/lit/ - Literature

Plato and the Bible of course

the bible you absolute mong
at least the NT. it isnt that long. at least 1 gospel, acts, and romans. form your own opinion of fundamental christianity, why would you want to read someone elses opinion first?

>>21614502
Vico ("New Science") in order to understand the setting that Christianity arose out of.
Algernon Herbert ("Nimrod") for an understanding that this setting was not limited to Israel or its surrounding environs, but to the entire ancient world, and had existed for a long time.
Jesus upset this model, and introduced a democratic model, made a religion out of it, one that made even the lowest slave worthy and important in the eyes of God; that it wasn't just the aristocratic elite that had access to God's will.

>>21614502
Celsus.

>>21614502
humpty dumpty

>>21614502
There are thousands of interpretations. For you to understand the point of chirstianity you only need to know that Jesus was a typical cultist who got executed and later his followers invented a gospel story about how he actually didn't get executed. They were devastated and started believing some bullshit that came to them in their dreams. This is why christianity exists.

>>21614605
why does paul make up 500 witnesses, most of whom still alive at the time of his writing
why does paul convert from a persecutor to a proclaimer of this new faith
why does paul invent a conversion story involving blindness and visions of jesus

>>21614605
I love how desperate you always sound. You can't even convince yourself.

>>21614605
>his followers invented a gospel story about how he actually didn't get executed

>>21614506
>Plato
will do
>>21614578
wasn't Vico himself a Christian? was he arguing for Christianity when he said that?
>>21614605
seething

>>21614502
the old testament, it's just absurd incoherent stuff after another

>>21614502
you'd have to ask people who have been dead for thousands of years

>>21614930
>anything to ignore the bible mentions
you'll never be anything but an NPC

>>21614502
The bible.

Some texts that cover the conference/schism of the bullahs, and the catholic conference of revision (or whatever it is referred to as i nyoyr language)

Some Martin Luther King texts can be helpful too.

Humanist AND christian humanist texts can be helpful too.

I would highly recommend not only Plato's, but also Zeno's Republic.

I would also suggest interviewing christians where you live, both leaders and followers. Engage in the rituals if you can, but preferably after you read.

>>21614974
>"texts"
>barely gives any examples

>>21614952
I'm reading it right now nigga. it doesn't require my comment given how obvious it is
>>21614974
>MLK
no thanks I'm good

>>21614988
then just use websites like biblehub or bibleref for commentary on verses you have trouble with
and get commentaries for books that are particularly challenging like Leviticus or Hebrews. Don't purchase those full bible commentaries because the actual notes are often shallow and you can find better material free on those other 2 sites I mentioned
https://bestcommentaries.com/
this site generally recommends Conservative Protestant commentaries, which is my camp. I can vouch for the "New International" and "Expositors" commentary series

jumping right into books more broadly covering Christianity is just going to shovel bias down your throat.

>>21615008
good recommendations thx
>>21614944
ok yeah I'll try that
>>21614935
it was made invalid after Christ so it presumably doesn't have much bearing on Christianity

>>21615008
an amendment: the "ancient faith" commentary is probably the only full bible commentary I can somewhat recommend. Its more interesting than genuinely helpful though, and it also has a Protestant bias. you're better off reading the actual writings of the church fathers instead
I didn't include them in my initial post because they're subject to error as much as anyone else. Remember as soon as Moses left the israelites for sinai, they fashioned themselves an idol immediately. but the church fathers are still helpful, and their mistakes are human.

>>21615041
>it was made invalid after Christ so it presumably doesn't have much bearing on Christianity
the events of the OT are written to be an example to us
it is 100% worth reading as a Christian, especially if you ever plan to share your faith with others and want to be able to field questions.
but get a decent grasp of the NT first

>>21614502
The DSM 5

>>21614974
>Zeno's Republic
It isn't even extant, is it?
>Martin Luther King
You didn't mean to refer to the American political activist, did you?

>>21615041
>it was made invalid after Christ so it presumably doesn't have much bearing on Christianity
The ceremonial and dietary laws have been abrogated but the text is quite relevant.

>The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.
St. Augustine

Thus, for example, the Passover informs the meaning of the Eucharist, which was instituted by Christ during a Passover meal.

>>21614502
The Bible, Plato, St. Augustine, Chesterton, CS Lewis

>>21614502
Tolstoy's gospel in brief.
Incredibly clear yet profound summary of Christianity, not particularly tied to any denomination. Able to state the exact contents of the gospels without exaggeration or frivolous reinterpretation, yet simultaneously able to be fundamentally critical of all vulgarized readings. Wittgenstein was famously in love with it and recommended it to his friends.

>>21614502
The problem is the source material is contradictory. This is why there are so many denominations. Most denominations are correct and can validly cite the Bible for why they believe what they believe. The Bible contradicts itself on a great deal many issues. So there's no good answer to your question. You just have to pick which side of the fence you prefer and then just cherry pick those scriptures that support it. They are there.

>>21615550
name what you consider to be the single greatest contradiction
just one, and in your own words, dont link me to a website

>>21615558
>For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Matthew 16:27-28

Contradicted by the reality of him having not come back with his rewards during the lifetimes of somebody in the crowd that day. This is where the excuse making and rationalization starts coming. You either excuse this by saying what he "really" meant was that he was going to sneak three of his closest apostles up a mountain and give a vision of the kingdom directly after speaking, completely deceiving his audience, or something like the crucifixion was the "rewards" he was talking about. What is your preferred rationalization?

>>21615584
>completely deceiving his audience
but it clearly states that the message is only for "some"

>>21615592
It clearly states that some standing there that day will survive long enough to see him coming in his kingdom with his rewards.

I hate Christers so much it's unreal.

>>21615613
I don't really hate them, I used to be one and I get it. I just hate how they make excuses and get all angry about it if you just explain back to them what the text objectively just states. They're brainwashed, but their motivations are similar to mine. They don't like the degeneracy of the world and want to stand against it.

>>21615646
you cant point out a single example.

>>21615646
>they're brainwashed
You seriously shouldn't say stuff like this.

>>21615649
An example of what?
>>21615661
Shouldn't say they're brainwashed? Why? It's very apparent.

>>21615543
It wasn't very good, and ignores everything Tolstoy didn't like

>>21615679
>its very apparent
You have to stop man. This is immature.
Nobody is brainwashed. On anything. Ever. You need to accept everyone is just as capable as you. And nobody was brainwashed.

>>21615689
Brainwashing is not an indictment of somebody's intelligence or even character. Anybody can be brainwashed. I was wanting to brainwashed as a fundamentalist Christian myself. I'm speaking about this from experience.

>>21615695
And again you misrepresent my post.

>>21615704
I'm not tempting to misrepresent you. I'm simply trying to answer to what I comprehend from reading your posts. If I'm not understanding something, please clarify.

>>21615711
Provide one fucking example. Im still waiting

>>21615713
I'm wondering if you're a bot at this point. I'm not sure what example you're asking of me. Example of what?

>>21614502
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

>>21615613
Your image is described the "Penal Substitution" model of atonement, though, which not all Christians hold to

>>21615584
This isn't a contradiction within the Bible like you promised, this is a contradiction between the Bible and the observation of the world. God damn I'm so tired of retards on here.

>>21614502

>>21615584
The context of that discourse is probably eschatological poetry discussing the destruction of the temple, but you could also take the Philip K. Dick-pill and assert that a veil of illusory time has been spuriously interpolated by Satan in order to trick us into thinking that it's not still the first century

>>21615804
>>but you could also take the Philip K. Dick-pill and assert that a veil of illusory time has been spuriously interpolated by Satan in order to trick us into thinking that it's not still the first century
Sounds cool as fuck tbqh, how to get started with PKD?

>>21614502
One book is "On the Incarnation" by St Athanasius.

>>21615543
any recommendation for what translation I should get?
>>21615722
someone already made this joke>>21615101
>>21615686
>frogposter

>>21615584
>Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

This seems obvious to me: Jesus is declaring that some in the crowd are biologically immortal, either already or He has rendered them so by His words. So they will live until the Second Coming.

This is the Bible. It has giants, it has fallen angels, it has the Deluge, it has dragons, it has God speaking out of the whirlwind. And of course it has the literal Resurrection of Jesus. Why wouldn't it make room for certain people to be biologically immortal, too?

Hell, maybe there were some vampires in the crowd shadowing Jesus and Jesus was calling them out. Which would have the added effect of reminding them that they've given up their immortal souls, and when the Son of Man comes again they're going to be wiped totally out of existence. Or just sent to Hell for all time.

/lit/ has too many materialists and too many atheists. You can't approach Christianity with that mindset.

>>21615938
>Jesus is declaring that some in the crowd are biologically immortal
See I mean look at this stuff. The length Christians go to to make excuses for what's obvious. Even if he did mean that they were immortal people in the crowd, the crowd would not have taken his words in such a way, of course. Thus he would have been deceiving the crowd.

>>21615945
Do you consider the parables to be deceptions too?

>>21615955 #
No they are metaphorical and obviously metaphorical. He is not making metaphorical statements. He is saying that there are some in the crowd that will not taste death by end times. This is a direct statement. It's like trying to say that "thou shalt not steal" is just a parable, when it is convenient. This is called being disingenuous. Rationalizing whatever you can to try and make the conclusion you desire correct. Even in the face of authentic and blatant information.

