/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13888458]

I didn't know whether to ask this in /his/ or here so I will do it in both.
Where can I read about Jesus the free spirit instead of the Jesus we all know with Paul lenses?

[Anonymous No.13888464]

the idiot by dostoevsky

[Anonymous No.13888465]

In the New Testament, from Matthew to Revelation

[JN !!vXXhA/qzhjm No.13888480]

>>13888458
In the fucking gospels

[Anonymous No.13888505]

>>13888458
Maybe read the Bible 20 or 30 times before trying to improve on it

[Anonymous No.13888514]

>>13888480

Absolutely Christological.

[Anonymous No.13888516]

>>13888458
Why would you want to read a description of Christ invented by anti-Christians?

[Anonymous No.13888533]

I'd say that for all intents and purposes, Jesus is a character, and therefore the best place to come to grips with him is the book that he's in.

I'm not trying to be edgy or atheistic, my point is that Christianity as a cultural force developed and is effective due to the strength of its original story-- the actual bounded, complete story with it's arc and trajectory.

It's not like polytheistic religion where the gods are always being written into new stories to deal with the problems of new eras. Christianity is a one and done distillation of universal principles into a single lesson, so there's not much to be gained by engaging with anything beyond that story.

Which I guess was the point of protestantism, come to think of it.

[Anonymous No.13888548]

Also in Pistis Sophia:

>On this account, therefore, I have not hesitated nor have I been ashamed to call you my brethren and my companions, because ye will be fellow-kings with me in my kingdom. This, therefore, I say unto you, knowing that I will give you the mystery of the Ineffable; that is: That mystery is I, and I am that mystery.

THE mystery is that he is the mystery!
The MYSTERY is that he is the mystery!
The mystery IS that he is the mystery!
The mystery is THAT he is the mystery!
The mystery is that HE is the mystery!
The mystery is that he IS the mystery!
The mystery is that he is THE mystery!
The mystery is that he is the MYSTERY!

Also in you.

[Anonymous No.13888555]

Read the gospels and stop there. Paul is indeed suspect. ''free spirit" sounds like some hippie shit though, the Lord is calling sinners to repentance, not trying to get groovy maaannnn

[Anonymous No.13888560]

Christian seethe in 3... 2... 1... Oh wait it already happened

>>13888516

[Anonymous No.13888597]

It occurs to me that you're probably referring to Nietzsche's concept of Jesus as a free spirit in a will to power sense.

The best place to see that, if you haven't already, is in Nietzsche’s Will to Power note collection. He wrote it near the end of his life, and the discussion of Jesus as a nihilist who mysteriously retained his positivism and will power showcases the fundamental contradictions in Nietzsche’s thought that led to his mental breakdown.

He couldn't square the circle of "nihilistic positivity" because he didn't internalize the point of Christ's resurrection.

If you want to read somebody with a take on Christ that I agree with, try Boehme. Though, be prepared for a bunch of mystical bullshit.

[Anonymous No.13888604]

>>13888465
Fucking this.

[Anonymous No.13888606]

>>13888597
Nietzsche was a Nestorian?

[Anonymous No.13888619]

>>13888606
Nah, he was employing "will" in the sense of his own terminology

[Anonymous No.13888621]

>>13888458
Jesus threw bankers out of the temple, gave sermons while disguised, confronted Pharisees while walking, fasted in the wilderness, anointed his homies feet with oil and let them anoint his, did miracles and gave long speeches to the people. That’s all from the Bible and seems pretty free spirited to me. Imagine you’re a Pharisee and some carpenter comes up to you, saying “Before Abraham was, I am”

[Anonymous No.13888849]

>>13888458
The gospel of Mark. It's Jesus at his most down-to-earth, and it even has touches of comedy when he keeps getting angry at the disciples.

[Anonymous No.13888893]

>>13888458
Luke is mostly about Jesus helping down and outers to the annoyance of the NPCs around him.

[Anonymous No.13888898]

>>13888849
>>13888893

Basically anything other than Matthew

[Anonymous No.13888900]

>>13888458
>where can I read about a made-up Jesus that is more appealing to my delicate sensibilities?

[Anonymous No.13888929]

I've always found Paul a bit suspicious desu.

[Anonymous No.13888934]

The term "free spirit" comes from a Medieval heresy, the Brotherhood of the Free Spirit, whose members were called Free Spirits. They were active between the 13th and 15th centuries. The group rejected the salvation of Christ and the Church and believed that they were themselves God. They practiced absolute lawlessness, and preached other doctrines so obscene as to be unspeakable. The Free Spirits practiced witchcraft, and were persecuted to oblivion in the 15th century.

