or not you really believe in God. You can never know without meeting the believers themselves.

>>19368095
Good post, thank you for making it. This is what an anon with an actual spiritual life that isn't merely a tradlarper sounds like
Example of the latter >>19368159

>>19368180
Maybe a better way to put it: How is it even relevant one way or another if you are not planning on becoming part of the body either way?

If you want to know whether you want to become part of the body, you have to interact with it.

>>19367875
I have learned some great theological things here.

>>19368095
>For me, I picked a church, I went there, I heard the liturgy, I spoke to the priest, I heard the choir sing, I listened to the priest read the gospels out in the middle of the church in front of the altar, and I believed. I really did. You can see God in the Christians. You can hear him in their voices. God is not to be binged in a 700 page book.
I don't know how people let themselves be convinced by these intoxications -- especially since there are traditions within the religion itself warning people to be wary of mere feeling. Simone Weil made a good point when she said that when she hears a choir of Hitler Youth chanting a beautiful song, some part of her turns Nazi. People describe having this exact experience with all kinds of religions. How does that not worry you? The fact that two people can have the exact same reaction to two different creeds, implies that at least one of them is wrong. Why wouldn't it be you? It implies, moreover, that this feeling is not a very reliable guide to religious truth.

>>19368233
>Simone Weil made a good point when she said that when she hears a choir of Hitler Youth chanting a beautiful song, some part of her turns Nazi.
For real though, if he is so shaky as to not even be sure whether or not he believes god exists in the first place, long books are not going to get him from point A to point B. Figuring out which interpretation is the most truthful is for those who believe in God already.

The arm of Mohammed is not extended to the white man, not really. The arm of Christ is. The real question ought to be "Do you believe in Christ?" and you won't be able to answer that without visiting with the living church.

Another way of putting it: If you are open to the possibility that humans may have a real, living relationship with God, you *must* visit these people, see what they have to say.

If you aren't, it's too late, I'm sorry.

>>19367849
Books aren’t going to help you in your faith, anon. Christian fellowship in real life is far more important.

>>19368095
I just attended a Divine Liturgy for the first time ever yesterday, and I think you’re hitting the nail on the head here. I spent the last two years or so reading about various religions and philosophies and recently getting into the Bible and specifically Orthodoxy, but the actual experience of taking the step to attend a liturgical service versus reading about something is massively different and impossible for one to recreate through reading alone. It’s an entire experience—there’s the smell of incense, the beautiful icons, the continuous choir throughout, the people all around you, and how they interact even with someone like me, who is merely an unbaptized visitor, and then even the occasional crying baby during the service—this sort of thing is the actual Christian experience, and it is something lived and experienced in fellowship with other Christians. I already had some faith from personal experiences and reading things, but after attending yesterday I have a growing urge to show up again this coming Sunday.

It is very similar to the contrast between reading philosophical arguments for God and assenting intellectually to them, and actually beginning to pray and experience God in one’s life in various ways.

>>19368233
>People describe having this exact experience with all kinds of religions. How does that not worry you?
Christianity is both intellectually and experientially fulfilling, personally. This is what puts it above other religions such as Islam. Looking at the Bible, I see evidence for Jesus Christ all throughout the Old Testament, in numerous fulfilled prophecies (e.g. Daniel 9.24-27, etc) and typological prefigurations. Other religions can’t compete in this regard. It’s one thing to say you’ve had a religious experience of something, it’s another to say that you’ve had a religious experience and that you have some evidence outside of yourself to justify that claim, whether it is Biblical or extra-Biblical in nature.

>>19367849
start with Phaedrus

>>19368395
Exactly. They love their lost sheep too, it makes their day seeing a convert show up.

>>19367916
If you're open to the idea God is what you need, you've already accepted the idea. In all traditions, unity with God, or self-realization can be viewed as removal of these created veils between you and God. If you surrender right now completely, there will remain no veil. Do you understand this? I am telling you that a complete surrender, if sustained, will grant you the highest reality. This is it. Now which language do you prefer to hear that in? Because everyone ultimately arrives to this. Be as insincere with me, but just look in your heart and say to God that you're completely ready to submit. And that's it. Nothing else is needed. Now you're not left to your own devices but left to his glory. Let it carry you from Earth this Kingdom, and then into the bliss of his infinite being.

>>19367916
You've heard the Saint Augustine quote: "You have made us for Yourself O Lord and our hearts are restless until they rest in You."? God is what everyone needs because He is our source and purpose. The Catholic Church teaches that the purpose of life is Theosis, for the soul to commune with God, who is the foundation and never ending stream of love, beauty, wisdom- all goodness essentially-, eternally, with perfect fulfillment, in Heaven. Towards this end God has given us a way to live to help us achieve this by sending His Son to guided us like an older brother. If you want to read something, read the Gospels. If you want the help of people, go the the Church, they are the mystical body of Christ on earth and the subjects and representatives of the Kingdom of Heaven. We're all tainted by sin obviously but the Church is the treasury of the Sacraments instituted by Christ for our salvation. If you really want to heal your soul you have to be willing to kill sin within yourself. Thats no easy feat as Satan is a sneaky bastard. Yet, by the grace of the Spirit that Christ sends to us through our lives lived in and through Him, by His sacraments by which we enter into His life and Spirit, we can repair our broken souls, slowly, so that through and by His love and example, we can learn to love God and prepare ourselves for the world to come.

Never give up hope. You are loved more than you can imagine. God desires to live with you as Your truest loving Father in the Divine Family.

>>19367875
/lit/ helped me a lot with theological questions and embracing The Catholic Church.

Imagine needing positive reinforcement to believe something. Imagine not concluding from this that your beliefs may be bullshit

>>19368425
>Other religions can’t compete in this regard.
Ask a Muslim, he may have a different opinion

>>19367849
Read Zoroaster's holy Gathas. Here is something I wrote recently that may help you in your faith of God:

On the Metaphysics of Raising Hamsters.

In the process of raising a hamster with love and care, if one were to take a step back and reflect on the nature of existence, they will see a large part of Ahura Mazda's spirit, Spenta Mainyu, has suffused into their very core and being. What one is doing by raising the hamster is not merely bringing forth joy, contentment, and love into the hamster's life, but rather, they are also enacting the primordial beginning of all creation as the Holy Gathas makes clear.

When one gently places the bedding, the spinning wheel, sunflowers seeds into the bowl, and so forth into the cage, they are doing it with the intent to ensure the hamster is fine. They are doing it as an all-loving God would do. This is much like the beginning of how Ahura Mazda crafted this world in perfect order and tranquility as the Bundahishn makes clear. That is, until ∀hriman's destructive and evil spirit encroached onto the Ahura Mazda's perfect bliss and harmony and thereby caused dualistic struggle.

In short, we would be much like the happy hamsters if it were not for ∀hriman, for Ahura Mazda would have kept our world-cage in perfect order and harmony, never bringing forth disease, destruction, death, despair, and so forth.

Suffice to say, in the short span of time of raising a hamster and bringing joy into his or her life, if one were to go into a deep state of meditation, there will be a moment or split second that the substance and spirit of Spenta Mainyu can truly be perceived.

There is much to learn from this. For example, a truly just and strong ruler guided by Asha would treat all of his subjects much like well-cared hamsters. He would establish the constraints, the benign cage, the blissful dream for his subjects, and he would do his best to establish absolute tranquility and peace.

>>19368740
Imaging thinking that a finite intellect could have a consistent and fulfilling belief structure without some form of external positive reinforcement. Oh wait I don't have to. I only have to look at the modern world and see what happens as a result of spiritual individualism.

>>19367849
The Summa Theologica is essentially an encyclopedia. You're not supposed to read it cover to cover

Reading won't help your faith. Pray sincerely and go to a church

>>19369415
This.
Read his Compendium of Theology to understand the main ideas.

>>19368747
Undoubtedly, however I feel confident that their religion is built on a foundation of sand.

>>19367875
t. seething tripfag

>>19368634
How do i overcome pride? I try to espouse and enjoy the christian beliefs and actions, but i am extremely averse to submitting. Not out of hubris, mind you, it's... a kind of fear of not being in control.

Why don't you read something relevant to modernity like fr. Seraphim rose.
Instead if outdated arguments..