>>21615945
>Even if he did mean that they were immortal people in the crowd, the crowd would not have taken his words in such a way, of course.

I really don't see what your hangup with this is. Jesus said something that a lot of people misunderstood. It's not the first time it happens in the Gospels. What about the Bread of Life discourse?

>>21615938
Thinking like is has a beautiful elegance to it, whereas modern ways of thinking feel kind of ugly and heavy. The kind of thinking you describe led to folklore beliefs I've always liked, like the belief that St. John was biologically immortal and was wandering the earth forever until Jesus, whom he loved, finally arrived. A really beautiful notion, which could have only come from more beautiful souls than ours.

>>21615812
I'd recommend some of his pre-1974 experience work first, Ubik, The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, A Scanner Darkly, Flow My Tears, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, etc.

Before diving into his esoteric schizocore phase I would probably read "In Pursuit of Valis" which essentially serves as a quick gestalt summarizing the events in Dick's life that contextualize what he writes about in his "VALIS Trilogy": VALIS, The Divine Invasion, and his final book, The Transmigration of Timothy Archer

After you're done with all of that you can attempt to dive into the Exegesis of Philip K. Dick, which is a massive compendium of notes written over the span of around a decade trying to make sense of his bizarre experiences from every angle, from the skeptical to the mystical to everywhere in between; it's not an easy read by any stretch of the imagination and might legitimately drive you to madness but it's pretty fascinating stuff regardless

>>21615543
any recommendation for what translation I should get?
>>21615722
someone already made this joke>>21615101
>>21615686
stupid frogposter
>>21615584
>>21615945
so you think the biggest contradiction in the bible is that Jesus said something you don't think is true?

>>21615988
>Jesus said something that a lot of people misunderstood.
They didn't misunderstand. The logic of the sentence is obvious. If the crowd had a normal understanding of language, they would come to the same conclusion. It would not be their fault for interpreting his statements to mean something other than there's an immortal in the crowd. It would be the speaker's fault. If he meant to say something else he would have said it in a completely different manner. If he meant to say there are immortal people in the crowd, he would simply say that there are immortal people here that will be around. He would not frame it as in an event happening before the end of life. If he meant there were immortal people in the crowd, such statements would have been deceptive. The context of the statement is a timeline.

It's really not worth discussing this with you though. You are clearly very brainwashed or just having some fun. You are unable to process authentic information anymore on issues relating to the Bible. Again, I could just as easily say that The first commandment was just a parable. I could say anything is a parable and have just as much standing as you to call this a parable. It's nonsensical, and disingenuous.

>>21615996
Sincerely thank you for that complete layout anon, I'll put him on my list and I'm looking forward to reading

>>21616013
I think you're expecting a level of language autism from the Bible that it does not usually deliver, Anon.

>>21616013
Retard, Jesus literally said that he intentionally spoke in riddles so that only a select few would understand him. Your assumptions on what he "would" be like are dogshit. Your take, also dogshit, but from a grosser variety of dog.

>>21616024
He's approaching a Semitic text from the first century desert expecting it to have an autistic European type mentality behind it, many such cases unfortunately.

The New Testament
Psalms
City of God
Summa theologica
The interior castle
Long dark night of the soul

>>21614502

>>21616026
He says he speaks in parables so that people CAN understand him and then goes on to explain them when the apostles say they don’t get it.
Jesus already did die and come back most of the things he prophesied in the Bible have already happened

>>21614502
The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Doesn't matter if you are not Catholic since it applies to most of western Christianity anyway. Currently, Father Mike Schmitz is doing a podcast called "The Catechism in a Year", which is going smooth and full of insights.

Jesus of Nazareth by Benedict XVI is also a great place to read, it's small and talks a lot about who was Jesus Christ and what the tradition has spoken about him (he even talks about protestant theologians, a lot)

With this said, Mere Christianity by Lewis is a good book to understand that bare bone basics and it's considered an excellent book for starters that don't understand this faith.

>>21616026
He tells Caiaphas and the bishops to ask his students about his teachings while they're interrogating him. There's nothing in the New Testiment that I'm aware of where Jesus deliberately makes his teachings confusing--the point I remember him making (multiple times) is that everyone can understand him but they refuse to do so (with various varieties of examples given where people do just that right up to his crucifixion).

>>21614930
dunno what Vico was, but he did grow up in Christian Naples.
But his book shows the origins of the aristocratic elite, and the pains they took to wage unceasing war against the lower castes.
This is the setting of the origin of Christianity, and why it was so popular among the slaves, women and lower classes, and why the elites (whether Roman, Greek, Jewish, etc.) persecuted the early Christians so harshly. He shows how the early elite considered themselves to be literal gods or descended from gods. Which explains why Christ was such a game changer, because he taught that even slaves have the spark of the divine within them.

This could also explain why democracy has really only flourished in christian countries.

>>21614502
the gospels. matthew mark luke john. acts and romans, too.

watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN8FM1NCOSk

then read the catechism of the catholic church (and follow up on the annotations) to get the tldr on what and why the church believes.

bam. you understand Christianity. don't bother with protestantism or its offshoots like mormonism. those are all heresies. the catholic church was founded by Jesus. no other church can compete.

>>21615115
I've read the MLK book and you will understand Christian love if you read it.

>>21616406
>>21616480
No, he says that the Lord hardened the hearts of the people lest they turn and be healed/forgiven, and he says that he speaks in parables intentionally so that few will understand, saying the true meaning only to his disciples.
The reality is Jesus was an esoteric teacher and purposely did not communicate clearly, his teachings are intended to be meditated on. The purpose of the parables are to obscure the meaning of the teachings. Pic related.

>>21616673
Not quite. He's speaking directly to his apostles and about their character/relationship with him versus outsiders who do not seek the meaning in his teaching. He's describing how his teaching will appear to those who don't seek to understand it and isn't saying "I'm intentionally being obtuse so only certain people will be able to understand me." The deeper meaning is in relation to the parable of the sower and not at all about Jesus describing manipulation tactics.

>>21616773
Nowhere in there does he specify that he's speaking exclusively about only those who do not seek to understand it, nor can you show me a verse where he adds this clarification. It's just shit you're arbitrarily shoving into the verse in order to fit a preconceived notion you have about Jesus.
No thanks bro I'll trust the text, where he says that he speaks in parables "so that" (which means, he's about to tell us the reason why he does so) people won't understand.
Also manipulation? Lol come on. Why the fuck did he speak in parables then, if you're saying the verse is wrong? Well?

>>21616898
>It's just shit you're arbitrarily shoving into the verse in order to fit a preconceived notion you have about Jesus
No, you're confusing the idea that other teachers like him existed/an analysis of his teaching method with your interpretation of the text. You can't point to any examples where he objectively says that he is intentionally being obtuse so that only certain people will understand him. I pointed out earlier that he tells his interrogators to speak with his students about the meaning of his teachings if they truly want to understand what he was preaching. This shows him pointing the path toward his knowledge to others (and as contained in others) as well as his honesty relative to what they are doing: he isn't obfuscating things but speaking clearly to those who are willing to hear it.

The context of the passage you gave is Jesus speaking to his disciples about the character of their understanding of his teachings versus how those teachings appear to those who do not seek true understanding of them. It describes the fact that the specific sermon he gave will take root in some people but not in others (parable of the sower). He doesn't say that these people will always be incapable of understanding him but rather that they can't come upon his knowledge from a flawed direction. The fact that some people will not understand his message doesn't prove your point--that's just the natural outcome of not following the path he has set out and it's a general truism.

>>21616673
it's called semantic encryption

>>21614502
>what should I read to understand Christianity
The bible, you know, the book that talks all about Christianity.

>>21617414
>read the bible
>"oh, interesting, seems like the bible pretty clearly tells us to..."
>"ERRM ACTUALLY you don't get it at all! You need a lifetime of bible study, be able tor read ancient hebrew and turn every sentence around 10 times before you really get the acutal meaning!"

>>21614502
The Bible
Start with the New Testament to see God's grace and then the Old Testament to see why we need God's Grace

The we the people bible

>>21616652
from what I understand it he was quite devout.
I also just don't think it makes any sense given how Christianity was the justification for monarchy in Europe for over a thousand years and democracy only comes about when Christianity is on the decline.
is this something Vico himself said or is this your theory?

>>21614930
>>Plato
>will do
stupid faggot

>>21614502
>>21614935
Yeah, if you want anything about Jesus to make sense as to what him and paulie was talking about, then you need to understand what Judaism was all about.

I'd think 'der bible' was fucking obvious and didn't even need to be said, but the Torah (or whatever: Tanak) should be read, since it is the prequel.

Jesus is pretty simple in fact, when you understand what and how the Jews he came to save were brainwashed into thinking and believing; like: don't mutilate your sons genitals to gain favor with a fictional man-made deity.

"jesus isn't real, jesus is fucking exist, you fucking once,"
civites britannorum

"jesus isn't real, jesus doesn't fucking exist, you fucking nonce,"
civites britannorum

>>21615979
Ghosts are a very real thing. Souls that can't let go of this world for some reason. Here is an explanation.
The problem with your thinking is the distinction you make between metaphorical and literal.
This is just you deciding it is contradictory, instead of postulating it's you who ignores something.

