/lit/ - Literature

>>19684184
Until you stop conflating the umbrella term of "Christian" with "American Protestant" you will never understand.

>>19684190
So where do the Maximus the Confessors of today reside?

>>19684207
Such lines as "Jesus Christ is the beginning, middle and end of all things and that the telos of human existence is deification through the grace of God" you will very commonly hear from Tridentine Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox. In short, everyone but Protestants.

>>19684212
Wow so I guess I have just been exposed to the worst variety of Christianity on the planet my entire life

>When did Christians stop being schizos
Like the other guy said, with the protestant reformation. You are judging intellectual quality based on amount of schizophrenic nonsense jargon per sentence. Maybe one day you will realize how ultimately empty all this crap pseudophilosophy really is… protestants tried to be more rational by just reading the bible but turned out to be the death of christianity because they tried to get rid of the schizo but it was schizo all the way down

>>19684225
You do realize that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught deification, don’t you? And all of His apostles?

>>19684218
Objectively so
>>19684225
>schizo schizo schizo
Grow up you babbling moron

>>19684184
You could replace "Jesus Christ" with another other pagan deity and it would be just as true.

Every faggot on this earth thinks HIS religion is the "Absolute One Truth" Give me a motherfucking break.

St Maximus is extremely based. I've been reading a lot of him recently. Lots of good scholarship coming out on him.

>>19684241
No you couldn’t. All of this is intimately tied in with Jesus Christ’s economy of salvation / incarnation.

>>19684241
Saint Maximus' writings on the cosmic scope of Christ's mission were the largest and grandest claims ever made at that time.
It's always the people who know literally nothing about comparative religion who pretend to know everything about religion.

>>19684229
Yes yes yes I’ve heard it all before endless coping over scripture. Have you ever just sat down and just read, say, Mark without interpolating all your thousands of philosophical terms invented hundreds of years later? It’s a surprisingly simple narrative and message but already by the time the learned jews matthew and john got their hands on it it was corrupted with schizophrenic doctrine after doctrine… the game is up. People are not so gullible anymore.
>>19684231
>Grow up
You’re stuck two thousand years in the past in the middle east trying to make sense of a convoluted historical narrative with insane ramblings about non existent metaphysical entities and inventions of absurd supernatural properties of so called souls. I can only call it like I see it so I say schizo

>>19684218
As David Bentley Hart likes to say, “Christianity never reached America.”

>>19684254
>>19684261
Delusional

>>19684284
>You’re stuck two thousand years in the past
As if antiquity has anything to do with truth? 2+2 wasn't 4 2,000 years ago?
>in the middle east
Does 2+2 equal 4 in Palastine but not in Europe?
>convoluted historical narrative
It's actually very clear-cut if you listen to any officials of the Church and not crazed strip-mall self-proclaimed "pastors"
>insane ramblings about non existent metaphysical entities and inventions of absurd supernatural properties of so called souls
To you.

>>19684299
Christianity is radically different from all other religions.

>>19684218
Well yes man we absolutely have. In America it doesn't exist. Never has.

>>19684308
Not really, no. I think you should read some things from other religions before you make that claim.

>>19684299
This is all atheists can do. They either sperg out about le invidible sky daddy or come back with one-word condescending replies from a false hill.

>>19684308
>White

Stop

>>19684313
I have, and I come to the same conclusion. Christianity is the fullness of truth, and Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. All other religions are pale shadows of it.

This is a worthless discussion because almost all atheists believe Christianity is the cartoonish belief portrayed in American Protestantism and they are unwilling to accept that it is anything else. The entirety of New Atheism is predicated on this belief

>>19684303
>As if antiquity has anything to do with truth? 2+2 wasn't 4 2,000 years ago?
lol well 2+2 didn’t equal four for like 4,000 years until finally God decided to send Jesus to fix it for some reason instead of doing it from the beginning. Better make up a bunch of bullshit about the fall and original sin and prophecy to account for that, and 2 + 2 didn’t equal four for four thousand years while God was only the God of this one tribe and apparently completely ignored the entire rest of the earth but it’s ok because at this completely random date he finally sent his son and now everyone else gets to play too, I guess they just didn’t have souls before? Better make up some crap about noble savage and Jesus descending into Hell to save all the people who went to hell just because they were born before Jesus… shut the fuck up about the constancy of truth when your twisted idea of God is someone who seems to be able to do nothing but change the rules and leave it up to schizo theologians to retroactively explain all his absurd actions… i know nothing I say will ever get to you because somehow you’ve tricked yourself into sincerely believing the house of cards you’ve built for yourself but whatever

>>19684318
Rent-free

>>19684315
I'm not an atheist. Nice assumption though.

>>19684341
Unbelievably based post

>>19684212
Protestantism has the best esotericism and mysticism though. People like Sebastian Franck, Valentin Weigel, Casper Schwenfeld, not to mention Boehme and Rosicrucians. Eckhart and Rhineland mystics should also count as some sort of proto-protestant given their connection to Luther. The people I've mentioned are what OP should be reading if he wants more of that.

>>19684295
Meanwhile the Christianity of the old world is being steadily conquered by Islam.

>>19684380
>Mysticsm

Sinful add-on fan fiction bullshit.

>>19684395
>reddit spacing
go back

>>19684404
No such thing, schitzo

>>19684389
Good. Maybe Europeans will wake up and realized they destroyed their civilization by abandoning God and selling out to ‘progress’ and Mammon. God is sending Muhammadans to Europe for this very reason

I used my gift card to buy a bible and will finally begin reading it when it coming in like 3 weeks

My theory is that it's impossible to discuss religion on 4chan in good faith. Anyone agree?

>>19684480
Start with the Gospels. Enjoy!
>>19684484
One has to choose carefully which threads they use and what posters they respond to. I’ve had some decent discussion here and there

>>19684484
Agreed

>>19684389
Fuck are you on about? You see Slavs, Ethiopians, Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians converting to Islam? Go back to Facebook.

>>19684341
boring

>>19684484
There's a reason why it is said that it is in bad taste to discuss religion and politics in polite company, the reason being that it will attract morons to share their unfeflective opinion like a moth to a light.

>>19684184
>and turn into lame hillbillies who berate you with ‘just accept Jesus and get to heaven or burn!!’?
Protestant reformation

>>19684261
>>19684308
>>19684323
>some boring semitic myth that confines itself to a single ontological nexus and has to go through insane mental gymnastics to explain away any criticism thrown at it
Boring and obviously false. All organized religions are lacking but Theravadin metaphysics alone blow the big pile of cope that is Christianity out of the water

>>19684184
Jesus was just a man and the Gnostics were right about everything
Modern """christianity""" is an evil perversion and yet another control system that pseud larpers on this board stupidly latch onto because it's become counter culture in their mind (even though it's still the biggest religion in the world)

>>19685238
>Gnostics were right about everything
>"The demiurge is real because...It just is okay!!!"

>>19684341
Yeah I don't understand this. Ask christians shit about their religion and they go through complex and frankly ridiculous reasoning to justify everything that's seemingly silly and make it sound like it actually makes a lot of sense. All the simplest explanations are rejected in favor of some exegesis from centuries after that boils down to "ackshually when the Bible says X it doesn't mean X but it means [several pages of mental gymnastics]"
I don't understand how anyone can take christianity and go "oh yeah this is what gives me absolute faith". It's so restricted in scope and self-contradictory, yet they act as if it's the only possible cosmic truth and dwarfs everything else (even though pajeet metaphysics makes the entire christian myth looks like a silly grain of sand in a cosmic desert)
I'd like to understand the reasoning because it's so uncanny.

You'll need to dig deeper than protestantism

>>19685276
gnostics
>suffering or evil happens -> it's because of the Demiurge
christians
>well uuuh it's a test and anyway evil doesn't really exist even though it emanates from good indirectly but uuuuh just trust the plan ok

>>19685296
More logical. But nothing makes it "right". Rethink your wording friend.

>>19685300
It would be right if it could be proved but it can still be considered a much more likely possibility.

>>19684184
thats what happens when an initiatic path is turned into an exoteric religion

>>19684341
absolutely based

Never, Deification is a standard doctrine in eastern churches
Catholics are slowly starting to pretend like they've always believed in it
It's even accepted in some protestant circles
Augustine went hard on the "muh metaphor" rather than trying to understand what the texts were saying
This is also incidentally where the yecs come from
>>19686211
Christianity was never initiatic
There is zero evidence in favour and plenty against the thesis
>>19685296
Wow, muh free will actually fucked you tards up so much all you can do is blabber
All you can do is bullshit and strawman these days and all because of a tard who barely understood the religion he defended
>>19684341
You've yet to demonstrate why god's plan isn't good

>>19686380
All you can do is insult and cope because you are following a false teaching
You have nothing interesting to say, it's all rehashed talking points and pretending not to understand because your dogma's foundations are so shoddy that's the only way you can possibly maintain your faith without insane mental gymnastics

>>19686418
>No argument
How predictable

>>19686427
Right back at you

>>19686380
>You've yet to demonstrate why god's plan isn't good
What is good? Why is this way he’s doing it better than all the infinite other ways he could do it? Why is it good to arbitrarily wait so many thousands of years to send Jesus? Why is it good that babies go to hell if they aren’t baptized because of their “original sin”? Why is it good for God to confine his love and mercy to a single group of people for what has been the largest portion of human history? Why is it good that Jesus has to come again rather than just succeeding the first time? Why is it good for any human to spend ETERNITY in hell just for being human? Why is it good to have leave your divinely inspired scripture that is the only thing you’ve given to humans to understand you be subject to countless alterations and corruptions over the years? Why is it good to punish people for doubting the veracity of pseudohistorical documents written thousands of years ago? Why is it good to create the human species at all if you are just going to rapture them all off of earth anyway? It goes on

>>19686481
trust the plan bro

>>19685227
> Theravadin metaphysics
refuted by Sri Shankaracharya (PBUH)

>>19686556
Doesn't matter, the point is that christian metaphysics are laughably shoddy and fall apart when confronted to any solid system that doesn't depend on the life story of a jewish man to be true

>>19684184
You've probably never heard actual Christian music either
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q8i0CYs-CM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-EfW7gYzns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEeUbQfWc8o

>>19686587
western:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JOShBSsql0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqwV9l-U8ds

Dont care, Jesus is one if rhe most kino men in history

It's not a Protestant thing. Pietism produced the best mystic I've read, pic related. Although I will warn his books are a slog. The people he influenced, Whitehead, Hegel, Schelling, etc. are very interesting too, but of course Hegel is a time sink too. Whitehead isn't so bad though.

But religion in churches is aimed at the masses. I've had good Bible studies, but they are rare. I had one at a nominally Baptist church, although it left the Southern Baptists not long after I got there, that had a study for mid-20s to 30s folks. It was near a bunch of colleges and we had a bunch of grad students and it was very open and interesting. And I've had good prayer groups I've been a part of. However, I move a lot so I've been to tons of churches in the last decade and there is a very large trend towards:

>Saved by faith alone
>Everyone is going to Hell
>So the most important or really only important thing is to convert, convert, convert so people have one act of contrition and get saved forever.

The repetition gets old and so does the attempt to read these doctrines into every page of the Bible when they don't exist there. Particularly, I'm a huge fan of Job and it hurts to see it reduced to "Job had faith so good stuff happens, never lose faith," when that really is not what the book is about.

There is also this weird thing about "returning to the early church," but then also Sola Scriptura, despite the early church not having a Bible, and the early Church Father's having highly allegorical understandings of scripture. Not to mention they had Gnostics everywhere.

It's tough. And maybe self defeating. The "lost" brought in are almost always lapsed Christians. I don't think I've met another person raised outside Christianity in ten years. Generally they push aside apologetics, since only God can save anyhow, but also I think because apologetics can make the faithful question their faith and uncovers contradictions in doctrine. There isn't any real admission that people don't come to Christianity because they see the likelihood of it being historically true as no greater than Islam, Judaism, or other faiths. It has to be sin, modern influences tempting them, etc.

So I think churches will continue to decline hard, because less than a third of Millennials are Christian and they seem I'll equiped to reach out to people raised outside the faith. Mostly they cannibalize each other's members, or for many churches, it's become an identity club for Trumpism, which helps boost enthusiasm short term, but is killing them on youth membership, and corrupting the faith.

>>19686633
>despite the early church not having a Bible
They possessed the scriptures after the apostolic age ended.
>and the early Church Father's having highly allegorical understandings of scripture
They did not perceive there to be a conflict between interpreting a text allegorically while simultaneously holding it to be literal true. Confer the ancient genre of hexaemeron, which examined how the six (literal) days of creation occurred.

>>19686633
>Not to mention they had Gnostics everywhere.
Yes. RETVRN

>>19685238
>Jesus was just a man and the Gnostics were right about everything
Mutually exclusive statements

>>19686698
No, read the Nag Hammadi

>>19684212
It isn’t true that Protestants don’t talk about this; Methodism doesn’t use the same flowery language to describe this but is ultimately about theosis and sanctification. High-Church Anglicans around the world also talk about this, especially in relation to the liturgy.

>>19686719
>High-Church Anglicans around the world also talk about this
Do they discuss it with their practicing sodomite bishops?

>>19685281
The simplicity of the Gospel blows everything else out of the water. People on /lit/ are pseudo-intellectuals who want big obtuse systems which are essentially intellectual idols for them (muh metaphysics, muh initiation), yet Jesus says to love your neighbor as yourself and love God, and /lit/ seethes

>>19686739
What the seething lit people will never understand is that to love your neighbor as yourself and to love god with all your heart IS deification, and their intellectual idols only get in the way of that.

>>19686731
Even if you hate their social liberalism, it’s irrelevant to whether mysticism and deific sanctification is emphasized in that tradition.

>>19686776
>Even if you hate their social liberalism, it’s irrelevant to whether mysticism and deific sanctification is emphasized in that tradition.
Sodomites are not engaging in theosis, only spiritual delusion and destruction. Whether they "emphasize" it is irrelevant.

>>19686739
That's a common claim, that deep down it's simple, but then they add mounds of complex mental gymnastics to it and it ends up becoming the most convoluted theological system in existence. Any religion is simple if you dumb it down.

>>19686380
>Christianity was never initiatic
what is hesychasm

>>19686789
There are groups which split off over homosexuality and also carry on these traditions. My claim is just that American Protestants DO have a tradition of these things, not that they all do or that they are perfect at it. You’re moving the goalposts. Accusations of sodomy are also a completely irrelevant attack when it comes to Methodism. It’s true that Orthodox theologians have a long history of beautiful and deep mysticism, but so does American Methodism.

Americans on lit are just aesthetes who are obsessed with the outward appearance and aesthetic of a tradition and so are drawn to Orthodoxy. There’s nothing wrong with being Orthodox but being an aesthete is bad. Lit posters fundamentally dislike Protestantism not because of any deep engagement with its intellectual and spiritual traditions, but because they find it “cringe.” There is a lot of cringe in any religious tradition, but most of their feeling of cringe comes from being a self-hating American with a fetish for the exotic. The only exception I make is that evangelicalism is satanic and truly cringe.

>>19686838
Beauty is an intrinsic part of Truth; this is clear in how disgusting and ugly humanity has become since its rejection of Truth

>>19686838
The Methodist Church in Britain allows homosexual weddings and the United Methodist Church in the USA has a "married" lesbian bishop.

>>19684184
Curious. Was thinking of getting that book yesterday and now it shows up here. Must be a sign.

>>19684184
the history of Christianity is like the IQ bell curve meme but the middle part is good

this is Aryanized medieval Christianity. everyone believed it, so it had to be cosmic; it had to be *responsible*

at its beginning and now at its end Christianity shows its Jewish roots. it's against "the World," it's resentful and subversive and wishes for everything to be destroyed

>>19686886
cuckold. Christianity does not say Yes to the world

>>19686854
You are self-centered and deluded, distorting reality to fit your beliefs

>>19686886
>at its beginning and now at its end Christianity [is] against "the World,"
Good

John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

>>19686900
I agree, seito. You see, I read Nietzsche years before you ever played Fortnite, before you first flossed. I had unnuanced and hasty reactions like yours too. What I'm saying is that Christianity is indeed shitty and that any good parts are pagan or cosmotheist.