>>19370124
Unlike with imperfect human beings, we have nothing to fear from God being in control. God, needless to say, is all-knowing, and all-good. There is nothing to fear, though the same cannot be said of human beings, as good and caring as someone may originally seem to us. Really, God is already in perfect control over everything, and we exist due to His sustaining mercy alone and nothing else. The main decision is whether we are going to let Him into our lives or to close Him out, with all that entails. Personally, due to the fact that I grasp my mortality and am aware of my many flaws, it is hard to feel overly haughty. I used to be a lot more arrogant though, but it was mainly overcompensating.

>>19370222
well, any tips on reaching that point?
I am extremely arrogant in that regard, and don't know how to break down those walls.

>>19370304
I would just say to keep praying, contemplating these things, reading scripture (esp. the Gospels) and seeking good Christian fellowship. I feel like this might not be the most satisfying response I could give you, but it’s what has worked for me. I’m no saint either of course, but these things have been helpful for me. It’s a process, not overnight.

>>19367849
Read the shorter summa or like etienne gilson

>>19370678
>just got home
>your answer is literally a minute before it
nice. along with that, how do i fight temptation? Like messing with things i shouldn't.

>>19370701
This one is tougher for me to answer. Temptation is my greatest weakness. Recently I have been doing better though. What I have tried to do is to follow Paul’s advice to “pray ceaselessly” or St. Anthony’s similar piece of advice in the sayings of the desert fathers where he says “Pay attention to what I tell you: whoever you may be, always have God before your eyes; whatever you do, do it according to the testimony of the holy Scriptures; in whatever place you live, do not easily leave it. Keep these three precepts and you will be saved.'”—basically I have been trying to build a perpetual awareness of God, and this has kept me away from temptation. Will-power alone does not work for me at all, I struggled with it for years. I also like to pray and ask God for strength so that I may not continue to sin against Him. I’ve stumbled a bit here and there, but I’m now more successfully resisting temptation, and this in turn has edified my faith. Also, I have tried to make the sign of the cross recently when I feel temptation or to begin praying and it has helped me. Perhaps if you try these they will help you like it has me.

>>19370744
I will try, thanks anon.
Trying to rationalize the warnings against divination in scripture was a bad little time.

>>19370124
I know this doesn't have much to do with religion, but If it will help you, I recommend you dive into stoicism and stoic philosophy.
That might help you get some peace of mind.

>>19370819
I'm doing so, thanks. Looking to strengthen the spiritual side of things now, though.

>>19370791
Glad to help

>>19368425
>in numerous fulfilled prophecies [...] and typological prefigurations. Other religions can’t compete in this regard
Yes it was entirely written to conform with expectations! It's called a sequel, and if you read books other than "The Book" you will notice for instance how a later book will reference an earlier one because audiences like continuity.

>>19371032
>Yes it was entirely written to conform with expectations
Wow I can’t believe they destroyed their own Temple right when the prophecy said it would happen and stopped all sacrifices just to make that continuity work

>>19367849
I don't believe but I wish I did.
your values at least in theory are beautiful.
The culture, the community.
Probably the only way to get married to someone that will respect you in this day and age it to marry a practicing catholic.
I have tough about pretending I believe. but I feel like that would be disrespectful. Also I don't want to lie.

>>19371045
>temple's going to get destroyed eventually since we're on our second one already
>oh would you look at that IT'S HAPPENING heh just like it was predicted in volume 4.
do Gentiles larping as Hebrews really?

>>19371083
The prophecy in Daniel 9.24-27 gives us a timeframe for the coming of the Messiah, his death, and then the destruction of the Temple by foreigners and a cessation of sacrifices. This is exactly what happened. The seventy ‘sevens’ of the prophecy, when interpreted as sets of seven years in accordance with similar wordings used in Leviticus 25.8 and also in Genesis, we will get a period of 490 years. Once we figure out when the prophecy starts (being given clues by Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence), we are brought to roughly 30 A.D. for the coming of the Messiah. Then the destruction of the Temple was to follow. This happened in 70 A.D. There is also Talmudic evidence that in the 40 years prior to 70 A.D. (i.e. since 30 A.D.) that the sins put on the scapegoats at the Temple stopped being forgiven. I wonder why? Because Jesus made it obsolete.

>>19371120
>uhh if we fudge the numbers the bad event landed pretty close
Too bad the Romans kill him AND then destroy the temple. Seems like you're off the mark. This is what happens when you larp as someone else and don't understand what they were talking about and are instead retconning it to fit what you've already got (i.e. Dionysus)

>>19371151
I’m only seeing cope here. It’s as conclusive a proof as any. And the Jews in the Talmud just conveniently not having their sins forgiven since 30 A.D. is just a coincidence, I’m sure.

>>19367849
>I'm struggling with my faith
Besides going to receive the blessed sacrament as often as possible (of course, confessing regularly), I suggest reading more personal books, to become more acquainted with other people's struggles, and subsequent solutions: the Confessions of St. Augustine, the Seven Storey Mountain of Thomas Merton, the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, the Spiritual Psalter of St. Ephraim, etc. Also, try to increase your prayer life with things like the Practice of the Presence of God by Br. Lawrence, or the Way of a Pilgrim if you are more inclined towards the Eastern side of Christianity. In my opinion, the Summa should really be referenced only with regards to a specific issue you are having trouble assenting to intellectually, or understanding doctrinally - things like the problem of evil, God's existence, whether pride is the worst sin, whether sloth is a mortal sin, etc. It isn't much of a help with intuitive difficulties, as it is more rational than mystical, though St. Thomas was a mystic - you might also want to look into the Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross, or the Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila, for those mystical-type treatises which deal with consolations, development in faith and prayer, and desolation.

Happy to answer any more questions, if these helped, my brother in Christ.

>>19371172
What about the Islamic miracle of defeating the crusaders in Afghanistan? Checkmate miraclefag

>>19371191
Was this predicted centuries beforehand in scripture? If so, did it give an almost exact timeframe? Was the coming true of this prophecy attested in other scriptures?

>>19371228
Yeah there's absolutely examples vague references to defeating the forces of Rüm in their scriptures. And since they did we must concede it's true until the next canonical utterances of the holy scrolls are fulfilled.

>>19371239
Nope, we have no dates, no timeframe, no exact details, or anything. Disingenuous Muslims are embarrassing.

>>19367849
>What? Trying? Why would I do that?

>>19369833
And the Muslim thinks the exact same thing about yours

>>19371249
Trying to pretend something's true through endless positive reinforcement? Probably because it doesn't fool the only bullshit buster in the world, which is time

>>19371272
No, trying by actually reading

>>19371261
Muslims are in a far worse predicament. They rely on the previous scriptures while claiming without evidence that they are corrupt. And then while saying they are corrupt, “People of the Book” are asked to judge by their scriptures, which is unfair if they are corrupt. The Qur’an is asserted to be true baselessly without supporting evidence that prophesizes the coming of Muhammad. Christians have substantial continuity of scriptures with pre-Christian Jews, and can look back to ancient works and see that prophecies have been fulfilled without making ad hoc claims of corruption. This isn’t even the beginning of the problems with the Qur’an. Really, the only thing Muslims would have a problem with in this prophecy is the death of Jesus, they believe He is the Messiah too, obviously, but just a normal man.

>>19371288
Yeah, and then not actually doing all the bits that don't benefit you. You certainly don't give away all your possessions, like Jesus literally told you. I guess that's the famed 11th Commandment, "Commandments for Thee, not for Me."

>>19367916
Oh then the Summa is absolutely horrible to read. It's a dialectic tome on every form of philosophy and science. Incredibly dry for personal faith.
Read Augustine's Confessions. It's best to read straight from somebody talking about their own personal struggles.

>>19371299
>Christians have substantial continuity of scriptures with pre-Christian Jews, and can look back to ancient works and see that prophecies have been fulfilled without making ad hoc claims of corruption.
Not really, since there would probably be no Jews around if Jesus' claim as the true Messiah was really convincing. They view Jesus in the same way you view Muhammed.

>>19371312
>there would probably be no Jews around if Jesus' claim as the true Messiah was really convincing
Just because a claim is "really convincing", does not mean it will be universally accepted. I personally think the case for a globe earth is really convincing, but there is a sizeable portion of the population which rejects it - and similarly, I accept macroevolution and the old date for the Earth, finding the evidence really convincing, and yet that clam is also rejected by huge numbers of people. Your argument is, therefore, not sound.

