/lit/ - Literature

>>20722231
Sorry wrong quote, I meant

>For if He who was rich did not impoverish Himself, abasing Himself to our condition out of tender love, then we have not gained Hs riches but are still in our poverty, still enslaved by sin and death, because the Logos becoming flesh is the undoing and the abolition of all that fell upon human nature as our curse and punishment.

Trying to blend the story of Jesus with the Greek notion of Logos just strikes me as very weird. I don't know.

filtered

>>20722236
>Trying to blend the story of Jesus with the Greek notion of Logos just strikes me as very weird.
John 1
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Moses was taught by Hermes Trismegistus. All Theism derives from the same Egyptian font of wisdom.

>>20722236
>Greek notion of Logos
there is no "notion" of logos my man... it just means account (an account of something) as opposed to mythos (a story which may or may not be true)
>>20722231
>Does this seem weird to anyone else?
it may be weird... but you can think for yourself, can't you anon?!

>>20722240
>Trying to blend the story of Jesus with the Greek notion of Logos just strikes me as very weird.
Agreed.

>>20722256
>John 1
>In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
>The same was in the beginning with God.
>All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
How can this be claimed to have occurred with singularly the Hebrew idea/commandments of that "logos(as) god"?

Logos, any literate person would have been able to tell you back then, was the rational means of inquiry into a thing; set apart from culture or regional tradition (religion) with that being Ethos, and with Pathos (suffering) being the other. Ethos and Pathos are positions of anti-Logos, whereas Logos is inherently 'against' Ethos; as Ethos without Logos is merely vain petty traditions by persons we would have to use Logos to detect whether they're mindless barbarians or not in the first place.

It strikes me as bemusing that any learned person could have looked at the absurdism of the Hebrew creation story, the barbarity of their god and their cultural barbarisms (mutilation of their own children) and decided that these people had anything to do with Logos.

If a person wants to separate Jesus from Hebrews, then, ok, but then what's even the point? Jesus followers still live by the OT after all. Jesus as a "savior for jews from judaism" makes the only possible sense out of this, but then that means Jesus has nothing to tell a Roman or Egyptian as the Roman or Egyptian aren't operating from Judaism in the first place so they haven't got any errors to be corrected.

>>20722264
>Moses was taught by Hermes Trismegistus.
Hermes Trismegistus was another fantasy. Moses, if anything, appeared on the Sinai Mt. which historically and geographically speaking would have been - if it was any holy place - a shrine for a Fire Goddess (local equivalent to Vesta, Hestia) and spoken to a Priestess.

If we reread the bits of exodus where God shows Moses 'his' bottom then it reads bit less gay if 'god' was a scantily clad priestess.

all nonsense tho, imo

>>20722256
>John 1
>In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
>The same was in the beginning with God.
>All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
ed.
I mean, the writer could take this phrase and project it onto almost any peoples religion to turn Baal or baby-eating Carthage-God into Logos.

Logos has obviously 'not' got anything to do with the characters of those Gods at all, nor have their character got anything to do with Logos (when taken out the context of their stories anyway).

>>20722231
The Jews couldn't execute Jesus without the Roman's authority. How did they get away with stoning St Stephen?

>>20722231
Read Ellul.

>>20722231
>While reading the Church Fathers, I get a strong feeling that I am reading paid-for propaganda.
I'm getting a strong feeling of Jewry from this thread.

>>20722899
are you looking in the mirror?

>>20722826
unless it features a critique of paul as a self-hating jew, talking to other jews about how their culture is stupid, this will not begin from the proper point.

op you're just now finding out christianity is a fusion of judaism and hellenism? the fact the bible is written in hebrew and greek didn't tip you off?

>>20722236
>>20722231
The observation that they were trying to convert Platonists is correct, but its not some dumb conspiracy bullshit about them being paid by someone (i guess jews is what youre implying?) The early christian faith was heavily under attack as being philosophically weak nonsense by Platonists like Celsus. Much of the early church fathers i.e the 'apologetic' church fathers, were trying to establish Christianity as intellectually serious, precisely by engaging and taking up certain Platonic ideas.

Here's a good lecture on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2HCOuY-EiE

>>20722231
Read the Psalms.

>>20722236
The Word of God stands forever. Try studying the Old Testament seriously.

>>20723039
>Wouter J. Hanegraaff on Platonic Orientalism
looks p dank thanks for that

>>20722236
Why? There is nothing particularly weird about using Greek philosophy for your theology. If the arguments are sound, they are sound. It is one of the main strong points of Christianity. In other religions you are expected to accept the “intuitive knowledge” of gurus and demagogues even when they run contrary to intellect. In the Christian faith, intellect, intuition, and mystical experience are harmonized and validate each other. It is the most sound argument of objective truth that has ever existed on earth.

>>20722414
You're stuck on nominalism. The Greek concept of nominalism is the zenith of philosphic theology. They came to understand by reason alone some of the attributes which the Creator must actually have. The reason those other stories of other Gods are not compatible with the understanding of Logos is because they're false and the stories are lies. The Bible developed separately from Greek philosophy, and it is pure revelation. And yet when one study's the God of the Bible and Logos, one discovers that they are one and the same. This stands to reason, because God is Truth and if God reveals Himself it will be true and, since He created the universe, the universe bears the mark of His truthfulness, meaning that if one reasons from created things rightly, one will reason correctly about those attributes of God which are knowable to reason. What's more, the Psalms and the sapiential books rather explicitly demonstrate this concept, which is why the Church Fathers gravitates so much to these books.