>>19686916
Modern Christians are lukewarm and hypocritical in their world rejection
The satanic takeover of your institutions led to the murder of the most devout and virtuous Christian sects in history

>>19686886
Why would anything be for this "world" it fucking sucks, even most athiest ideologies realize this

>>19686946
>Christ-rejecting babble
Do you think I care what you think about anything?

>>19684184
Martin Luther

>>19686949
>t. weakling
try having money, muscles, education, face, and a big dick
>life is a well of delight
>but where the rabble drink, all wells are poisoned
t. Nietzsche

git gud scrub

>>19686950
>modern "christian" refuses to engage and plugs his ears while throwing a tantrum
How predictable. A trademark at this point
You are the one who has rejected Christ by the way, a literal satanist

>>19686971
If you want to have a conversation then say specifically what it is you support, what groups or theology you are actually saying are correct, rather than throwing around vague nonsense like some retarded /x/ poster.

>>19686980
>what groups or theology you are actually saying are correct
Those whose rejection of the world was complete and unconditional. Cathars, Bogomils, and so on.

>>19686985
In other words you are stating that the rejection of the world necessarily includes the rejection of matter.

>>19686991
To say otherwise is a copout no matter how you spin it.

>>19686946
I don't think most Christians reject the world at all, to be honest.

>>19686993
Then what is the resurrection of the dead?

>>19684184
This sounds like it is just baptized platonism, meant to replace the embarassing tall tales that comprise the bible for a more educated (pagan/aristocratic) audience. But if you are a good christer you have no need for such metaphysical speculations because you actually believe the bible.

>>19686997
I know
>>19686999
A perversion. Christianity has been infiltrated by evil since Christ himself and the teachings have been corrupted.

>>19687003
Based christerposter

>>19686997
The notion of a transcendent creator god who exists to deliver us from the world we live in, the natural world, is the highest devaluation of life possible, short of suicide. And the early Christians indeed so begged for the so-called martyr's death that it greatly perplexed the poor Roman magistrates, who had never encountered such miserable people so bent on disturbing the peace. See Pliny, Nietzsche, etc.

>>19687010
Let's make it a thing; boomer zoomer coomer ... christer

>>19687008
Objection 1: You cannot demonstrate that the resurrection of the dead is a later doctrinal accretion.

Objection 2: Christianity already takes into account the corruption of matter. The world does not exist in the original good state in which God created it; rather is is corrupted by sin, which causes all death and decay in the world. Christianity does not entail a belief that the current material existence is good. That is why we hope for the resurrection and the world to come, in which the original goodness of the material world will be restored.

>>19687017
Let's

>>19687020
>You cannot demonstrate
Debates about pseudo-historical documents are pointless. A good way to assess who were the true Christians throughout history is to start from the fact that following Christ inevitably ends in persecution, and then look at which specific groups have been persecuted and massacred since the fall of Rome and which have, on the other hand, gained power.
>corrupted by sin
This is the main aspect of the current doctrine that makes nicaean Christianity a perversion. Unless privatio boni is rejected, it'll stay a spiritual dead end. The doctrine of sin has to be abandoned in favor of a doctrine of Evil

>>19687038
>at which specific groups have been persecuted and massacred since the fall of Rome
Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox who have suffered tremendously under Islam and Communism. The Gnostic groups you want to appeal to don't have a soul claim on persecution.
>it'll stay a spiritual dead end.
Lol, our end is the reconciliation with God, and that is what Christ delivers to us.

>>19687048
>soul
sole*, typo

>>19687048
My family is oriental orthodox. I know what they went through. But the groups I am talking about have been persecuted by the monolithic institutions claiming to be Christianity itself. If Christianity becomes "of the world", then it's forgotten the teachings.
>reconciliation with God
The true God is not of this world either.
>that is what Christ delivers to us.
Yes.

>falling this hard for a Jewish psy-op
bros, the historical Jesus was probably some kind of Buddhist type, I get it. there are legit spiritual teachings in the Gospels.

but he was never that impressive. and he was soon coopted by the Jewish rebellion against Rome. the whole point of the NT is to recruit goyish auxiliaries to the Jewish cause. it was supposed to do its job in deacdes. it's lasted 2,000 years because of its original Aryan qualities, which to be fair had already become degenerate and world-denying, though not as aggressively destructive as Judaism

>>19687071
>But the groups I am talking about have been persecuted by the monolithic institutions claiming to be Christianity itself.
You know Protestantism falls into this category too, right? Both the ones on the side of the Reformation as well as Anabaptists (Amish, etc.). It's still not particular to Gnostics.

>it's another Gnostic heresy cringefest
inb4 Hegelian dialectics lmao

guys Jay Dyer is a grifter and a pseud. pizzagate is not real. go to therapy and get on risperidone

>>19687087
And protestantism soon started to structure itself in the world as well. All extant Christian sects have become principalities. This, and organized, institutional religion in general, is antithetical to what Christ preached.
>>19687101
Go vomit your venom elsewhere, satanist

>>19687108
if you could see the cringe that I see
when I see you seein me
you'd see yourself so differently
believe me

>>19687112
>endlessly rehashed buzzwords and boring deflections
You're afraid, rightly so

>>19684184
>When exactly did Christians stop talking like this and turn into lame hillbillies who berate you with ‘just accept Jesus and get to heaven or burn!!’?
The East/West schism. The Orthodoxy still speaks in these terms, at least among the liturgy. The Catholic Church's secularization of divine enlightenment gave birth to the Prots' "born again through talking about Jesus once" cultural narrative and they haven't shut the fuck up about it sense.

>>19687013
>See Nietzsche
This is disproven simply by pointing out that Nietzsche was ugly and short.

>>19687120
champ as long as you see yourself on Team Yahweh you will always be pulling the wrong way. you are kin to the fat apologists and the they/thems but at least they don't pile on all the magic and miracles and *stifles laughter* God-written books. and the books are so shitty! some random letters written in Greek ebonics are divine. what does that make Hamlet?

>>19687151
>as long as you see yourself on Team Yahweh
Have you even read my posts? Yahweh is a false god

>>19687143
he chaired a philology department at an age when you were whacking off in your room at your parents' house

>>19687157
Alas, there are, and were, many ugly and decrepit people in Academia.

>>19687155
oh you have a fanfic about the embodied Jewish God. It's totally different and enlightened. If only the sheeple knew.

Nigga, you're a tranny.

>>19687166
yeah I guess you're a lot cooler than 20something full professors. they probably invite you to parties all the time and you turn them down. bet you steal their gfs and pump and dump the lady scholars all the time

>>19686380
>Catholics are slowly starting to pretend like they've always believed in it
this is total horseshit, divinization has always been a standard part of catholic theology

>>19687171
If Neetch were alive today his twitter name would include "Phd" in it and would be screaming at chuds for not getting vaxxed.

>>19687187
he wouldn't have a Twitter, nor would he ever engage in journalism. but if he did
>based and based
yeah he would definitely dab on the rabble

>>19687143
Even if he was ugly, he was not spiritually ugly enough to wish for an escape into Narnia, as christers have since they could never come to terms with the death of god.

>>19684190
This. Prots really need to shut the fuck with their fundamentalist Bible thumping and hating of Reason. Also, icons are NOT idols.

>>19684225
>”protestants tried to be more rational by just reading the bible…”
>rational….
>Protestants…

BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. ALSO PIC REL.

>>19687362
very kantpilled

>>19685227
Why the fuck would Christianity need to mix with pagan theories rather than its own divinely revealed truths. Time to go back.

>>19685238
>"Jesus was just a man and the Gnostics were right about everything"
>Thinking Gnostics ever believed that Jesus was "just a man"

>>19684251
citation?

>>19684190
seriously, for the longest time i thought christianity was dumb and cringe, then i realized that was just american protestants.

>>19687938
what will really blow your mind is when you realize primitive Christianity was like American Protestantism, philosemitism and all

good Christianity is Roman/Byzantine and totally parasitic on the high culture of antiquity

>>19687938
most catholics act just like protestants, everything is reduced to a kind of moralism and sentimentalism, you don't wanna see a mass in brazil

>>19687970
the Jews won. V2 & novus ordo really ended Catholicism

https://vedavyasamandala.com/22-the-origins-of-christianity/

>>19687980
vatican second came too late, even in its greatest period (middle ages) catholicism was bound to be destroyed

>>19687961
>good Christianity is Roman/Byzantine and totally parasitic on the high culture of antiquity
are you telling me i can't have byzantine-era christianity? why should i believe in god at all then?

>>19688012
you shouldn't

>>19686664
They didn’t mean “literal” the way you do.

>>19684295

More like Christianity left Europe along with the colonists. What is Hart's definition of Ortho-Catholic "Christianity"? Earth mommy worship, tribal atavism, Pharisaic legalism, filling your snout with cheese? Sad.

>>19684184
>Where did Christianity fall apart?
Paul
>However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands
>Jesus said: "Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there."

>>19685227
based and dhamma-pilled

>>19685227
Buddhist metaphysics make no fucking sense. Is the soul destroyed or not?

>>19689411
Buddhists believe "the soul," like any other element of experience, has no permanence. A good, but somewhat old, introductory text is Stcherbatsky's Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word "Dharma."

>>19689471
Then how is that not annihilationism?

>>19684184
There's a little bit of a "make Christianity weird again," movement on twitter and youtube but it hasn't really hit the mainstream yet.

>>19689484
>okay so the soul isnt destroyed because there is continuity but how can it not be destroyed if it isnt destroyed?
Did you not read his post?

>>19687970
That's why I converted to Orthodox here in Brazil

>>19689552
No no, you don't understand, how can something continue to exist if it doesn't have an explicit start point and an explicit end point?

>>19689484
Have you ever annihilated something that didn't exist? The view you are describing, that everything is destroyed at death, was rejected by the Buddha anyway in the nikayas. At the very beginning no less, in the Brahmajala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya. You should read something other than Wikipedia

>>19687392
That statement about gnostics thinking Jesus was just a man is so cringe , must have come from a redditor

>>19689549
The moment it does it's going to be rejected by the only Christians that matter (Evangelical Protestants) and get taken over by trannies. I mean come the fuck on 95% of theology students are LGBTBBQ+++ and something like 3/4ths of all seminarians are openly gay or trans. Trannyism is already just a weird form of Gnosticism, idk who could possibly think that making Christianity MORE like Gnosticism wouldn't just lead to Trannoid takeover.

>>19684308
Wrong

>>19689316
I agree. The Puritans were True Christians™ and that's a bad thing

>>19689632
Can you point to any sources for your apparently pulled-from-your-ass numbers?

>>19689793
I assume he is mixing up what is called "divinity school" in the US with actual religiously seminaries, however, given that these are largely homosocial, it is highly likely they are more homosexual than general pop.

>>19689593
When you die, your body decomposes. It "continues to exist" insofar as there is conservation of mass, and it is "annihilated" insofar as it loses recognizable form over time. Conversely: it is *not* "annihilated" insofar as its material does not disappear, and it does *not* "continue to exist" insofar as it loses its recognizable form.
To put it another way, if you make butter from milk, and ghee from the butter, you're not annihilating the milk, you've just transformed the substance. You wouldn't say that the milk has been annihilated, nor that the ghee is milk, nor that the ghee is milk's "soul" in another body.

>>19684218
what do you mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qusTozIMRo

>>19689851
>it is highly likely they are more homosexual than general pop.
that gay men are more religious is well-established

>>19684225
Jew

>>19684337
This is accurate. The typical atheist reaction to Christianity is straw manning God into the most child like anthropomorphism possible.

>Your God is too small.
They don't realise this statement is directed towards them.

>>19691242
they carried him around in a box, Anon

>>19691375
Pretty sure that covenant was full of fly agaric. I will still side with the divine light Krishna/Christ consciousness over Saturn's little dick suckers any reincarnation of the eon.

>>19684184
>Jesus Christ is the beginning, middle and end of all things and that the telos of human existence is deification through the grace of God.
>When exactly did Christians stop talking like this

When it became possible to treat schizophrenia with medication.

>>19689632
trannyism and transhumanism endorses the material, venerates the body
it's completely opposed to gnosticism in every way conceivable
not that I'd expect a nicaean cuck to know, you NPCs just throw around the word gnostic using it as a synonym for heretic because learning about anything other than your jewish book scares you

>>19684341
Rekt’d.

>>19686556
Yeah, it’s a bit off topic but I am just getting into eastern religions, reading upanishads now and I don’t understand why buddhism exists at all. I might as well skip it.

>>19689982
So soul does not on after death? So it is annihilationism.

>>19692061
read 'Hinduism and Buddhism' by Ananda Coomaraswamy and look into mahayana

>>19692400
Thanks. I’ll check this coomar guy.

>>19692075
read his post again

pic related

>>19686633
What is Job about in your view or the view of people you have studied with?

Jesus Christ is king of the universe. The Catholic church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father - nobody goes to the Father except through Him. All who reject Him, and His church, are bound to spend eternity in the state most ontologically distant from Him, which is called Hell. If you do your due diligence, and humbly open yourself to the guidance of the Holy Spirit (instead of leaning on your own "wisdom"), you will see that this is true. If you do not do your due diligence, and go to the end of your life (which could be today) without opening yourself up to the Holy Spirit, you will have committed the unforgivable sin - blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Please do not waste time reading the opinions of people on the internet. Make an internal commitment that if the Holy Spirit is real, that you wish to be guided by Him, even if He takes you somewhere that you do not want to go. This is the only way to the Father.

"For as many as carry (in them) the Spirit of God are led to the Word, that is to the Son; and the Son brings them to the Father; and the Father causes them to possess incorruption. Without the Spirit it is not possible to behold the Word of God, nor without the Son can any draw near to the Father for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of the Son of God is through the Holy Spirit; and, according to the good pleasure of the Father, the Son ministers and dispenses the Spirit to whomsoever the Father wills and as He wills."

>>19692704
>ooooo if you don't do what I say you're gonna suffer!
kek, how people still fall for this shit baffles me
fuck off

>>19692720
Like I said, if you go through the entirety of your life without opening yourself up to the Holy Spirit (all it takes is an internal commitment to follow Him wherever He wants you to go, IF He is real), then you will find out for yourself. I am only trying to warn you - the world we live in is ruled by Satan, and if you follow the wisdom of the world (which is really where you are getting all of your opinions from), you will be dragged down with it, like crabs in a bucket. Do you really not see that the world is controlled by Luciferians (eg. self-serving people who seek power/money, who attempt to completely control the margins/fringes of society, and tolerate no dissent)?

>>19692704
And why should a free spirit bow to the king of your universe?

>>19692748
>who attempt to completely control
christers have no self-awareness as usual

>>19692769
Failure to acknowledge the proper hierarchy will lead to restlessness and retard all spiritual development. It is the spiritual equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum and saying they hate their father because he didn't let them eat candy before bedtime.
>>19692778
>who attempt to completely control
>the margins/fringes of society
Christians* (followers of the Anointed One, Jesus Christ, your King and Lord) do not attempt to control the margins/fringes of society - we leave room for the fringes, and reach out to them with acts of charity and love (feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc.), where the Luciferian system attempts to put all who refuse to comply with them INTO the category of a margin which must eventually be persecuted/annihilated. See communism, for an obvious example.

>>19692748
I can't just uncritically accept an obviously unpreserved tradition out of pure sentiment. I need a preserved tradition, and right now, I'm thinking Islam truly has it. They don't rely on flimsy manuscript evidence, and their critical tradition has a coherency I don't think is shared by any other religion.