>>19371312
You’re not even disputing what I said. It’s a fact that the Jews have the vast majority of the books that Christians have in the Old Testament, including the prophecy in Daniel which I have referred to. It doesn’t matter if they don’t accept the message due to the hardness of their hearts or not. Their canon is a witness to the continuity over history. Muslims don’t have this.

>>19368425
>Christianity is both intellectually and experientially fulfilling
holy cringe

imagine reading a bunch of goofy fables and thinking "wow im now intellectually fulfilled"

>>19371328
>wow im now intellectually fulfilled

>>19371324
>You’re not even disputing what I said.
I did just that. Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah, and you don't accept Muhammed as the final prophet. It's the eternal cycle of religious cringe and retardation. There will probably be a Muslim Superprophet who will not be accepted by the Muslims, and so on and so on

>>19371335
If LARPing does that to you, why not run in the woods as well with a foam sword and a templar outfit? You'll at least get some exercise while you roleplay

>>19371340
Muslims have no continuity with previous scriptures and their religion is built on a foundation of sand. Christianity does have clear continuity with the past, regardless of whether Jews accept these claims or not. This isn’t even the only problem with Islam. You think this is some sort of epic BTFO but it’s really not.

>>19371352
>Muslims have no continuity with previous scriptures and their religion is built on a foundation of sand.
According to them, they do. In fact, according to them, the Quran is literally what God himself said, so I guess there's no other choice for you but to say the Shahada and buy a prayer mat. You wouldn't want to end up in hell for worshipping the cross now, would you?

>>19371328
With regards to the intellect, Christianity has an ancient and challenging metaphysical and philosophical tradition, most succinctly expressed in Aquinas. I challenge you to read his works without being intellectually challenged.
Experientially, one can know that Christianity is true through a direct connection with God, and the unmistakable feeling of the indwelling Holy Spirit. He will speak to you, and you will come to know Him. Such a great gift is only given to those who are truly dedicated to reaching enlightenment through kenosis and theosis, however, and so you would never be able to know this without humbling yourself and deciding to seek God with all your heart, mind, and soul.

>>19371371
>I challenge you to read his works without being intellectually challenged.
I agree, Christians indeed are intellectually challenged

>>19371366
>>Muslims have no continuity with previous scriptures and their religion is built on a foundation of sand.
>According to them, they do. In fact, according to them, the Quran is literally what God himself said,
You are missing his point. He is saying that the continuity of the Christian story with the established Jewish scriptures, like Daniel's (and, I might add, Isaiah's) prophecies, is evidence attesting to it being the genuine continuation of the Hebrew religion. Modern (Sunni) Muslims, on the other hand, have to completely reject the scriptures of the Jews and Christians, despite their Qur'an telling them to "judge by" them, because there is a key plot hole in their narrative: Muhammad claims his "revelation" is confirmed by the OT & NT, and to therefore judge what he says by them, but in reality, the OT & NT completely debunk the fundamental Islamic claim of continuity/confirmation with those scriptures (eg. Jesus' deity in John 1, Son of God being applied as a title everywhere in scripture, etc.)

>>19371379
Thanks for your kind words. I hope one day you will try actually reading our greatest philosophical and metaphysical works, to see how much our greatest thinkers intellectually tower over you - then, you will know why that one anon said Christianity is intellectually fulfilling. Or, you can keep running away, the choice is yours!

>>19371352
>have no continuity with previous scriptures and their religion is built on a foundation of sand.
Ah yes much like the Old Testament, which itself is a work of the genius of a people in history and not magical revelation from God (of course if you're assuming it actually is that then we need to ask how we know the other nations' scriptures aren't which circles us back to what you're arguing for the magic of the NT)... seems like we're scratching a regression problem here miraclefag

>>19371390
>You are missing his point. He is saying that the continuity of the Christian story with the established Jewish scriptures, like Daniel's (and, I might add, Isaiah's) prophecies, is evidence attesting to it being the genuine continuation of the Hebrew religion.
And Muhammed's war against the Quraysh is not a continuation of exactly what Moses did?

>>19371392
>of course if you're assuming it actually is that then we need to ask how we know the other nations' scriptures aren't which circles us back to what you're arguing for the magic of the NT
It seems pretty clear to me that his argument for the OT scriptures being divinely inspired, or containing the records of divinely inspired individuals, is that a huge number of prophesies from that canon were fulfilled, where the same cannot be said of other religion's scriptures

>>19371397
That is not a continuity with the scriptures. Please read what I said again, slowly, and you will hopefully understand my point.

>>19371390
>I hope one day you will try actually reading our greatest philosophical and metaphysical works, to see how much our greatest thinkers intellectually tower over you
They do, but they're not Christian. Christian thinkers are surprisingly irrelevant in the history of ideas

>>19371366
>According to them, they do.
But they don’t. They have a completely different scripture and there is zero evidence for these massive corruptions their religion posits. People can claim anything they want, what matters is if they can substantiate these claims. Muslims fail.

>according to them, the Quran is literally what God himself said
It’s evidently not from God when Muhammad got the entirety of the revelation from a being claiming to be a an angel, plus it conflicts with previous scriptural tradition, like I said. The clear errors and confusions present in the Qur’an such as the confusion of Mary, mother of Jesus and Miriam, brother of Moses, and stories about Dhul-Qurnayn that are clearly lifted from Syrian tales such as the Alexander Romance lean against it coming from God. Even the name of this prophet, traditionally said to be Alexander the Great, indicates that his name (Dhul-Qurnayn = He of Two Horns) come from coins depicting him as the horned pagan deity Zeus Ammon. Muslims can claim whatever they want, just like retards can say the Earth is flat.

>>19371402
>That is not a continuity with the scriptures.
So the scriptures are not about embracing monotheism and fighting polytheism, then?

>>19371407
>They have a completely different scripture and there is zero evidence for these massive corruptions their religion posits.
Again, so do you, and according the Jews, as does yours

>It’s evidently not from God when Muhammad got the entirety of the revelation from a being claiming to be a an angel, plus it conflicts with previous scriptural tradition, like I said.
Which, once again, is just your opinion, one that's no more convincing than a Muslim who clains tge exact opposite

>>19370304
>>19370124
You should understand that struggling with faith is a central point of Christianity. Look at any prayer book, whether it be a monastic breviary or a liturgical handout, and you will see instances of "Lord, grant me faith". In Mark 9:23-24 you see
>Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
>And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
There's no point where you achieve this unwavering faith requirement and you're then allowed to progress to stage two. The struggle with faith will stay there, it's part of a lifelong path. I would say that it is one of the most central pillars of being a Christian, to upkeep your faith in God. You talk about "submitting" as if you were thinking that you need to achieve this monk-like relinquishment of your whole self to God before you can call yourself a Christian, while this sort of thing is something that you have to work for all your life. Even the saint who is completely devoted to God has to make an effort toward his faith. I may be wrong though since I'm new, but I think your problem lies somewhere along this reasoning.

>>19371403
>Pascal, Newton, Tesla, Lemaitre, Lavoisier, Euler, Faraday, Mendel, Dalton, and Kelvin are surprisingly irrelevant in the history of ideas
Interesting perspective. You're free to hold that obviously ridiculous idea.
>>19371408
You, again, are missing the point that I made. Following the same theme as the OT scriptures is not the same as maintaining continuity with them. Please reread my actual summary of that anon's point again:
>He is saying that the continuity of the Christian story with the established Jewish scriptures, like Daniel's (and, I might add, Isaiah's) prophecies, is evidence attesting to it being the genuine continuation of the Hebrew religion. Modern (Sunni) Muslims, on the other hand, have to completely reject the scriptures of the Jews and Christians, despite their Qur'an telling them to "judge by" them, because there is a key plot hole in their narrative: Muhammad claims his "revelation" is confirmed by the OT & NT, and to therefore judge what he says by them, but in reality, the OT & NT completely debunk the fundamental Islamic claim of continuity/confirmation with those scriptures (eg. Jesus' deity in John 1, Son of God being applied as a title everywhere in scripture, etc.)

>>19371408
The Muslim ‘monotheism’ is not Christian / Israelite monotheism. The Trinity can be found all over the Old Testament, as well as in the theophanies of the OT via the Angel of the Lord (even identified by pre-Christian Jews as the Logos). Just because some Arabian merchant claims to be a monotheist in the tradition of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does mean that he is. They have a completely different scripture which fundamentally contradicts previous revelation as relayed by Moses and the other prophets.