>>20723039
Nothing exists in a vacuum, everything had influences. Christianity arises under heavy Greek influence directly after a golden age of Greek philosophy. Plato and all those guys didn't exist in a vacuum either, they're just the ones we have written documents from so they represent to us the kind of thinking that become popular in that era. The same era and area that produced the Bible as we know it.

>>20723275
The way the Bible treats Wisdom is almost the same as the Greek understanding of Logos.

>>20723039
Both Platonists and these try hard Christian philosophers are cringe. Religion is faith, not philosophy, stop turning faith into philosophy.

The word Logos doesn't have a direct translation that encompasses the entire meaning but one translation I like is "meaning".
The meaning of the words is what matters, the meaning is the spirit of the text, the Holy Spirit, as in God is embodied in the words.
Real meaning is completely revelatory and mysterious, you can read the same text over and over but not get the meaning until suddenly you do.

>>20723308
Philosophy is love of Wisdom. Jesus Christ is Wisdom Incarnate.

Look into the concept of the Memra, especially in the Targumic texts of the Second Temple period. It was not that John was de novo applying a Greek philosophical concept to Jewish theology, but that his time in Ephesus allowed him to encounter a concept which remarkably paralleled that which he would have grown up listening to in the synagogue. It

The principle of dialogue.
the spiritual principality ruled by the demon of two meanings.

You anons should watch Seraphim Hamilton and Jay Dyer on youtube. They are good at showing how Greek philosophy can be used in the right context to show how Christianity is the truth. They are not Platonists strictly speaking but there is nothing wrong with using Platonic philosophy in a certain context. Also read Saint Maximus the Confessor.

>>20723256
>nothing to see here
good goy

>>20723308
(You) might have won the retarded take of the day

>>20723787
Whatever, go on and make ever more elaborate copes when the easier path is right in front of you.

>>20723753
That Seraphim Hamilton guy is really interesting and makes good videos.

>>20723286
>The way the Bible treats Wisdom is almost the same as the Greek understanding of Logos.
lol sure, but why add baby-killing, stoning of children, sex-thru-sheets, genocide and genital mutilation into it? It's one of the most stupid debasements of Logos imaginable; to equate it with 'that'.

Also the 'original sin' 'devil/prometheus' iscompeltely different in the Greco-Roman; Prometheus actually is bad there and 'original sin' is 'false hope (stupidity)' via Pandora aside from Prometheus breaking Jupiters 1st and only commandment by tricking the mortals into eating animal flesh. wildly different.

>>20723308
Agreed. Both need to be eradicated from history.

>>20723275
Except, no. The First Christians were and are Jews (or Hebrews if you prefer); these people rejected (rightly so) the terrible aspects of their theology but I would say most christians, when they look to the OT for inspiration, are oblivious to this rejection - the message of Jesus to the Jews to give upon their shit mentality; i.e. following Jesus might almost mean to reject biblical stories an bible characters completely, did you ever of think of that?

>>20723275
ok so,
The Greeks got it right, but you follow Hebrew theological constructs anyway; only the Hebrews got theology right, apparently, as the other cultures around them were.. "false and lies".. but the most demonstrably evil god character, the one is vicious and viceful and petty-minded and leads a pack of barbarians with no civilization to speak of, happens to be "correct" and "the true god". This is madness and only even partially makes sense if you're coming from a hardcore repressive Jewish society and are looking for something to make it less evil and repressive, e.g. jesus.

So why would a Roman or an Assyrian or a Greek, who isn't held down by this theocracy, need to know about it, if they already possess a superior grasp of logos via secular rational inquiry (philosophy, science, etc.) ?

>>20722231
Because the satanic cult of Christianity was a jewish heresy in its beginning and was later cooked up in the dark chambers of Byzantium to poison the whole world.

>>20722264
Egyptians stole it from the Atlanteans, who stole it from the Hyperboreans, who stole it from the Solutreans, etc.

>>20722231
>Does this seem weird to anyone else?
no, and why would it?

>>20723990
If you're convinced this guy is God and the only one and then you're told that since he's God and he's the good, then all the cruelty, violence and hate becomes good. Of course your sense of morality has to be suppressed to accept this. Then you can everyone else as devils as you project it.

>>20723990
Your posts boil down to wanting to romanticize reality and externalize evil instead of facing reality as it is and the evil within like the Christian tradition does.

Yeah, no shit, the Church Fathers were the softies and collaborators who cucked out when Constantine came looking for eunuchs to administer his economic centralization. By definition everything that they wrote was a justification for this.

>>20722231
OP here

I’m not saying Christianity was a “Jewish conspiracy” or something, it strikes me more as a Greco-Roman invention.

My guess is that Christianity became popular among normal people for its simplicity and social justice aspect, then an army of theologians came in and built up this mountain of doctrines using Platonism. I’m not really against Platonism or Christianity, I just don’t see how these two are compatible at all when you read the Bible.