>>19692798
>an obviously unpreserved tradition
How do you figure that the Christian tradition is "unpreserved", when there continue to be an unbroken chain of ordination through the laying on of the hands which goes back all the way to the apostles - and that you could receive this initiation were you to do 7-8 years of study? Or that every single apostolic Christian who is Confirmed has this Confirmation done by anointing by a bishop who has been initiated by another bishop, again, in an unbroken chain leading back to the apostles?
>They don't rely on flimsy manuscript evidence
You do realize that all variant manuscripts of the Qur'an were burned by Uthman? And that much of the Qur'anic text has been lost forever - including one portion which was eaten by a goat?
>their critical tradition has a coherency I don't think is shared by any other religion.
I am happy to engage in a discussion on why the Christian critical tradition is more coherent than the Islamic one (I was led by God to see that Christianity was true [and superior in every way to other traditions, which I also explored] when I was an irreligious searcher)

As an addendum, what evidence makes you believe that the central tenet of Islam (that Muhammad is the final prophet of God) is true? As far as I know, there is literally no evidence that this is the case, besides the oral testimony of Muhammad himself. The only attempted proof I have seen are people's emotional reactions to the Qur'an (obviously meaningless, when the same occurs for people who read texts of other, mutually irreconcilable traditions, like the Bhagavad Gita), or the "beauty" of the Qur'an itself (which is not a proof, obviously).

>>19692748
>do what I say or you'll suffer forever
Sorry, the fear mongering bullshit doesn't work on me. If there is a god, he's not some random jew from 2000 years ago. Not interested, go peddle your garbage in african countries, those are the only places where they're still dumb enough to buy into it
>>19692769
Any "king of the universe" would be evil anyway so I understand the gnostic sentiment

I will never become a christian for the sole reason that christians are the most utterly insufferable, lacking in self awareness, obnoxious proselytes I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with.

>>19692825
>obviously meaningless
Yeah bro emotional reactions to religious texts are meaningless, except when they "confirm" christianity, like in your case

>>19692830
>Sorry, the fear mongering bullshit doesn't work on me
I am not trying to fear-monger you. I am simply trying to tell you the truth. I noticed you did not answer the question about whether you know that Luciferians control the earth?
> If there is a god, he's not some random jew from 2000 years ago.
How do you know that Jesus Christ is not God incarnate? How would you know if your position was false?
>Not interested, go peddle your garbage in african countries, those are the only places where they're still dumb enough to buy into it
"[John Von Neumann] invited a Catholic priest, Father Anselm Strittmatter, O.S.B., to visit him for consultation. Von Neumann reportedly said, "So long as there is the possibility of eternal damnation for nonbelievers it is more logical to be a believer at the end," referring to Pascal's wager. He had earlier confided to his mother, "There probably has to be a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn't." Father Strittmatter administered the last rites to him."
>>19692839
Emotional reactions to religious texts are not the basis of confirmation for Christianity, and any belief system based on such "evidence" is doomed to incoherency and epistemological relativism.

>>19692795
>the Luciferian system attempts to put all who refuse to comply with them INTO the category of a margin which must eventually be persecuted/annihilated
Pretty sure you are still doing this too, but you've rather transparently reassigned punishment to an absentee father, who when he comes back from the astral plane will beat you if you weren't following the dogma. You're demanding I worship your master, or else what?

>>19692841
>I am not trying to fear-monger you.
Yeah you are, with bullshit claims like "buy into my semitic cult or you're going to suffer forever"
>How do you know
How do you know he is? That's right you don't
>Pascal's wager
holy fucking kek are you serious? Sure thing fag I'm gonna convert to your retarded religion on the off chance that it's the truth. See >>19684341 and become a deist or whatever the fuck if you still need theism
>Luciferians control the earth
Drop the persecution complex and go visit the vatican

>>19692825
>there is literally no evidence that this is the case, besides the oral testimony
Gee sounds an awful lot like your preferred religion! Another exemplar lack of self-awareness by christers

>>19692841
>So long as there is the possibility of eternal damnation for nonbelievers it is more logical to be a believer
The possibility of eternal damnation would prove gnostics right, so the application of pascal's wager for any intelligent and intellectually honest individual would end in becoming a gnostic, not a paulinian christian.

>>19692850
>Pretty sure you are still doing this too
Actually, it's quite the opposite (Christian reach out to and care for the marginalized, Luciferians do the opposite - they marginalize and oppress).
>you've rather transparently reassigned punishment to an absentee father
The marginalized are not who are "punished" by God (eg. homeless people are not going to be condemned by God because they are marginalized), but only the people who actively work against Goodness/Love (anti-Christs).
>You're demanding I worship your master, or else what?
I'm not demanding you to do anything. I'm saying that if you don't open yourself up to the Divine Love (the Holy Spirit) and ask Him to guide you, you will continue to be led astray by Satan, and this will culminate in your being an enemy of God. There's no "demanding" at all - I am only spending my time sharing this because I hope that some people may see the rationale behind this, as Von Neumann did.
>>19692852
>Yeah you are, with bullshit claims
How do you know those claims are false?
>How do you know he is?
I know Jesus Christ is God incarnate, because the best explanation for the events surrounding His crucifixion is that He resurrected from the dead, and appeared to His disciples. I have yet to be presented with a more likely hypothesis - I welcome you to present yours (please).
>holy fucking kek are you serious?
I guess you are way more intelligent than John Von Neumann. Who would have known that the smartest person on earth was lurking on /lit/!
>Drop the persecution complex
Go live in North Korea, where they plagiarized the Christian story and replaced God/Jesus with the Kim dynasty, and tell me anti-Christs aren't a real category of people.
>>19692857
You missed the part where Islam is only based on the oral testimony of the founder, whereas Christianity is based on multiply attested eyewitness documents and historical study.
>>19692870
>The possibility of eternal damnation would prove gnostics right
Prove this? Unless you think that a pedophile child rapist should not be sent to Hell for their crimes against humanity, how is Hell unjust? Assuming you admit Hell is just for such heinous crimes, how do you determine who deserves to go there, and who doesn't, knowing that you are only some random human with less than 50 years of life experience?

>>19692881
>this level of intellectual dishonesty
You're the epistemological weight autist aren't you? Fuck off, you're more mentally ill than guenonfag

>>19692798
Talk of manuscripts are only useful after you evaluate if what the texts teach correspond with reality. Besides, Christ never claimed to be the last prophet. There has been prophecy after Him, this is how the Church justifies that they are correct on His teachings.

>>19692886
>unable to provide an argument for his position
I am happy to engage with you in conversation if you provide an actual argument. If you don't, there is no point in continuing. Thanks for your contributions.

>>19692881
>I'm not demanding you to do anything. I'm saying that if you don't [...] this will culminate in your being an enemy of God. There's no "demanding" at all
You are threatening me in the most childish, slavish way possible, that if I don't listen to you, somebody else is going to get me

>>19692888
Yep, called it. No need for an argument, you are unhinged. Fuck off retard

>>19692769
Only a modern person could say this.

>>19692825
>when there continue to be an unbroken chain of ordination through the laying on of the hands which goes back all the way to the apostles
When I say the Christian tradition is "unpreserved", I mean the understanding of the scripture and the significance of Christ himself. Any attestation to apostolic legitimacy is mitigated by the fact that we have no manuscripts or letters from that first century of the apostolate, and we know that there were many groups that existed at that time who all had their own ideas of who Christ was, such as the Ebionites (who even had differences among themselves). Granted, this all would be right and dandy, so long as we knew what the methodology of the early Church was in authenticating the origins of their own beliefs, but instead we see them spending more time writing letters against "heretics" and pagans and giving themselves authority based on their own testimony of apostolic continuation when we know that there were other sects uncritically claiming the same thing.
>You realize that all variant manuscripts of the Qur'an were burned by Uthman
If you didn't rush to make a response, you'd see that I said, "They don't rely on flimsy manuscript evidence.". This would definitely be a travesty if they were using manuscripts to preserve their book, or to test its preservation, but they have a coherent oral tradition attested to by the vast majority of Muslim scholars less than a century after the death of their Prophet. And you don't have to argue against the Qur'anic tradition because if you could prove your tradition was preserved than the preservation of the Qur'an would be of no significance.
>what evidence makes you believe that the central tenet of Islam (that Muhammad is the final prophet of God) is true?
Because the Qur'an calls muslims first and foremost to be in the image of their prophets. Many people read the Qur'an and believe the stories of the prophets were put there to plagiarize the Judeo-Christian tradition, but actually on a closer look it is obviously trying to mold the one who hears it to be like the prophets who existed before. You see Moses calling the Jews to be submissive to God, and you see Solomon and David's gratitude to God for the riches given to them, and you see Job imploring God out of His mercy to save Him from Satan, and you see Ibrahim making a place of worship for his nation, and you see Lot and all the other prophets mentioned in the Qur'an ordering their people away from licentious conduct and sheer monotheism, as well as the first attestation of monotheism in a sea of idolatry by Noah. I read these stories, and I read the history of the Prophet of Islam, and I am forced to see very striking similarities between them. To sum, there is a message in the Qur'an that I agree with which convinces me that its Prophet is a true, sincere prophet.

>>19692892
NPC

>>19692881
>Christianity is based on multiply attested eyewitness documents and historical study.
Yes it is based on conniving cult members documenting their cult beliefs and cult practices, thereafter playing telephone with one another until we arrive at you, the uncritical believer

>>19692892
Only a slave could demand a free person serve a higher master, so that we might become equals

>>19692881
>I know Jesus Christ is God incarnate
Prove it.

>>19692889
I'm simply telling you the truth, not threatening you. Think of it with this simple analogy:
There is a cave with a lion in it. A crowd of people, led by a charismatic leader, says that there is treasure in the cave (instead of a lion), and they encourage you to go in and get the treasure. A person outside of the leader's group says "You know, there is actually a lion in that cave, not treasure. If you go in, you will surely die". You have a free choice to go in and find out for yourself, or to stay outside.
>>19692891
>No need for an argument
As I thought.
>>19692900
>Yes it is based on conniving cult members documenting their cult beliefs and cult practices, thereafter playing telephone with one another until we arrive at you, the uncritical believer
No, it is based upon incredibly early eyewitness testimonies that report the life, deeds, and sayings of Jesus of Nazareth, which provide details for the historical event of His crucifixion.
>>19692905
I know Jesus Christ is God incarnate, because the best explanation for the events surrounding His crucifixion is that He resurrected from the dead, and appeared to His disciples. I have yet to be presented with a more likely hypothesis - I welcome you to present yours (please).

>>19692912
>I know Jesus Christ is God incarnate, because the best explanation for the events surrounding His crucifixion is that He resurrected from the dead, and appeared to His disciples. I have yet to be presented with a more likely hypothesis - I welcome you to present yours (please).
That's not a proof. I told you to prove it. For you to know something, you must be able to prove it. Can't do it? :^)

>>19692586
Pic is not related. From what he said it appears like soul is perishable. J8yrs

>>19692912
>not doing what i say is the equivalent of committing suicide
mother of cope

>>19692900
>>19692904
>>19692905
>>19692927
This guy is a notorious schizo who always rehashes the same non-arguments every time about the alleged truth of christianity (i.e. confirmation bias and Paul's testimony, as well as Paul's testimony of there having been eyewitness testimonies — so it's fucking nothing) and every time you call him out on it he writes walls of text repeating the exact same thing, never engaging with anything you say because he gets blown the fuck out when he actually tries to confront ideas instead of repeating himself endlessly. You'll get more insight out of talking to a wall.

>>19692915
he said the soul is transfigured and becomes unrecognizable, not that it perishes.

>>19692912
>eyewitness testimonies that report the life, deeds, and sayings of Jesus of Nazareth, which provide details for the historical event of His crucifixion.
Cult members, whose sole purpose in writing is to agree and amplify. And the only non-cult member sources from a hundred years later just say "this cult exists and they say x"

>>19692904
But you're not free lol. That's the great irony about your protests. What exactly are you free from?

>>19692929
If you can make someone respond to a sentence with an essay and they still haven't refuted you then you have had a good psychic harvest

>>19692950
Freer than you, demon worshiper

>>19692950
I am free from your set of delusional afflictions that lead you to believe you can escape from this place.

>>19692954
>don't even read the post
>reply with a single sentence
>wait for the next wall of text
I'm gonna start doing this

>>19692914
>That's not a proof. I told you to prove it. For you to know something, you must be able to prove it. Can't do it? :^)
1. Jesus' crucifixion is a historical fact.
2. The earliest documents which record Jesus' sayings show that He called Himself by a divine-Messianic title (Son of Man)
3. The earliest documents which record Jesus' sayings show that He predicted His own death and subsequent resurrection.
4. That Jesus' disciples believed He had risen from the dead after being crucified is a historical fact.
5. The best explanation for the events surrounding Jesus' death and subsequent potential resurrection is that He rose from the dead (as opposed to, say, the vision hypothesis, the messianic lie hypothesis, etc)
6. If Jesus rose from the dead, just like He predicted (see premise 3), that provides strong evidence that His other teachings were true.
7. One of these beliefs is that He is the Messiah, the eternally pre-existent Son of God.
8. Therefore, it is likely that if premise 5. is true, then Jesus is the Messiah, and eternally pre-existent Son of God.

Now, obviously, your point of contention will probably be premise 5. I am happy to engage in a discussion on what you believe is a more likely hypothesis than the resurrection. Please share with me your best argument, and we can have a productive debate.

>>19692929
Doesn't it bother you that you are unable to actually defend your position with an argument, or rebut my position with an argument? I guess it is easier to shut out the conversation entirely, than face cognitive dissonance.

>>19692939
>Cult members
Anachronistic and meaningless term when applied to 1st-century Jewish disciples of Jesus. If you mean to say that they were religious, then yes, obviously, they were.

>>19692967
>earliest documents
Pseudohistorical documents are not a proof. Everything you said is meaningless. Try again

>>19692961
I just pick the most garbage take in the post, usually it jumps at you because of how rank it smells, and respond to that. Like when he says he's not threatening you, he's totally wrong. He's pretending to be god's law enforcement, of course there is an implicit threat. If there weren't, he wouldn't even be a christer

>>19692972
>Pseudohistorical documents
How do you determine that these documents are "pseudohistorical"? What exactly does that mean in your eyes, and what criteria do you use to assign that category to any given text?
>are not a proof
The proof is the set of arguments themselves, not just the texts.
>Everything you said is meaningless
Not an argument.
>Try again
I will wait for you to actually rebut any of the premises first.

>>19692977
>The proof is the set of arguments
That's not what a proof is. I accept your concession.

>>19692967
Doesn't it bother you that you are unable to actually provide a coherent argument, or engage in discussion instead of endlessly rehashing the exact same statements until people give up? I guess it is easier to shut out the conversation entirely, than face cognitive dissonance. :^)

>>19692979
You are faced with an 8-premise argument, which, if all premises are true, is a logical proof for the conclusion. If you do not defeat any of the premises, the conclusion stands.

>>19692904
>>19692898
You are not free. You are a slave. It is your choice to whom you shall direct your slavery, to the most high or to the ruler of this world.
This is the quintessential view of the ancients. To them, treason was the highest offence. Social good was built upon the subjugation of men to their superiors. Even the Emperor was still subservient to the gods. Gnostics, too, saw themselves as worshipping the True God.
This sentiment of revolution, freedom and stubborn independence is in every regard an aspect of modernity. To ancient people this would have been alien.
This is totally inane. The cries of an insolent child.

>>19692988
Feel free to point out exactly which premises here >>19692967 fail - or continue to run away from the discussion.

>>19692989
First premise is shoddy as the exact details of the crucifiction are not agreed upon by scholars. Second premise falls apart because the documents do not provide proof, only conjecture.
You are welcome to try actually proving your claims, although you will find yourself unable to do so for the very simple reason that your religion is a lie and Yeshua never rose from the dead.