>>21617558
>The problem with your thinking is the distinction you make between metaphorical and literal.
>This is just you deciding it is contradictory, instead of postulating it's you who ignores something.
That is completely stupid, and a lolcow sentiment,
> the distinction you make between metaphorical and literal
>This is just you deciding it is contradictory

contrarily, i mean:objectively,
> it's you who ignores something
i.e. it's you who actually is ignoring the vital distinction between a thing and a story which may feature the thing,

like: a brick, vs. a childs story where a brick wears a little hat and has legs and walks around.

>>21614502
Before anything else, read the four Gospels, then go to your closest Catholic or Orthodox church and attend liturgy/mass a couple times. After that, direct your questions to the priest.

Before anything else, read the L. Ron Hubbard, then go to your closest Scientology church and attend liturgy/mass a couple times. After that, direct your questions to the priest.

>>21617681
>attend liturgy/mass a couple times. After that, direct your questions to the priest.
Bloody hell, anon, I did this and I ended up with his finger in me bum. In Ireland, no less.

>>21614502
Mere Christianity

>>21615695
>I was wanting to brainwashed as a fundamentalist Christian myself.
>I was taught an incorrect form of Christianity and as such all forms are wrong.
You were right to disregard your heretic whatever you call it and should now seek the truth in Catholicism.

>>21617758
>Bloody hell, anon, I did this and I ended up with his finger in me bum.
Look up the likelihood that a stepfather will molest their step children and then go back to pretending that this post is coherent.

>>21616666
Which book? I'll check it out.

The gospels and the sermons/commentary of Charles sturgeon would go a long way, enough to save your soul!

>>21617880
>coherent.
that's quite revealing that you reformed jews for jesus always purposefully state that something which "refutes and shames (you)" is not coherent. Sounds like an autistic mental block or plain old schizophrenia, if you were telling the truth.

>>21617460
Vico makes a distinction between monarchy and aristocracy, and says that monarchy and democracy have more in common, are stages of each other.
whereas aristocracy is more about elitism.
(no clue if he's right in this assessment)

but my main reason for suggesting him is for the purpose of explaining the opposition of aristocrats to the common people. Because this is what Christ grew up in. We can know this by reading Josephus, who also points out that the Hebrews, immediately upon leaving Egypt as "slaves" had an aristocratic form of gov't (although i don't buy the Egyptian story at all, or the self-proclaimed jewish history, it's been edited at a much later date. But we can still find clues that they had the same culture as everyone else in the area, aristocratic, blood sacrifice worship, essentially Jupiter worship, like everyone else. Hence why it's known as the Age of Jupiter)

>democracy only comes about when Christianity is on the decline
this i disagree with. Christianity is what taught the common people to think of themselves as individuals and as being worth something. Before that they were treated as scum, slaves.

Also, the Germanic monarchies i'd hardly call christ-like in the true sense, though maybe they made pretenses at it. Converting to a religion for political purposes (for the goal of consolidating support among the lower classes) doesn't mean they actually are Christian or christ-like.

Which is partly why i also recommended Algernon Herbert, who talks about the Germanic tribes and their culture, and how it was aristocratic (i.e. warrior-priest elite), and thus antithetical to the original Christianity (which absolutely was not warrior-priest elite, but rather a religion of the common people, i.e. Dionysian and Saturnian)

>>21617957
>>21617876
you guys make me want to upload my last lunchtime notes about how evil the street preachers are.

>>21617880
dont have a stepfather m8

>>21617971
>Before that they were treated as scum, slaves.
They were free farmes in the Germanic religion... no idea if you think in general or just in the desert.

>>21618028
there were free farms in Roman Republic and Empire too. And slaves too. Though i get what you're saying (or think i do at any rate). The Germanics were something of a return to an earlier form of aristocracy, but when they conquered Europe (well, i should say, conquered the Roman Empire) they behaved exactly as one would expect of a military aristocracy to behave, they created a caste system, with the conquering warriors as the rulers and everyone else as the peasant underclass. (trying to recall who i read that talked about this... Houston Stewart Chamberlain in his "Foundations of the 19th Century". Either him or Yockey in his "Imperium" talks about this.)

Mustache guy

>>21617971
Vico makes a distinction between monarchy and aristocracy, and says that monarchy and democracy have more in common, are stages of each other.
that's weird. idk why he would think they're more similar than aristocracy and democracy
>Christianity is what taught the common people to think of themselves as individuals and as being worth something.
it just isn't though. Christian society was strictly hierarchical

>>21617971
>Vico makes a distinction between monarchy and aristocracy, and says that monarchy and democracy have more in common, are stages of each other.
that's weird. idk why he would think they're more similar than aristocracy and democracy
>Christianity is what taught the common people to think of themselves as individuals and as being worth something.
it just isn't though. Christian society was strictly hierarchical

>>21617971
>Vico makes a distinction between monarchy and aristocracy, and says that monarchy and democracy have more in common, are stages of each other.
that's weird. idk why he would think they're more similar than aristocracy and democracy
>Christianity is what taught the common people to think of themselves as individuals and as being worth something.
it just isn't though. Christian society was strictly hierarchical

>>21618050
Basically the early Germanic aristocracy (and Alpine Slavic) had democratic elements with free farmers having to give legitimacy to the installed Duke.

The stricter case system came with divine law where God gives a divine contract to the ruler with the affirmation of the Pope. And the people who came up with feudalism were Christian as well.

So saying Christianity democratized things does not seem to be correct.

>>21618346
>that's weird. idk why...
i think it's because of how monarchs (or at least some of them) have a tendency to struggle against the aristocracy, in an attempt to level their power into that of the common people. To take them down a notch, so to speak.
This translates into the monarch upholding the rights of the common people (at the expense of the aristocrats).
So the Roman Republic (which is an example he often talks about) is an aristocracy that hated monarchy, they famously killed a Roman king (Livy talks about this) and threw him off a cliff. Vico says this was the case because the aristocracy didn't want to share power with the common people, and the king did (at the expense of the aristocracy).
Democracy is similar to monarchy in the sense that the common people have more privileges (at the expense of the aristocracy), the difference though is that monarchy is hereditary and democracy people are voted in. But both are far more favorable to the common people (per Vico)

>>21618346
>Christian society was strictly hierarchical
depends what time period you're talking about.
In the years immediately following the death of Christ, it was pure equality.
It was only centuries later that the hierarchical structure started, and that was because the elites wanted more control of the populace (the common people) and so "converted".

Their conversion was clearly fake. Pharisee Christianity.

>>21618369
Germanic culture, when looked in the homogeneous culture, seems "democratic", but as soon as they conquer a foreign people (like Germanic/Aryan tribes did when they conquered Dravidian India, or when they conquered parts of the Roman Empire, for example) they didn't extend the same "freedoms" and rights to these conquered people. They instituted caste systems, which is anti-democratic.

>>21618355
see my response here >>21618373

>>21618373
oh well that's a good thing. Caesar was a populist as well

>>21615584
But didn't that actually happen with the Pentecost? The Christ came after the Resurrection staying with His students for around fifty days, on the last day blessed them with the Holy Spirit, through holy fire, giving them the ability to understand and speak all languages and ordering them to become His Apostles and go preach around the world. After that he literally ascended to His Kingdom in Heaven in preparation for Judgement Day. So... All His contemporaries did in actuality see what was promised.

>>21618385
>Pharisee Christianity.
is there anything in the Bible that says you need to have democracy?

>>21618403
yes, and was killed by the aristocratic Senate for his support of the common people. Thus confirming what Vico (and I) have been saying, that aristocracies are anti-democratic, and that Christianity is democratic, hence why the aristocratic Pharisee Jews worked with the Romans to kill Jesus and oppress the early Christians-- who were largely slaves, women, peasants; people who had no political power.

>>21618453
the Bible is a collection of non-organic stories spanning over thousands of years, and heavily edited by the aristocratic elite.
So to answer you: "No." Though if your goal is to be more like Christ, then the answer is "Yes."
But the Old Testament is full of aristocratic sympathies, the New Testament far less so, but i still see people (modern day and historically) try to twist Christ's teachings into a war cry to start a new Crusade (which is the complete opposite of what Christ taught or BEHAVED).

Aristocrats/Evolians are psychopaths and will always try to justify behavior that benefits them.
>white people are superior to non-whites
>warriors are superior to non-warriors
>rich are superior to poor
>men are superior to women
on and on.
Christ said EVERYONE IS EQUAL. "There is no man, no woman, no rich nor poor, we are all One in Christ" (i'm paraphrasing the NT quote)

>>21618396
The Steppe niggers that conquered the Poos were only tangentially related to the Germanic and Slavic peoples.

>>21618478
I'm not an expert on Christianity that's why I made this thread but I thought Jesus didn't concern himself with affairs of state.
"render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's"

>>21618528
that's false. If you look at their myths/religion it's obvious they had the same culture. Even their language can be traced back to each other.

>>21618539
They already mixed with Turkish tribes and other shit before they got to the Poos.
Also Germanics mixed with native Scandinavians, Germanic has like a third words originating from pre IE peoples (y-dna I2 and I*).

England was a de-facto caste system with it's rigid class structure which came there when the Roman derived French subdued the local Celto-Germanics.