>>19371402
>a huge number of prophesies from that canon were fulfilled

>>19371417
>Again, so do you, and according the Jews, as does yours
No, anon, Christians have many of the same texts as modern Jews do today, while Muslims have an entirely different scripture. Christians have extended the canon, yes, but this doesn’t go against my main point, i.e. that we have continuity in previous traditions, namely pre-Jesus Second Temple Judaism and even to before that.

And again, it doesn’t matter what Muslims say or if they would disagree, what matters is the evidence they have to support their claims.

>>19371439
Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, as has been already talked about, is the most obvious one (which is also historically verifiable, and undeniable). There are many others, like the Suffering Servant, but no doubt your eyes are shut from seeing, and your ears, hearing, cannot hear.

>>19371402
>a huge number of prophesies from that canon were fulfilled
So the NT is true because it is prophecized in the OT, and the OT is true because the NT is true. Very compelling version of "because i said so," o wise priest

>>19371464
I take it the proof of these is not very convincing seeing as I need special eyes and ears and shit.

>>19371434
>Just because some Arabian merchant claims to be a monotheist in the tradition of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does mean that he is.
Ah but when Greek bacchants do it, that's not only okay but even more correct than the extant Abrahamists! Why is this so?

>>19371426
>>Pascal, Newton, Tesla, Lemaitre, Lavoisier, Euler, Faraday, Mendel, Dalton, and Kelvin are surprisingly irrelevant in the history of ideas
Compared to the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and Persians, without which your religion wouldn't exist in the first place? Very much so

>Modern (Sunni) Muslims, on the other hand, have to completely reject the scriptures of the Jews and Christians, despite their Qur'an telling them to "judge by" them, because there is a key plot hole in their narrative: Muhammad claims his "revelation" is confirmed by the OT & NT, and to therefore judge what he says by them, but in reality, the OT & NT completely debunk the fundamental Islamic claim of continuity/confirmation with those scriptures (eg. Jesus' deity in John 1, Son of God being applied as a title everywhere in scripture, etc.)
This is complete nonsense. You can read any book, not just the Quran, Hadith or Sirah, but also various theological histories, such as the one by Ibn Kathir, and fibd them peppered with references and "confirmations" of previous prophecies informing us that Muhammed is indeed the final prophet, and they're just as hollow and void as yours are. Anyway, my point with all of this is very simple: why should anyone except your logic for "confirming" divine revelation basically just decree), when you don't accept the very same logic when a Muslim uses it? What makes your religion anf different than his? All I see is two religions making the exact same claim of exclusivity, based on the exact same lack of convincing evidence, or even three religions for that matter if you include Judaism. Your callbacks don't mean jackshit to anyone who isn't already convinced that his religion just magically happens to be the only right one. I don't care if they consider wine blood or feel the need to run around a cube. All of them are pretty much the same, in that, when you ask them why theirs is the only right one, none of them can give an answer that the other one could never give you. This song and dance you're doing right now is the same one I see when Muslims claim that the Quran is so beautiful, it must be a miracle. All of it means exactly the same, absolutely nothing at all

>>19371476
>So the NT is true because it is prophecized in the OT
Yes.
>and the OT is true because the NT is true.
The OT is confirmed by the prophecies contained within it coming to pass in history, such as the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks most notably, and other prophecies about the Gentiles coming to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And that is only a subset of the numerous fulfilled prophecies of the Old Testament. Elements of these prophecies are verifiable from extra-Biblical perspectives, such as the destruction of the Second Temple and the ending of sacrifices in 70 A.D., and the several Talmudic references to the sins put on scapegoats not being forgiven from 30 A.D. onwards, which matches up exactly with what is said in Daniel, and what was accomplished through the crucifixion of Jesus. We can easily look outside the Bible for proof

>>19371491
>Your callbacks don't mean jackshit to anyone who isn't already convinced that his religion just magically happens to be the only right one
Wrong. I wasn’t born a Christian and I found the prophecies and interconnected natures of the Old and New Testaments and the prophecies being discussed in this thread fascinating. No other religious scripture can compete.

>>19371507
>All of them are pretty much the same, in that, when you ask them why theirs is the only right one, none of them can give an answer that the other one could never give you.
Literally what I just told you. Thanks for proving my point

>>19371476
>So the NT is true because it is prophecized in the OT
No, I believe the NT is true because of the historical case for the resurrection.
>and the OT is true because the NT is true
Yes, the OT is true because its various testable claims (eg. Daniel's Seventy Weeks) are proven to be true by the NT, which is externally confirmed. Therefore, it is not circular reasoning, but an inductive case based upon external evidence.

>>19371491
>Compared to the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and Persians, without which your religion wouldn't exist in the first place? Very much so
Yeah, we both agree that the devout Christian Nikola Tesla's ideas are no longer relevant. Please respond to me about how irrelevant he is, as you use a machine powered by AC electricity.
>such as the one by Ibn Kathir, and fibd them peppered with references and "confirmations" of previous prophecies informing us that Muhammed is indeed the final prophet, and they're just as hollow and void as yours are
If we are talking about modern Muslims who deny the authority of the Bible. I would be happy to talk to a Muslim who believes in the OT & NT about why their book directly contradicts the scriptures, thus proving their falsehood, but they almost do not exist anymore.
>why should anyone except your logic for "confirming" divine revelation basically just decree), when you don't accept the very same logic when a Muslim uses it? What makes your religion anf different than his?
Because the case for Christianity, specifically the fulfillment of prophesies of the OT, and the historical case for the resurrection, is much stronger than the Islamic case - and this is coming from somebody who originally analyzed both cases as a dispassionate outside who was willing to believe either. If the Christian case is stronger, as I believe it to be, then the Islamic claim necessarily falls apart, because it directly contradicts the Christian claims, with even less compelling evidence.
>the same one I see when Muslims claim that the Quran is so beautiful, it must be a miracle. All of it means exactly the same, absolutely nothing at all
The linchpin of Christianity is the resurrection and fulfillement of the Old Testament prophesies, which are historical progressive cases which can be made with corroborating evidence from historical documents and events - even Jesus' enemies claim that He was a "sorcerer" in external texts (eg. Talmud). The Islamic claim, on the other hand, is only hearsay from a man who had much to gain from people believing him. The only miracle they claim, besides the obviously ridiculous beauty of the Qur'an, is that he had a vivid dream, and that he cut the moon in two with his finger, neither of which are verifiable through a historical analysis.

I believe Christianity to be true for similar reasons that I believe that Socrates was a real man - because I believe the evidence supporting that conclusion convincing.

>>19371497
>We can easily look outside the Bible for proof
Best you can do is some scornful Roman sources saying the servile classes started worshiping Jesus. Little did they know that would become the law of the land for a thousand years

>>19371538
>the historical case for the resurrection after the Trojan War
Seems more likely that Odysseus' crew got eaten by a cyclops

>>19371538
>the historical case for the resurrection.
Seems more likely that Odysseus' crew got eaten by a cyclops after the Trojan war

>>19371553
I gave you several instances. I can show you what is in the Talmud too:
Rosh Hashanah 31b:
>The ordinance was with regard to the strip of crimson wool used on Yom Kippur. As it is taught in a baraita: At first they would tie a strip of crimson wool to the opening of the Entrance Hall of the Temple on the outside. If, after the sacrificing of the offerings and the sending of the scapegoat, the strip turned White, the people would rejoice, as this indicated that their sins had been atoned for. If it did not turn White they would be sad.

>During the forty years before the Second Temple was destroyed the strip of crimson wool would not turn White; rather, it would turn a deeper shade of red
https://www.sefaria.org/Rosh_Hashanah.31b

Yoma 39b
>The Sages taught: During the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, the lot for God always arose in the High Priest’s right hand; after his death, it occurred only occasionally; but during the forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple, the lot for God did not arise in the High Priest’s right hand at all. So too, the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel did not turn White, and the westernmost lamp of the candelabrum did not burn continually.
https://www.sefaria.org/Yoma.39b.5

These Talmudic accounts are about the scapegoat ritual at the Jewish temple, and how the Jews stopped having their sins forgiven in the forty years prior to the destruction of the temple (which comes out to literally 30 A.D., give or take). Jews would take a goat, tie a cloth around its horns or neck, and send it out into the wilderness for the forgiveness of sins.

