Christian symbolism.

[Anonymous No.14455760]

Why is Christian symbolism so superior to most of other religion symbols, whilst its dogmatic and expressed metaphysical understanding, being kind, is a degree lower of most religions?

Also, is the ousia above the Trinity?

[Anonymous No.14455775]

>Also, is the ousia above the Trinity?
Depends what you mean by ousia as this has historically been a matter of great confusion.

[Anonymous No.14455789]

>50 guenon threads
>idolter anti iconoclast threads
>suburbanite idealist analysis

Is /lit/ always this bad as a board generally?

[Anonymous No.14455790]

>>14455775
Pardon for not being too clear, dear Sir. I mean by ousia the essence of God.

[Anonymous No.14455801]

>>14455789
/lit/ is the tragedy of the suburban pseud

[Anonymous No.14455818]

>>14455790
St. Gregory says: "essence has the same relation to hypostasis as the common has to the particular". That is, essence speaks of the what and hypostasis of the who. Essence has no independent existence but is always instantiated in a particular subsistent.

[Anonymous No.14455826]

>Christian symbolism so superior
While
>expressed metaphysical understanding... is a degree lower

Because Christianity only comes from stories and histories. Each story has a plot, characters, a beginning, middle and a climax. Jesus has his biographies- the four gospels, your body and soul has a baptism and then everlasting glory or everlasting condemnation, the universe has a beginning and an apocalypse, the world has a creation and a last judgment, etc. Other religions don’t care about stories, they don’t believe in linear cause-and-effect. They start from the lettering and wording of their scripture and then condescend to the spirit of their scripture or doctrine. Christian Symbolism is like a news report or journalism- it is meant to relay the “facts” or the particular plot points of the story, where other religions have symbols that are only about “dogmatic and expressed metaphysical
understanding”.

Take this crucifix- it presumes to nothing more than a humble fact, a plot point, from the climax of Jesus’ history on earth- the crucifixion of an actual Godman.

[Anonymous No.14455853]

>>14455818
With that being said, what did Gregory of Nyssa meant by this: It seems to me that at the time the great Moses was instructed in the theophany he came to know that none
of those things which are apprehended by sense perception (te tei aisthesei katalambanetai) and
contemplated by the understanding really subsists (hyphesteke), but that the transcendent essence and cause
of the universe, on which everything depends, alone subsists.

[Anonymous No.14455884]

Bishop Barron has a video where he eloquently explains how the novelists CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien understood Christianity as a story through their novels. And he sums it up it up by saying that “Christianity is, in some respects, the greatest story ever” paraphrasing. not exact quote. Can’t find the video otherwise I would post the link. But it’s like what I tried to say with my crucifix post about stories and histories.

[Anonymous No.14455935]

>14455853
>things which are apprehended by sense perception (te tei aisthesei katalambanetai) and
>contemplated by the understanding really subsists (hyphesteke),

Understanding in Christian symbolism is by the plot points of salvation history- what “understamding really subsists”

And the “dogmatic and expressed metaphysical understanding, being kind, is a degree lower of most religions” is “things which are apprehended by sense perception.

I think switching these around is what makes difference in symbolism between Chriatianity and the other religions. The religions put their emphasis on opposite things. We Christiana begin with stories and histories and plot points (hyphesteke) and then condescend to sense perception (te tei aisthesei katalambanetai).

[Anonymous No.14455947]

>>14455884
I wasn't particularly speaking on the story depicted in the Gospel, but on Christ as the face of the Ineffable one, as depicted on that painting. Furthermore, on Christ as what man ought to be and, in true, what he truly is.

[Anonymous No.14455950]

>>14455853
>"The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence” - St. Basil lt. 234
The divine essence is impassable. We cannot know the divine essence but only that there is such an essence. This is the instruction Moses receives.

[Anonymous No.14455957]

>>14455947
We were created in God’s own image. Behold the man. Our heroic and impossible mission is to reflect god.