When you read from the Old Testament up to Jesus and the disciples, seems like a somewhat natural progression. The OT prophets are raging against the corrupt kings of Israel and foreign nations, similar to a nationalist today who is against “globalism”. Then Jesus comes in and fulfills the prophecies of Isiah, in his campaign against the Pharisees/Sanhedrin. Ok makes sense.

Now Paul comes in and it gets really weird. We get this big blend of Greek philosophy and institutional theories. This is not really compatible with the story of the Bible.

>>20724378
Where can I learn more about this? The church fathers definitely strike me as paid shills for an economic project

The church (ekklesa) is not an earthly institution registered with the state, and only has *one* Father, God.

>>20723468
Interesting thank you for the rec

>>20722928
No I understand this but I am curious how disengenious the fusion is

>>20722826
Been meaning to read this one

>>20724202
Exactly. If that moron in the Eden story you're led to believe is literally God of Everything then you're stuck having to take that position of idiocy ("i hate it when humans who i gave a brain to are desiring to tell right from wrong" "i also think they get this knowledge by eating a bit of fruit from a tree") as somehow serious. It's insane barbarism.

>>20724344
>externalize evil instead of facing reality as it is and the evil within
But what they call 'evil' differs very much; these religions cast everybody as evil to start with, claiming that good deeds are impossible (paul), and muddy or queer the comprehension of virtue/vice (wisdom to know right from wrong) by equating deranged acts of despicable evil as 'virtue'; stoning a child, whilst diminishing acts of despicable evil (rape or murder) as being 'equal in sin' to something like not eating fish on friday.

Also the scapegoating idea came from those religions; to blame an innocent person for the unrelated crimes of others, and was established as a perfectly normal everyday ritual... which is not only stupid and demented but also prevents the viceful person or viceful community from having to remedy their behavior and become civilized and intelligent persons by so doing. This is at best a human frailty demonstrated by stupid people, but it is according to the bedrock of hebrew theology a perfectly fine way to "please god" - as if a creator god would think that way and approve, or be tricked somehow by it when not remedying those kind of faults achieves nothing but to keep a person firmly dug-in to their self-defeating errors,suffering the consequence of stupidity ... eg. attempting to farm by using coca cola or motor oil to water the crops instead of using water.

>>20725090
>these religions cast everybody as evil to start with
Internalizing it.
>tired surface level emotional appeals to stop thinking
I know of only one tradition that developed beyond stoning children and ended up for example abolishing formal slavery almost entirely in the world. It's the only tradition you unconsciously appeal to you when you call acts in the Bible "evil".

>>20725117
>It's the only tradition you unconsciously appeal to you when you call acts in the Bible "evil".
No, it's not even worth listing though, there's thousands of examples of this. I go to stoning kids, as an example, because it demonstrates the insane prideful adult who would attack the reason of a child.

>>20725117
>>these religions cast everybody as evil to start with
>Internalizing it.
Externalizing it, rather. There is no internal self-reflection occurring when you're scapegoating others or blaming magic for the bad consequences of your poor society or stupid actions.

>>20725117
>I know of only one tradition that developed beyond stoning children and ended up for example abolishing formal slavery almost entirely in the world.
Cite, in the Bible, where British Gunships appear in the Atlantic Sea and blow up American Slaver Ships until the Slave Trade has been destroyed. I'll be waiting.

>>20725117
also, re: slavery in the bible,
The bible was used as justification 'for' hereditary slavery, which prior to christians was more of a criminal or prisoner of war thing, slavery among the romans for instance.

>>20725124
You're not trying to understand anything. You made up your mind beforehand and judge everything based on those predetermined premises. What's the point of reading anything or coming into discussions with this mindset?
The most effective trick for working propaganda is framing. The thing you're doing right now by refusing to engage with anything outside the framing you want everything to adhere to.
Predictably, instead of grasping on any level anything I said you just resumed reciting a list of "bad stuff" you got from third party propagandists.

>>20725144
>The bible was used as justification 'for' hereditary slavery, which prior to christians was more of a criminal or prisoner of war thing, slavery among the romans for instance.
Not the other guy, but this is wrong

Usury and slavery were abolished under Christianity when prior to that slavery was an assumed "natural state" by pagan thinkers like Aristotle and others.

Enlightenment capitalists reintroduced slavery and colonialism to the west, and guess what? They hated Christianity

>>20725162
>Predictably, instead of grasping on any level anything I said you just resumed reciting a list of "bad stuff" you got from third party propagandists.
I responded to both points you made; explaining why i used one thing as an example and why your statement of "internalizing" was inaccurate to describe what those religions were doing. Then you say I'm reciting propaganda - are my arguments that good that I must've gotten them from somewhere else? lol Maybe I'm just right, anon, you ever think of that?

> What's the point of reading anything or coming into discussions with this mindset?
I don't know, you'll have to tell me how it feels. I think I'm free from bias or unnecessary passion on this subject entirely.