>>19371569
Because there were several firsthand eyewitnesses to the allegedly risen Christ, who risked brutal torture and death for spreading their testimony and yet chose to do it anyway, I say there is far more compelling evidence to accept the resurrection as historically plausible than to accept the existence of monsters in the Odyssey.

>>19368095
>>19368395
P R E L E S T

>>19371584
>risked brutal torture and death for spreading their testimony and yet chose to do it anyway
Guess we should believe all suicidal manifesto writers then

>>19371935
Except the apostles were not dying for something they received through an oral tradition, they were dying for something they believed to be true by their witnessing it firsthand. The question, then, is: what made the apostles so convinced that their crucified master had risen from the dead, and hanged out with them for 40 days before visibly ascending into heaven in the sight of all of them?

>>19372029
Even more inexplicable is the change of Paul from hater and killer of Christians to one of the greatest apostles

>>19372055
May we all persevere to the end, and gain our crowns, like he did.

>>19372068
Amen.

>>19367875
I am a pastor. What y’all need niggha.

>>19372029
>what made them do x
They believed in it. That doesn't make them correct. Are you so juvenile as to believe people only die for what is true rather than what they believe in?
>>19372055
What, you've never changed your mind about something? I guess that is the mentality driving these threads!

>>19372120
>They believed in it.
That doesn't answer my question. I asked,
"what made the apostles so convinced that their crucified master had risen from the dead, and hanged out with them for 40 days before visibly ascending into heaven in the sight of all of them?"
And your answer, "they believed in it", does not answer that question. I am asking why they believed in it, not if they did. It isn't a trick question, I just want to know what your hypothesis is for why they came to believe that so wholeheartedly.

>>19372120
>What, you've never changed your mind about something?
It’s quite the change to go from killing Christians and ransacking their homes and imprisoning them to suddenly start preaching the same thing they were, and later being beheaded for it.

>>19372125
People have believed that Thor's father killed a giant the size of the cosmos and used his corpse to make the earth. And those same people, feeling quite blessed in their endeavours by the gods, got in rowboats and sailed up the rivers of Europe to rape and plunder the people who thought a rabbi rose from the dead. Belief is a complex psychological and social phenomenon. And most of what people believe is garbage.

>>19372162
Forgive me, but you still have not answered my question. I asked,
"what made the apostles so convinced that their crucified master had risen from the dead, and hanged out with them for 40 days before visibly ascending into heaven in the sight of all of them?"
I am not asking, "What crazy beliefs have people held throughout the ages?", I am asking why, in your estimation, the apostles came to believe in the resurrection. Surely you have a hypothesis?

>>19372150
He took sides. He was half Roman himself. It must have seemed like a good idea to him to lead the rabble in Christ's place, but to place yourself at the head of something, now that makes for an easy target. Nothing risked, nothing gained though... his name surely lives so perhaps there's that.

>>19372170
I don't care why they believed he rose from the dead. If I did, I'd have to care about what all the fables say about all these kinds of characters and at that point I'd be drifting into some sort of schizo-pantheism as the only workable solution to every people having their gods and demigods until the steam engine and smokestack humbled them. Otherwise I'd need to maintain a laughable idiosyncracy wherein only one fable is true and the others are lies, because they just are, okay? There's no criteria for truth when Alice in Wonderland is a viable scripture.

>>19372171
>He was half Roman himself.
Nope. Paul was “a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee” (Philippians 3:5). Paul had Roman citizenship, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t completely a Jew ethnically.

>It must have seemed like a good idea to him to lead the rabble in Christ's place
Implying that St. Peter wasn’t the primus inter pares among the apostles.

>>19372203
>If I did, I'd have to care about what all the fables say about all these kinds of characters and at that point I'd be drifting into some sort of schizo-pantheism as the only workable solution to every people having their gods and demigods until the steam engine and smokestack humbled them.
The Bible has fulfilled prophecies, other scriptures do not. It’s that simple

>>19372219
Peter may have been the executive but Paul was definitely operations

>>19372203
>I don't care why they believed he rose from the dead.
I'm not asking you whether you care about why they believed in the resurrection. I am asking you whether or not you have a hypothesis to explain why the apostles all simultaneously came to believe that Jesus had rose from the dead, and stayed with them, eating and drinking, for 40 days, before ascending into heaven. To me, the most rational hypothesis to explain this event is that Jesus actually rose from the dead - and that is why I am a Christian. If you don't have a stronger hypothesis, I'm just curious why you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead. Usually, in order to categorically reject one hypothesis, one has a superior, or more likely hypothesis, to explain that same event in its place.

If you have no explanation, and just don't want to believe, that's fine. I just always like to ask anti-Christians what their reason and logic is. So far, I have never met one, online or otherwise, who had a more compelling case than that Jesus had resurrected. Vision hypothesis, messianic lie hypothesis, all fall apart easily. So I just wondered if you were bringing something to the table, or if you just don't want to believe.

>>19372203
So you think the apostles weren’t real?

>>19372228
You already believe that, so you're talking in circles. What comes first, red queen, the sentence or the evidence?

>>19372240
If you had ever opened a Bible you would be aware that both Peter and Paul actively evangelized among both Gentiles and Jews

>>19372247
You don’t need to have prior belief in the Bible to see that the prophecy in Daniel 9.24-27 came true. Is there a Temple today? Are sacrifices done in this Temple today? Was it not destroyed by foreign armies?

>>19372245
The evidence is entirely hagiographic, i.e. that they believed because they were the holy founders of the faith who met god. Of course the apostles believed in Jesus and the resurrection! It is a silly thing to press me on. I don't believe in the singular reanimation of a corpse as validation of a corpus of theology. There is nothing to present as evidence except that other people believe it. I don't have to adhere to your pre-refuted counter-arguments

>>19372246
I'm sure there was a person Jesus or maybe several related figures. Same for the Apostles. Less sure am I that they were not only magicians but the only theologically accurate magicians in all of human history.

>>19372270
>they believed because they were the holy founders of the faith who met god
That is not answering my question. I am quite clearly asking, why do YOU think that the apostles came to be convinced that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and stayed with them for 40 days, and then ascended into heaven? What is your hypothesis as to why this belief came to be so strongly held by these men 2000 years ago?
>Of course the apostles believed in Jesus and the resurrection!
Yes, and that is not what I am asking: I am asking, why do you think they came to believe that, not if they believed that.

>>19372258
This was addressed already. They were on their second such temple. It's no stretch for a society's priests to be reduced to millennarian polemics when you've been conquered half a dozen times. Finally someone is going to come along to knock everything down. This isn't proof of a prophecy it's basic world historical process and pattern

>>19372316
>conveniently ignoring the timeframe given in the prophecy

>>19372306
As I am quite sure I have mentioned, people believe whatever they want. I don't have a deep analysis of why they believed this in particular any more than I would for the 9/11 hijckers. Well actually, both were monotheists and world-deniers (reality bad, god good) so that leads to weird shit in general, but I digress. In that case perhaps they hated the Romans or the Pharisees enough to want to be killed by them as a sort of display of piety.

>>19372333
Blood in the water and it only got bloodier. Babylonians, Persians, Macedonians, MORE Macedonians, EVEN MORE Macedonians, Romans. The Romans had no tolerance for rebellion being the most violent and authoritarian of the lot. Your prophet was a smart guy trapped in a suspicious age

>>19372367
I’m now convinced you haven’t even read the passage in question. Your cope is getting insane

>>19372029
>Except the apostles were not dying for something they received through an oral tradition
Almost every radical cult goes quite noticeably against the established oral tradition that it originally based itself off. Notice that same is true for Christianity.

>>19372125
>"what made the apostles so convinced that their crucified master had risen from the dead, and hanged out with them for 40 days before visibly ascending into heaven in the sight of all of them?"
Wicked memes did.

I'm not a euphoric atheist but your argument would lead us to conclude that Peoples Temple and Scientology had some serious factual foundations for their beliefs - since some people believe in the stuff really hard.

>>19372346
Just wanted to make sure you had no hypothesis that was superior to the resurrection.
>In that case perhaps they hated the Romans or the Pharisees enough to want to be killed by them as a sort of display of piety.
That doesn't explain why they believed that Jesus had risen from the dead - as you surely know, lying in ancient Hebrew society, much less lying about a human being and claiming Him to be God Almighty in the flesh, and attempting to convince others to worship Him as the divine Son of God, was a spiritual death sentence for leading the children of Israel astray. Does not seem at all likely to me, therefore, that they would choose to be tortured and killed for something they knew to be a complete lie, and which they believed would merit them eternal punishment in Gehenna.