[Anonymous No.13888962]

>>13888900
Imagine being a Paul-worshiper, someone who never met Jesus, and calling his actual Apostles' experiences made up.

Paul (along with Mohammed) is one of the false prophets Jesus warned of.

[Anonymous No.13888978]

>>13888458

[Anonymous No.13888996]

>The most high does not dwell in houses made by hands
>Split wood I am there, lift a stone and you will find me
>Oh actually I'd like a church with a really long list of behavrioual rules for conduct
Fuck Paul

[Anonymous No.13889007]

>>13888962
Peter said Paul's writings are Scripture.

[Anonymous No.13889015]

>>13888996
>t. Muslim

[Anonymous No.13889020]

>>13889007
Peter was deceived or seduced into apostasy. He's not God, that can happen.

>>13888996
This.

[Anonymous No.13889043]

>>13889020
>And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[Anonymous No.13889055]

>>13889020
>>13888996
>>13888962
>>13888929

If you reject Paul, then you have to reject all the other Apostles as well as all of the other New Testament authors including the Evangelists, in addition to the Church Fathers. In other words, you have to reject the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.13889058]

>>13889015
t. Idolator

[Anonymous No.13889060]

>>13889058
Don't you have a black stone you should be kissing?

[Anonymous No.13889065]

>>13889055
>Gnostic master race
I'm ok with all of this

[Anonymous No.13889080]

How has nobody said tolstoy's gospels yet?

[Anonymous No.13889081]

>>13888458
The gospels. Also, Paul didn't construct his own Jesus. You can tell because in the NT there are a heresies that are spoken out against but something that is never argued against is wether or not Jesus was God. It's not something that comes up but rather issues are things to so with circumcision, Jewish dietary laws or if gentiles can join.

But if you even deny the Pauline epistles then you only have OT references to Christ and the gospels but why should you even trust those if you've already denied a large portion of the NT. Just through out the baby with the bath water.

[Anonymous No.13889084]

>>13889015
>>13889058

Come, come, whoever you are.
Wanderer, idolator, worshipper of fire,
come even though you have broken your vows a thousand times,
Come, and come yet again.
Ours is not a caravan of despair.

[Anonymous No.13889087]

Jefferson Bible or Yasuhiko Yoshikazu's manga 'Jesus' if you want a graphic novelization
Reads left to right

[Anonymous No.13889157]

>>13889084
>Sufi babble

[Anonymous No.13889171]

>>13889087
Really wish there were better quality scans, the coloring and art is beautiful and deserves to be better preserved

[Anonymous No.13889176]

>>13888505
This but i’m VERY surprised that no one has mentioned Tolstoy’s gospel in brief. It’s the gospels with no miracles, so it will help you get going (but don’t forget the miracles after! For this read Pascal). Wittgenstein carried Tolstoy’s book around during the war—look it up. Good stuff.

[Anonymous No.13889221]

In the gospel of Mark

[Anonymous No.13889225]

Bart Ehrman is the author you want

[Anonymous No.13889231]

>>13889055
>>13889081

Not even Paul himself at his most anti-Christian claims to be this important.

[Anonymous No.13889307]

>>13889087
The wording of this post is fucked, Jesus is not a graphic novelization of Jefferson Bible, just a graphic novelization of the story of Jesus told more focused on Jesus's character than miracles

[Anonymous No.13889445]

>>13888480
but what about the REAL Jesus, who has the same views as I do on everything

[Anonymous No.13889517]

>>13889055
Paul is not in charge.

[Anonymous No.13890201]

>>13889517
He didn't say that

[Anonymous No.13890345]

>Mark is the first gospel
>Mark has no account of Jesus virgin birth
>Originally Mark ends in chapter 16 with no mention of post-resurrection sightings, but the church write his own ending because why not
???

[Anonymous No.13890379]

>>13890345
Set up for Jesus 2: Electric Boogaloo

[Anonymous No.13890804]

>>13889065
Based Gnostic poster

[Anonymous No.13890811]

>>13888458
The Qur'an

[Anonymous No.13890823]

>>13888996
>fuck Paul
based Marcion

[Anonymous No.13890830]

>>13890823
Marcion loved Paul you retard

[Anonymous No.13890837]

>>13890830
that >>13890823 comment was made by Tertullian

[Anonymous No.13890843]

>>13888996
If you’re quoting Thomas you can’t omit the very pro-organizational, pro-apostolic:
>Wherever you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake earth and heaven came into being.