>>20722231
It's worth remembering that, while we possess a great deal of patristic writing, the evidence from the period is still fragmentary. For example, Origen alone wrote around 2,000 texts (one writer says 6,000) most of which are lost, and some of what we have is only available in translated Latin. There's also weird shit going on, with writings such as Pseudo-Dionysius the Aeropagite which some fathers believed to be the real Dionysius from Acts.

>church already exists
>these later guys church fathers
what in tardation

>>20725175
>Not the other guy, but this is wrong
Well you're wrong.

>Usury and slavery were abolished under Christianity when prior to that slavery was an assumed "natural state" by pagan thinkers like Aristotle and others.
Christians did not abolish slavery ever; the bible was being used right up until the US Civil War to justify holding blacks and irish prisoners as slave stock. Slavery before this was still practiced and sanctioned against non-cristians, which differed depending on which branch of christians happened to be in charge from one place to the next; this, anyway, was ethnic and religiously based slavery (curse of ham against the blacks) which was not slavery as a punishment for crimes - huge difference between one and the other.

e.g.
Jim is born a slave to a slave and is owned before he's even born.
vs.
Jim smashes a pot over someones head, killing them, and makes off with their money, Jim is quickly captured and sold into slavery.

>when prior to that slavery was an assumed "natural state" by pagan thinkers like Aristotle and others.
Two points here:
1) this differs how from the jewish or christian idea of non-jews as animal-slaves?
2) barbarians have a slavish dispositition, is what was more often argued (in those writings) by civilized persons trying to wonder how barbarians do such evil things; "slavish" meaning eager to please, eager to 'accept' someone as boss over you in the first place - not a republican principle that.

>Enlightenment capitalists reintroduced slavery and colonialism to the west, and guess what? They hated Christianity
Moreso Catholics with priests at their side enslaving South Americans, and venture capitalists being free to wander around in the North for want of an Imperial Army to stop them doing those things.

>>20725219
>NT Epistles record that there are false teachers already infiltrating the church in the 1st century
>Uhm actually the earlier the writer is the more trustworthy they are, after all they're closer to Jesus so they would know hyuk hyuk

>>20725208
>There's also weird shit going on, with writings such as Pseudo-Dionysius the Aeropagite which some fathers believed to be the real Dionysius from Acts.

This is one of the first things I noticed when reading the church fathers. While reading Acts I noticed it mentions "Dionysius", so I look it up and the church father is reported to be someone else 400 years later imitating the guy in acts?

Come on now. This shit just gets weirder and weirder the more you dig into it. Something is certainly going on here.

>>20725188
They're not arguments. You like listing things in the Bible you consider morally wrong and try to built incoherent emotionally driven points around these lists.
>Maybe I'm just right, anon, you ever think of that?
I did think of that when I was 15. Then I thought of why I thought of that and now I'm trying to relate to you that you very likely thought of that because you're brainwashed like I was when I was 15. That you can't engage within any other framing than the one you're so sure is right confirms that you're brainwashed.
Two maps of the same thing can be inconsistent but both still mapping correctly things the other doesn't. If you can't even let go of your beloved perfect and pure map to explore hypotheticals you're the one limited by something like religious dogma.

>>20725231
There was a practice in the ancient world in which you would write a text in the (supposed) tradition of another writer and then put their name on it. It's one reason you have all these weird gospels and such things. Pseudo-Dionysius is an example of that, but it eventually became accepted that he was actually Dionysius (some Orthodox will still argue in defense of this) until it was gradually refuted in the West around the Reformation era. Of course when the writings were first presented the objection was, "No one's ever heard of this shit before so there's no way it's real," which is the correct evaluation.

>>20725175
>Usury (was) abolished under Christianity
I'll give you that one. Though it was short-lived and the idea of "paying (a priest) for sins" tips the weight on the scales to about even; one cancels out the other and indulgence could even be considered a kind of usury.

>>20725247
>You like listing things in the Bible you consider morally wrong and try to built incoherent emotionally driven points
Alright it was nice talking to you while you were still on the leash there, anon. I see reason and evidence have driven you into the depths of vice in order to defend this barbarians religions of yours.

You have begun to tell lies.
>
>
not worth responding to..

> If you can't even let go of your beloved perfect and pure map to explore hypotheticals you're the one limited by something like religious dogma.
Obvious "no, you!" - projection of own sin of dogma.

My earlier points were of why or how I can understand and prove that the religion is obviously baseless in its assertions; how, then, arguments which seek to undermine this observation are not to be trusted - unless a case is made - i don't see a case being made at all; you're just telling me to doubt in my ability to recognize deception when I discern it, essentially.

>>20725227
>the bible was being used right up until the US Civil War to justify holding blacks and irish prisoners as slave stock.
Yes, these were enlightenment capitalists as I just said

>Christians did not abolish slavery ever
They abolished usury which was slavery, and have always been outright against slavery especially considering many Christians were slaves in the barbery trade and the Khazar trade

https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/curiosities/saint-augustines-approach-towards-slavery/

>Moreso Catholics with priests at their side
Yes this was under the Medici rule, who were userers

Augustine and slavery:
>In 427 or 428 Augustine, bishop of Hippo Regius in Roman North Africa, wrote a letter to his friend Alypius, bishop of Thagaste, who was then in Rome en route to Ravenna where the Western Roman emperors resided. Augustine wrote to inform Alypius of recent events he considered so grave that they warranted imperial intervention.9 A band of slave-traders and their catchers had rounded up free Roman citizens to sell them overseas as slaves. At the time Augustine had been away, only to find upon his return that members of his church had freed at least 120 of these captives. Many still lived in the episcopal precinct at Hippo.