[Anonymous No.14455963]

>>14455950
Therefore the Trinity is a inference by revelation? Assuming that by Essence he means the Trinity and not something that Trinity derives its nature from.

[Anonymous No.14455972]

>>14455950
>>14455963
Also, I assume that, similar to Platonic thought, one can know the energies through the Nous? Is there any correlation between Christ and the Nous?

[Anonymous No.14456011]

>>14455947
>Christ as the face of the Ineffable one

But where does that inference come from? From humble prayer and meditation on the facts of the history- the birth, life and death and resurrection of Jesus.

[Anonymous No.14456029]

>>14456011
>facts

[Anonymous No.14456032]

>>14456029
The *plot points. I couldn’t find a better word. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.14456036]

>>14456011
But it comes, too, and most importantly, through gazing upon that which: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined."

[Anonymous No.14456101]

>>14456036
The Gospel being, in my eyes, but a preparation for the mysteries of Theosis. I'm not speaking in detriment of the book, which is as compelling and beautiful as it could be, but against those that, not following Christ, imagine that salvation could be anything but divination and persist in adoring him from without, and not from within.

[Anonymous No.14456137]

>>14456036
>>14456101
Sounds dangerously close to gnostic weirdness and hidden knowledge. John the Baptist said “this is the lamb of god”, Jesus is a sacrifice, Jesus is God. Even simple and unintelligent people can and should become great saints.

[Anonymous No.14456145]

>>14455826
this

[Anonymous No.14456169]

>>14456137
Salvation is theosis. We are to become everything that God is save identity, not by our own will which is the luciferian inversion, but by grace.

[Anonymous No.14456170]

>>14455760
>Why is Christian symbolism so superior to most other religious symbols
Because Christianity uses the rich mnemo-symbolic language of Judaism, and combined it with the dramatic Heroic stories of the Romans and the philosophy of the Greeks. A religion like Christianity could have only come about at the crossroads of these unique traditions, just like our salvation can only come at the Cross between Man and God. Most religions in the world spring from a single tradition and a single people, perhaps having conquered a few smaller traditions and peoples. Christianity is unique in that it's a perfect connection between every philosophical school and religion at the time of the dying of the Roman Empire. You will never have such an Empire again, and you will never have such fertile ground for the perfect religion again. Everything good in Plato, the Stoics, the Heroics, the Jews, the Eleusinian mysteries, and so on was combined on the Cross.

> whilst its dogmatic and expressed metaphysical understanding is a degree lower of most religions?
You don't have ears to hears and eyes to see. The metaphysics is the story, it is the symbols, it is hidden within them. Something as small in the Gospels as a paralytic being healed carries immense, rich meaning. Ask yourself: what does it mean for a paralytic to be healed by God? What does he mean that he needed to be carried by his friends, and sent down by an opening through the roof, when he couldn't get through the door? What does it mean that his sins are forgiven, but his paralysis healed only to show his true power? This is a simple element in the Gospel, but there are infinitely more rich ones. The theology is the symbols is the story, as God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit yet one. "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness."

[Anonymous No.14456174]

>>14456137
Perhaps I just don't understand Christianity and tend to perpetuate analogies with other Religions. But, anyway, bland statements such as "Christ is God" used as counter to anything that could for a second go against Christian dogma is a great disservice to the majesty of the Gospels and of the God-Man.

[Anonymous No.14456209]

>>14456174
I'm not here denying the divinity of Christ, by the way; only the the turning of Christ into an idol. Perhaps one could quote Eckhart, but I gather that for most Christians he's considered a heretic.

[Anonymous No.14456234]

>>14456209

[Anonymous No.14456240]

>>14456170
That's a great comment. Thank you for it. Are you an Orthodox?

[Anonymous No.14456255]

>>14456240
Catholic. The distinction hardly matters. Christianity is not a religion for theologians, and every theology has already been written. There's no need for more theologians, but active Christians building active communities with active practice and active brothers.