>>19692967
>Anachronistic and meaningless term
It's very meaningful that the only people who agree with the events are believers in them as documented in story books written by other believers. It's just turtles all the way down in terms of evidence. You have to already believe before those texts are useful in their claims about anything other than the most mundane matters. But even those are somewhat bizarre, consider the notion that people had to return to their birthplaces for the census? Total nonsense, that sort of recordkeeping didn't exist and it is a literary device, i.e. that the founder of New Judaism has to peregrinate from Israel to Egypt and back again as part of his validation in that tradition. The Romans were not so impractical or minute.

>>19692995
>ruler of this world.
Yeah, you can choose to be a slave to the principalities if you want and swim in shit for eternity.
>AAAAAAAAH I NEED TO WORSHIP
Literal golem mentality, you're disgusting

>>19692976
Moogiism when
And yes, what I find most repulsive about christianity isn't even the premise itself even though basing your entire worldview on a zombie jew is silly, it's the extremely perverse mentality of its followers

>>19692995
You can't call other people childish if you are demanding your imaginary father come and get me. Simple as. The Romans had no time for this until they had completely degenerated. Pilate washed his hands. Pliny was unsure how to respond to you suicidal freaks. Constantine saw you made good cannon fodder, or perhaps ballista fodder. And the rest is history, because christers were too lazy to even fight and outsourced war to Germany, which fell to Rome as Rome fell to Greece.

>>19693006
Why would I choose to be a slave to the ruler of this world when I can choose to be a slave to God?

>>19693024
>God
Your god (yahweh) is the ruler of this world, a demon
>choosing to be a slave, incapable of envisioning a non-slavish existence
You're still a pathetic faggot lower than a literal piece of shit

>>19692997
>First premise is shoddy as the exact details of the crucifiction are not agreed upon by scholars.
Atheist and Christian scholars alike agree that the number one historically certain fact about Jesus of Nazareth, besides that He lived, was that He was crucified. There is almost universal assent on this among all Jesus scholars.
>Second premise falls apart because the documents do not provide proof, only conjecture.
The premise is not a proof. If the statement is true (that the earliest documents say that Jesus called Himself the Son of Man), the premise stands.
>You are welcome to try actually proving your claims
I have presented an argument which, thus far, has yet to be rebutted (your attempts so far are quite shoddy), and so the conclusion stands. If you want to get to the real meat-and-potatoes of the debate, seeing that it is clear that the first four premises are really quite reasonable, we should get on to debating premise 5.
>the very simple reason that your religion is a lie and Yeshua never rose from the dead.
I am curious to hear your hypothesis on the most likely explanation for the apostle's belief in Christ's resurrection. Are you a proponent of the vision hypothesis, messianic lie, swoon theory, mythicist, etc? Let's have a productive discussion. Trust me, it would be a lot easier if somebody could provide a rock-solid argument that disproved the resurrection - but every time I try to ask people, they fail to give a more convincing explanation. Hopefully you break the usual mold, and present a compelling case for your position.

>>19693015
We must return to tradition and affirm the absolute noetic unity of cute girls doing cute things. There is nothing unwell in the world except for the delusions about the world and actions heaped upon these delusional precepts.

>>19693020
Again with this whining. It's pathetic.

>>19693035
I said details, not the crucifiction. Learn to read.
The documents can be safely disregarded. You are welcome to try actually proving your claims anytime now

>>19693024
This bowing to the astral master is the equalizing revenge of weak people, and makes your seething about modernity all the more hilarious, since modernity is all the more characterized by universal enslavement to capital, mechanization, etc. in a way that theists could only dream of, and indeed it was their nightmare that another master should conquer theirs.

If God is Good, damnation cannot be eternal.
Trying to debate this is pure cope.
As such, I have no reason to be a christian.

>>19693039
>waaah waaah stop whining and obey me
a christer without a state or a mob is just sad

>>19692998
The texts should be considered dispassionately. Do not let your biases cloud your judgment. Considered objectively, we have incredibly early documents which recount a historical narrative (the life and death of the man Jesus). That the authors wrote in a genre different than modern historians (which is obviously to be expected, given they predate the modern field by a huge time-span) does not invalidate the historical worth of those documents.
>>19693040
Premise 1 does not make any particular claims about the details of the crucifixion. What is your point?
>The documents can be safely disregarded.
You are aware that that is baseless conjecture, and that you have not defended this with any argument, right? Why should I believe it?

And, again, let me repeat my question that you sneakily avoided and dodged:
I have presented an argument which, thus far, has yet to be rebutted (your attempts so far are quite shoddy), and so the conclusion stands. If you want to get to the real meat-and-potatoes of the debate, seeing that it is clear that the first four premises are really quite reasonable, we should get on to debating premise 5.
I am curious to hear your hypothesis on the most likely explanation for the apostle's belief in Christ's resurrection. Are you a proponent of the vision hypothesis, messianic lie, swoon theory, mythicist, etc? Let's have a productive discussion. Trust me, it would be a lot easier if somebody could provide a rock-solid argument that disproved the resurrection - but every time I try to ask people, they fail to give a more convincing explanation. Hopefully you break the usual mold, and present a compelling case for your position.

>>19693037
>There is nothing unwell in the world except for the delusions about the world
Are you some kind of Buddhist? Of everything I've read, texts on the Buddhist theories of mind make the most sense to me by far, but I still find it very hard to relinquish the notion of good and evil, it doesn't sit well with me.

>>19692061
Buddhists will probably deny this, but the reason that Buddhism arose and was successful is the rising power of the Brahmin (it is a reaction to it).

>>19693062
>What is your point?
The gospels aren't historically valid
>baseless conjecture
Trusting paul is even more baseless, feel free to provide anything more than "paul said so" anytime

>>19693048
>The gospels aren't historically valid
Again, you are asserting this without an actual argument. You have yet to rebut any of the premises - first, you brought up the crucifixion, now you are talking about Paul (who I didn't even mention in the argument) - what exactly is your point here?

>>19693081
>argument
So you're going against the consensus of historians, got it
>who I didn't even mention
And your entire argument hinges on the "eyewitness testimonies", which all depend on Paul's word being true. Your entire belief system sure looks shoddy now

>>19693047
The point wasn't necessarily that modernity is le bad, it was a factual, historical statement that this mentality is very modern. It is also very insubstantial and infantile because you make no attempt to justify it. Like a teenager smoking cigarettes just to piss off his parent. I don't know anon, perhaps you do have a reason for thinking this way.

>>19693066
Is that a bad thing? Brahminism is pretty dumb

>>19693064
I have found it informative as one of the few attempts to create a philosophical system that does not rely on the projected deification of man into god. There is no creator in Buddhism unless you consider the mind for instance to be creative of objects, duality, and so forth.
>>19693066
There are lots of debates with brahmins in the nikayas and even debates with Brahmā himself (Buddha vs Vedic Yahweh) so not sure who would dispute the connection

>>19693093
>it is infantile to not want to be a literal slave
The trademark christcuck condescension while claiming the moral high ground is the most insufferable thing about you "people"

>>19693085
>So you're going against the consensus of historians, got it
You do realize that even the most liberal historians agree that the gospels contain many of the true sayings of Jesus, and recount many of the things which occurred in His life?
>And your entire argument hinges on the "eyewitness testimonies", which all depend on Paul's word being true
No, the eyewitness testimonies argument relies on the authorship traditions of the gospels of Matthew and John (eg. Papias, Irenaeus, etc.), as well as the creed in 1 Corinthians 15, which scholars agree was not authored by Paul, but was received by him.
>Your entire belief system sure looks shoddy now
As much as you want it to be true, I have yet to see a single good argument. And, once again, you have failed to rebut any of the premises of the argument, nor have you given an alternative hypothesis for premise 5.

>>19693103
Good to know I was right the first time, anon.

>>19684190
>American Protestants are a monolithic group

>>19693104
>moving goalposts
the gospels are not taken to be "true" by historians
>not authored by Paul, but was received by him.
kek
>As much as you want it to be true
I want nothing except to keep making you seethe silently while you're pretending to be calm and composed. :^)

>>19693062
>The texts should be considered dispassionately. Do not let your biases cloud your judgment.
I agree and arrive at a different conclusion than you, not even because I don't believe in supernatural matters per se, but because I don't believe only one community in one period would have access to them. Or, their interpretation of them is not the only possible such interpretation. In any case, does not agree with me, nor with some depersonalized reader i can project out of myself for the sake of reading.

>>19693102
What do you think of taoism and gnosticism?
>the mind for instance to be creative of objects, duality, and so forth.
As I understand it the Buddhist position isn't that the mind literally creates the world in a berkeleian idealist sense, but that everything is interpreted by the mind and that there is for all intents and purposes no "external" reality to that which the conscious observer perceives. Am I wrong?

>>19693093
>The point wasn't necessarily that modernity is le bad, it was a factual, historical statement that this mentality is very modern.
You are highly literal aren't you? But you do think modernity is le bad and that is your implication. You are not even half as clever as you think, if you were, christers wouldn't be scraping around 4channel for souls.

>>19693114
>haha u are le child
Edifying contribution, my kike-worshiping friend. Hope you'll attain that noble goal that is becoming a slave to a jewish tribe deity.

>>19693119
>the gospels are not taken to be "true" by historians
Again, you are getting off track here. You need to rebut one of my premises for the conclusion to no longer stand. So far, you have failed to do that - only baselessly asserted your opinion.
>kek
Just do some basic research and educate yourself with the scholarly consensus on this issue. Read some of the citations linked here, for a basic overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15#Origins_of_the_creed
>I want nothing except to keep making you seethe silently while you're pretending to be calm and composed. :^)
Why would I be seething at a series of illogical arguments? It's clear you are closed off to the truth as of right now and aren't interested in finding the truth, I am only continuing to respond to your bad arguments in case some lurker is finding some use in the discussion.

>>19688394
Yes they did. For example, from St. Augustine's City of God:
>Chapter 10.—Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past.
>They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.
>(Footnote: Augustin here follows the chronology of Eusebius, who reckons 5611 years from the Creation to the taking of Rome by the Goths; adopting the Septuagint version of the Patriarchal ages.)

>>19693145
>you are getting off track here
Yes, you getting blown the fuck out is "getting off track", I know the deal
Deflecting with basic shit like "educate yourself" etc, how sad, had you picked a religion that made actual sense to larp as a zealot you might've been able to provide something coherent to work with
I wholeheartedly accept your concession.

>>19693131
>taoism and gnosticism
Not very read in those but as far as I can surmise taoism is the Chinese formulation of non-dual absolutism, which would make it doxographically similar to Mahayana Buddhism or the Advaita schools of Hinduism. Gnosticism is largely known through hostile writings but it seems to have been dualistic, e.g. manichean
>everything is interpreted by the mind and that there is for all intents and purposes no "external" reality to that which the conscious observer perceives. Am I wrong?
That's the particular view of the yogacara or vijñanavadin schools, in which mind is the ground of delusion but for soteriological purposes can be purified into quiescence.

>>19693125
>I agree and arrive at a different conclusion than you
What conclusion have you arrived at?
>I don't believe only one community in one period would have access to them
What are you referring to here?
Sorry, I am just having a hard time understanding exactly what your objections are.

>>19693148
Should clarify it is Book 12, Chapter 10

>>19693153
>no argument
Thanks for trying. Good luck on your search for truth - remember, all you have to do is make an internal comitment to let the Holy Spirit guide you if He is real, and you will be led to the truth as well. God bless you :)

>>19693168
Sorry, not interested in the insane ramblings of a desert cult worshiping a jewish zombie, but knock yourself out if that's what you're into. I'm sure you'll be able to reach the actual truth someday and not semitic lies. :)

>>19693160
My conclusion is that the claims of exclusivity of divine revelation and of supernatural events, if they did happen in the Bible, are either a. not entirely as described, or b. merely particular to the people involved, and not exclusive. In other words, if the Bible were even 10% "true," why would all other pantheons and sorcerors and myths be 100% false? It is unacceptable to a non-provincial mind

Does this board really have people who are into and defend organized religion?

I am sympathetic to mystical christian and find it interesting like the OP, but holy shit how many levels of copium are you guys on?

>>19693104
>No, the eyewitness testimonies argument relies on the authorship traditions of the gospels of Matthew and John (eg. Papias, Irenaeus, etc.), as well as the creed in 1 Corinthians 15, which scholars agree was not authored by Paul, but was received by him.
All testimonies relative to the particular points you're bringing up (especially the resurrection) were "filtered" through Paul, who, even if he didn't write them himself, compiled them. There aren't any such canonical documents external to the paulinian tradition since everything was brought together by Paul.
Iranaeus and even Papias were not contemporaries of Jesus, anything they've written is secondary to the primary documents you would use to back up the assertion of Jesus' resurrection, and all those documents are tied to Paul. The eyewitness testimonies are not direct testimonies, they've been reported by Paul.

>>19693196
I think people really just need to read more on the subject. William James is a good start and very accessible. Could also throw in Bergson or Spinoza. Being exposed to a single pov is literally retarding and solipsistic. If only because it means you can't defend yourself dialectically. And if you can't do that you have no business communicating your beliefs to other people, who don't really care what your personal testament is

>>19693145
>you're closed off to the truth because you're not a christian
>you're not interested in the truth if you won't convert to christianity

>>19693179
>My conclusion is that the claims of exclusivity of divine revelation and of supernatural events, if they did happen in the Bible, are either a. not entirely as described, or b. merely particular to the people involved, and not exclusive.
Can you link a specific verse from the Bible that you have trouble with? Because as far as I can tell, it is quite well established that the various major religions of the pre-Christian world consist of cultural accretions which developed on a primitive theology of nature worship (eg. PIE/Vedic pantheon), or deification of ancestors/warrior-heros (eg. Krisna worship, Osiris worship). What revelations, exactly, do you contend are legitimately divinely revealed?

>>19693196
I've always wondered what it is about *organized* religion in particular that's supposed to be so bad. In any case, mystical christianity is as organized as any other part of christianity. Maximus the Confessor, who wrote the book OP read, was a monk in a monastary.

>>19693241
>Osiris worship
Christians plagiarized the Osiris myth for the resurrection and are now going "I made this"

>>19693211
>the new testament and gospels were compiled by Paul
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Not sure what headcanon you have where all of Christendom is a Pauline conspiracy, but I welcome you to provide any scholarship which agrees with your position - I will happily read through it. I do suspect that you will be unable to provide such scholarly work, though - but I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

>>19693250
>>the new testament and gospels were compiled by Paul
Never said this, why don't you want to actually reply to my post instead of this weird strawman?

>>19693241
>it is quite well established that the various major religions of the pre-Christian world consist of cultural accretions which developed
Why are you exempt from this? You're already doing what I said I had a problem with, which is tactical atheism/materialism/anthropology. I don't need to cite a verse, it's the entire book.

>>19693246
>just watched Zeitgeist for the first time
Almost all cultures have a dying-and-rising god, because almost all cultures worshipped a sun god, and the sun "dies and rises" every night. Saying that Christianity plagiarized Osiris is just fedora-tier pseudo-scholarship. Why would Christians plagiarize Osiris, and not, say, Ishtar, who was much closer to them geographically?

>>19693258
I don't know what zeitgeist is and you're not refuting my point
Christians pretending they have a monopoly on a meaningful ressurection myth is laughable

>>19693250
Paul organized Christianity as such and led and corresponded with the early communities, this is indisputable.

>>19692930
Yeah which means it is not the Self anymore. Which is just annihilatistic. Why anyone is Buddhist when there is Advaita is beyond me anyway.

>>19693255
>Never said this
"All testimonies relative to the particular points you're bringing up (especially the resurrection) were "filtered" through Paul, who, even if he didn't write them himself, compiled them"
"everything was brought together by Paul."
"the primary documents you would use to back up the assertion of Jesus' resurrection, and all those documents are tied to Paul"
"not direct testimonies, they've been reported by Paul."
Please explain how the Gospel narratives are "tied to Paul", "reported by Paul", or were "compiled by Paul"? I don't think I misrepresented your position at all - you seem to be positing that the Gospel accounts were tied to Paul somehow.