>>20725297
>I can understand and prove that the religion is obviously baseless in its assertions
To accept your "proof" I have to accept your interpretations and framing which are not consistent with any tradition or scholarship. You claim the meaning conveyed is x and then start rambling based on that premise. Others claim the meaning conveyed is y or z and they make much better cases which you apparently have never explored.

>>20725275
>Though it was short-lived and the idea of "paying (a priest) for sins" tips the weight on the scales to about even; one cancels out the other and indulgence could even be considered a kind of usury.
Yes this was under the Medici banking family who were bought off by the Fugger family a.k.a. the wealthiest family on earth

This was also the subject of many attempted reforms and eventually led to the reformation, which was extremely anti-usury

>>20725247
also,
you didn't really respond to anything I said lol, see earlier: >>20725090

I'll believe you're sincere and not lying for whatever demon god you're into if you can refute maybe half or more of those things.

>>20725340
You still don't understand anything I said or you wouldn't be asking for "refutations".
Most don't interpret the text to mean what you say it does and there are many more coherent and consistent interpretations out there. There's your "refutation".
I also pointed out that your ideas about the text make predictions about how its followers would behave and what the fruits of Christianity would be that turn out to be very clearly empirically false. When you pretended to follow that thread of thought you ended up just reciting your holy lists again instead. Pure conditioning like an animal, a dogheaded man.

>>20722231
If you want to dig into the rabbit hole of conspiracy shit about this era try pic related.

>>20725308
>To accept your "proof" I have to accept your interpretations and framing
I don't really care to be honest, you're welcome to keep pouring motor oil on your crops, I suppose. I'm content enough to know how much error and vice (which you've already displayed of your character here by using deceptive rhetoric) you've assimilated which will do you harm insolong as you persist in this tangled web of nihilism towards reality.

>which are not consistent with any tradition or scholarship
I can quote you pre-christian logicians, christian logicians, if you like. Oh, I know, how about St. Photios? Will you listen to a Saint telling you that you can Know Something For Sure?

"the Academics are unaware that they are conflicting with themselves. For to make unambiguous assertions and denials, whilst at the same time as stating as a generalization that no things are cognitive, introduces an undeniable conflict:
How is it possible to recognize that one thing is true and one thing false, and yet still entertain perplexity and doubt, and not make a clear choice of the one and avoidance of the other?"

St. Photios 'the Great' of Constantinople,
Myriobiblion
9th Cent. Byz.

> Others claim the meaning conveyed is y or z and they make much better cases which you apparently have never explored.
what you wish to pretend is 'better for you' has no bearing on what actually is true; I say if you have a theology which condones you stoning your child to death for calling you a fucking drunkard that you have a theology which coddles and enables your worst possible nature.

val.

>>20725307
>enlightenment capitalists
ehh.. mostly jewish slavers i think you'll find.. read Tony Martin, I think his name is. I think, to be honest, you're purposefully trying to conflate the secular ideals of the french and italian and british enlightenment thinkers with pirates and slavers, but whatever,this has been argued in depth elsewhere and it's easy to find out if you want to know about it.

> A band of slave-traders and their catchers had rounded up free Roman citizens to sell them overseas as slaves. At the time Augustine had been away, only to find upon his return that members of his church had freed at least 120 of these captives. Many still lived in the episcopal precinct at Hippo.
Free Roman Citizens, yes. That was always a crime to enslave Free Roman Citizens, that's piracy.

>Medici
I think E Michael Jones made a strong case once that the Medicis were arguably worse than the Jewish money-lenders lol, just a point, idk, thanks for the list of factoids.

>>20725391
>Most don't interpret the text to mean what you say it does and there are many more coherent and consistent interpretations out there.
which are the gnostic scrolls, right? Am I still talking to the same guy here?

I aleady said I don't care about this special mystery jesus of whom you alone know what he really said.

My points here have not been predicated upon later things, but on the bedrock of the insane notion that barbarian hebrews had any brain going on to be considered - or or their society to be considered - as having anything to do with Logos, let alone The Monopoly on the subject. So Jesus isn't logos, logos isn't what the gnostics said it was, we aren't going to become jews to reject jews to follow jesus and we understand logos better through the logicians of the pre-christian times. in short.

>>20725394
Alternatively just go on Youtube and look up interviews Eisenman has done where he explains it, if you don't want to read the 1,000 page book.

>>20725396
>what you wish to pretend is 'better for you' has no bearing on what actually is true; I say if you have a theology which condones you stoning your child to death for calling you a fucking drunkard that you have a theology which coddles and enables your worst possible nature.
>a theology which condones you stoning your child to death for calling you a fucking drunkard
Is an interpretation not consistent with any tradition. You frame it as if I have to first accept this as an established premise and then work within that framework. Why should I accept clearly retarded interpretation of the text made by an illiterate over any established tradition?
How does it make sense to you to harp on this braindead shit like stoning when no Christian is stoning children?
What point do you think your reference to the saint is supporting? Does he promote the stoning of children?