[Anonymous No.14456271]

>>14456255
I concur entirely. The dogmatization of the Christian religions denies its essence. Its most sacred mystery.

What, to you, is salvation?

[Anonymous No.14456300]

>>14456255
>Christianity is not a religion for theologians
Take a good look at protestants, they seem to agree. It's not working so well, we need intellectual and knowledge-based food as well.

[Anonymous No.14456343]

>>14456300
>>14456255
See, I think what he meant is that Christianity is deeper than its Dogmatic Theology. Of course theology is necessary, but to reduce Christianity to it is to abase it.

[Anonymous No.14456359]

>>14456255
>Christianity is not a religion for theologians
Interestingly, in Eastern Orthodoxy the title theologian is reserved only for the most mystical of the theologians. This Western notion of the dogmatic always being in opposition to the mystical is completely foreign to the Orthodox mind.

[Anonymous No.14456406]

>>14455760
>whilst its dogmatic and expressed metaphysical understanding, being kind, is a degree lower of most religions?

It's not. Stop being deluded by Guenon and read Jean Borella.

[Anonymous No.14456421]

>>14456406
Is borella a good intro to christianity? Which of his works would help me with the bible?

[Anonymous No.14456437]

>>14456406
Is the Ousia above the Trinity?

[Anonymous No.14456438]

>>14456421
No, he's not a good intro. For that, I dunno, read Ratzinger maybe.

Borella is excellent for a critique of Guenon that is actually intelligent instead of discord tranny reeeing and calling him a monkey.

[Anonymous No.14456526]

>>14456209
I’m sorry for making a bland statement. But i’m trying to encourage reverence for christ. Idolatry is the worship of something besides God. It’s impossible to make an idol out of the true Jesus. When people like the mormons have their fake Jesus, that’s an idol. But the true Jesus is not. And Eckhart’s not a heretic. He himself despised heresies and was an Orthodox believer and an ordained Dominican priest.

[Anonymous No.14456543]

>>14455760
Christians stole their symbolism from the Jews, the ancient Greeks, the romans, the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians just like they stole from each other.

In the end symbolism is universal and it is the invisible thread that unites almost all of the world's religions.

[Anonymous No.14456576]

>>14456209
And what’s wrong with saying “Jesus is God”? I went to mass today and the Father said just that. He said exactly those words “Jesus is God”, two times in his homily. You might think it’s plebbish and awkward, but, I thought it was part of our religion?

[Anonymous No.14456615]

>>14456576
I'm not a Christian- so do yourself a favor and treat me as a heretic and take everything I said with a grain of salt. But, in my comprehension,
in saying that Christ is God, you mustn't forget that "Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’” And that in the divinity of Christ there's a mystery, and it seems to me that this mystery is the essence of Christianity, and mustn't be forgotten in favor of a dry sentimentality. Yea, Christ divinity is a mystery.

[Anonymous No.14456633]

>>14456615
>I have not yet ascended to the Father.

What that sounds like to me is that He had not died yet. We had not yet recieved the grace of salvation from the bloody sacrifice on the cross. But i’m not a priest. So take my interpretation with a grain if salt too.

[Anonymous No.14456672]

Could it be said that Christ is the manifestation of metaphysical expression of the Divine Person (as Personality, Qualified Absolute, Saguna Brahman)?

[Anonymous No.14456692]

>>14456633
If I were a Christian, I'd a heretic- to be exact, a Subordinationistic.

>>14456672
Yes.

[Anonymous No.14456824]

>>14456692
>I'd a heretic- to be exact, a Subordinationistic.

That’s sad. The heresies aren’t only bad because they’re wrong; they are tragic because the suck out all the subtke beauty of Catholic doctrine. Thank god that the Church knows how to counter them.

[Anonymous No.14456835]

>>14456692
Don’t subordinate any part of the Holy Trinity, please don’t mutilate the Godhead. Please please. Amen.

[Anonymous No.14456839]

>>14456824
Although, it's a possibility that I may become an Orthodox in the future.