>>19372375
>he's down to cope
Sorry pal, I'm not going to believe in your god on the basis of what other inherently unreliable sources say. And prior to the emergence of monotheism and the mosaic distinction there would have been little reason to compel others to confirm precisely to your idiosyncratic god. It's a kind of technology really, and it's taken a long time to even partially digest and pass.

>>19372411
>I'm not a euphoric atheist but your argument would lead us to conclude that Peoples Temple and Scientology had some serious factual foundations for their beliefs
I believe you are missing the point. Unlike Scientology and the People's Temple, the apostles had nothing to gain from choosing to be tortured and killed for their beliefs - and this adamant persistence to spread this word, that Jesus was the divine Son of God who had died and resurrected, is what I am attempting to find an explanation for. It would be much easier, in a way, for me to be agnostic, so I honestly and openly welcome any rebuttal, or attempted explanation. So, if you have any explanation, please share it, because I have not yet heard a single good one. Even the one most scholars hold,the vision hypothesis, is completely ridiculous, and relies on an even unlikelier miracle than the resurrection.

>>19372413
>Does not seem at all likely to me, therefore, that they would choose to be tortured and killed for something they knew to be a complete lie,
They believed in it so it was real enough. Again, if strong belief=truth, I strongly believe we would have to take all strong beliefs seriously and become schizo pantheists rather than lockdown into a single myth and say "that's it this is the only one everyone else is wrong I just KNOW." So uh, moving to Kabul any time soon? Heard they had quite the miracle

>>19372439
>They believed in it so it was real enough.
No offence, brother, but I am seriously wondering if English is your second language, now. I am not asking IF they believed in it, I am asking WHY they came to believe they had a firsthand experience of their crucified master rising from the dead, staying with them for 40 days, eating and drinking with them on the beach, and then ascending into heaven in sight of many people. What could possible have made them believe this?

>>19372448
Well Odin killed all those frost giants.

>>19372438
>Unlike Scientology and the People's Temple, the apostles had nothing to gain from choosing to be tortured and killed for their beliefs
Factually untrue. They were told that they would go to heaven. If that doesn't counts - then People's Temple also had nothing to gain from choosing to an hero themselves.

>and this adamant persistence to spread this word, that Jesus was the divine Son of God who had died and resurrected, is what I am attempting to find an explanation for
There can be many reasons - and if you are being intellectually honest, then you have to accept that it's not impossible that they were simply persuaded. By arguing that personal conviction can't exist without factual foundation, you are simply engaging in heresy. Men do sin - they deceive and can be deceive. Your argument makes a supposition that strong enough personal conviction can be entirely untouched by mortal sin, which would make any such conviction into a font of Salvation - so Jesus would end up as not the only one, and eventually we would end up with a pantheist argument as >>19372439 pointed out - as you would have to recognize divinity in the foundation of any sufficiently strong conviction by failing to realize that any human conviction can be as sinful as any other human activity.

That's just plain-ass Brunic heresy.

test

>>19372516
>They were told that they would go to heaven. If that doesn't counts - then People's Temple also had nothing to gain from choosing to an hero themselves.
Again, keep in mind the key distinction here: we are talking about the founders of a sect, who are believing in something which they were, in some form, witnesses to - not people who had simply received an oral tradition, and had chosen to believe it (like Islam, or Scientology). That's the reason I am using the apostles in this context, and not the martyrs who followed them after; the relevance for the argument is the question of WHY they came to believe they had a firsthand experience of their crucified master rising from the dead, staying with them for 40 days, eating and drinking with them on the beach, and then ascending into heaven in sight of many people. What could possible have made them believe this?

We know, broadly, what made the followers of Islam, or the People's Temple, or the Scientologist followers, believe it: it sounded convincing, and more convincing than what they had previously believed. But the apostles did not just receive a belief - they believed BECAUSE they had seen it, or so they said. What I am asking is, WHY did they believe that?
>f you are being intellectually honest, then you have to accept that it's not impossible that they were simply persuaded
Persuaded by who? They were the terminus of this chain.
>By arguing that personal conviction can't exist without factual foundation, you are simply engaging in heresy
That's not what I am arguing for. Please reread my posts. I am asking the question of WHY they came to believe what they believed.
>Your argument makes a supposition that strong enough personal conviction can be entirely untouched by mortal sin, which would make any such conviction into a font of Salvation
I am not making such an argument at all, and have not mentioned mortal sin even once. Personal convictions can lead to erroneous conclusions all the time.
>you would have to recognize divinity in the foundation of any sufficiently strong conviction by failing to realize that any human conviction can be as sinful as any other human activity.
Absolutely not. I am, again, just asking the question of what led the apostle to believe that Jesus Christ had risen and appeared to them, eating and drinking with them for 40 days, and then ascending into heaven.

>>19372606
>why
Unanswerable from the evidence we have; you can't exactly ask Paul or whoever to lie down on the couch and tell you about his father. What we do have are religious writings, which as you note contain events written such that they fulfill an older body of scripture. Unfortunately these are not the only such texts, and because all such texts generally contain miraculous events and unverifiable dogmas we are left with a curious task. Can we "prove" one is "true" to the exclusion of the others or not? Since you are already an atheist of other peoples' gods you know all too well that religions can be knocked down, no matter what their followers think is true, because you've made yourself the arbiter of what is true already. Perhaps that should give you some insight into why the early Christians had their beliefs; it hadn't occurred to them that anyone else could be right

>>19368799
>Zoroaster
Don't listen to this heretic

>>19372697
>Unanswerable from the evidence we have;
So you do not have a single hypothesis as to why the early apostolic community collectively and simultaneously believed that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead, as professed in not only the gospels, but the Corinthian Creed, which secular scholars agree was from the Jerusalem apostolic community in the very earliest days of the church?
>that should give you some insight into why the early Christians had their beliefs; it hadn't occurred to them that anyone else could be right
Because you have not provided any hypotheses as to why the apostles believed what they believed, I am left with only one insight - that you do not have a better hypothesis than that Jesus Christ truly did rise from the dead, and that is why the apostles simultaneously came to believe in it, proclaiming that they had seen Him, and eaten with Him, and spoke with Him, and that He resurrected before their very eyes, even unto their deaths.

>>19372765
I have told you repeatedly that people all around the world believe all different religious stories. You have no way of demonstrating yours is true to their exclusion except for self-reference and "they just believed it so much it couldn't be wrong," which is completely unconvincing to an audience more aware of world religions. I am not even calling them liars. I am asking why they are correct. Your answer seems to be that they wouldn't lie about the truth, the truth of course being the story they themselves are telling on the basis of other just-so's from their prior co-rreligionists.

>>19372825
>"they just believed it so much it couldn't be wrong,"
I never made this claim. I already made it clear that I believe the most compelling hypothesis for why the apostles suddenly came to believe in Jesus Christ's deity and bodily resurrection, and that they were willing to zealously proclaim is even risking torture and death, is because He actually appeared to them resurrected in His physical body. I am only asking what other hypotheses non-believers are putting forward to explain the same event, not making the unfalsifiable claim that the resurrection is the ONLY reason they could have believed that. I think it is the most likely explanation, but not the only explanation, and I had to follow the most likely explanation and evidence wherever it led, not to where I wanted to go. It would be much easier for me to not be a Christian, trust me.

>>19373227
How is a miracle the most likely explanation? By definition it's the least likely. You are the one leaping here. My non-affirmation is entirely conventional.

>>19373336
Any hypothesis concerning what happened to Jesus must be able to explain the following four facts:
>Jesus’ burial
>the discovery of his empty tomb
>his postmortem appearances
>the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

For his burial, we have four independent sources which say that Joseph of Arimathea put the body of Jesus in a tomb after his crucifixion. Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, and thus part of the council that condemned Jesus, and is thus unlikely to be a Christian invention. Many scholars such as John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University and Raymond Brown agree on this matter.

Six early sources also directly or indirectly attest that Jesus' tomb was found empty. This includes the four Gospels, Acts (2:29-32, 13:36-37), implied in 1 Corinthians 15:4, etc. If this were fake, the Jewish leaders would have likely taken his body and shown it to the Christians after people started proclaiming that he was risen in order to stop the movement.

