>read Berkeley >mfw skepticism ultimately smothers the fedora and leads to Christianity

File: 32 KB, 400x300, 1419044998634.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 20:39:51 2015 No.6799630 [Reply] [Original]

>read Berkeley
>mfw skepticism ultimately smothers the fedora and leads to Christianity

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 20:42:32 2015 No.6799649 "No."

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 20:46:04 2015 No.6799661 >>6799630 Haven't you heard? Christianity is the new fedora. So you're just trading one fedora for another.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 20:47:54 2015 No.6799667 >>6799630 >skepticism ultimately smothers the fedora and confirms the bible

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 20:49:30 2015 No.6799676 >>6799661 Cette, Monsieur.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 20:50:28 2015 No.6799680 >>6799630 Are you sure you didn't read Kierkegaard?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 20:51:32 2015 No.6799682 I don't know shit about philosophy, but if I'm not mistaken Tlon Uqbar is based on Berkeley's teachings and it's a pretty fucked up place, so you're probably an idiot OP.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 20:52:18 2015 No.6799684 >>6799630 >skepticism ultimately smothers the fedora and leads to Christianity How? Sounds like babble.

« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Wed Jul 8 20:56:20 2015 No.6799698

>>6799661
"Fedora" was always Christian. Its their last defense against atheism. They don the mask of an unattractive atheist that feel good about himself. They mock them and twist the meaning of euphoria in the process. Hardly effecting hat sales or atheist thought at all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 20:58:03 2015 No.6799703 >>6799684 Berkeley shows that skepticism leads to a destabilizing of physical as assured, even to the point that it is unlikely, which ultimately credits the metaphysical.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 20:58:32 2015 No.6799706 >Implying anyone thinks Berkeley is right

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 20:59:05 2015 No.6799710 >>6799698 tbh I've seen you use it as an attack on Christians regularly

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:01:38 2015 No.6799721

>>6799703
>leads to a destabilizing of physical as assured, even to the point that it is unlikely

I agree.

>which ultimately credits the metaphysical.

No, that would mean that you suspend skepticism when metaphysics is concerned. Just because you are skeptical of the physical and material, doesn't mean you shouldn't be skeptical of the metaphysical and the supernatural.

Based on what you're saying it sounds like Berkeley didn't know what skepticism means.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:02:59 2015 No.6799728 >>6799721 That's because what I'm saying is the briefest summaries of him, not his actual argument, which was written both as a treatise and a dialogue.

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:06:58 2015 No.6799745

>>6799728
That might be true, but nothing about what you said leads "from fedora to Christianity".

If he really was as skeptical as you say he was, he would've known that the innate relativism of religions, namely the fact that it's impossible to know which of the thousands of them, is the true one, makes me think that he was simply biased towards Christianity, and tried miserably to give a rational foundation for believing in it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:10:26 2015 No.6799757 >>6799745 He was pretty much the apex of skepticism in the West, he was a tremendous influence on Hume.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:11:13 2015 No.6799761 >>6799698 The phrase has turned against them. Makes sense, because wearing a dated hat in order to look cool but is the same as practising an outdated religion to look cool.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:14:33 2015 No.6799771 >>6799757 No doubt.

>>	Thomas Wed Jul 8 21:15:14 2015 No.6799776 >>6799761 >God >outdated Friend....

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:16:29 2015 No.6799780

Berkeley's philosophy made it a goal to necessitate God but in no way proves his existence.

>everything exists within the mind (a branch off of descartes)
>all of your perceptions are just that, nothing more
>but then what is objective reality?
>EVERYTHING THAT'S AROUND YOU DUMMY
>oh-kay but I thought you said it was a product of the mind?
>DUH ITS GOD'S MIND DUMMY BTW CHRISTIANITY IS FOR REAL!!!11!

In all seriousness, Kant had a better approach bordering on early cognitive psychology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:22:18 2015 No.6799802 >>6799630 Berkeley isn't a sceptic, he's an idealist. He's saying that there literally is no such thing as matter, and can be no such thing- the very idea is unintelligible. So he's playing the reductionist game, too, but better than the materialist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:29:08 2015 No.6799820 >>6799802 He's a radical skeptic, idealist and empiricist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:32:41 2015 No.6799830 >>6799820 radical scepticism can't be combined with faith based things like idealism and empiricism.

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:33:11 2015 No.6799833

I just realized that my problem is when I read Bradbuy's "Fahrenheit 451" when I was 16 and at the height of my egotrip.