[Anonymous No.14456848]

>>14456835
>>14456824
>>14456692
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/st-gregory-the-theologian-and-the-one-god-part-2/

This is almost convincing, though. Quite nicely put. I know realize that, when its about the Trinity, one should only trust on the Fathers.

[Anonymous No.14456940]

>>14456848
“By the first of these moves, we find ourselves locked into Judaism’s narrow way of speaking, in that we define divinity simply by the notion of being unbegotten; by the second, we fall into the opposite but equal evil, supposing there are three ultimate principles and three gods, which is still more foolish than what we mentioned before.”

Thank you Saint Gregory! Remember that we must honor and preserve the faith by reciting the creeds and by humbling ourselves to the church hierarchy.

P.S. And hide all lewd images. /lit/ WILL be a Christian board.

[Anonymous No.14456973]

For all the anons in this thread, I highly suggest you read pic related. Jean Hani builds off certain ideas of people Eliade and Guenon, but like Borella, adapts them to a specifically Christian context and deviates when necessary. Funnily enough, parts of the book are centered around explaining the "solar symbolism" of Catholicism as if it was responding to Evola's critique. Probably not the case, but interesting nonetheless.

>>14456343
>>14456271
>>14456359
I suggest you read Borella's book Christ the Original Mystery like the other anon said, specifically the section on dogma. I think you will gain a lot. He discusses the etymology of the term, what it originally meant, and the corruption of the meaning of the term. This anon is right >>14456406

>>14456209
For Catholics, Eckhart is not a heretic. He died without even recieving a trial one way or another. Pope JPII has praised him in addition to people like the head of the head of the Dominican order who are known for their commitment to orthodoxy. Certain people who Eckhart personally instructed are now canonised saints. The biggest issue isn't with Eckhart himself, but rather with the people who try and interpret him. Most people try and read in their own meanings, ignore previous context, or simply aren't spiritually prepared to read some of his works.

[Anonymous No.14457018]

>>14456029
Yes. They're historical facts.
If you're going to try and divorce Christianity from history and just treat it as another "spiritual story", you should move back to /Pol/ and join the neo-pagans and neo-gnostics.

[Anonymous No.14457049]

When does the new testament start? Is there any reason to read the old testament outside of learning the context and history? I want to get more in touch with Christianity and God.

[Anonymous No.14457076]

>>14457049
Without the OT there is no NT. They have the same God.

[Anonymous No.14457083]

>>14457049
The new testament starts with the biographic histories of Jesus: the four gospels of the evangelists St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John. Read one or all of those first.

[Anonymous No.14457089]

>>14457076
But you should start with the gospels, otherwise none of it will make sense from a Christian perspective.

[Anonymous No.14457111]

Does anyone have any modern Christian biographies that could recommend? I often see ancient hagiographies posted which are great in their own right, but situated in a much different historical context. I would like to read about modern people from whom I can learn spiritual lessons.

A while back I read books on Elder Paisos of Mt Athos as well as St. Therese of Liseux. Even though they are from different denominations, I enjoyed reading both of their stories.

[Anonymous No.14457127]

>>14457049
They always say on this board “start with the Greeks”. The New Testament is the part of the bible originally written in Greek, so start there with one or all of the four gospels. And then go to the hebrew scriptures when you’re ready.

[Anonymous No.14457136]

>>14457076
>>14457083
Ok. I just heard that there were some passages in the OT that were overwritten by words in the NT, like the stuff about adultery. It's still a sin but the punishment for it is no longer death right.

[Anonymous No.14457186]

>>14457136
Yes. Jesus and the Apostles reference the Old Testament in the NT all the time, usually overiding and adding new context to the old passages. Another reason to start with the New Testament is that it already contains the relevant parts of the Old Testament. Having all the old pre-NT books in the bible is a bit like providing the source material for a citatation: necessary for in-depth explanation, but not in itself the point of the religion.