>>20725409
>the gnostic scrolls, right?
Completely and utterly braindead. I mean all the established Christian traditions and hermeneutics. The most insane ones you can think of are still more thoughtful and developed than your horseshit which isn't based on trying to approach truth but to serve some politics or whatever.

>>20722231
>Does this seem weird to anyone else?
Yeah Christianity doesn't publicly exist anymore dude.

>>20722231
Of course it is. The Jews realized that to survive they need to piggyback off the Greco-Roman world. And they did. That's the story of the Jews.

>>20725436
>. I mean all the established Christian traditions and hermeneutics.
Like what, the one where the current and previous position of the Western Catholic Church (taking paul over jesus) is identified as being the heresy of Marcion? probably not that one, right?

> all the established Christian traditions and hermeneutics. The most insane ones you can think of are still more thoughtful and developed
Meh. Disagree entirely. Firstly when they were writing they were all writing under censorship; pain of death of being burned alive for contradicting 'official church dogma', so nothing they say can be taken seriously. That's actually very easy to point out and begin to sift through the various writers to see which ones had good inclinations (st basil, st benedict) but were forced to operate within a tightly controlled ideological framework.

anyway, yawn yawn. I think I'm too tired to carry on for this evening.

>>20725424
same guy?

>Is an interpretation not consistent with any tradition.
see above

>What point do you think your reference to the saint is supporting?
See, this is how it's patently obvious to yourself that you're lying - you are engaging in vice at this very moment in order to defend this religion, how can this religion be true if this is your character..? Anyway, your point was that "you cannot know for sure XYZ, what is proof, etc" and I quote you a fucking Saint telling you that you can know things for sure, and now you act perplexed on the matter.

Good Night, anon. May God have mercy on your soul, if he exists, because you've sinned enough here to merit eternity in the pit of fire.

>>20725489
ed. oh, i may have overlapped two threads here.. rofl >>20721308

>>20725489
>Like what
Like every Christian that says the meaning conveyed by the Bible does not condone stoning children.
Your entire post is you still refusing to come to grips with the idea of even for a second working from other assumptions than those you're conditioned with.
>how can this religion be true if this is your character
What kind of logic is this? I didn't even profess a religion. I said the dumbest traditions make more sense than your braindead horseshit.
>your point was that "you cannot know for sure XYZ, what is proof, etc"
Braindead. You're so fucked in the head you managed to conflate someone telling you that you're bad at interpreting texts with saying it's impossible to know anything for sure. You don't have even a hint of understanding of what proof means. You're very likely an actual child.

>>20725144
Based. Abolishing slavery was a huge mistake, America will be carrying that burden until it finally collapses from spending all its budget on black welfare

>>20723990
The Greeks arrived at a failing candle. The Israelites possessed the Sun. St. Thomas answers this rather straightforwardly in the first question of the Summa.

>>20722231
>muh church fathers
NGMI

>>20722236
Logos is just a Greek word, and it should be translated as word anyway, and it is in most bibles. You're like those clowns who think "gnosis" means some esoteric thing and not just another Greek word. A whole heretical movement came from a single word and idiotic retards thinking it meant some LE SEKRIT CLUB with their retarded uninspired fanfictions.

>>20723256
The many hypocrite "Christians" refuse to study the OT for various theological reasons given to them by their apostate (often lawless) church or fake christian cult or "church fathers" or some eceleb they worship instead of God.

Also, skimming this thread, it's obvious so very few here know anything about Christianity or the Bible and would explain why Bible threads get deleted by the mods. Or maybe Bible threads being deleted explains why these fools know nothing, yet still profess themselves wise.

>>20724897
>Now Paul comes in and it gets really weird. We get this big blend of Greek philosophy and institutional theories. This is not really compatible with the story of the Bible.
No, you're just an antiPaul faggot who takes it up the ass.

>>20725631
America will collapse by the catholic cult's clergy, in forming an image of the beast which then is the vessel to enforce the mark of the beast. It's all covered in prophecy. Not like anyone here studies the Bible enough to understand this, let alone bible prophecy.

>>20722264
>>20724051

I have a theory that the sea peoples were a religious cult. Spreading strange faith of "trade" between islands of people.

>>20726384
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfulfilled_Christian_religious_predictions

The list for failed end of the world predictions is even longer. But a fun read nonetheless.

>>20724897

Hellenised Jews were a major demographic in the areas where Christianity spread. So there were already a large number of potential converts combining Greek philosophy and Jewish theology in their worldview. I don't think it's some massive conspiracy on the part of the church fathers.