>>19687362
There's literally nothing wrong with this quote. Reason is how people try to argue that Jesus was "a wise teacher" without admitting that he was the son of God who could raise the dead.

>>19693155
>That's the particular view of the yogacara or vijñanavadin schools
Which other views are there? Are there any that go all the way and end up espousing some variation of immaterialism?

>>19693258
They also copied the wine drinking, revenanting, murdered son of Zeus Dionysus, probably from converting all those Greeks.

>>19693270
Are you saying the eyewitness testimonies weren't reported by Paul and that there exist independent testimonies of the resurrection as standalone historical documents that Paul never had anything to do with?

>>19693264
The meaningful part of the Christian myth is that it actually has a compelling historical case for being true.
>>19693266
>Paul organized Christianity as such
Completely incorrect. Paul was received into an already existing organized Christianity led by the apostles in Jerusalem. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15#Origins_of_the_creed
>corresponded with the early communities
This is true, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the gospels being eyewitness/second-hand testimony.
>>19693276
Can you provide any scholarship or peer-reviewed articles that support your hypothesis that Jesus was an amalgam of Greek and Egyptian myths?

>>19693271
>stop thinking, goy
Christianity at its finest

>>19693286
>Are you saying the eyewitness testimonies weren't reported by Paul [...] there exist independent testimonies of the resurrection as standalone historical documents that Paul never had anything to do with?
Yes - the gospels of Matthew and John, as well as the second-hand testimonies of Luke and Mark (which were compiled from interviewing firsthand eyewitnesses).

>>19693288
>a compelling historical case
Repeating this over and over again isn't going to make it any more true.
>>19693297
>my historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus are the testimonies of his own followers
There we have it.

>>19693275
The Madhyamaka school takes a hardline stance on negating all empirical or relative explications of the ineffable absolute. They are represented by the works of Chandrakirti, who following Nagarjuna and Aryadeva would not argue for the emptiness of the absolute but against other positions. The idealistic schools mentioned, while also accepting emptiness, had a number of thinkers, who all largely followed Asanga and Vasubandhu, in agreeing with emptiness but also presented a system of explaining consciousness and how delusions arise, and this system, because it was descended from the sarvastivada-abhidharma school that Madhyamaka was a reaction against, is considered inferior by the Chandrakirti infuenced Madhyamaka doxographers of the Tibetan schools. However, in India the final form of historical Buddhism was a synthesis of Madhyamaka and Yogacara under Shantaraksita and Kamalasila, who took the Yogacara view to be a relative truth and the Madhyamaka as ultimate truth. This will be hard to follow without reading any of the material.

>>19693300
>Repeating this over and over again isn't going to make it any more true.
Agreed: which is why I presented a clear argument here >>19692967, which you are welcome to rebut.
>my historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus are the testimonies of his own followers
I'm confused - do you think that somebody who didn't believe Jesus rose from the dead would have written about His resurrection? Obviously, anybody who was a witness to Jesus' resurrection would be writing from the perspective of a Christian, because the believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is the fundamental tenet of Christianity. What evidence are you expecting - and why discard the testimony of those eyewitnesses?

>>19693310
You're being disingenous. These people followed Jesus before he came back from the dead. For those who didn't, their testimonies are second-hand, not independent.

>>19693288
>Can you provide any scholarship or peer-reviewed articles that support your hypothesis
Common sense hypothesis, operating under the assumption that your religious claims to extreme and total exclusivity are entirely groundless as evidence of historical developments. I would like to see some peer reviewed evidence of Yahweh though since you are so exacting in your demands for the truth as arrived through scholarly consensus

>>19693318
>These people followed Jesus before he came back from the dead
I'm not sure what your point is, here? To bring the discussion back to a more ordered state, perhaps you'd like to address a particular premise here >>19692967. To start, which of these points do you disagree with, and why?

>>19693305
Thank you. All the different views on the nature of reality within Buddhism are somewhat confusing, and it gets even more difficult when getting into the specific schools that disagree with each other on specific points; rantong, shentong, and whatever else. I'm pretty lost but your reading list seems good, I got the basics down at least.

>>19693324
>Common sense hypothesis,
eg. source: dude just trust me. If you want to have a productive discussion, either engage with my actual argument, or leave your conjecture aside (I'm not interested in your opinions).

>>19693332
>I don't want to answer so I'll just ask you to answer one of my previous posts and entirely dodge the point you brought up
Are you really this desperate?
Face it: all the people providing first-hand testimonies were followers of Jesus before the alleged resurrection. The other testimonies are not first-hand, they were reported by others. As such, there are no first-hand eyewitness testimonies of the resurrection from anyone else than the apostles, all of whom conveniently happened to be followers of Jesus before he died. If you can't see where I'm going with this, you're either a genuine retard or so intellectually dishonest that any claims of righteousness you can possibly make lose all their weight.

>>19693350
Again, I am just confused on what you are expecting here as evidence. Of course the eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection are His disciples. We both agree on this. That is premise 4. in my argument. I am curious why you believe this discounts their testimony? Put another way, what evidence would be compelling to you to prove that Jesus DID rise from the dead? Would you expect some non-Christian to be writing about how Jesus Christ rose from the dead?

>>19693359
The key phrase here was
>before the alleged resurrection

>>19693335
If you can track down any of Stcherbatsky's books, he is probably the best European or American scholar of Buddhism prior to the last few decades of people actually being ordained before doing translations/writing about the philosophy. Though I do believe he had access to some actual Mongolian Buddhists in Russia, so that helped. Another older writer who is generally good is DT Suzuki, more popular but influenced by theosophy in his presentation. I would still largely recommend primary texts over surveys since those in translation generally have comprehensive introductions and endnotes

>>19693364
Perhaps I'm just slow, but seriously, I mean no ill-will, and am not trying to be disingenuous. Can you answer my question, so that I can see exactly what your argument is?
>what evidence would be compelling to you to prove that Jesus DID rise from the dead? Would you expect some non-Christian to be writing about how Jesus Christ rose from the dead?

>>19693340
>dude just trust me
Literally the entire bible from start to finish. Another christer, another lack of self-awareness

>>19693373
>>what evidence would be compelling to you to prove that Jesus DID rise from the dead?
First-hand (not reported by someone else) eyewitness testimonies from someone who was demonstrably not a follower of Jesus prior to his alleged resurrection.
That alone wouldn't lead me to believe Jesus rose from the dead but it would be sufficiently compelling for me to at least entertain the idea.

>>19693374
Belief in the Bible is based upon the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Also, we are "Christians", followers of the anointed messiah Jesus Christ, your Lord and King, not christers :)

>>19693378
>your
I didn't vote for him, fuck off

>>19693378
>Belief in the Bible is based upon the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ
You believe in the Bible... because you believe in the Bible... because you believe in the Bible...

>>19693376
>demonstrably not a follower of Jesus prior to his alleged resurrection
Any non-cult members who thought this was worth documenting? Any at all? And not in the sense that "the cult members believe the man Jesus rose from the dead" but "the man Jesus rose from the dead"

>>19693365
I've mostly read primary texts (Dhammapada, MN, Heart and Diamond sutras, some miscellaneous stuff like the Tibetan Book of the Dead) so far. Thanks for the recommendations.

>>19693403
Remember, if you start with the Jeets you'll not face defeat

>>19693376
>First-hand (not reported by someone else) eyewitness testimonies from someone who was demonstrably not a follower of Jesus prior to his alleged resurrection.
And this is what is confusing to me. Hopefully you can see what I'm saying here:
The preliminary evidence that you would have to see would be somebody who was not a follower of Jesus at all (eg. not a disciple), who then saw Jesus after the resurrection, and then became a Christian? Why would we expect that such a person would even leave a written testimony, given that they would not actually have anything to say besides "I saw Jesus of Nazareth after he died"? They wouldn't have any stories to tell about His life, deeds, etc. I just think this criteria needlessly discards the actual evidence we do have, for no real reason (I guess you are insinuating that the apostles are lying in their testimony - so you would be a proponent of the Messianic lie hypothesis?). Overall, I find your perspective kind of confusing. Hopefully you can help clear it up for me.

>>19693385
It's an absolute monarchy, you don't get a say in it. :^)

>>19693391
The "Bible" is a collection of documents that were later compiled into a collection. It is not circular reasoning to say that belief in the Bible is based upon the resurrection:
1. I believe that the works in the Bible are inspired.
2. I believe this because of the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus (which is based upon documents and oral traditions which predate the "New Testament" by hundreds of years)

>>19693400
If somebody believed Jesus rose from the dead, they would by definition be a Christian.

>>19693425
>Why would we expect that such a person would even leave a written testimony
To lend credence to the story, at the very least. To make it more convincing, since the testimony of an outsider is more objective.
>If somebody believed Jesus rose from the dead
No, even if you proved to me without a shred of doubt (photos and all) that he rose from the dead I still wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he is God and not just some kind of trickster.

>>19693425
>The "Bible" is a collection of documents that were later compiled into a collection.
Yes
>It is not circular reasoning to say that belief in the Bible is based upon the resurrection
The texts of the collected Bible are the source for the resurrection no matter how you slice it up.
>1. I believe that the works in the Bible are inspired.
So you already agree it is true and are not going to prove anything.
>2. I believe this because of the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus (which is based upon documents and oral traditions which predate the "New Testament" by hundreds of years)
You mean to say the Old Testament proves the New Testament. However, since that is still the Bible, and I am not a retard, this was a very poor attempt to dodge the issue of using events described only in the Bible in order to accord with earlier events described in the Bible as proof that the Bible is correct. You might as well prove Alice in Wonderland, which is a much better story.

>>19693439
>I still wouldn't jump to the conclusion
Really damning of the intellectual capacities of those provincials isn't it? A ruler of a whole empire could see there were dozens of gods, the little folk could only see theirs

>>19693459
Yeah I guess I'm just not easily impressed. I don't care about miracles, I care about the teachings in themselves and whether or not the doctrine makes actual sense

>>19693439
>To make it more convincing, since the testimony of an outsider is more objective.
But don't you see that the testimony of this person could be discarded in the same way? Like, "Sure, we have this document saying that somebody saw Jesus risen from the dead, but I don't believe they are telling the truth - it was written by a follower of Jesus". It just seems like a kind of inconsistent criteria - and I don't really see a valid reason to disregard Matthew and John's testimonies, considering that the Messianic lie hypothesis is completely ludicrous (which I am happy to discuss, if you'd like).
>even if you proved to me without a shred of doubt (photos and all) that he rose from the dead I still wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he is God and not just some kind of trickster.
Even if you knew that this person claimed to be the divine Messiah who was eternally pre-existent, and who prophesied His own death and resurrection? You don't think that the unprecedented nature of these occurrences make it far more likely that the person's teachings were true? What criteria would you need to see to believe that Jesus is God? How would you falsify your position?
>>19693453
>The texts of the collected Bible are the source for the resurrection no matter how you slice it up.
The documents of the New Testament were only later compiled into being part of "the Bible". It is the documents themselves, which circulated for hundreds of years before the New Testament was compiled, which provide proof for the resurrection.
>You mean to say the Old Testament proves the New Testament
No, the resurrection of Jesus and the eyewitness documents of Matthew and John prove the Old Testament.
>However, since that is still the Bible
Again, that is an anachronism. The eyewitness texts predate the New Testament canon by hundreds of years.

>>19693476
You are claiming the source texts of the Bible as a canon, if taken by themselves, are not you using the Bible to prove the Bible? Is that right? If someone cut off your limbs and you said they were yours, would you be lying?

>>19693476
>don't you see that the testimony of this person could be discarded in the same way?
Sure but it would be less shoddy at least. Right now all we have are testimonies from guys who were so convinced of the truth of Jesus' message that they would've died for him even before the alleged resurrection. Hardly compelling.
>I don't really see a valid reason to disregard Matthew and John's testimonies
Bias.
>Even if you knew that this person claimed to be [...]
Yeah. I can have an out of body experience and see various entities claim various things, doesn't mean I have to buy into any of it. I'm not impressed by this.
>unprecedented nature
According to Christianity.
>What criteria
To accept without a shred of doubt that Jesus is whatever you say he is? Nothing, short of some kind of divine intervention directly modifying my beliefs, because it is nonsensical to me and I would always retain a level of skepticism.

>>19693501
>would've died for him even before the alleged resurrection
He's going to argue suicidal behavior is evidence of the truth. Which should give us pause considering we now have to weigh the claims of every cult-motivated suicide and develop a new criteria to select among them which is true if they aren't all true

>>19693493
I am saying that the documents of the Gospels, which predate the compilation of the Christian Bible by hundreds of years, are what form the basis of my belief in both the Old Testament, and the epistles that later became part of the New Testament. No circularity at all.
>>19693501
> Right now all we have are testimonies from guys who were so convinced of the truth of Jesus' message that they would've died for him even before the alleged resurrection. Hardly compelling.
Interesting - I felt the exact opposite way, when analyzing the evidence while irreligious. It seems to me that the apostle's willingness to be brutally tortured and killed to spread the message that Jesus Christ appeared to them bodily resurrected from the dead, and stayed with them for 40 days before ascending into heaven, provided compelling support that they wholeheartedly believed what they put into writing in their gospels (eg. specifically Matthew and John). Such eyewitness testimony is incredibly compelling - I have never seen a case of people who were willing to be tortured and killed for something they did not fully believe in. So the question is: what made them believe so strongly that Jesus had appeared to them in a bodily resurrected form, and taught and ate with them for 40 days?
>Bias.
All historical testimonies are biased in some way - for example, almost all of the biographies of emperors are basically hagiographies, but we still trust that they are generally reliable. What criteria are you using to determine whether some claim in those gospels is either true or false? How do you judge whether some given teaching of Jesus in those gospels was actually said by Him, or not?
>Yeah. I can have an out of body experience and see various entities claim various things, doesn't mean I have to buy into any of it. I'm not impressed by this.
So, just to be clear, if you met a man who performed miracles and claimed to be the divine son of God and Messiah, and he later said "I will be killed, and will rise from the dead" - and then he was killed, and like he said, resurrected from the dead, and hung out with you for 40 days before ascending into heaven - you would not consider that compelling evidence that he is who he claimed to be (even though he has power over death itself)?
>According to Christianity.
Can you show me another individual in human history who prophesied his own death and resurrection? It is unprecedented, period, not just according to Christianity.
>To accept without a shred of doubt that Jesus is whatever you say he is? Nothing,
And that is really all that needs to be said - you should have started with that. There is nothing that will ever convince you - your belief is unfalsifiable - so there is really no point in discussing this with you. I am sad to see this, because dogmatically asserting that you will never change your mind no matter what arguments are presented is the death of philosophical inquiry.

>>19693417
Thanks Kanna

>>19693552
>I have never seen a case of people who were willing to be tortured and killed for something they did not fully believe in.
Neither have I. What I'm questioning isn't their own belief.
>we still trust
Mistakenly so. I'm aware that most of history is not actually "known" and that the reality of things was most likely different from what the biased documents we have tell us.
>you would not consider that compelling evidence
That's right.
>Can you show me
Missing the point here. Christianity claims these things to be true. They're only unprecedented according to Christians, because they've only happened according to them.
I guess you're right though, it is unprecedented even outside of the mind of Christians, since most people believe it simply never happened at all.
>dogmatically asserting
You are the only one making dogmatic assertions, while I am maintaining a reasonable level of skepticism and distance.

>>19693552
>>19693586
Oh and
>the death of philosophical inquiry
We aren't discussing philosophy at all here. The death of philosophical inquiry is believing that you're arrived at the absolute truth, which is the case for you, but not for me. Ironic that you would say there is no point in discussing with me when the only dogmatist that is absolutely certain of his position here isn't me, it's you.