>>21618538
Jesus didn't, but the Church sure did, who claims apostolic succession which Jesus laid out.

>>21618556
but the church is hierarchical too?

Psychopath fallacies and manipulation.pdf

>>21618590
Yeah that was my point. Also that chart is somewhat wrong, the bishops, archbishops and cardinals have the same technical rank, the latter two just extra responsibilities/tasks.

>>21618547
>they already mixed
Germanics is just the western branch, one of them. Which is why i think i also specified "Aryan" which includes more.
The point is that they're all related to each other, proof is in the culture and myths. (if you haven't studied comparative mythology there's no point in responding to me, because anyone who has studied it will know already what i'm talking about)

>Turkic
aren't they a latecomer to the scene? Pretty sure they are, whereas what i'm talking about is before writing was even invented into when writing was invented.
but even then, turkic peoples still bear a marked resemblance culturally to the earlier Aryan peoples, so most likely they're related still.

>>21618556
>Jesus didn't but the Church sure did
sounds very similar to the Nerevarine story and the origin of the Tribunal.
>kill off the actual leader/prophet
>elevate your own ideas and self to ultimate power/godhood
>hide any trace of Nerevar's/Jesus's actual teachings

>>21616942
This is all just cope honestly, show a verse proving your claims about Jesus if you want me to take them seriously. You've been trained to see him a certain way so that even when the truth is in front of your eyes you refuse to accept it.
You're also misusing "context", the context is the surrounding text that grounds a verse, its not your personal interpretation.
You do what many Christians do when confronted with a verse that goes against their dogmatic viewpoint which is to bend over backwards interpreting the verse away so that it might as well not exist.
The fact of the matter is we have a logical train here:
>Jesus says "but the truth of the kingdom comes to them in parables"
>so that (this literally means "and I'm about to tell you why"
>they will not understand
I also notice that you failed to explain WHY he used parables then, if this verse isn't true, since in this verse he explains precisely why he uses parables. You ignored the question, again showing you have an extremely poor case.
I find dogmatists like you really irritating because you obscure the truth for emotional reasons. It doesn't matter if you don't understand why Jesus taught this way and if it makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem. The teaching is the teaching.

>>21618847
>show a verse proving your claims about Jesus
You first. Jesus doesn't say that he intentionally obfuscates his teachings so that only certain people will be able to understand them. It's not in the text.
>You've been trained to see him a certain way
No, I wasn't raised in any religion and I'm not a member of any church.
>so that even when the truth is in front of your eyes you refuse to accept it.
Dramatic much? You sound like you should be yelling this on a street corner.
>You're also misusing "context"
No I'm not. I pointed out you ignored it and gave the context of the verse. I even gave context from another part of the Bible that directly contradicts what you're trying to argue.
>the context is the surrounding text that grounds a verse
Correct. That's why I refereced it when you failed to do so.
>its not your personal interpretation
You cherry-picked a verse and have resorted to repeating "YOU'RE JUST WRONG" while projecting a bunch of nonsense about my own biases. I gave clear reference to evidence of your own bias in my previous post (i.e. conflating an analysis of Jesus's teaching style with what those teachings actually say--that sleight of hand is what carries the weight of your argument in lieu of an actual point). You failed to answer to this and didn't even acknowledge it.
>The fact of the matter is we have a logical train here:
Notice you're ignoring your own advice about context grounding a verse? Develop some self-awareness. I've already explained that verse to you within context.
>I also notice that you failed to explain WHY he used parables then
Because it's within the style of the type of teaching you yourself referenced. However, you're confusing this fact with your personally favored interpretation of scripture. It doesn't prove that Jesus intentionally obfuscated his teachings in order to restrict them to certain people. As I said before: "The context of the passage you gave is Jesus speaking to his disciples about the character of their understanding of his teachings versus how those teachings appear to those who do not seek true understanding of them. It describes the fact that the specific sermon he gave will take root in some people but not in others (parable of the sower). He doesn't say that these people will always be incapable of understanding him but rather that they can't come upon his knowledge from a flawed direction."
>It doesn't matter if you don't understand why Jesus taught this way and if it makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem.
There's plenty in the Bible that I find confusing and that makes me uncomfortable. The difference between you and I is that I don't pretend to have a personal key that elevates me above strangers when it comes to the teachings contained within it.
>The teaching is the teaching.
You accuse others of being dogmatic and then end a post like that? Like I said: develop some self-awareness. You need to reflect.

>>21614502
The Unseen Realm, by micheal heiser.

Seriously, it explains the supernatural meta-narrative of the bible, which makes you understand the "weird" passages. It sheds an entirely new, but ironically old, light on it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2jx1ZtZlcCk

>>21619342
>You first.
I already have, but I get it you're playing dumb. Let's look at the verse again, line by line.
>To you it has been given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of the God
A clear reference to sacred knowledge. Hopefully doesn't require further explaining.
>"but to those who are outside, all things come in parables".
Again, literally what it means, requires no interpretation just the naked words of the text. To those who outside (meaning, not the spiritually qualified), all things come in parables. At this point, I'm wondering why.
>so that
Okay, this signifies that Jesus is about to explain the reason why he teaches in parables. Let's see what it is.
>"Seeing that may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand, lest they should turn and their sins be forgiven them."
Okay so that's the reason, so that people will encounter the teaching and yet not understand it. It sure is good he decided to explain this precisely for us, so we don't have to wonder why he taught in parables.
Will attach another post responding to some of what you say to point out your errors, but a lot of it is just empty rhetoric not worth responding to.

>>21614502
any catholic study bible+catechism

>>21619342
>Jesus doesn't say that he intentionally obfuscates his teachings so that only certain people will be able to understand them.
He literally says exactly this, as per the verses I've posted twice now and explained.
>No I'm not.
Yes, you are. Again, "context" does not mean "interpretation". Context is additional information used to ground the passage that is being analyzed, it is not interpretation on that passage. In this case, the immediate context would be the surrounding verses of Mark, not an explanation on what the verses mean.
>You cherry-picked a verse and have resorted to repeating
Misuse of "cherry picking", I'm pointing out that Jesus explicitly gives the reason why he teaches in parables. If you don't like it, again that's your problem.
Also, even if I was "cherry picking" that's much better than not giving any textual evidence at all, like yourself.
> I've already explained that verse to you within context.
Totally incorrect and irrational explanation.
>Because it's within the style of the type of teaching you yourself referenced.
No, that's not the reason. In these two verses, Jesus gives the reason why he teaches in parables himself.
>There's plenty in the Bible that I find confusing and that makes me uncomfortable.
That much is obvious, lol.
>The difference between you and I is that I don't pretend to have a personal key that elevates me above strangers
Strawman. Never once did I claim this. Your fear of people thinking they're better than you says a lot about your own insecurities though.
>You accuse others of being dogmatic and then end a post like that? Like I said: develop some self-awareness. You need to reflect.
So the teaching isn't the teaching...? I think you're the one who needs to reflect on your extreme, fearful reactions to the simple truth and your insecurities.
Makes sense you've never been to a church though and aren't even a Christian since your readings are really terrible. Any serious Christian would do a lot better than this even if they didn't agree with me.

>>21619441

Not the original guy you are arguing with, but just so you know;
>so that
Is not Jesus saying "I am about to explain why I teach in parables". The "so that" is "so that the prophecy may be fulfilled that..."
So the actual meaning of the sentence is "some people will understand and some won't, this was already foretold in Isiah (or, this proves that Isiah's prophecy was true)".

Further undermining your point is that the disciples themselves don't understand the parable, that's why he's explaining it to them. Unless you think he is telling the disciples that they won't be forgiven?

>>21619582
>Is not Jesus saying "I am about to explain why I teach in parables". The "so that" is "so that the prophecy may be fulfilled that..."
Yes that's true, but its both at once. I don't see why you seem to think that because it fulfills a Prophetic call, therefore Jesus isn't doing it for a reason. How does that make any sense?
>Further undermining your point is that the disciples themselves don't understand the parable, that's why he's explaining it to them.
Again, surprised you seem to think this is undermining my point when it only adds to it. Jesus explains the parable to the disciples, not to the whole crowd of onlookers. This is again, exactly what I'm saying.
You present both of these are counters when really I think they only add to my point? Jesus clearly taught in a selective way and picked the disciples out to say things openly to, whereas everyone else he taught in parables. He did this so that the Prophetic call of Isaiah would be answered, yes, but that Prophetic call is not arbitrary, it is exactly what I've been saying - so that people would hear and yet not understand.
This is, more to the point, what gives the disciples their elevated status in the church.