>>20726384
>Logos is just a Greek word, and it should be translated as word anyway, and it is in most bibles
>gnosticism is based on a eytmological error
drooling pant shitter has never read any greek texts and knows nothing about gnosticism

>muh church fathers
the founding fathers were phoenician jews just like the people in the vatican dumbshit

>"Christians" refuse to study the OT
what on earth does this have to do with anything anyone is saying in here
>you're just an antiPaul faggot who takes it up the ass
you realize the church fathers are the ones who put that stupid faggot right dumbshit?
>America will collapse by the catholic church's clergy
LMAO holy fuck how much drool and shit did you have leaking down your face and pant legs when you wrote this

imagine thinking the founding fathers weren't vatican kikes. country was literally founded as a vatican human trafficking operation

>>20725537
>You're very likely an actual child.
Well I made a mistake by continuing to talk with you after you turned bitter and rude those few posts ago. You've just gone on to insult since, making no case, which I keep telling you is just broadcasting that you're consciously in the wrong - if you had a genius case to make, you would've made it logically instead of falling back to insults.

This bit is still interesting though;
>Like every Christian that says the meaning conveyed by the Bible does not condone stoning children.
So explain this. Anybody with that view has already been cherry-picking and reinterpreting based on their conscience (i dont disagree with them of course) to reject in the OT/NT what is 'obviously' evil.

>with saying it's impossible to know anything for sure.
I did realize I had overlapped two threads where someone else was making that argument, if you didn't expressly say it, then ok, BUT your argument is the same thing. You're rejecting proofs and resorting to vicefulness to hold an untenable position (in favor of your holy book).

> telling you that you're bad at interpreting texts
Again, there are so many instances of these things made by others already that I don't believe you're serious when you express disbelief that the OT advocated stoning children to death; do you think they on't practice child genital mutilation either? I mean, this is just stupid for you to pretend not to know about when it's widely shown and known to be true. Make a case for your position if you want to convince me you're right about this. But the bible is no help to you here since you'll say Jesus over turned the OT Law, when he expressly said he was upholding it, etc. and you fall back on Jesus as a human sacrifice to atone for all sin everywhere, which is the worst kind of paganism,and .. see: scapegoating in the hebrew law as to why it obviously doesn't work.

>propaganda, brainwashed, conditioned
I'm surprised you're using these words, usually your position is accompanied by the write off of these sciences as being jewish conspiracies against your immortal soul.

>>20726338
>The Israelites possessed the Sun.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Pretty stupid of me to forget that bit. The power of the Sun!

Obviously possessing the Sun is what enabled them to ... exist in a fallen and barbarous state until Jesus arrived, who they rejected, and continued on living in a fallen and barbarous state. But it does explain how their scientists exceeded that of Rome, Greece and China, and how their empire stood unrivaled for millenia. Oh wait.. none of that happened did it..

>>20726754
>Hellenised Jews were a major demographic in the areas where Christianity spread. So there were already a large number of potential converts combining Greek philosophy and Jewish theology in their worldview.
This is moreso the truth of the thing. If we take Paul seriously then when he's expressing "its impossinle to be good" he's coming fro Judaism and its crazy contradictory laws (e.g. kill child to please god, don't kill child make god angry). So the introduction of (i think) silly aspects of philosophy where the god is rationalized as something else (but where the holy book is still taken to be serious) can be understood as a effort to smooth over the most rough aspects of Judaism, for a Jew.

It's hard to see where Jesus fitted into this at the time, but it's easy to see how later people would have had the word Logos in their mouth, via the Greek and Roman rhetorical and philosophical schools, and come to equate Jesus as a 'moderating force' against the jewish/hebrew religion.

Still, it turned out pretty bad,
>>20726338
>The Greeks arrived at a failing candle. The Israelites possessed the Sun. St. Thomas answers this rather straightforwardly in the first question of the Summa.
As those Jews calling the Christians immediately departed from Hierosolyma and took their strange self-aggrandizing ideas into the world, despite Jesus saying,
"go no-where near (the gentiles)"
and that he had only come to help the,
"lost sheep of israel"

2,000yrs later the descendant of german poop-eating barbarians considers Jesus a blonde nordic gentleman, hates everything jewish, worships the jewish god and utters statements like,
> The Israelites possessed the Sun.

>>20725631
>Abolishing slavery was a huge mistake, America will be carrying that burden until it finally collapses from spending all its budget on black welfare
eh it sounds so wrong, but kind of. The difference is that slavery was a punishment for voncticed criminals, it was not a herediatry caste thing based on your religious beleif or skin tone. That's the real difference between slavery in one place and slavery in another place.

As a thing in and of itself, it's like the question of prisons; obviously it's pointless and evil to throw people into prison and claim their children and childrens children as prisoners "for all eternity," but the object of the prison in and of itself s a place to put convicts doesn't become evil simply because the prison has been misused.

Honestly I think slavery is a far better punishment than prison, myself. It's way more of a deterrent; imagine Tyrone smashing an old ladys house up then being fitted with a shock collar and forced to help that old lady with her household work and chores and things as his punishment - with everybody being able to see him. The shame he'd feel and the witness 'of' him by others would be the greatest possible deterrent for most petty criminality.

lol whoops
>voncticed
*convicted

>>20722231
The multimillenarian Sanhedrin is strong in race. Everything is happening as planned.

>>20723439
Twitter tier bullshit one liner. Actual propaganda. Go write a Marvel movie.

>>20723275
>The reason those other stories of other Gods are not compatible with the understanding of Logos is because they're false and the stories are lies.
According to... the Bible.