>>19693552
>I am saying that the documents of the Gospels, which predate the compilation of the Christian Bible by hundreds of years, are what form the basis of my belief in both the Old Testament, and the epistles that later became part of the New Testament. No circularity at all.
Ok well in that case I revise my wording and do not accept the Gospels, the Old Testament, or the Letters as a better form of "evidence" than "dude just trust me" and hold to my opinion, which you have actually reinforced in your deconstruction of the authority of the unitary Bible, that the christer mythos is an amalgamation of near eastern beliefs including Dionysus, Yahweh, Osiris, etc as through a soteriological framework rather than an exclusive divine revelation which invalidates all competing belief systems

>>19693586
>What I'm questioning isn't their own belief.
What is your explanation for why they believed that Jesus had resurrected from the dead and hung out with them for 40 days before ascending into heaven?
>Mistakenly so
Do you suggest we throw out all of ancient history because ancient historians invariably have some bias? Or, in your opinion, is there a middle ground way of determining which parts of any given text are more or less likely to be true?
>That's right.
Interesting. I find it hard to believe that anybody could witness a man literally prophesy his own resurrection, conquer death, and bodily resurrect from the dead, and then witness him literally ascend into heaven, and not be convinced that he is who he said he was.
>You are the only one making dogmatic assertions, while I am maintaining a reasonable level of skepticism and distance.
No, you are missing my point. My hypothesis is falsifiable - that is why I am welcoming you to provide an alternative hypothesis, and engaging in a debate where I can be proven wrong - whereas with your position, you have already admitted that there is no possible argument, or any piece of evidence, that could ever make you change your position. Thus, you are the one who holds a dogmatic position (eg. unfalsifiable, unscientific), whereas I am open to being proven wrong through argumentation.
>>19693593
>We aren't discussing philosophy at all here.
We are discussing epistemology, which is a philosophical field.
>The death of philosophical inquiry is believing that you're arrived at the absolute truth, which is the case for you, but not for me
Again, no - you are the one who says that there is no evidence that could ever make you change your position. Thus, you are the one who believes you have arrived at the absolute truth (eg. for you, the conclusion "Jesus is not God" is an absolute dogmatic truth that can never be falsified, proven wrong, etc)
Because it is clear we won't get anywhere now that you've admitted no argument or evidence can ever make you change your position, I would perhaps recommend reading Alvin Plantinga's "Warranted Christian Belief". You can find an ebook on Libgen or ZLibrary - perhaps it will show you a different perspective. I appreciate the cordial discussion, and I hope you come to modify your position to be falsifiable.

>>19693606
Because your "dude just trust me" perspective is simply based on one man's baseless opinion, and has no external epistemological evidence supporting it (as opposed to the gospels, which as we have discussed, have the historical episteme of the crucifixion/resurrection as a supporting factor), I find that your opinion is simply not worth entertaining, because there is literally no convincing reason to believe it - besides the fact that you believe you are very intelligent, and have thus come to the Truth that all modern scholars of religion have not yet comprehended.

>>19693627
>the gospels, which as we have discussed, have the historical episteme of the crucifixion/resurrection as a supporting factor)
No such historical support. The gospels are its only evidence and there is nothing outside them to corroborate. And they were written by cultists who needed to believe that story, whose entire project collapses if that story is not affirmed, they become just another sect of doomers who can't cope with the Roman empire ending their Yahwehist state.

>>19693662
>The gospels are its only evidence and there is nothing outside them to corroborate
The gospels of Matt. and J themselves are evidence that one has to contend with. You know, "christer" guy, we have had many discussions on this topic, but I still have no idea what your actual hypothesis is for why the apostles came to believe Jesus had been bodily resurrected from the dead, ate and taught with them, and then ascended to heaven in their sight 40 days later. What do you think happened?

>>19693627
>What is your explanation
What is your explanation for people who believed Siddhartha resurrected from the dead to give a sermon to his mom and then went back to being dead? Or the Heaven's Gate people who believed that they should kill themselves?
Before you answer with some variation of "yes but historical documents...", there's another, much simpler answer: delusion.
>Do you suggest we throw out all of ancient history
No, I suggest we remain skeptical, especially when it comes to details.
>I find it hard to believe
You find it hard to believe that someone would be unimpressed by miracles? It's not that special. People in India will tell you miracles happen there every day, though they call it by another name. It doesn't matter.
For a different take on miracles that strays from the abrahamic interpretation, Talbot's Holographic Universe was an enjoyable read for me despite the new agey elements.
>an alternative hypothesis
To what? Jesus rising from the dead? Here's one: he died and never came back. This is the most widely accepted hypothesis and I'm sure you'll find many people willing to engage in a fruitless debate with you on the subject.
>unfalsifiable, unscientific
Right, you're not a dogmatist. That's why you arrived in the thread a few hours ago making long obnoxious posts about how we should all accept the holy spirit or be forever damned. But that's not dogma, it's the Truth™, so it's fine, right?
>epistemology
If this is what you consider a debate in epistemology you have low standards. You've been stating your beliefs, to which I've responded saying they can be safely disregarded, and this has been going back and forth with you basically telling me I should believe a jewish preacher rose from the dead 2000 years ago and that this means he's god or whatever because some of his followers said so.
>you are the one who says that there is no evidence that could ever make you change your position
Yes, I will always maintain a level of detachment and skepticism. Not sure why this is so offensive to you. Skepticism is the opposite of dogmatism. Dogmatism is what you've been doing: claiming you know the truth, that you can impart it on others, and so on.
Basically you're inverting everything and accusing me of what you're guilty of, disingenuously manoeuvering to make it seem like me being skeptical of the claims of a few fringe cultists on the outskirts of the Roman Empire during the 1st century is somehow an unreasonable position to hold.

>>19693688
>why the apostles came to believe Jesus had been bodily resurrected from the dead, ate and taught with them, and then ascended to heaven in their sight 40 days later
There are many more sensible explanations than "he rose from the dead and that means he's god".
They made it up; they were delusional or delirious; a mix of both; Jesus was impersonated; hell, maybe Jesus actually resurrected, and yet this still doesn't demonstrate he's whoever he claimed to be. He could be a powerful deceptive being for all we know. It could be a prank from a higher plane. None of those explanations seem less sensible than the "everything in the book is true" hypothesis, and you only believe otherwise because you want to believe.
And that's not getting into the downright incoherent and ridiculous nature of Christian dogma which by itself pretty much discredits the entire religion regardless of what actually happens.

>>19693688
>What do you think happened?
I think that even if it happened as described, which is highly doubtful, it would not establish the validity of the claims made on the basis of the supernatural events by those using them as support. To be a magician is the worst form of argument, and many other philosophers and thinkers often use sorcery or illusion as a metaphor for deception. The naivety of a system which cannot recognize this and instead insists upon a show of magical force as proof, a proof it cannot ever replicate, is what sends christers to the bottom of the metaphysical barrel. That his disciples would rather commit suicide than prove their claims is not proof they were correct, only that they believed in it.

>>19693694
>What is your explanation for people who believed Siddhartha resurrected from the dead to give a sermon to his mom and then went back to being dead?
Given that those stories were written hundreds of years after Siddhartha had died, and were not recorded by eyewitnesses (and especially not by eyewitnesses who were willing to risk torture and death for spreading those stories), it is safe to dismiss them as hagiographical legends that developed over the long period of time after he died. The earliest Buddhist sources (which are still EXTREMELY late, compared to Christianity) report nothing of the sort.
>the Heaven's Gate people who believed that they should kill themselves?
People will die for things they believe to be true all the time. My question is; why did the apostles believe that Jesus had been bodily resurrected from the dead, ate with them, and ascended into heaven 40 days later?
>there's another, much simpler answer: delusion.
So you believe in the vision hypothesis?
>No, I suggest we remain skeptical, especially when it comes to details.
I agree.
>You find it hard to believe that someone would be unimpressed by miracles? It's not that special.
The miracle we are talking about (prophesying one's own resurrection from the dead) is completely unprecedented in the entire history of humanity. Nothing else even comes close to comparing with it.
>an alternative hypothesis - To what?
No, please read my post more carefully - an alternative hypothesis for why the disciples came to believe that Jesus bodily rose from the dead, ate with them, and bodily ascended into heaven 40 days later.
>Right, you're not a dogmatist
Because my position is falsifiable, you are correct - I am not a dogmatist. The one who claims that they will never change their position no matter the evidence or argument presented is the dogmatist.
>to which I've responded saying they can be safely disregarded
Again, you can't just say some set of eyewitness documents "can be safely disregarded" and expect to be taken seriously without providing an argument to support your position.
>Dogmatism is what you've been doing: claiming you know the truth,
Again, no - my belief is falsifiable, it can be proven wrong (and I welcome alternative hypotheses which challenge my beliefs) - while your position is, like you admitted, completely unfalsifiable, and no matter what evidence or arguments are put forward, you will never change your perspective (because you accept "Jesus is not God" as a fundamental dogmatic truth that you can never accept as false).

>>19693751
>torture and death
Martyrdom isn't a criterion for the establishment of truth, only the demonstration that one believed something and was willing to die for that belief. See: Islam.
>People will die for things they believe to be true all the time.
Indeed. Regarding your next question, see >>19693730
>vision hypothesis
I don't believe in anything specific. I'm saying it's likely they were insane, delusional, etc.
>Nothing else even comes close
Many things from many myths come close and even dwarf it, and the only reason why you disregard those is because a bunch of desperate cultists didn't rush to their death when confronted about it. You could also read the bunch of testimonies from India as "evidence" for miracles currently happening, but I guess those don't count for reasons. Or read Ian Stevenson's Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, but this also won't count (just like the various examples provided in the Holographic Universe won't) because reasons.
>alternative hypothesis for [...]
See above.
>my position is falsifiable
If someone presented you with "evidence" of Christianity being bullshit, what would you do?
>you can't just say some set of eyewitness documents "can be safely disregarded"
Ah fuck this is tedious, I already told you why, are you doing this on purpose? We even went in depth about this, see >>19693350
>completely unfalsifiable
For someone leaning so heavily on epistemology you sure seem confused. Skepticism isn't unfalsifiable because it makes no assertions.
>you accept "Jesus is not God" as a fundamental dogmatic truth
Nope, I accept it as a fundamental unprovable assertion, and personally believe it's extremely likely to be untrue because of >>19693730

>>19693730
>>19693730
>There are many more sensible explanations than "he rose from the dead and that means he's god".
Let's go through the one you think is most likely. It would be almost impossible for me to address all of them in one post. Briefly, though, I can explain why none of the hypotheses you put forward were convincing to me when I was searching:
>They made it up;
Messianic Lie hypothesis - fails because it would be absolutely unprecedented for a group of people to all agree to face brutal torture and death for spreading something they knew to be a complete falsehood - especially when their religious beliefs (Judaism) clearly stated that anybody who causes people to go astray from worshipping the God of Israel would be damned to Hell for all eternity.
>they were delusional or delirious;
Vision hypothesis - fails because it is absolutely unprecedented that a group of people should have a synchronized experience of a recently deceased person appearing to them as bodily resurrected, eating and teaching with them for 40 days. This is simply unheard of in all of human history.
>Jesus was impersonated;
This one requires elaboration to rebut, because you did not specify enough. Are you saying that the person on the cross wasn't Jesus, or that somebody pretended to be the resurrected Jesus after death? Either way, the hypothesis would fail, because there is no logical reason why the apostles would all testify that this imposter had ascended into heaven in front of their very eyes unless he actually did.
> hell, maybe Jesus actually resurrected,
To my mind, this is the most likely hypothesis, because it is the only one which adequately accounts for all of the factors involved in the situation.
>yet this still doesn't demonstrate he's whoever he claimed to be
The resurrection, if true, provides strong supporting evidence that He was who He claimed to be. It would indicate that this person had power over life and death, and power over time and space (eg. prophesying His resurrection and later ascending into heaven, respectively).
>He could be a powerful deceptive being for all we know. It could be a prank from a higher plane
Those are post-hoc explanations which do not have any supporting evidence for them.
>you only believe otherwise because you want to believe.
On the contrary - it has been a great sacrifice for me to believe. I only believe because I literally cannot delude myself into thinking that it is false, especially when nobody can give me good answers for what a reasonable hypothesis is, if not the resurrection.

>>19693796
>absolutely unprecedented for a group of people to all agree to face brutal torture and death for spreading something they knew to be a complete falsehood
No it's not.

>>19693796
>it would be absolutely unprecedented
Everything is unprecedented until it happens. They could've had specific reasons for making it up, such as subvering the Judaism of their time for their personal reasons.
>This is simply unheard of in all of human history.
Mass hallucinations are unheard of? Nope, not even close. Mass hallucinations of that particular event? Yes, but how is that an indicator of anything?
Furthermore, groups of insane people manage to convince each other to believe some truly weird shit. You believe a man rose from the dead but you find it hard to believe a group of people could go mad when their leader died? You have a weird way of thinking.
>Are you saying [...]
Either, it doesn't matter.
>no logical reason
Because you don't want there to be one, but there are many reasons. Human beings aren't always completely rational. The apostles might've wanted to make the prophecized return "happen" by themselves, they might even have been instructed to do so by Jesus before his death. You admitted yourself that historical details couldn't be trusted, as such, context is to be taken into account.
>strong supporting evidence
It would only provide evidence that he was a powerful being. Why would a powerful being necessarily be any more trustworthy than a normal human being? Your reasoning is fallacious and falls apart here.
>do not have any supporting evidence for them.
You mean they're not stated in the Bible? Sure. Doesn't mean they're any less likely.
>I literally cannot delude myself into thinking that it is false
Well as I said above, you have a very strange way of thinking. Discussing with you has only convinced me of one thing so far: Christians will go to any lengths of self-delusion necessary to avoid having their beliefs fall apart, and they apparently don't even realize they're doing it.

>>19693785
>Martyrdom isn't a criterion for the establishment of truth,
That the disciples were willing to be tortured and killed for their belief indicates that they wholeheartedly believed in what they were teaching. The question is, why did they believe that?
>I'm saying it's likely they were insane, delusional, etc.
So you believe they all simultaneously went crazy, and had a prolonged and extended synchronized psychotic hallucination that lasted several weeks, where they imagined eating and hanging out with their bodily resurrected master, and then they all synchronously witnessed their master ascending into heaven, and that many of them then went on to (despite being completely insane and psychotic) write extremely coherent works of religious instruction (epistles) and biographies of Jesus, and then start a wildly successful religious movement?
>Many things from many myths come close and even dwarf it,
Care to name a single myth that has any evidence supporting it, which is more unprecedented than a man prophesying His own resurrection from the dead, and then ascending into heaven?
>If someone presented you with "evidence" of Christianity being bullshit, what would you do?
I would be forced to stop being a Christian, obviously.
>Ah fuck this is tedious, I already told you why, are you doing this on purpose?
Because I already responded to that point, and was unconvinced by your "argument" as to why we should discard all of the content in the gospels (because of author's bias). I argued that of course the authors would be biased, because they are followers of Jesus, but that does not render their testimony any more invalid than other ancient biographies. I asked you here >>19693627 " Or, in your opinion, is there a middle ground way of determining which parts of any given text are more or less likely to be true?", and you didn't even respond, so don't act like the argument is settled.
>Skepticism isn't unfalsifiable because it makes no assertions.
Your position is unfalsifiable, because you said that no evidence or argumentation can ever make you change your position. You hold a positive, dogmatic, unfalsifiable belief - "Jesus is not God". This is a positive assertion, and you already admitted that you are unwilling to ever change your position on this, no matter what.
>personally believe it's extremely likely to be untrue
That is different from what you said before - you said there is NO evidence or argument that could ever make you change your position, not that your belief was unlikely to be false.
>>19693820
Provide an example, then.

>>19693734
This is true. In the end I think those susceptible to Christianity's arguments are easily impressed by supernatural feats and have a very "grounded" mind i.e. believe things that go against what appears to be the natural order are necessarily meaningful. I never thought like this, I've always accepted the possibility of supernatural events and that alone doesn't sway me regarding spirituality.