>>21619441
>I already have
You haven't.
>Let's look at the verse again, line by line.
Writing this as I go but my guess is you'll once again ignore the context of it.
>He literally says exactly this, as per the verses I've posted twice now and explained.
Yep, that's what you did. Again, he isn't saying he intentionally obfuscates his teachings; I've explained that to you above and you're incapable of directly addressing it.
>Yes, you are. Again, "context" does not mean "interpretation".
Never said it did. What I did point out is that you're picking out a single verse while ignoring the context surrounding it (which refutes what you're arguing). Multiple posts now and you haven't given a conflicting context to what I have said. You're problem is that, and it's telling you repeatedly project this toward those with which you've been arguing, you have a preset conclusion about something and isolate information that seems to confirm it. However, when a wider context is brought up you retreat from it and act as if the point you were making is an affirmed tautology that thereby allows you to monopolize the perameters by which things should be interpreted and dismissed. By this it's impossible to prove you wrong, in your own head at least, because you simply ignore what's inconvenient and assert your conclusion as if it's a fact. You're an ideologue.
>Misuse of "cherry picking"
No, that's exactly what you're doing. You've had multiple chances now to give context to the verse and have been unable to do so. I've given the reason why above (ideologue). You also failed to directly address the information I've given relating to such and just reassert you're correct and I am wrong. It's pathetic.
>not giving any textual evidence
I'm addressing the failure of your argument. I never made an assertion that I'm special and one of the select few who accurately interprets Jesus's teachings. That's your ball (while you project dogmatism and preconceived biases on behalf of others, no less).
>Totally incorrect and irrational explanation.
Yet you can't directly address it as I've done with your interpretation. Interesting.
>No, that's not the reason.
You keep repeating that like a mantra instead of actually refuting what I've written. If you're argument is "YOU'RE JUST WRONG" there's not much to discuss.
>That much is obvious
Wait for it...
>Strawman. Never once did I claim this.
Kek, see the thing you wrote right before that. Your lack of self-awareness is astounding.
>So the teaching isn't the teaching...?
The irony I pointed out there is that you repeatedly sperged about others being dogmatic in their approach towards scripture and you take it upon yourself to make a proclaimation like that, in relation to your own interpretation, with such a line.
>Makes sense you've never been to a church
I never said I've never been to a church. I said I wasn't raised as a member of any church and that I am not a member of any church now.

One more thing:

>>21619473
>Your fear of people thinking they're better than you says a lot about your own insecurities though.
Everything in your responses indicates a personal pride, the bad kind, and the need to diminish others based upon your self-perceived superiority. You project an awful lot, anon. Work on yourself.

>>21619691
>>21619702
None of this is even worth responding to, to be quite honest. Gave it a skim and its just egotistic reactions.
I return you to this if you're interested in understanding:
>>21619441

>>21614626
Why those "miracles" could only be found in archaic times with widespread misery and mysticism? Why can't we see more miracles in our current time?

I hate the idea of atheism, I wish I wasn't a skeptic. Please, explain these points

>>21619859
you are confusing "an interesting question" with an argument. no offense
its not like we're entitled to constant miracles and signs. God gave us Christ, documented Him for us heavily, and that should be enough. We have better evidence for Christ and his works than we do for Alexander or Napoleon

>>21619869
Not him, but I'd like to interject a little. Origen even documented, in the 3rd century I believe, that even by that time the miracles have been subsiding. They were getting less and less frequent coming from Christians. Perhaps it was the initial way God spread the faith, but when he saw a satisfactory launch, he pulled back on people being able to rely on miracles so much, and had to more rely on faith. After all, it's the angels that have the convenience of being right in front of God. And humans are to judge them one day. Our trial is greater.

>>21619859
>Why can't we see more miracles in our current time?
You're not looking hard enough, weird inexplicable shit is literally happening every day

>>21619717
>I've been called out and can't respond...
>but it's important for the stranger to know I still think I'm right...
>so one last projection for the road
Work on yourself.

>>21619969
I responded to everything, it isn't my fault that you're not a rational person. I can hardly keep repeating myself, its a waste of time. So I return you to the post where I explained the verse for your own benefit.

>>21617660
>That is completely stupid, and a lolcow sentiment,
It isn't. It's the reason why humility is so important in order to get closer to god.
>contrarily, i mean:objectively,
I don't understand this sentence and what you meant by it, but I think the notion of objective/subjective is useless. It's flawed, but then again our language is.
Language is a flawed system, and when we speak or write we accept it, only to try to stir away from it as much as possible. The same as our sinful nature, which we can't escape.
This is something to take into account when reading god's words.

>>21620026
>I responded to everything
>None of this is even worth responding to (>>21619717)
Just when I think you can't become less self-aware you go ahead and suprise me.
>I can hardly keep repeating myself
The point is that such is all you can do. What you can't do is directly address arguments that contradict your thesis and you're unable to acknowledge a context wherein you don't have an automatic monopoly that serves your bias. You merely assert that there are grounds for dismissal and repeat yourself instead of providing counterevidence or even furthering your point. The reason you don't realize this is disingenuous is because you're an ideologue (this is the same reason it's easy to point out you lack self-awareness and keep exemplfying your projections of others).
>for your own benefit
No, anon. The above has been a display of your own personal pride and it was entirely for your own benefit. Seeing as you project a lot about other people feeling inferior about their intelligence, and their need to affirm such, I'll toss you a bone: you mostly buried yourself.

>>21620166
I return you to
>>21619717

>>21620181
I accept your concession. Now work on yourself.

>>21620197
A free tip for insults, statements like that mean nothing when I don't respect the person who makes them.

>>21618396
are you really confusing german and aryan in the conquest of india? germans are probably less related to the people who conquered india than the romans

>>21620216
We still have the notion that the Indo-Aryans were "Germanic" due to the racial doctrines of the 19th and early 20th centuries despite the fact that they were long ago disproved.

>>21620219
I realize this. What is the point in confusing the two?

>>21620226
Probably to stroke the ego, I guess, and build a myth of Germanic supremacy.

>>21620229
>>21620219
bro if you didn't write the post why are you responding to me?

>>21620232
My bad lol, it was just a side comment that was designed first to agree with you and then also attempt to explain why this weird error (of thinking the Indo-Aryans were Germanic) arises in others.

>>21620210
So I guess it's a good thing for you that your respect is misplaced. ;)

>>21620243
The winky face lol, damn you are seething

>>21620219
>>21620216
>entirely different people
gonna have to agree to disagree i guess. The similarities in language, myth and culture are too hard to ignore.
Germanic people and Vedic Aryans are cousins. Same with a lot of groups. Algernon Herbert talks about this in his "Nimrod". The same racial/cultural group that we now confuse as being completely separate cultures.

>to stroke the ego and build a myth of germanic supremacy
if you paid attention to what i've been writing you'd see i wasn't doing that. I've been criticizing their warrior cult(ure) this entire time.
But it most definitely is one single culture that it all stemmed from, that then split (Destruction of Babel) and spread to the winds. The language and mythos are all too similar for it to be random.

>>21620257
Same cultural group, but no not racial. The Indo-Aryans were most similar to the native Iranians (while remaining a distinct group) and passed on their culture and language to Iran, India, and Europe. This is borne out in genetic studies today.

>>21620257
no one said they are entirely different people, but your point is that "germanic/aryan" people created caste systems in dravidian india and rome. Romans are indo-european as well, why didn't romans create caste systems in germanic territories?

>>21617542
>jesus isn't real

And Anon said.
"There is a mountain.
To the left of the mountain, there is a young believer. He dreams of climbing the mountain, to be closer to God in Heaven.
At the top of the mountain, there is an Atheist.
From where the Atheist stands, he can see all of the kingdoms of the earth, and he is tempted by Satan.
To the right of the mountain, there is a Christian. He walks with God, and can move mountains with faith."

Some in the crowd did not understand. They said to themselves.
"Where is this mountain? How can anyone see the whole earth from one location? Is Anon saying that the earth is flat?"

So Anon said to them,
"The man standing on the mountain, is a midwit." After this, many on the right understood, but those on the left were still faggots, and they where thrown into the fire.

how do i give myself amnesia

>>21620291
Use social media all day, refresh internet pages, watch videos of shit you don't really care about because they're "there," masturbate, eat junk food, go to work, struggle to maintain a slowly dying social life with other people who only do all of the above, sink into sleepwalking state in which no new memories are formed and false memories are implanted via media so that you are not even a person anymore

>>21620270
>native Iranians
They were closest to Yaghnobis and caused more problems than good.
The Babylonians were the good guys, slaughtering the Jews, and Cyrus the Moron (Kourosh) intervened and freed them.
Actual Iranians descend more from Kassites and have nothing to do with trashy Jew-loving Aryan trash.

>>21617744
L Ron Hubbard is one man.
And an obvious cult leader who created a sci-fi egregore in to create a slave empire in international waters.

To compare Scientology to the Abrahamic religions, is utterly childish.

The Torah, and the Bible, has evolved over the course of thousands of years, and is the product of constant meditation and work by countless scribes and scholars. Your analogy is not even remotely close to being accurate on any level.

>>21620246
>more projection
Our discussion proved you'll believe what you want regardless of evidence. If the idea of my anger makes you feel less insecure so be it. But work on yourself, anon. ;) ;) ;)

>>21620270
>same cultural group
>but not racial
if they have the SAME culture, the same language, then the likelihood that they're racially similar are high as well.
There are more things in common with humans (even of "different races") than between humans and dogs, or humans and trees, etc.
The Germanic Migration people were culturally and genetically related to the people that took over India. I don't care if they were separated by thousands of miles or thousands of years, at some point in the past they shared common ancestors.
Even the fact that people in India have white bone structures, and people in Iran basically look very white with just slightly more olive skin, is proof of what i'm saying. (That there is more in common with Iranians and Germans and the white-bone structure Indians, that all these people share ancestors).