And then there are the postmortem experiences of Jesus that people had, both enemy and friend alike. These are reported in several independent sources, including the Gospels, letters of Paul and in Acts. Even skeptical scholars like Gerd Lüdemann will admit that "“It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”, as he wrote in his book What Really Happened to Jesus?

And we also have to explain why the disciples began to believe that Jesus rose in the first place. The mainstream Jews of the time had no idea of a Messiah who would die and be executed by the Romans. The Messiah in the views of many Jews was supposed to destroy the enemies of the Jews and bring about a kingdom on Earth. On top of this, the Jewish worldview precluded the idea of anyone rising up to glory and immortality before the end of the world, yet they began to claim that Jesus had done it, and risked their lives in defense of this belief, many of his disciples dying horrific deaths at the hands of the Jews to proclaim this.

The resurrection simply has the greatest explanatory scope and power of any other hypothesis such as the swoon hypothesis, or the substitution hypothesis, or the stolen body or anything similar. None of the other theories can adequately explain the rise of Christianity.

Ultimately though whether you accept this or not will depend on your presuppositions regarding reality. From a naturalistic framework this will be impossible and limit the range of solutions. From a theistic framework, it becomes extremely possible.

>>19373414
>the following four facts
These are not "facts" they are items of belief or disbelief and have no reality outside the discourse of the religion. An apple falling from a tree is a fact, not a man rising from the dead in 30 AD. Why are none of the other fables important? What about the ascension of Mohamed? The parinibbana of the Buddha? Whatever Zoroaster was doing before that? Just doesn't matter? Their disciples were all deceitful?

>>19373414
Why didnt they recognize them after his resurrection?

>>19373437
Those four things are agreed on by most scholars to be historical facts on the basis of the basis of the independent sources that we possess. You may cope however you like, but that’s how it is.

>What about the ascension of Mohamed?
He claimed this happened himself and there were no witnesses to it. Happened when everyone was asleep too. On top of this, a good case can be made that Muhammad was in concert with demons of some sort.

>The parinibbana of the Buddha?
He died and they cremated his body. The guy probably had some sort of mystical experiences in his life. Not compelling.

>Whatever Zoroaster was doing before that?
Same sort of stuff here.

None of these people have prophecies written centuries earlier to substantiate their claims either.

>>19373468
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses

There are more and better sources for Mormonism than Christianity

>>19373437
>These are not "facts" they are items of belief or disbelief and have no reality outside the discourse of the religion
He means historical events, which are so ubiquitously believed among historical scholars, that it makes sense to call them facts. There is a near-universal scholarly consensus that Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried. There is a further near-universal consensus that there was a sudden and unexpected shift in apostles beliefs, where they suddenly came to believe that Jesus had risen bodily from the dead, and had stayed with them for a long period of time, before ascending into heaven in their sight. What that anon is asking you is: what hypothesis best explains those historical facts? He alluded to a few which are proposed: the swoon hypothesis, substitution hypothesis, stolen body hypothesis, etc. Other popular ones include the vision hypothesis, and the messianic lie hypothesis. Having analyzed all of the respective probabilities of these as best I could (from a neutral and non-Christian standpoint, because it was before my conversion), I believe that these hypotheses simply are not strong enough to show how these historical events can be explained. They all have such critical flaws, and rely on other never-before-seen and never-seen-since flaws (like the mass extended delusions of the vision hypothesis, the surviving crucifixion without medical care of the swoon hypothesis, and the lying for the purpose of being tortured and killed and go to Gehenna for the messianic lie hypothesis). Not only do they require such logical leaps, almost to the level of miraculous, but they ALSO fail to explain several other facts even if they are assumed to be true, like the theophany experience of Paul, the miracles of Christ as attested to by the Talmudic sages, the fulfilled predictions of various Old Testament prophesies (like Daniel's Prophecy of Seventy Weeks and the Suffering Servant), and the scientifically unexplained miracles which continue to this day in association with the apostolic Christian churches (like the canonization miracle of St. Margaret D'Youville, or the various miraculous healings at pilgrimage sites like Lourdes and St. Joseph's Oratory).

All of these taken together lead me to believe that the most likely hypothesis to explain these historical events is also the most simple: that the apostles were truthfully relaying what they saw, which was that Jesus rose from the dead, ate and drank with them, talked with them, spend about 40 days with them, and then ascended into heaven in their sight.

>>19373448
Because he was in his heavenly form at first. The same thing that happened to his body in Luke 9 in the transfiguration—“As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning”. You should also remember that Jesus made himself recognized in these accounts after they invited him in for supper, he did not look different the entire time. Other accounts have him recognized immediately. In the ending of Mark 16 we have both reports of appearance in the form mentioned at the end of Luke and appearances that are implied to be normal. Mary Magdalene is said in John to recognize Jesus after she turns around and sees him. The other accounts in John have Jesus appear among them and he is recognized by the disciples. This evidently happened several times.

>>19373468
>they don't count because... they just don't... not my miracles not my christ, simple as

>>19373481
>Not only do they require such logical leaps, almost to the level of miraculous, but they ALSO fail to explain several other facts even if they are assumed to be true
lmao sorry that's nonsense. Wake up, Alice, you're not in wonderland, no one is undead in the real world.

>>19373474
Mormonism is self-evidently false in that there is zero evidence of any of its historical narratives in America, that Joseph Smith was known for fraud, and that the Book of Mormon is riddled with historical inaccuracies like wheeled vehicles in the Americas and horses, among other things. Whether these tablets existed or not doesn’t matter. Like Islam, it was demonic activity. It conflicts with previous scriptures, and to a massive extent, in turning Christianity into some sort of polytheistic mess where God comes from planet Kolob

>>19373474
We have no way of judging the sincerity of the eight witnesses of Mormonism, because they were in an environment where they would not be at any substantial risk for professing their belief - and when they did encounter risk from the Danites, they chose to run away, rather than profess their beliefs and be martyred. Also, we have strong firsthand evidence to suggest that they were lying, from an authoritative figure in the movement: "Mormon leader Stephen Burnett, said in 1838 that Martin Harris had told him that "the eight witnesses never saw [the plates] & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it." (Stephen Burnett, Letter to Lyman E. Johnson)

>>19373437
>What about the ascension of Mohamed?
There is no reason to believe this testimony of Muhammad to be more true than, say, a homeless man telling me that he is Jesus Christ. Muhammad had an extreme financial motivation, not to mention his reputational and love-based motivations (his many wives that he acquired as a result of claiming to be a prophet), to make up claims that supported his claim to prophethood. The apostles had no such incentives, and indeed had opposite incentives (eg. leaving their wives, losing their money and their lives), and so their testimonies are far more reliable (as well as being multiply attested).
>The parinibbana of the Buddha?
Nobody denies that the Buddha probably had mystical experiences.
>Whatever Zoroaster was doing before that?
What miraculous claims are you referencing?

>>19367849
They don't call it the 'Summa' for nothing.

>>19373509
This claim rests on naturalistic presuppositions.
>>19373496
Many of the supernatural aspects very well could have happened to some extent, but that doesn’t mean they were what they said they were. Meanwhile the Bible has scriptural prophecies that back up Jesus’ claims about who He was. It’s that simple.

>>19373519
Why are prior scriptures true? Didn't someone eventually not have a prior scripture? Can you demonstrate it's not turtles all the way down or not?

>>19373509
>lmao sorry that's nonsense.
Not an argument. I clearly outlined why those hypotheses have such logical leaps, and that even if one takes them, they fail to explain several other pertinent questions.
>Wake up, Alice, you're not in wonderland, no one is undead in the real world.
It appears that based on the case of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the most likely and rational hypothesis which explains all historical occurrences is that He rose from the dead. If you don't provide any argument to support your position, why should I believe you?

>>19373525
>the bible... supports the bible
Very cool. And nice denial of nature too while you are at it. No wonder Spinoza and Nietzsche make your kind seethe

>>19373541
The Bible is a later compilation of documents. We are dealing with the firsthand eyewitness testimonies themselves, which attest to a Messianic figure who lived right before the destruction of the Second Temple, which fits exactly with the extremely tight time frame of Daniel's prophecy of Seventy Weeks that was recorded hundreds of years before.

>>19373528
Paul's vision wasn't any more valid than ol' Joey's visions.