>>19693868
>The question is, why did they believe that?
You already asked this and I already answered.
>they all simultaneously went crazy
Assuming they weren't already.
>prolonged and extended synchronized psychotic hallucination that lasted several weeks
Ever heard of schizophrenia and mass psychogenic illness?
>extremely coherent
Schizos are capable of being very eloquent. See Philip K Dick and Carl Jung for Christian(ish) examples.
>start a wildly successful religious movement
If anything the schizophrenia would've helped for that one.
>evidence
That word again. No matter what I bring up you'll go "nah there's no evidence" because you only accept the evidence from your book as truth, but "evidence" from other books doesn't count. In the end the only thing you have is testimonies from zealots which are worth about as much to me as testimonies from whoever the fuck compiled the Ramayana.
>I would be forced to stop being a Christian
So you believe in Christianity because you feel forced to, not because it speaks to you personally. Doesn't really matter, I just thought it was interesting.
>I already responded to that point
Yeah you basically told me "I don't find that convincing". Alright.
>is there a middle ground way of determining which parts of any given text are more or less likely to be true?
I have no fucking idea I'm not a historian but not taking the words of literal zealots at face value would be a decent start.
>You hold a positive, dogmatic, unfalsifiable belief - "Jesus is not God"
You repeating it isn't gonna make it true. So not only do you know the absolute truth, you can also read my thoughts. Maybe we should write a gospel about you.
>NO evidence or argument that could ever make you change your position
The skepticism position is different from the "I don't believe Jesus is God" position. I won't change the former because it's not a dogma, it's an attitude.

>>19693841
>They could've had specific reasons for making it up, such as subvering the Judaism of their time for their personal reasons.
So you think that this group of people suddenly became the first people in all of human history to all decide to be tortured and killed so that they could lead Israel astray to worship a crucified man, knowing that in their religious system, they would be doomed to Hell for all eternity? That doesn't make any sense.
>Mass hallucinations are unheard of? Nope, not even close.
Mass prolonged hallucinations that are synchronized in a large group of people is not unprecedented? Please provide an example.
>You believe a man rose from the dead but you find it hard to believe a group of people could go mad when their leader died?
I just see no reason to believe the wildly improbably explanation of the disciples suddenly all becoming psychotic, and then having a simultaneous 40 day psychotic hallucination where they all saw the exact same thing, and then going on to write perfectly coherent works of literature and start a successful religious movement. That seems ludicrous to me, nothing like that has ever happened in all of human history. At least people have actually risen from the dead before (Lazarus syndrome).
>The apostles might've wanted to make the prophecized return "happen" by themselves, they might even have been instructed to do so by Jesus before his death.
Again, then if you are implying that the imposter also was in cahoots with the apostles, it is just a more convoluted version of the messianic lie hypothesis, which I have already shown is incredibly ludicrous and unprecedented in all of human history.
>It would only provide evidence that he was a powerful being
It would absolutely provide evidence that his previous claims were true - you may not find that evidence convincing, but obviously it provides evidence that His claims were true. I believe that is the most likely hypothesis, which requires the least post-hoc baseless rationalizations.
>Your reasoning is fallacious and falls apart here.
My reasoning is not fallacious at all - the claim is that the resurrection provided supporting evidence for Jesus' claims, and that this, in addition to other points of evidence (eg. the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies), make the idea that He is who He said He is the most likely hypothesis.
>You mean they're not stated in the Bible?
No, I mean they are post-hoc rationalizations with no supporting evidence. They are shaved away by Occam's Razor.
>Christians will go to any lengths of self-delusion necessary to avoid having their beliefs fall apart
I came to this conclusion while I was not Christian, so I'm not sure where you get this idea from. You simply haven't provided a compelling case for what actually happened w/r/t the crucifixion and apostle's belief in the resurrection.

>>19693870
Ultimately natural and supernatural are both phenomena, and since there is no theory of consciousness or mind in Christianity everything is just taken from on high as fact. It is extremely primitive in outlook, and the later exponents of the religion knew this and had to start incorporating platonic theology. But today we have christers who don't even attempt to appeal to non-primitives, and insist that what someone else saw or believes in has to be true (unless they are a member of the wrong community, in which case, nothing to see here, just dismiss it).

>>19693868
>Provide an example
9/11

>>19693936
The premises of your refutations of these liar or imposter or delusion so-called hypotheses are an ineffective attempt to make the opponent sound like a conspiracy theorist. Do you mean to tell me that the DISCIPLES of a MASTER were not "in on it"? They were just spontaneous randomly selected witnesses who happened to converge and agree upon Christianity as a system? Is there anything so ridiculous as to claim organized religion is neither organized nor religious and that this is evidence we should trust organized religion?

>>19693917
>You already asked this and I already answered.
And as I already pointed out, all of your proposals are completely irrational, and don't account for all the facts.
>Assuming they weren't already
Any evidence for this baseless theory?
>Ever heard of schizophrenia and mass psychogenic illness?
Can you show me a single example in the medical literature of a group of people having a completely synchronized psychotic hallucination where they all saw the exact same thing concurrently for a long period of time?
>No matter what I bring up you'll go "nah there's no evidence"
Well you haven't provided any evidence, so I'm not sure what you're basing that off of.
>because you only accept the evidence from your book as truth [...]
You are anachronistically referring to the gospels as "a book", when they should be considered dispassionately as historical eyewitness documents.
>the only thing you have is testimonies
Which are a valid form of positive evidence, especially when the people producing those testimonies did so under the threat of torture and death (which showed they truly believed what they were writing - nobody is willing to be tortured and killed for a lie).
>So you believe in Christianity because you feel forced to
I believe in it because I cannot make myself be irrational. Once I realized that the most likely explanation was that Jesus resurrected from the dead and was who He said He was, I had no choice but to follow the truth.
>I have no fucking idea I'm not a historian
So if you are completely ignorant of the historical method, and have no idea how to judge whether any given portion of a historical text is likely to be true or false, why do you think your baseless opinions on this topic are even worth talking about? I could already tell that you had no idea of how the historical method works, which is why I asked that question.
>not taking the words of literal zealots at face value would be a decent start.
Again, the irony - On one hand, you say "I have no fucking idea" how to weigh historical truths, and in the same breath, you spout things like this as if you have any idea what you're talking about

>>19693936
Obviously if they sought to subvert Judaism they wouldn't subscribe to its precepts, I didn't think this was worth pointing out given how obvious it is. And they wouldn't have been the first people in human history to subvert a religious system.
>Please provide an example.
Dancing plague of 1518. inb4 b-but it doesn't count because whatever the fuck, it fits the description perfectly.
>That seems ludicrous to me
Again, weird shit happens. As you said yourself, we have very little certainty about most of history. Who knows what went on in the past that became gradually distorted and ended up becoming downright false information.
It'd still be less weird than >>19684341 being unironically true anyway.
>I have already shown is incredibly ludicrous
Yeah, in your mind. Also, you're extremely manichaean in your way of thinking, it could be a combination of several factors, in fact it most certainly was. It's a strong possibility that the apostles believed in Jesus' apocalyptic preaching but might've "falsified history" so to speak because instructed to do so by the one whom they believed was a messiah. Weirder things have been done from fanaticism.
>It would absolutely provide evidence that his previous claims were true
I tend to use the word evidence synonymously with proof, or at least as implying definitive proof, but according to the strict definition of "evidence" then yes, it would provide "evidence" for the veracity of Jesus' claims. But you can also find evidence of the veracity of Siddhartha's claims if you bother meditating using the methods he gave, for example.
>baseless rationalizations
They only seem baseless because you're desperate to believe everything Jesus said was true. If the default attitude for you is to unquestioningly believe what authority figures tell you without doubting, then it's reasonable. Anyone with some experience with the supernatural will be wary, on the other hand.
>the idea that He is who He said He is the most likely hypothesis.
Because the book says so? Come on now. If you admit the supernatural exists, a lot of other explanations are equally as likely if not more.
>They are shaved away by Occam's Razor.
Are you bringing up fucking occam's razor to support your argument that a guy rose from the dead and is the son of a jewish god? Occam's razor lends credence to any hypothesis but that one if you give even the slightest fuck about scientific inquiry and empirical evidence.
>I'm not sure where you get this idea from.
The worrying amount of cognitive dissonance in your posts
>You simply haven't provided a compelling case
Yes I know you love to plug your ears. Nothing I can ever say will be compelling to you because you are absolutely desperate to believe in Christianity and will go to any lengths to rationalize it.

>>19693989
>they should be considered dispassionately as historical eyewitness documents
You don't actually do this so neither should anyone else. In fact, the dispassionate analysis is psychological or historiographical, i.e. atheistic, because the assumption is that what is reported must be garbled in some way or it would not be so obviously false.

>>19693989
>a group of people having a completely synchronized psychotic hallucination where they all saw the exact same thing concurrently for a long period of time
This does not have to be the case if much of what is being discussed is a popular literary fiction authored by the remaining followers of Jesus after his execution. The eyewitnesses are simply characters, and the authors are members of the cult. You're the one vastly increasing the scope here to mean thousands of people had a mass delusion instead of a few people working on Alice in Wonderland as a shared literary universe

>>19693942
This is the type of stuff that makes me wonder how some of you guys can even use computers. I clearly said to provide an example of people who "agree to face brutal torture and death for spreading something they knew to be a complete falsehood" - and you point out the 9/11 terrorists, who were 100% convinced that Islam is true? These conversations will be so much easier if you actually read and comprehend what I am saying, and not rush to make a silly answer like this.
>>19693972
>an ineffective attempt to make the opponent sound like a conspiracy theorist.
I'm not trying to "make you sound" like anything. I am saying it how it appears to me - your hypotheses are all post-hoc, do not account for all the facts, and all rely on completely unprecedented events which have never happened before or after in all of human history. At least a bodily resurrection has actually happened before (eg. Lazarus syndrome).
>Do you mean to tell me that the DISCIPLES of a MASTER were not "in on it"?
Again, the Messianic lie hypothesis completely fails for so many different reasons, that I have already pointed out. It is utterly ridiculous to propose that a large group of people would willingly face an excruciating and brutal death by torture for something they knew to be a complete falsehood. I don't even know how you can propose it with a straight face.
>>19694003
>Dancing plague of 1518.
That is not a "mass prolonged hallucination that [is] synchronized in a large group of people". That is a bunch of people who became ill and started dancing. It comes nowhere close to fulfilling the description I set forth.
>It'd still be less weird than >>19684341 being unironically true anyway.
That post you're quoting is obviously a strawman. That's not what we believe.
>might've "falsified history" so to speak because instructed to do so by the one whom they believed was a messiah
Again, that is the Messianic lie hypothesis, which I have already shown to be completely ludicrious. If you want to believe that is the most likely option to cope with the event of the resurrection, be my guest, but it is obvious to me that it is completely ridiculous to suggest a huge group of people would be tortured and killed for something they knew to be false.
>I tend to use the word evidence synonymously with proof,
lol what
>ut you can also find evidence of the veracity of Siddhartha's claims if you bother meditating using the methods he gave, for example
Yes, you can support each of the claims of most religions with some body of evidence, but the body of evidence supporting Christianity far outweighs that of Buddhism (happy to go into this)
>They only seem baseless because you're desperate to believe everything Jesus said was true.
They seem baseless because you haven't provided any evidence (see: basis) for why they might be true.
>you're desperate to believe everything Jesus said was true.
Quite the opposite. I had to give up a lot after becoming Christian.

>>19694003
>Because the book says so?
Again, be intellectually honest. I have said many times now that we are talking about eyewitness documents, not "a book". The book was compiled hundreds of years later. Don't make basic mistakes like this.
>a lot of other explanations are equally as likely if not more. Are you bringing up fucking occam's razor to support your argument that a guy rose from the dead and is the son of a jewish god?
You know that Occam's Razor is used to find the most likely explanation that accounts for ALL facts involved, right? Using Occam's Razor for the case of the resurrection, your post-hoc theories fail to explain many of the important factors (eg. how Jesus' life and deeds as recounted in the eyewitness testimonies seem to perfectly fulfill prophecies written hundreds of years earlier that had concrete end dates in history, like the prophesy of Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9 saying that the Messiah was to be killed, but not for himself, before the second temple was destroyed)
> Nothing I can ever say will be compelling to you because you are absolutely desperate to believe in Christianity
Pretty ironic that you are saying this when I am the one with a falsifiable hypothesis, while you have already admitted that you will never change your mind no matter what. You are desperate for Jesus not to have resurrected. I wonder why? Afraid of what your life might look like if it's true?
>>19694014
No offense, but this is complete nonsense. Your perspective on the historical method doesn't actually seem to be based on anything besides your own opinion.
>>19694031
>You're the one vastly increasing the scope here to mean thousands of people had a mass delusion
What are you even talking about? I am talking about the twelve apostles, as outlined in the Corinthian Creed. I feel like you aren't even following along with the conversation.

>>19694057
>We have to agree with all suicidal people, especially those who have mystical experiences or believe they will have one in exchange for dying properly, otherwise you are being utterly ridiculous in your standards of veracity
Yes very good, behold the miracle of Kabul in which the forces of satan were destroyed by holy goatherds armed with soviet hand-me-downs, prepared to die for their belief in the Oneness and the Majesty of He Who Made All.

>>19693989
>And as I already pointed out
Ah, yes, the old "I will completely disregard everything you said by moving goalposts and claiming things that aren't true, then tell you your position is untenable." You've been doing this since the start and I'm honestly amazed you've managed to consistently keep it up without getting tired, because this exchange sure is leaving me fucking exhausted.
>Any evidence for this baseless theory?
The theory that men who saw another man rise from the dead weren't insane? I think you will find such evidence in another famous jewish book called the DSM-V.
>Can you show me
Already did.
>you haven't provided any evidence
See above. You have the perfect Christian temperament, no wonder this religion appeals to you so much. No listening, just endless bashing of your own opinions and disregard for everyone else's while claiming they're wrong because they're wrong and you're right because you're right.
This kind of retarded way of arguing is why, while the pajeets were busy debating each other to death until they developed pristine metaphysical systems, you people just killed whoever disagreed with you and ended up with an extremely primitive theology as the other anon pointed out.
>You are anachronistically referring to the gospels as "a book"
And here come the reddit semantics. You know perfectly well what I was saying and you're deflecting, talking about something unrelated as if it was worth pointing out. Yes I know the gospels weren't edited through a fucking printing press 2000 years ago
>Which are a valid form of positive evidence
We've been over this, I don't find testimonies from cultist zealots convincing even if they were willing to die for it (I'd expect them to).
>I cannot make myself be irrational.
Except on 4chan, as it would appear.
>So if you are completely ignorant of the historical method
So you're a historian now you pedantic fuck? Stop being a pedantic cocksucker and asking loaded questions and maybe I'll be able to answer in earnest but my opinions still remain less baseless than your belief that a jewish apocalyptic preacher is the son of god.
I could tell you would immediatley latch onto my own admission of my lack of background in history because you're a slimy cunt who only wants to win internet arguments instead of arriving at an actual interesting point, and I was right. No matter how much you wriggle like the semitic worm you are, nothing will change the fact that a bunch of insane ramblings from desert people do not constitute proof that the leader of said desert people is the center of the universe.
>>19694057
>That is not a
Yes it is and you haven't looked into the event. I knew you'd find an excuse and move goalposts anyway. "B-but it's not the particular brand of insanity the apostles had!" well sure they didn't see a jewish man ascend to the sky but they had the basics down.
>That's not what we believe.
It's what's in the book.

>>19694102
You don't think twelve people could agree to something? Ever hear of a board meeting? They all agree on profits at any cost. How is a religion any different, prophets at all costs? I should believe something as the ultimate truth because x number say so? Really?