>Germanic/Aryan people created caste systems
>why didn't Romans create caste systems
they did, read Vico's "New Science". They had a caste system like all the other Aryan tribes, they eventually had to give ground to the rising power of the lower class (just like what happened in many other places).
>rome didn't create a caste system in German territories
uh, they literally enslaved people they conquered. I feel like i'm arguing with a bot or a 6th grader that hasn't studied ancient history AT ALL.

>>21620304
Actual Iranians are a distinct people group (and really are several inter-related people groups, the genetic diversity is Iran is much greater than in the entirety of Europe) but the Indo-Aryans are most similar to Iranian groups than European or Indian, although they mixed into all three.
>f they have the SAME culture, the same language, then the likelihood that they're racially similar are high as well.
I mean there's an obvious flaw in this logic, which is that then we'd have to assert that the Indo-Aryans are probably very similar to every single people group they influenced. But this would mean the proto-Europeans, the Indians, and the Iranians, and many other secondary groups besides. They can't be the same level of similar to all these groups at once, because there are substantial differences between each group.
>(That there is more in common with Iranians and Germans and the white-bone structure Indians, that all these people share ancestors)
Yeah, this is true. But what I'm saying is the Indo-Aryans are most similar to an Iranian group, amongst those three groups, although they remain a separate group from the Iranians also, just more closely related.
The Indo-Aryans were after "cultural" dominance by all appearances, not racial erasure.

>>21620312
Not even sure what to say to this other than that I'm enjoying the cringe-kino of these "I'm seething and must get the last word" posts, keep going

>>21620331
Sorry, also meant to quote
>>21620315
in this post, I'll copy and paste the part that was a response to you for your convenience:
>f they have the SAME culture, the same language, then the likelihood that they're racially similar are high as well.
I mean there's an obvious flaw in this logic, which is that then we'd have to assert that the Indo-Aryans are probably very similar to every single people group they influenced. But this would mean the proto-Europeans, the Indians, and the Iranians, and many other secondary groups besides. They can't be the same level of similar to all these groups at once, because there are substantial differences between each group.
>(That there is more in common with Iranians and Germans and the white-bone structure Indians, that all these people share ancestors)
Yeah, this is true. But what I'm saying is the Indo-Aryans are most similar to an Iranian group, amongst those three groups, although they remain a separate group from the Iranians also, just more closely related.
The Indo-Aryans were after "cultural" dominance by all appearances, not racial erasure.

>>21620343
>Not even sure what to say
So nothing new then.
>I'm enjoying the cringe-kino of these
Thank you for letting me know, anon. It's very important.
>must get the last word
This is your slide so go ahead and take it, anon. You're too easy to dunk on and it's getting boring.

>>21620331
>substantial differences between each group
i repeat, there is MORE IN COMMON with humans than not.
Trying to say that slight changes in skin color, eye color, hair color, is grounds for claiming there's "absolutely nothing in common racially" between these seemingly disparate groups is missing the point completely.
We already know they share commonalities in language, myth, culture (and even facial bone structure a lot of times), it's silly and rather stubborn to keep denying the obvious evidence and insisting there is no connection.
>Cultural dominance, not racial erasure
yes, that was part of their caste system that i keep mentioning. They wanted slaves, an underclass. But it's pretty much guaranteed that if a place has this same culture, then at one time the actual race lived there, and interbred with the locals (even though they weren't supposed to, per their own racial laws about purity--- the same racial laws that the Hebrews practiced and promoted in the OT... yes, that's right, Hebrews are part of this Aryan warrior-cult too, most of the kingdoms and empires of the past were descended from this warrior-priest cult that took over the ancient world).

>>21620376
Holy shit this is hilarious

>>21620315
>>21620331
Sintashta invaders into Central Asia were indeed closest to NW Euros, but they left the most genetic impact to Central Asians like Yaghnobis (closest to Sogdians and what original Persians resembled). Yaghnobis have ~40% Sintashta admixture. Iranians thankfully have negligible Sintashta admixture.
These Persians caused massive damage when migrating to the West, near the Zagros range. They freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity. It seems like Aryan admixture (which peaks in NW Euros) correlates with philosemite tendencies.
Iranians have nothing to do with you Jew-loving Aryan trash. Look into the Tajiks and Yaghnobis if you're so interested in the Sintashta (closest to NW Euros), who have more admixture from them.
Newer research from Dinkha Tepe BIA B shows Iranians descend more from Kassites and other Zagrosians like Hurrians.
Persians were invaders no different than Arabs and Turks. In fact, I would say the Persians were the worst since they freed the Jews and became the first golem in history. Much like the nobility mixing with Jews in Europe, the same thing happened with the Persians earlier than the rest. It's no wonder they created one of the first banking systems!
That's all Aryans are good at: becoming golem for the Jews.
Literally the only good thing to come from Aryan cultural legacy is Buddhism. That's it. Everything else is trash.

If it were up to me, I would destroy both Iran's Pre-Islamic and Post-Islamic heritage sites and send the rest of the Jewish minority's heads to Israel. Not interested in your trash Aryan brotherhood. Stick to Arabs as your allies.

>>21620384
>Trying to say that slight changes in skin color, eye color, hair color, is grounds for claiming there's "absolutely nothing in common racially" between these seemingly disparate groups is missing the point completely.
Absolutely not trying to say this, I agree.
>We already know they share commonalities in language, myth, culture (and even facial bone structure a lot of times), it's silly and rather stubborn to keep denying the obvious evidence and insisting there is no connection.
>Cultural dominance, not racial erasure
Again, not at all saying there is no connection. Please go back and reread my post. What I'm saying is there is a group the Indo-Aryans were closest to among all the connected groups.
>yes, that was part of their caste system that i keep mentioning. They wanted slaves, an underclass.
This was only ever instantiated in India, and has more to do with how the Indo-Aryan tradition adapted to India than it does with concerns about race.
>the same racial laws that the Hebrews practiced and promoted in the OT... yes, that's right, Hebrews are part of this Aryan warrior-cult too
No Semite =/= Aryan

>>21620388
>that's all Aryans are good at: becoming golem for the Jews
The Hebrews of the OT and the Aryans have the same culture. They both worship a warrior god, they both sacrificed animals (and humans) to this god. They both have aristocratic style gov't. They both believe in enforcing "racial purity".

Either the races forgot they share a common ancestry (possible) or it's a very well kept secret.

I'm also not advocating for any of these groups, i'm simply observing and relating that they are in fact the same culture, in essence. This doesn't mean they don't fight with each other, or that they're united. But they still share the same mythos, culture, and often physiological features.

>>21614502
The Summae will give you the generally accepted interpretation of the Bible throughout history

>>21615820
>>21615799
nice

>>21620418
>The Hebrews of the OT and the Aryans have the same culture.
You sound like a Mason.
I want nothing to do with philosemite trash like you.
You're free to suck Shlomo's cock all you want, since it's in your genes, but you won't pull me into it. I want nothing more to do with Saturnalian Messianic or Abrahamic garbage. Linear accounts of history based on "progress" don't interest me.
>they are in fact the same culture, in essence
No.
Also, if it will get you off our backs, then just consider us shitskins. I'd rather be considered a admixed shitskin than pulled into your grand Messianic garbage.
>But they still share the same mythos, culture, and often physiological features
No, Iranians are shitskins. Not interested in your philosemite club or "brotherhood".

>>21620414
>this was only ever instantiated in India
that's flat out wrong. Vico writes how Rome, in their beginning, had a caste system. How the elites were not allowed to consort with non-elites. Regardless of skin color, there were still class differences, and the elite didn't associate with the non-elite (a trait that still is largely intact).
This went on everywhere that this culture had conquered, not just India.
>semite doesn't equal Aryan
absolutely it is. It's all part of what the OT talks about in Genesis, the offspring of Noah. Shem (Shemite, Semite) is related to Japheth and Ham. You're using their own terminology and then denying they racial affinity.
Even just looking at them you can see there are similarities.
>oh no they have bigger noses!
there's more in common than there are differences. This is 4chan, so i get why people are under the impression that "Jews are totally different" but that's just not true.
Greeks were Phoenician, and Jews were Phoenician. Ergo, Jews were Greeks, which perfectly matches up with how Greek and Jewish culture syncretized so much in ancient times, and why the Spartans wrote to Israel (this story is spoken of in Josephus' histories) claiming relation to them racially. It's why the Jewish religious rites WERE THE EXACT SAME as the religious rites of all the neighboring peoples, Greek, Babylonian, Syrian, Phoenician, etc. It's all the same culture.

>>21620433
>just consider us shitskins
lol, wow, you have REALLY internalized all the racial animosity and purity spirals that the Jupiter cultists preach.
and you still seem to be unable to grasp that i'm not in favor of these warrior-cult(ures).

So do you actually think Iranians entered some portal into the world and are a completely different species from other races, who are native to this planet? I'm curious why you're so insistent on denying the racial affinity of the human race (or at least of the whites, olive skinned, and white-bone-structure-but-brown-skinned). It's obvious they're all related racially, and definitely culturally. It's all Fire cult worship. Zoroastrianism. Magian cult. Nimrodism. Jupiterism. Ham-ism.