[Anonymous No.14457267]

>>14457186
>not in itself the point of the religion.
The entire reason for Christ was due to original sin from Genesis and the repeated evil of people unable to save themselves throughout history. I know what you are trying to say, but every book is necessary to read in the Bible.

[Anonymous No.14457338]

>>14457267
Every book is *necessary* in kind, but the books are not at all the same in degree of dignity or honor. The Gospels are undoubtedly the most important. If a Christian can only read some books in private devotion (he or she should be hearing all the books being read publically at mass though) then the books absolutely must include a gospel. And we hear the psalms at every single service, the liturgy of the hours has psalms every day. If this one book is being used so often then it must mean that some of the books are more important than others.

But I’m not a priest or anything. I don’t have any legitimate authority to teach.

[Anonymous No.14457354]

>>14457338
I still think it's important that people read all the Bible and not get meme'd into the /lit/ trend of just reading the Gospels and being done with it. Too many people are severely lacking in Old Testament knowledge which hinders them in context.

[Anonymous No.14457417]

>>14457354
Fine. But the bible is huge! Almost no one who wants to start learning more about Christianity will slog through from cover to cover. /lit/ is wrong about many things, but it is right to recommend economizing and prioritizing the use of scripture for private use. Yes it’s all canonical, but getting 100 people to read and benefit from the Gospel of Luke is a lot better than getting one bored atheist to trudge the Pentateuch, and gain nothing from it. Though the ratio is probably even worse, maybe a thousand people will read a gospel for each person who will read the Torah.

[Anonymous No.14457471]

>>14456973
Have you read any Wolfgang Smith?

[Anonymous No.14457488]

>>14457471
I have only read this essay of his http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpdf/default.aspx?article-title=Science_and_Myth--The_Hidden_Connection_by_Wolfgang_Smith.pdf

It was good, but also, nothing you wouldn't have already gotten from reading someone like Guenon and standard Catholic theology. I think that his other books are more interesting since they try and respond to Guenon's criticisms against modern science, while still from a traditional religious perspective.

[Anonymous No.14457908]

>>14457354
Almost nobody should read the whole Bible, or even half of it, or maybe even most of it, unless they are entering a religious order or are naturally interested in scripture. You will simply not understand what's happening if you pick up a random book from the Old Testament without accompanying commentary. Not only will you not know what is happening, but it'll confuse your understanding of what the very text is trying to convey. Give somebody the Song of Songs and 99 times out of 100 they will not only miss the point, but come away with the opposite conclusion. The Song of Songs is a religious allegory of the Divine and Man, but it is written as a love story between a Man and a Woman. The lusty language and description is a sublimation of spiritual truths. But you wouldn't know this is you just picked up the Old Testament randomly. Similarly, Leviticus is an example of the stringent rules required for Israel's Priestly Class in order to keep the Temple (the phenomenological experience of God) pure. Many people today actually think Christians follow the OT laws or consider them binding. It would be disastrous to ever recommend anyone but a naturally curious and practiced layman to read the Old Testament. It's all fulfilled in Christ anyway.

[Anonymous No.14457924]

>>14457908
You are misunderstanding me then. I am not trying to argue against you. I'm just saying that once you get through the gospels you should continue with the OT. We aren't Gnostics that think the old testament was evil or something.

[Anonymous No.14457938]

>>14457924
Yeah, but we are also not Jews, which lots of people think we are just because Protestants meme’d the bible and sola scriptura too hard.

[Anonymous No.14457993]

>>14455760
>whilst its dogmatic and expressed metaphysical understanding is a degree lower of most religions?
In what sense?

[Anonymous No.14458103]

>>14457049
Agreeing with the other anons, start with the NT then work back, you'll just get lost in arcane Hebrew family trees and tribal lineages otherwise.

[Anonymous No.14458128]

>>14455760
That's one pissed off Jesus.

[Anonymous No.14459188]

That bible isn't that big desu, I read through it as a teenager in a few days. Admittedly I didn't get some of the symbolism and didn't have full appreciation for it at the time but it's still a fairly easy read