[Anonymous No.13891015]

"Paul ruined Jesus" is the most brainlet-tier of all the Christian memes.

[Anonymous No.13891258]

Here’s some serious suggestions OP

Elull, christian anarchism
The kingdom of god is within you, tolstoy

[Anonymous No.13891271]

>>13890345
>Originally Mark ends in chapter 16 with no mention of post-resurrection sightings
This meme again

[Anonymous No.13891738]

>>13891271
Not to mention that Jesus literally says that He is God multiple times, if you understand how the Jews thought about God.

[Anonymous No.13891946]

>>13891738
Not in Mark. The Jews had beliefs about divine or semi-divine deputies of God who carried out his judgement, for example in one of the Qumran scrolls Melchizedek is called Elohim, that doesn't mean they thought Melchizedek was literally God but was his divine-human deputy.

[Anonymous No.13892068]

>>13889065
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
—Proverbs 14:12

[Anonymous No.13892102]

>>13888458
Jesus the 'free spirit'? Listen, you're not looking to read about Jesus. Go read an AOC speech or something. That'll satisfy your need for material related to being a 'free spirit.'

[Anonymous No.13892117]

>>13891015
They deny Jesus, but being left unsatisfied and feeling open to criticism, they go into attack mode and seek to claim an edge of superiority over Christians. The Holy Spirit is not in them, so they feel no compunction in lying (perhaps even to themselves) to advance their cause. So instead of simply saying that they deny Christ plainly, they instead say that they possess the real Christ locked away in some attic of rhetoric, rather than the Christ plainly shown in the Scriptures and held in all ages by the Church, and do so by denying the most prolific Apostle, despite Paul's disciple being the author of Luke and Acts. You see this same phenomenon repeated all the time under different guises, say when liberals claim without a hint of shame that Jesus was a card carrying Democrat who miraculously somehow confirms all of their opinions despite them not being Christians or ever studying the Bible. They build an idol and call it Jesus so they are not caught without a Jesus to call their own to pit against the real McCoy. What we're witnessing here is merely a rhetorical bludgeon fashioned for use and discard once it has served its dubious purpose, and a crude one at that.

[Anonymous No.13892163]

>>13889231
Paul's letters predate the Gospels and were never seriously disputed. Paul's student wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. If you reject the teacher, you must reject his disciple. Luke comports with both Mark (which he drew from) as well as Matthew (which also drew from Mark but was produced independently of Luke, thereby corroborating Luke), and John, which confirms the other three completely independently. So to find error in Paul is to find error in all the Gospels. The other Apostles accepted Paul as an Apostle. The Ecumenical Councils acting under the Holy Spirit declared Paul's writings to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. To reject Paul as an Apostle and author of Scripture is to reject the entire New Testament and Christianity. You simply cannot divorce Jesus from Paul in the way you want to. Perhaps you should go find another religion to try to infiltrate and ruin? It's funny that's what you accuse Paul of when it's plain to see that's what you yourself are attempting.

[Anonymous No.13892164]

>>13888458
>Where can I read about the fake Jesus that conforms to my desires, not the real Jesus that Paul and the Apostles preached about
Try Islam or Gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.13892247]

>>13892163
>The ecumenical councils acting under the Holy spirit
Excuse while I die of laughter

[Anonymous No.13892252]

>>13888533
So you'd disagree that the catholic church carries the most authentic christian tradition?

[Anonymous No.13892288]

>>13892247
Are you already dead? How much more should I wait?

[Anonymous No.13892333]

>>13892163

History barely has any authority IN Theology, to say that it has authority OVER it is borderline Satanic and, moreover, ironic History is exemplary of the supposedly "limited" Epistemology of Man that the Church condemns.

[Anonymous No.13892381]

>>13892117
>the Christ plainly shown in the Scriptures and held in all ages by the Church

I suppose it IS hard to think about these things, but at least get Doctrine right. The Church has held him in many antithetical positions, (in)famously Christus Victor vs. Atonement. Also, Paul is not an Apostle.

[Anonymous No.13892409]

>>13888962
Yea litteraly all the early church disagrees with you.
So the question for anyone thinking the same is. Do I believe the church fathers the council's of the church the apostles of Jesus or random seething psedu atheists 2000 years later.
Though question.