>>21620450
Yeah, I meant a racial caste system bro. Of course I'm not talking about just a hierarchical system generally.
This is the second time you've misrepresented my view and I'm starting to wonder if it's intentional

>>21620480
What is Buddhism to you? Is it of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Mercury, or etc.? It's obviously not in the same class as Abrahamic or Zoroastrian nonsense, which I would deem as Saturnalian garbage.
Buddhism seems outside the matrix of your Messianic garbage, but even in my sangha, I have noticed there were many subversive Jews.

>>21620493
>bro
not your bro.
>this is the second time you've misrepresented my view
this is the third time you've misunderstood me.
>i meant a racial caste system
You're mistaking the caste system for a racial caste system. White people invaded a black country. It wasn't because they were black that they began their racial purity marriage laws, it was because they were enforcing a Fire cult culture on a population that was Dionysian. It had nothing to do with the skin color or "race". It just so happened to overlap that way. But in Rome they had the same issue, a Fire cult culture that imposed their will on a Dionysian people. Who happened to have the same skin color (or near enough). They still imposed the same marriage laws about not intermingling with them.

>>21620480
>>21620514
Also, obligatory image.
A cross is just an unfolded cube too. Abrahamism is all demonical Saturn worships.

>>21620539
Alright yeah talking to you was a waste of time.

>>21620480
>>21620514
>>21620541
Also here's the Cube of Zoroaster.
I want to destroy all Abrahamic and Mazdan holy sites and replace them with the Buddhadharma.

>>21620514
>Abrahamic and Zoroastrian is Saturnian nonsense
you mean Jupiter.
Dionysian is Saturnian.
Warrior cult is Jupiter.

According to the historian Algernon Herbert (who i get a lot of my ideas from, though not solely) Buddhism is gnostic, and gnostic is Jupiteran. Herbert brought up a ton of example of how "Boot" seems to be a common word in this Aryan (or whatever the original culture was that everyone else stems from) language, like Buda-Pest (Budapest), Buddha, and a ton of other examples i'd have to break out the book in order to recall. (which i can if you like though it will take a while, here's an example though from the online version of the book)

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Nimrod_a_discourse_upon_certain_passages/qdU5jua3ghQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Boot

But even from a commonplace understanding it makes sense that Buddhism is warrior-cult tier, since even per the stories the Buddha was part of the warrior caste.
The question is whether you take the stories of the Buddha to be literal, or invented. (and there are a HOST of farfetched stories about him, so be careful if you say "literal" because i've read some doozies that are just as ridiculous as some of the stories of other religions)

>>21620550
except that Zoroaster is Fire worship, and Saturn is not known as being a fire god, but an earth god (the same as Dionysus, the god of wine.)

Jupiter is Zoroastrian. Same with Buddhism. You attacking people for basically having the same belief system as you, just with names changed to give it a new coat of paint and the illusion of being totally different.

>>21620574
Buddhism was not a warrior-cult.
LARPing morons who rely on Evola are faggots. You're better off reading Aśvaghoṣa and the Pali canon to figure that out.
Transgressive Vajrayana is not reflective of the original Buddhism.

>>21620593
Philosophically, they are worlds apart.

>>21620574
more quotes from the "Nimrod" book by Algernon Herbert, talking about Buddha and how it relates to the warrior-cult.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Nimrod_a_discourse_upon_certain_passages/qdU5jua3ghQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Buddha

https://books.google.com/books?id=lwkpAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=Buddha&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=lwkpAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=snippet&q=Boot&f=false

>Its religion was celebrated to the west by the name of its god Booddha, whence it was called Boot. The Samanas, Sarmans, or Germanas (!), were the Scythizing and Buddhic sect in ancient India...
just as an example of what he talks about.

Sigh, I wish were born a Mongoloid like an aristocratic Chinese, away from Caucasoid Messianic schizophrenia.

>>21620612
philosophically, early Christianity is very different from the Christianity of 500AD, let alone 1600 AD.
And Buddhism is no different with its varying forms of Buddhism.
India is part of the uniculture that i've been talking about, it extended from western Europe to India, to northern China, into North Africa and Egypt. (and Algernon Herbert can trace all this through the myths and cultural practices of the various cultures).
i think Algernon Herbert was saying that Buddhism had an earlier origin than the "official" story as taught by the priests.

>>21614502
Goddard

>>21616450
I'll give all of these a go, thanks anon

>>21614502
lives of contemporary Orthodox Saints, the Synaxarion and the Gospel with Orthodox Fathers commentary. you're welcome.

>>21621589
Not the same anon but a great book is Wounded by Love by St Porphyrios who is a modern Saint. He recounts his life and experiences

>>21614626
The Muslims make the same arguments about companions

>>21614626
Saul was Sipo

>>21619859
Miracles still do happen today. There's very widespread attestation to the miracles performed by Sts Paisios or Porphyrios. Even a friend of mine told me that his father met St Paisios and immediately knew him by name and gave him details about his life that he otherwise had no way of knowing.

As for why so few miracles? I suspect that one of the reasons is, like the another anon said, that many miracles were needed for the initial groundswell of Christianity. Another reason is that our times are very spiritually barren and people are unworthy of such miracles especially given a lack of repentance and hardness of heart. Christ Himself said
>And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
I know from my prior atheism that if I had a miracle performed before my eyes then I still would have found a way to deny it.

>>21614502
Evola is ironically an unironically good source
Ride the Tiger and Revolt Against the Modern World (in that order, effectively going backwards from the modern perspective) will give you (given you're not a retard) the kernel of the theory of involution
The theory (metaphysical) of involution is the only way for a wise individual of any kind to understand Christianity, anything less and you might as well use the heretical precepts that Christianity and philosophy unintentionally lead to, namely scientism, nihilism, metaphysical evolutionism, egalitarianism and so forth

Christ as Dam Builder after the Deluge

>>21614502
It's a complex question and there are many strains of Christianity and ways you can get into it and how deep you wish to go. I'm a practicing Catholic and have been reading religious works across literature, philosophy, and theology for over a decade. I will recommend a more broad and basic stroke.
Obviously, the New Testament is a good read and should be interesting.
Jesus of Nazareth by Benedict XVI will help understand the NT itself.
Mere Christianity by CS Lewis is a good read as a general and popular work of apologetics.
The Brothers Karamazov is one of the best novels ever written and is highly religious in outlook.
Chesterton wrote a lot of insightful works and his Orthodoxy should be interesting as well.

I think this is a solid way to start, especially if you don't have prior knowledge.

>>21614502
>>21614506
That's about it. Maybe the Imitatio Christi as well. Maybe the Didache as well.

>>21614974
>>21615115
What the heck is Zeno's republic that doesn't exist

bump

>>21614502
The catechism of the catholic church

>>21614502
Bible, church fathers and desert fathers, more theology, apologetics.
starting with Augustine is decent.
try some Chesterton and some Luther.

Could anyone answer this query of mine;
Jesus is on record denying to help a woman who is a non-Jew. He only helps Jews so why do non-Jews accept JC when he would not accept them?
I’ve been looking into various religions because I feel the need for some kind of spirituality, my family aren’t religiously inclined, more agnostic, so I’m looking at Christianity in the most un-biased fashion I can and writing down the questions I have.

>>21622879
>He only helps Jews so why do non-Jews accept JC when he would not accept them?
Because he obviously would and has commanded us to spread the gospel to non jews.

>>21621177
You'll not regret, my man. The Catechism is a really good introduction.

>>21622879
>https://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanite-woman-dog.html
tl;dr traitorous translation, priorities, and a parable-like lesson (one of the most confusing too).
as for proof of that being so, John 10:16, where Christ is talking about non-Jews.

>>21614626
>why does paul convert from a persecutor to a proclaimer of this new faith
they will never address this

>>21622879
>denying to help a woman who is a non-Jew

In Mark 4 Jesus says that he teaches in parables because he does not want to be understood. His figurative teaching is a way that the gospel can rhetorically separate those who are spiritual (who understand the figurative meaning of the parable) from those who are earthly (stuck in the literal). To understand the parable requires that you move from the letter to the spirit.

When, in chapter 7, Jesus interacts with the Syro-Phoenician woman, his response to her is figurative... he metaphorically likens gentiles to dogs. She, being a spiritual person, intuits the figurative meaning and can answer within the metaphor. Demonstrating her faith, Jesus grants her her request.

Now did this happen historically? Does it matter? The author uses the literal/figurative distinction as a way of rhetorically demonstrating how faith operates in our lives.

>>21614502
Literally just read the book of Matthew. That's it. It's short, exciting, and gives you a fairly full picture of what Jesus stood for

>>21623362
Refute this

>>21614502
Orthodox books in ancient language. Do the rituals. Religion is not literature and information, is repeating rituals and behave according to their rules.

>>21623507
When they crucify Mr Beast and he resurrects after a few days, then call me, you ridiculous dipshit.

>>21623547
>Not believing in our saviour MrBeast
>Defending Jesus
>Being that cringe

>>21623362
Why not Mark?
Jesus has a slightly more pronounced "Clint Eastwood" element.

>>21623507
>Refute this
>MrBeast: fed 15,000 people
Doritos and Bugles aren't soul food.

>>21623507
>For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
How many souls has Mr Beast saved?

>>21619859
Miracles happen. Your personal miracles happen as well. You might see it as an outcome of chance or casualty, maybe even hard work, but they are miracles.
You just have to pay attention.