>The Bible developed separately from Greek philosophy, and it is pure revelation
According to... the Bible.

Of course! Christianity makes perfect sense and is obviously true once you axiomatically accept that it makes sense and is obviously true! How could I not see it before?

>>20726384
yeah our problem is we aren't close minded and schizophrenic enough to understand how fan fiction retroactively claims it predicted the future

>>20727296
>you would've made it logically instead of falling back to insults.
Why are you unable to grasp anything said? The obvious explanation is you're a child. If not you're severely retarded with no chance of ever understanding anything. Either way never post anywhere ever again.

>>20729427
Anon, you're still just insulting me instead of making a case. Look at yourself, you manchild baby. This is all your type ever does at any time of the day.. thanks for showing off what Christianity is all about.

roma invicta.

>>20729640
When I tried dialogue you didn't understand anything I said and went into a million different incoherent directions. You don't understand the most basic shit like the idea that interpretation of text is even a thing.
What could possibly be the reason for this? There are two, you're a child or a retard.

>>20729830
If it's so simple, then explain why you reject Yahweh's command to punish children with stoning? You completely ignored his argument and talked past him, so this is a good point for you to make your case.

>>20726384
>Christ was the word
Yeah, that's a coherent sentence. No way it was appealing to the way Logos was used as the time John was written, with connotations of a universal reason, or anything like that. No way this sort of thinking had made it into Judaism, with Philo of Alexandria, etc.

If you had looked a little deeper you would have seen that logos was used in other senses from the English "word."

>>20722231
People have already mentioned John I, but also look at the opening of Colossians. A similar portrayal of Jesus as an active part of the Godhead, helping to shape creation is there. As Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I am." The tense here is in the original Greek, and denotes the timeless and eternal.

Some sects of Christianity play the role of Christ as down because they want to have a more "personal" Christ, and think that if religion gets too "philosophical," it will become alienating. I think this is a mistake.

In Romans 7-9 Paul talks about dying in sin. Obviously this is not a biological death, Paul is alive and writing. He dies in sin when he loses a war against "the members of his body." He is driven on by instinct, desire, the flesh, etc. He is not his own mover. To be self moving requires being aware of what moves you, of cause and effect, i.e. the Logos.

Paul is resurrected in Christ. Obviously not a biological resurrection. His personhood and freedom are restored by Christ. A man driven on by instinct and desire is dead. It is sin who lives in them. A man living guided by the Logos is free because he fathoms what moves him. I Peter 4 gets at the too at the outset (a rarely read chapter because it speaks of redemption of those already dead. The NIV goes out of its way to remove the original context, adding new words in here, which is pretty bad).

This isn't a marketing campaign for Platonism, it's the thinking of the times and the Apostles. Anti-philosophical readings are a much later Protestant thing mostly centered in America.

>>20730025
>then explain why you reject Yahweh's command to punish children with stoning?
I didn't profess a religion. I'm talking about the basics behind how to think rationally, he is operating based on religious dogma he's incapable of getting past even using hypotheticals. Different traditions have different opinions on almost everything including stoning. Instead of criticizing some actual tradition he makes up his own and criticizes that. There's so much you could be productively criticizing contemporary Christians for but instead retards like you just work yourselves up into a frenzy with the same tired circlejerk lists of braindead non-criticisms over and over. It's all completely irrelevant and completely braindead.
Can you restate a few word summary of any of his supposed "arguments"? You want to list more "bad things" (appealing to the Christian tradition) in the Bible without any hint of understanding of the many different interpretations of what any of it means?

>>20724897
You are reading the OT literally, which is an American evangelical thing. Jews do not read the Tanakh as a history book. Greek thought was blended into Judaism before Christ.

Go look at Kabbalah or the Merkabva mysticism that predates it. Paul is not something totally new.

Even back with Genesis you get two different, contradictory creation stories back to back. One where the Spirt of God creates by speaking existence into being over the Waters of the Deep (indefinite chaos, a pregnant void) followed by one where God shapes things out of clay.

A great deal of the Bible is symbolic poetry and was always taken as such.

The earliest text from the Hebrew Bible we have is a bit of Numbers from around 800 BC written in proto-Hebrew.

The earliest text we have of any part of the Bible stories is a tablet in cuniform telling the Noah's Ark story that is thousands of years old.

A lot changed, including withing Judaism. The Jews eventually stopped adding to the Bible and instead turned to doing commentaries and reinterpretations. Paul and the Church Fathers weren't nearly as huge of a shift as it seems like when you just read the Bible. Jews like Philo were already reading the Bible more allegorically and symbolically than most of the patristics before Christianity was widespread.

You even see this shift in the Bible itself. Isiah and Amos have different moral codes from Genesis and Judges.

>>20722231
>why were they trying to talk to platonists in late antiquity? why weren't they talking to me?

>>20730269
It doesn't make sense historically that the trend moves from literal (logical) thinking towards allegorical thinking. It has to be the other way around. Ancients thought and communicated in poetic allegories. Things we don't see was obvious to them like the association between a princess and the veneration of the people in the land she represents so the princess in a poem can also partially mean control of the actual land.