[JN !!vXXhA/qzhjm No.13892565]

>>13889081
This

Just because the apostles had their own spin on Christianity doesn't mean you should start ripping chunks out of your Bible. If anything, you should read more just to get everyone's opinion and draw your own conclusions.

The gospels wouldn't be complete without the OT. It's the prologue that shows you the shitty society you could be living in without Christian values.

My take on Paul is that he's like an ex-high school sports Chad who starts a little league team to relive his glory days. He can't bring back the past, but he can expose more people to what he loves, and maybe some of them will even outdo him one day.

>>13889157
That's top-tier poetry you Philistine

>>13892117
>>13892163
>>13892381
>>13892409
As soon as you start arguing about whose take on Jesus is "the right one", you're right back on the way to legalism again. The finger that points at the moon is not the moon.

[Anonymous No.13892774]

>>13888458
>Where can I read about Jesus the free spirit instead of the Jesus we all know with Paul lenses?
Maybe you'll find it in the Lake of Fire, heretic.

[Anonymous No.13892915]

>>13892381
The Church has never taught a secret Christ apart from Christ depicted publicly in the Gospels. Christianity is not a mystery religion. Disagreements in theological points do not constitute throwing out the Gospels or rejecting the entire Church.

>>13892565
The Jesus of Christianity is the right one. That Jesus happened to teach that many false christs will come and to be on guard against them. The Christ of Gnosticism or Islam or the Talmud are simply not the Christ of the Gospels.

[Anonymous No.13893023]

>>13892381
>Also, Paul is not an Apostle.
lol okay

[Anonymous No.13893124]

>>13892915

The disagreements are implicitly or even explicitly Scriptural, proponents of Christus Victor, for example, consider the Gospels abominations inasmuch as they affirm Atonement, and vice versa. I'm confused as to how you can be so conceited when "the" Church practically IS a daisy chain of schisms.

[Anonymous No.13893140]

>>13892164
/thread

[Anonymous No.13893156]

>>13892164
>Where can I read about the fake Jesus that conforms to my desires
Read the canonical gospels.

[Anonymous No.13893165]

>>13893124
You really are confused. No one who holds exclusively to either of those particular soteriology theories rejects the canonicity of the Gospel for that reason nor stands in schism on the basis of that disagreement alone.

[Anonymous No.13893189]

The Logia Yeshua is a good start.


Take the gnosis pill

[Anonymous No.13893293]

>>13893165

I disagree, but my point is that I do not even reject the canonicity of PAUL, neither I nor anyone else in this thread claims that he shouldn't be in the Bible or that he shouldn't be read at all. What I am claiming is that his material is literally anti-Christian, that it should be read as such, that what he says in general, and about Jesus in particular, is akin to what the Pharisees or Satan say, that there is no reason to redeem it, and especially no reason to plaster Christology with it. The fact that you've attached him to the Gospels speaks volumes about what you yourself really think of him, by the way.

[Anonymous No.13893304]

>>13892163
>To reject Paul as an Apostle and author of Scripture is to reject the entire New Testament and Christianity
how do you guys make these jumps?

[Anonymous No.13893340]

>>13893293
The canon isn't just a collection of random texts. The canon is the body of writings which the Church has declared to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and useful for official teaching and litergy. By denying Paul's inspiration you are saying that in your opinion that his writings don't belong in the canon. On the contrary, Paul's writings have been in use in teaching and litergy and have been considered divinely inspired since the days of the Primitive Church long before the canon was made formally official. I hope that I've made it clear by what I've said about him that I personally believe that Paul is an Apostle and his writings are divinely inspired, as the Church believes. Everything you've written about his writings applies rather in fact to your own. I hope I've made it clear what I myself really think of you.

[Anonymous No.13893342]

>>13893304
That isn't a jump. I explained in detail how Paul's writings are connected to the rest of the New Testament.

[Anonymous No.13893387]

>>13893340

Neither have I denied that Paul is inspired. Catholics and reading: sworn enemies.

[Anonymous No.13893403]

>>13889445
the history of christianity in one sentence

[Anonymous No.13893448]

>>13893387
I've read you better than you know.

[Anonymous No.13893470]

>>13893448

Ironically, Catholics would have triumphed over all other denominations had they spent half the effort they put into not reading into reading.

[Anonymous No.13894435]

>>13891015
Jesus was anti establishment but Paul made his image pretty dogmatic

[Anonymous No.13895231]

>>13894435
see >>13889043, >>13890843