>>21621754
great book. i have that one, too

>>21614502
This should not be the first book or even the second book you should read, but Scholem Asch, The Nazarene provides a remarkably vivid immersion into the world and life of first century Jerusalem. It is a work of fiction that has its finger on the truth.

Specifically the gospel of Matthew in the King James Version.

If that doesn't hook you, you aren't a Christian.

>>21622004
>I know from my prior atheism that if I had a miracle performed before my eyes then I still would have found a way to deny it.

Totally agree, I'm curious about your salvation story how did you get over the hurdle?

>>21614605
>There are thousands of interpretations.
Are you trying to sound intelligent? Or are you trying to deceive yourself or perhaps others?

>>21615722
>>21615101
Did you read this joke on the same retarded atheist blog?

>>21625573
Immediately prior to becoming religious, through my reading of philosophy and history, I was already very anti-Enlightenment, modernity, liberalism etc. Hence, I appreciated the importance that spiritually had for a function society. But I was still viewing thing through a secular lens. I then encountered significant personal difficulties that made my call out to God for the first time since my childhood. I was faced with a situation where I could fall into the perils of secularism that I had already identified or cling onto God, the only Person who could deliver from what I was going through. Through His grace I was delivered and have been religious ever since.

In retrospect, God was sowing the seeds of my conversion to Him through my reading and the personal events were the straw that broke the camel's back. There has to be a movement of both the intellect and the heart to find God. Also, since then, God has helped me in ways that I couldn't even imagine. The only explanation for some things that have happened is Divine intervention. Though, some of these moments are not necessarily massive grand miracles in the ordinary sense but things that make sense in personal sense of circumstances. Though, they are miracles nonetheless.

>>21623507
Jesus gives life advice.
Mr. Beast gives cash prizes.

>>21614502
Julian the Apostate

>>21614502
>what should I read to understand Christianity?
pic related.

>>21625853
Here is a TL;DR; Jesus was a Jew.

>>21623212
Some people can have a sudden shift in personality, generally brought about by stress. Since we don't have a complete record of Paul's life down to the minutest detail it's impossible to determine what truly led to his conversion.

>>21619473
This verse doesn't mean he purposefully teaches them in parables, it means they are skeptic or have a hard time understanding things and percieve them as parables, midwit

>>21626832
>Since we don't have a complete record of Paul's life down to the minutest detail it's impossible to determine what truly led to his conversion.
Sure it is, Jesus revealed himself to Paul.

>>21620113
>It's the reason why humility is so important in order to get closer to
i agree with this part, i don't agree with putting various man-made books of nonsense at the end; as this is the part which is stupidity.

>This is something to take into account when (observing reality and looking for what is truly true of things)
indeed,
>It's the reason why humility is so important in order to get closer to (the truth of anything)

The childlike vicefulness of those on here who pretend to "already know", and yet remain completely viceful, ought be proof enough that religions are inferior and steer persons away from such things as grasping the purpose of undertaking humility, e.g. >>21620287

ergo, as reason does not work on such people, it requires the most simple and common place of speech to rebuke and remind such persons, drunk on their sloth, of the truth of their character, uttered in loud voice by the Man passing them in the street,
"jesus isn't real, jesus doesn't fucking exist, you fucking nonce,"

therefore rebuke them sharply,
Titus.

>>21627457
>>21626832
>impossible to determine what truly led to his conversion.
It was his own guilt which had driven him to either madness or extreme introspection; he was a Man who had tortured people with his own hands at the behest of politically-orientated persons who proclaimed their authority stemmed from a God and that their obvious evil and stupid culture was Chosen By God and so it, and their crimes, were not to be questioned.

In his context, Paul was right.

bump

>>21625737
My story is almost identical.

>>21629700
I think maybe the techniques that God uses to draw people to Him differ from age to age. I think now He especially uses people's disgruntlement with the popular philosophies and presents Himself as the only viable alternative to them (which is true). Then again, maybe He has always done this but the exact way He does it differs depending on the period.
>My story is almost identical.
Would love to hear more

>>21622004
>Even a friend of mine told me that his father
wow great evidence

>>21629709
I indicated both widespread attestation and gave a personal anecdote so it's not merely hanging on the latter. Anyway, said family is very religious so I'm pretty sure they'd be aware of the consequences of lying about these things. Also, I've known them for a while. The irony is that for any other thing, the combination of the two would be sufficient for belief but because we're dealing with God, we're ultimately dealing with questions of the heart too. It's the same thing that happened to Jesus. Some people only followed Him around to watch His miracles as some sideshow and then moved on with their lives as if nothing happened.
>Whoever has ears, let him hear

You can read the whole Bible summarizied in a few hours.

>>21625860
Not in the limited midwit sense of the term "Jew" that you understand, that is solely the modern usage of it.

>>21629772
That's something that people often forget. Old Testament Jews are nothing like modern Jews which are a rabbinic creation in reaction to the emergence of Christianity

Interesting insight.
Fr. Peter Heers says prayer is a forceful action. You must not be all like feminine and like "Ooh I'm gonna pray now, oooh I'm so pious" No! You must force yourself to pray! It is like a violent force!
https://youtube.com/shorts/aKcVS1AZA1A?feature=share

>>21614502
Frazier and Nietzsche.

>>21629781
>Old Testament Jews are nothing like modern Jews which are a rabbinic creation in reaction to the emergence of Christianity

Jews then
>Torah-observant, some also observe the oral law
>YHWHists, claim to be the inheritors of the covenants
>Circumcised
>Observe holidays rooted in Jewish history such as passover, purim, etc.
>Semitic

Jews now
>Torah-observant, some also observe the oral law
>YHWHists, claim to be the inheritors of the covenants
>Circumcised
>Observe holidays rooted in Jewish history such as passover, purim, etc.
>Semitic or semitic-yuro mutts

Truly, a world of difference.

>>21630106
very ignorant post

>>21630106
This is all very wrong and reductionist. If you're really want to learn you can perhaps read
>The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ
Daniel Boyarin
>The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel
Benjamin Sommer
>Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity
Alan Segal

That in itself should create a stark contrast between Second Temple beliefs and modern Judaism. Mind you all of these books were written by Jews who admit this difference.

I have been looking into Orthodox Christianity a lot lately. I'm not Orthodox but I have been learning about it.
One thing that I have noticed - and I'm not saying this is the proof that it's true - but I have noticed that lately Orthodoxy has been getting attacked from all sides.
>Roman Catholics who hate them amd call them heretics, tradlarpers, orthobros, etc.
>protestants/evangelicals who say that icons are idolatry
>atheists who call you a larper
>pagans who call you a jewcuck
>jews who call you a false religion that branched off from theirs
>muslims who hate all Christians
There is a lot of hatred against the Orthodox Church from all kinds of different groups and lots of times they don't actually want to discuss the theology and philosophy. They just want to say it's all a larp.
They say this word all the time. Larp larp larp. Everything is apparently a larp now.
That and also cope and seethe.

>>21630137
>Everything is apparently a larp now
Because it's the age of nihilism. People can't accept that people can have genuinely held beliefs

This belief that modern Jews are the real and authentic followers of the Old Testament and that Christianity is some sort of weird fanfiction that branched off - this belief is obviously not true to anyone who actually knows what he is talking about.
However, nonetheless, this belief, despite being so wrong, remains EXTREMELY prevalent in society in all sorts of different groups, from the Jews themselves to atheists and secular liberals to neopagans/neonazis to some zionist types. It is the same arguments over and over again. Some people just don't want to learn even if you show them the truth. They will just call you a larper.

>>21630180
It is like Jesus said. They don't want to hear it. Even if He raised someone from the dead, they still would not believe. It is a spiritual state.

>>21615041
>OT is invalidated by Christ
The pseud outs himself

>>21630114
I'll deny ignorant but I'll give you flippant, how about that?

>>21630128
>This is all very wrong and reductionist.
Wrong? No. Reductionist? Yeah, sure.

>The Jewish Gospels
Read it.
>The Bodies of God
Sweet, on the list.
>Two Powers in Heaven
Also read it. I would also recommend Israel's God and Rebecca's Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity by David Capes. Good series of essays on the emerging split between Christians and Jews in the first century.

>That in itself should create a stark contrast between Second Temple beliefs and modern Judaism. Mind you all of these books were written by Jews who admit this difference.
I don't deny the contrast; they're wildly different in many ways. However, if you're going to go all the way and claim that that distinction breaks some kind of continuity or even goes so far as to make rabbinic and second temple Judaism different systems of belief then you have to do the same with Christianity at least four or five times over - which I also don't object to. I feel like this line of reasoning is reliably and wildly abused by Christian apologists who are either repeating what they've heard without really thinking on it or who are proselytizing in bad faith because it goes down more smoothly than actually illustrating the differences.

>>21630328
was it not?

>>21615646
For how long has /r/atheism been on /lit/?

>>21630506
I strongly disagree

>>21614502
Der civitate dei

Saint Maximus the Confessor would own literally every modern philosopher in a debate.

>>21615584
The Transfiguration and the Ascension.

>>21614605
oh really you stupid nigger i thought it was because caesarion shared gnosticism with the profane

>>21614502
The Bible.

love your neighbor and love justice. saved you a lot of reading YW