>>19373532
>the most likely and rational hypothesis
No it's not. I don't know why you keep claiming this. The fact that it is so unbelievable is what makes it the shit test of your religion in the first place. You can't just have metaphysics and soteriology because everyone else already had that at the time, you have to force people to affirm that 2 plus 2 is 5 to let them into the club.

>>19373552
>The fact that it is so unbelievable is what makes it the shit test of your religion in the first place.
So please provide me an alternative hypothesis which explains all of the pertinent historical facts and factors I outlined here: >>19373481
Trust me, I'll wait. Nobody has yet been able to meet this challenge, and trust me, I would have a lot to gain by having it shown that Jesus Christ is not God, and did not resurrect from the grave. If it weren't true, I could start fornicating again, commit myself to hedonism, and start doing all the drugs I had to quit. If there is no transcendent meaning to the universe, and life is just meaningless, why shouldn't I do this? Yet, none of you are ever able to prove your case. It is all just conjecture and anti-Christianity.

>>19373528
If the prophetic claims of past scriptures come true, as they have, we have good grounds to believe that these are from God. Again I’ll point to Daniel 9. This is the best litmus test.
>>19373541
The Bible is not a single book, pseud, it is a collection of dozens of books written over centuries and later compiled into ‘the Bible’ as we know it today. Also imagine thinking that a denial of naturalism is a denial of nature lmao. Natural isn’t self-sufficient. It’s sourced in God, who is beyond nature, and the source of its regularities and laws.

>>19373481
>There is a near-universal scholarly consensus that Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried
Why do I keep seeing this claimed everywhere in the web and it's always without source?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

>>19373588
>rationalwiki

>>19373567
>If there is no transcendent meaning to the universe, and life is just meaningless, why shouldn't I do this?
No one had this problem until you showed up. Nietzsche had you on the nose, christer, you were the father of nihilism all along.

>>19373574
>Natural isn’t self-sufficient. It’s sourced in God, who is beyond nature, and the source of its regularities and laws.
Got it so I already need to agree with you to "argue" against you. A crude and silly parody of discussion, only possible to develop in a medieval monastery.

>>19373659
>Got it so I already need to agree with you to "argue" against you
No? Atheists can’t read

>>19373588
Stanton (2002, p. 145): Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.
Wells (2007, p. 446):"Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive, figure."
Ehrman (2012b, p. 4–5): "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure."

>>19373645
>it's the christer guy
I haven't failed to notice that nobody has provided a single hypothesis yet, including you. Another disappointing effort by the anti-Christ team, once again.

>>19373680
Nature doesn't require god. That this is already one of your assumptions apparently makes you all the more unable to discuss your own doctrines with a non-theist.

>naturalism

>>19373736
Nature requires God. That this is already one of your assumptions apparently makes you all the more unable to discuss your own doctrines with a theist.

>>19373719
>nobody has provided a single hypothesis yet
Sorry I don't have a fancy name for a "comparative mythology hypothesis" or a "William James hypothesis with Nietzschean characteristics" or whatever you want to be spoonfed. I have made it abundantly clear [in several threads no less] that religious figures and their fables are common to humanity and you cannot demonstrate any attempts to make yours exceptional except through circular dogmatic assertions like "the bible predicted the bible" or "it had to happen because my sources are people who need to say it had to happen." Neither of these are compelling explanations anymore to an unsympathetic audience, and arguably they weren't in the early days of Christianity before it became a socio-political force. It's that very process which innately corrupts all the incentives from top to bottom, where you get Roman emperors picking the religion because their heavily provincial and notoriously treasonous armies are filled with the eastern cults by the late empire, bishops calling councils to denounce their geopolitical enemies and codify the scriptures, scholasticism between shut-ins who are only allowed to believe in one book, etc. You are the final output of all of that, long after its institutional or structural supports have rotten. They cannot help you. You have to either prove this to other people or leave them alone and accept you have no argument without Caesar.

>>19373764
>lets debate if the bible is true
>ok so first of all nature requires god so you can't use nature to argue against god's miracles
Big choo choo in the sky, eh, thomist the tank?

>>19373742
>thoughts aren't irrational
He doesn't know (that he doesn't know)!

>>19373774
So basically you have no alternative hypothesis. Time to get baptized, anon

>>19373787
A. It didn't happen as hagiographically depicted so christers are delusional
B. Everyone's miracles are believable and christers are still delusional for denying the veracity of other religions

>>19372117
Same.

>>19373796
The so-called miracles in other religions have already been addressed accordingly. They can be real and not validate them as a religion. Demons can produce ‘miracles’ as well. However, non-Christians religions do not have scriptural continuity and prophecies that have demonstrably come true such as the prophecies of Daniel 9 regarding the Temple and its destruction by foreign armies in the time of the Messiah by a given frame of time. This secures the validity of Christianity along with the other facts presented already in this thread. No one has rebutted any of this. It’s cope all the way down

>>19373812
>nooo it wasn't written to fulfill itself
Ah you're right. Why would the authors really do something like that to us? They're just recording 'the facts' they don't have any motives to spread their belief system at all costs. No one is like that. Certainly not conquered people whose last weapons are words.

>>19373850
To claim this implies that the author of Daniel knew that the Second Temple would be destroyed by the time the 490-year period of the prophecy ended shortly after the time of the death of a Messiah claimant and that sacrifices would end and that foreign armies would destroy Jerusalem. This is way too big of a coincidence. Daniel was written centuries before Jesus and the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. Let’s not forget what the Talmud says regarding the Temple sacrifices in the period between 30-70 A.D. : >>19371573. Continue to cope

>>19373874
Is there some numerology to how long the second temple would last dependant on how long the first did? Or when the next invaders are coming? Or that "this time we will be saved"? You're taking the most charitable interpretation possible about something that isn't even hard to guess. I was raised Christian and no one ever mentioned Daniel except for the bit about lions. It's a shit argument. Conquered people get their stuff bulldozed, and then sometimes there is a successful rebellion. You're grasping at straws even for a Christian apologetic. If anything, what verifiably happened to Jesus is proof he was *not* the promised person, which is why many of the original people who believed in the Torah ignored him and instead it was the half-hellenized who ran with the idea of Jewish Dionysus, the murdered son of god who joyously brings wine and harvest from the chthonic depths of the earth back to heaven in his rebirth.

>>19373959
>Is there some numerology to how long the second temple would last dependant on how long the first did?
This conversation will obviously be difficult for you if you are not aware of the actual passage in question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks#Christological_readings
>It's a shit argument.
Not at all. It is actually the most obvious fulfilled prophecy in the Old Testament.
>If anything, what verifiably happened to Jesus is proof he was *not* the promised person
Not if you read Isaiah 53, or the Seventy Weeks prophecy.
>many of the original people who believed in the Torah ignored him
People not accepting an argument is not proof the argument is not convincing.

>>19373959
>It's a shit argument.
Yet no one has been able to debunk it in this thread. Nor has anyone on /lit/ ever been able to debunk it.

>If anything, what verifiably happened to Jesus is proof he was *not* the promised person
Now you’re just spouting Jewish arguments. Daniel 9 says the Messiah will be killed. Isaiah 53, a section read as a Messianic prophecy in the time of the Second Temple, also attests to a suffering servant. There are many more examples.

>it was the half-hellenized
Another meme. Jesus’ first followers were poor Galilean fishermen who spoke Aramaic. Many of his first followers were Samaritans, and the Church first spread among both Hebrew and Greek-speaking Jews according to Acts, and also to Gentiles. It’s funny that you spread long-debunked ideas about Hellenic syncretism when early Christians had huge debates over dietary laws, circumcision, eating with Gentiles, and similar ideas. You’d have to be profoundly ignorant of Christian and Jewsh history to think that they would syncretize a pagan deity into their religion.

>>19367849
Faith is a choice, you either want to believe or you don't. Pick a road and go down it or don't.

>>19374009
>Now you’re just spouting Jewish arguments.
Excuse me, Dani-El, I am not the one advocating for Hebrew prophecies on 4channel.
>it's not syncretic it's just a coincidence that 400 years(!) of buck breaking by Macedonian masters led to an obvious native parallel of other near eastern cults ranging from Egypt to Thrace
mega cope

>>19367849
Telling someone "struggling with your faith" to read Aquinas is like telling a diabetic to start getting ready for the Olympic marathon.