>>19694120
You have utterly failed to understand my point. That the apostles were willing to be tortured and killed proves that they wholeheartedly believed what was written in their testimonies - the question is, why did they believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead, ate and taught with them for 40 days, and then ascended into heaven in plain sight of all of them.

>>19694057
>I have already shown
...Precisely nothing. You've stated your opinion and pretended it's fact is all you've done.
>far outweighs
According to your subjective criteria that you have because you're a Christian and desperately want to believe in Christianity, yes, I know.
>They seem baseless
They seem baseless to anyone who doesn't share your brand of zealotry, I'm afraid, considering the other replies you're getting ITT.
>I had to give up a lot
Except your self righteousness, pedantry, condescension and intellectual dishonesty, but those seem to be Christian values anyway.
>>19694102
>Don't make basic mistakes like this.
See the earlier part of my post about the semantic bullshit and just stop responding if you're going to act like a middle schooler in debate club eager to show how eloquent he is.
>fail to explain many of the important factors
Oh you mean why it seems to coincide with earlier parts of the jewish book? I think you'll find what you call the "messianic lie" hypothesis covers that more than adequately.
>You are desperate for Jesus not to have resurrected.
kek, I already said that even if he did resurrect a thousand times, even if Jesus personally appeared in front of me and made me a fucking sandwich I still wouldn't believe he was the son of god or whatever, why do Christians think everyone has such a limited and primitive mentality as they do? I don't give a shit about your jewish preacher.
>Afraid of what your life might look like if it's true?
...Exactly the same? lol

>>19694143
Because they were loons

>>19694102
>Your perspective on the historical method doesn't actually seem to be based on anything besides your own opinion.
Show me a non-opinion anywhere in this thread. Grabbing someone else's opinion does not make it a fact. Religion is the last thing that could be "dispassionately" assessed as other than an opinion.

>>19694143
I agree they believed in it. I disagree that he rose from the dead or walked around for 4o days. That's just a press release. And your only sources are press releases.

This thread should be given to read to those with spiritual doubts to turn them off from christianity forever
Embarrassing

>>19694191
It's the same arguments christers had with Celsus and co., then they came back with mobs and smashed Roman culture to the ground. They've never had to debate anyone other than themselves since

How does this dude have so much free time he can just haunt /lit/ and obliviously vomit walls of text at everyone forever, what the fuck
I'm 50% sure this is guenonfag larping

>>19694130
>Ah, yes, the old "I will completely disregard everything you said by moving goalposts and claiming things that aren't true, then tell you your position is untenable."
What? I clearly rebutted each point as completely ridiculous very early on in the conversation (all are post-hoc hypotheses that fail to account for all relevant factors associated with the event, and all depend on things unprecedented in all of human history).
>Already did.
The Dancing plague does not come close to meeting the description of "a group of people having a completely synchronized psychotic hallucination where they all saw the exact same thing concurrently for a long period of time".
>while the pajeets were busy debating each other to death until they developed pristine metaphysical systems,
LOL
>We've been over this, I don't find testimonies from cultist zealots convincing even if they were willing to die for it (I'd expect them to).
Why should I care at all what you think of as "convincing evidence", when you have already admitted that you have literally no idea what the criteria used by actual historians to analyze historical texts are? You don't think that you should, maybe, do some research into this topic before making such strong claims as "the entirety of the gospels are useless as historical evidence"? This really feels like a Dunning-Kruger situation - you are admitting you have no knowledge on the topic, but are still deciding that for some reason, your baseless and uneducated opinions are worth presenting as if they meant anything at all?
>So you're a historian now you pedantic fuck? Stop being a pedantic cocksucker
I have done research into the historical-critical method that historians use to analyze the truth of a given text. Anyways, the ad hominem attacks are clearly showing that you are reaching the end of your intellectual capacity here.
>Yes it is and you haven't looked into the event.
I already knew about this event. It is absolutely nothing like the description I set forth. Can you really say with a straight face that it is a "completely synchronized psychotic hallucination where they all saw the exact same thing concurrently for a long period of time"?
>>19694136
I don't think that twelve people would choose to be tortured and killed for something they knew to be false, and if they knew it to be true, it appears to me that the most likely explanation is because they had a supernatural experience of the risen Jesus. Happy to hear your alternative hypothesis.

>>19694218
Truly the religion of the martyrs and the persecuted, except when they're the ones doing the persecution. kek

>>19694227
>Happy to hear your alternative hypothesis.
That people die for things which you do not consider true

>>19694144
>You've stated your opinion and pretended it's fact is all you've done.
Projecting a bit? I at least outlined the methodology that I'm using to make these arguments (eg. explaining why they were less convincing than the resurrection hypothesis to me - is it a post-hoc hypothesis, does it account for all factors, is it historically unprecedented, etc.). I don't know why you're getting so angry over this - it seems pretty reasonable to me.
>According to your subjective criteria that you have because you're a Christian and desperately want to believe in Christianity,
Again, I already said that it would be much easier for me to not be a Christian.
>They seem baseless to anyone who doesn't share your brand of zealotry,
But you haven't provided any evidence as to why I should believe your post-hoc hypotheses, so they are literally baseless? That shouldn't be contentious.
>Except your self righteousness, pedantry [...]
Ad hominems again, great argument.
>I think you'll find what you call the "messianic lie" hypothesis covers that more than adequately.
So you really think that the apostles all agreed to be tortured and killed for something they knew to be completely false? Care to provide an example of such a thing ever occurring before or since in human history?
>even if Jesus personally appeared in front of me and made me a fucking sandwich I still wouldn't believe he was the son of god or whatever,
Yes, I already know that your irrational position is unfalsifiable, you don't need to say it again.
>>19694155
All twelve of them suddenly came to experience the exact same prolonged (40 day) hallucination, and then were willing to be tortured and killed for the truth of that belief? Seems ridiculous to me.
>>19694177
>I agree they believed in it.
Why do you think they believed in it?

>>19694261
I agree, that happens all the time. But that didn't answer my question. Please read my post again and see if you can get what I'm actually asking. Why do you think the apostles believed that Jesus appeared to them for such a prolonged period in a physically resurrected body that then ascended into heaven in plain sight of many eyewitnesses?

>>19694265
>Why do you think they believed in it?
In short because it accorded with what they desired to be true. Again, since christers have no theory whatsoever of phenomena or consciousness, with everything being a static creation of fact from on high, it is impossible to doubt anything whatsoever that one believes under this system, which once it is allowed to entrench itself, swiftly becomes a denial of reality, because there is authoritative testimony that can be accepted as overriding truth to any doubt.

>>19694274
Because they were creative and he was their favorite superhero

>>19694286
>In short because it accorded with what they desired to be true.
You're not actually answering the question clearly here. You're saying that they made up the story (eg. they lied)?
> Again, since christers have no theory whatsoever of phenomena or consciousness, with everything being a static creation of fact from on high
This just shows your ignorance on the intellectual tradition of Christianity. I understand that you have a Pajeet-fetish, but that doesn't excuse ignorance on such an easy-to-research topic.
>>19694298
So you think they chose to risk being tortured and killed in a brutal, horrific, and humiliating way because they really wanted to spread a fake story that they made up? That seems pretty ridiculous.

>>19686633
What is job about?

Because it doesn't seem like the discussions I am engaged in are going to productively develop beyond what has already been said, I reccomend everybody to check out the book in pic related. If you are anti-Christian, it is a great way to get acquainted with some of our positions (to rebut us more effectively!), and if you are Christian or considering looking into Christianity, it will show how belief in the resurrection is actually the most reasonable hypothesis. Peace to you all. :)

http://library.lol/main/1DFB9EFBBA3F7E96DF72E2112A53A6CD

>>19694227
>I clearly rebutted each point
Nope, you clearly said you didn't agree and it made no sense to you and refused to elaborate further because you're disingenuous and want to win the argument at all costs.
>does not come close
Yes, it's the exact same "format". Face it, mass hallucinations aren't that rare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases
>LOL
Touched a nerve? Whether it's Buddhism or Hinduism, they're much more metaphysically coherent than the absolute mess that is Christianity, because they mostly came to conclusions through inquiry before writing their books, instead of coming to conclusions after reading the book as Christians did.
>Why should I care
Why should I care either? You're doing the exact same thing. Yes, the gospels are useless because >>19694177 is right even though it makes your blood boil
>Dunning-Kruger
Thank you for finally, unambiguously admitting you are a pretentious pseud and that everything you say is worthless and can be safely disregarded. I'll still humor you for the last post.
>I have done research
Okay, so you're not a historian, i.e. exactly the same as me. Shut the fuck up then.
>you are reaching the end
Of my patience. I'm not a tard wrangler and therefore am not capable of tolerating obtuse, dense cocksuckers like you indefinitely.
You don't get to bring up intellectual capacity when you're so fucking gullible a couple texts about a dead jew completely shattered your entire worldview
>Can you really say with a straight face
Ah, the ol' goalpost moving again. You were always predictable but it's getting more obviously repetitive.
>>19694265
>angry
Projecting a bit?
The only thing you've outlined (very clearly so) is your unwillingness to argue in good faith
>it would be much easier for me to not be a Christian.
Sure thing. This embarrassing "bro I'm a christian because I have to, even though it's really hard..." act doesn't fool anyone
>But you haven't provided any evidence
Just as you haven't provided any evidence as to why I should believe your jewish zombie god hypothesis. My explanations however are superior in that they are much more sensible to anyone who doesn't have a cultish disposition.
>Ad hominems again
Cry me a river cunt
>So you really think
No, it's a hypothesis, I personally think they were most likely insane and/or that an underlying conspiracy led to those events. Learn to read, your reading comprehension has been degrading, maybe you're blinded by anger. Take a deep breath and go slower.
>Yes, I already know that your irrational position is unfalsifiable
My perfectly rational approach, skepticism, is neither falsifiable nor unfalsifiable because it's not a position but a method. You would probably benefit from studying epistemology, you seem to like using that word but it's obvious you don't have much of an exposure to the field. Maybe start by reading Sextus, you don't seem very philosophically mature.
I'm just not as gullible as you, I guess.
>>19694349
lol

>>19694314
People are capable of perceiving and recollecting events or phenomena very differently. That alone is proof that the religious reporting of the execution of Jesus and spread of his cult must be suspect. You disagree because of something to the effect that "the resurrection is proved by the devoted belief of the cult members and also their texts affirm of it." This is entirely useless because it just reproduces the original claim in question and solves none of the problems with it, which in my opinion are not even questions of natural versus supernatural or who colluded on what since we have no access to that whatsoever except through those same exact precise texts you cite, which ARE the event itself. The resurrection IS the Gospels. There is nothing external to them we have as evidence. All we do have that we share with the apostles and the disciples, and even Jesus himself, in order to assess these claims, is consciousness and knowledge of how perception works, theories of phenomena, etc. And per that basis, it seems improbable that 1. The events are exactly true and 2. The conclusions and beliefs erected upon these events are proven by them, because using magic to establish positive claims about reality and soteriology is bunk

>>19694378
His entire argument hinges on
>the apostles were willing to be tortured to death for their beliefs so that means their beliefs are true
It doesn't even take a long argument to dismantle this or anything like that. The only thing it takes for everything to fall apart is "nah, that doesn't prove anything"

>>19694372
Because of how much ad hominem attacks and profanity you're using, I'm not going to keep egging you on - I don't want to lead you into sin. I hope that you actually end up reading >>19694349. At the very least, it will help solidify your belief that Christian belief is completely unwarranted. Have a good day :)

>>19694395
I accept your concession. Next time try making an argument and maybe you won't get blown the fuck out so hard. Better yet, stop believing in jewish zombie gods, it's obviously not doing you much good.

>>19694390
That's obviously not the argument. The argument is that their willingness to be tortured proves that they believed what they wrote in the gospels - and the most likely explanation for why they believed what is written in the gospels (specifically, the resurrection appearances) is that they actually encountered the risen Jesus.

>>19694402
>I accept your concession
I will happily concede if it means you won't continue getting so angry you have to use ad hominem attacks and profanity. It is not my goal to lead you into sin. You are already in enough danger as it is, I don't need to add on to it. I do suggest reading the book, you will learn something about the historical critical method.

>>19694412
Angry? You're the one who's been seething at me for hours now because I don't buy into your laughable mental gymnastics. Sin doesn't exist and your fear mongering/guilt tripping methods seem childish to those who don't find the cult convincing, by the way.
>You are already in enough danger
Ooooh spooky. This is fucking embarrassing, acquire some self-awareness.

>>19694378
>"the resurrection is proved by the devoted belief of the cult members and also their texts affirm of it."
That is not the argument. Again, I suggest reading >>19694349 for a deeper dive into this topic. What do you have to lose from reading a book? As a Christian, I still like reading Buddhist/Hindu texts, because it is good to entertain the other side's perspective.

>>19694412
>their willingness to be tortured proves that they believed what they wrote in the gospels - and the most likely explanation for why they believed what is written in the gospels (specifically, the resurrection appearances) is that they actually encountered the risen Jesus.
The Gospels are the resurrection. So I will just treat them the same, because there is no epistemological difference

>>19694428
>Angry?
Well...
>you're disingenuous
>you are a pretentious pseud
>everything you say is worthless
>Shut the fuck up
>you are reaching the end of my patience
>obtuse, dense cocksuckers like you
>you're so fucking gullible
>You were always predictable
>Cry me a river cunt
You might understand why somebody could perceive the person who fits all of those insults into one post is a bit angry. But, hey, whatever you say man. You're totally not angry, that's fine.

>>19694429
I have time to lose. I am already familiar with Christianity and the Gospels/NT are the only evidence for the resurrection. They are the resurrection, effectively. So unless the book is going to pull something from outside the biblical canon it is of no interest and just masturbatory apologia

>>19694458
It is mostly a deep dive into the historical critical method, and then applying that to the case of the resurrection. The author doesn't even get into the gospels until much later on. If anything, it is amazing to read as a non-Christian because it demonstrates the most sophisticated level of historical analysis when applied to the Christian narrative. You might find that it is completely useless - I still suggest giving it a chance just to see if you learn something. Some of these reviews might help get a brief glance as to what to expect:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/148780.The_Resurrection_of_the_Son_of_God

>>19694456
Maybe you should try facebook or the wikipedia comment section, they'll be more adapted to someone of your intellectual caliber and you won't have to deal with mean words there.
Don't blame me for my impatience considering how tedious and cuntish you've been for the last few hours.
>that feminine passive-aggressiveness
kek, you just tick all the boxes don't you

>>19694473
I get it, you have been very patient with me, and that's why you had to resort to spouting out insults and ad hominems. That's fine, I already said I'm happy to concede to you as long if it means I don't lead you into sin. I do suggest checking out the book, though, you might find it interesting, even if only to further confirm that your intense skepticism is warranted on the matter of this historical episteme.

>>19694495
>I get it, you have been very patient with me, and that's why you had to resort to spouting out insults and ad hominems
Indeed, I'm glad you understand. I'm guessing you want the last word and that's why you keep replying?

>>19694472
Seems to be "empty tomb" and "appearances" of Jesus after death are his proof. These are of course, from the Gospels and he is slotting in the resurrection in order to explain them, but as we know, that is also from the Gospels. How did Harry Potter get to Hogwarts in the second book? Well, he got there in the first book...

>>19694514
That is a vast oversimplification. The actual work is scholarly and deeply rooted in history, it's a good read for anybody who is even remotely curious in what can be conceived of as the most sophisticated case for the resurrection. If you read the book and still maintain your belief that belief in the resurrection is irrational/unwarranted, you can rest assured that you have explored the hypothesis in the most charitable way possible.

>>19694224
Read The True Believer by Hoffer

>>19694224
Maybe because it’s not just one person like your delusions have led you to believe?

>>19694644
It is and he admitted it himself, newfriend

>>19694652
Anyone can say anything, retard

>>19694661
Brilliant insight faggot

>>19694670
Too good for you

>>19694808
sneed

>>19694814
Kys