At the time I didn't realize it, but one of the major themes of the book "knowledge and logic are circular and moot" lead me to be the skeptic I am today.
I am so skeptical that I think everybody is full of shit. plato, socrates, durkheim, weber, washington carver, buddha (although he is my favorite), mozart, al gore, obama, hitler, jesus, david of nazareth, seinfeld

everybody is full of shit.
anybody who has the "answers" for you is trying to sell you something.

the people who are upfront about that aren't the worst... the people who keep all their business a secret you should keep an eye on

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:33:54 2015 No.6799836 >>6799776 I didn't say the concept of God itself is outdated m8.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:35:40 2015 No.6799844 >>6799630 Friend, we certainly agree there is a God. But to make the leap from there to the God of the Bible is indefensible. Especially when Christianity as laid out in the Bible is very conspicuously structured like an end of the world cult.

Thomas Wed Jul 8 21:37:20 2015 No.6799851
File: 600 KB, 700x6826, 1428386697505.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6799844
see
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/rediscovering-the-historical-jesus-the-evidence-for-jesus

see
http://www.amazon.com/Assessing-Testament-Historicity-Resurrection-Christianity/dp/0889466165

Note: pic related is about proving God is the sustainer, not proving God is the creator.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:38:03 2015 No.6799853 >>6799833 this fucking skepticism is what is killing you, America

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:42:02 2015 No.6799865
File: 43 KB, 344x517, 1275853348640.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6799630
>>mfw skepticism ultimately smothers the fedora and leads to signing a contract with an executed demigod to secure a property on the nice side of the afterlife
contentious

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:42:05 2015 No.6799866 >>6799853 death usually comes from those who are selling it. what I am talking about ultimately leads to depression, introspection, and eventually nihilism

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:43:20 2015 No.6799873 >>6799851 The argument breaks apart when you realize it advocates pantheism

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:45:36 2015 No.6799886 >>6799851 i think we should be clear that Matthew was written first, not Mark, when discussing the Gospels

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:46:40 2015 No.6799892

>>6799820
No he's not. He's sceptical of matter, but his aims are expressly anti-sceptical- he wants to eliminate the space between our ideas of things and things themselves, by changing our metaphysics of what the thing-in-itself is so that it is not alien to our ideas of it. Did you even read Berkeley, or just the wiki?

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:47:18 2015 No.6799894

>>6799698
>>6799761
>The phrase has turned against them.
kek you people have been trying to force this for months, it's way too contrived to ever take hold.
The only reason religious posting is so common on this board is that you reddit/tumblr newfags go apeshit whenever you see it, which only stokes the fire. There is no other board on which Christian posting is so frequently encountered.

>>	Thomas Wed Jul 8 21:48:02 2015 No.6799897 >>6799873 No it doesn't. >>6799886 The consensus is that Mark was written first, actually.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:49:15 2015 No.6799904 >>6799897 >No it doesn't. Excellent arguments, Thomas. You really show a deep understanding of other people's points that you present in defense of your own.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:50:07 2015 No.6799908 >>6799886 >this shit again

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:52:16 2015 No.6799916 >>6799904 What is presented without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:53:12 2015 No.6799919 >>6799698 >atheist thought >>6799761 >christianity is outdated

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:54:11 2015 No.6799924 >>6799916 The equivalence of God with causality is the equivalence of a natural law as a deity, hence pantheism

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:55:26 2015 No.6799931 >>6799919 just ignore the fedoras they're just baiting for attention. >le religion is dumb because dawkins said so

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:57:06 2015 No.6799941 >>6799873 The argument breaks down when you realize that the universe does not need a creator, maintainer, or sustainer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:58:10 2015 No.6799948 >>6799941 Why?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:59:38 2015 No.6799953 >>6799833 >anybody who has the "answers" for you is trying to sell you something by this logic you are also trying to sell me something nigger why shouldn't I be skeptical of you? why shouldn't I be skeptical of extreme skepticism?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:00:03 2015 No.6799955 Christianity is unconditional love, if anything deserves a religion that does.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:00:15 2015 No.6799956 >>6799897 >The consensus is that Mark was written first, actually. So? Ancient historians say otherwise Their view depends on the a magical Q source which no one saw or heard, except Matthew and Luke >>6799908 Im sorry, who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:00:31 2015 No.6799957 >>6799948 He's attacking the argument's propositions

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:01:31 2015 No.6799961 >>6799953 You should be, and to the same extent you are skeptical of everything else

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:02:04 2015 No.6799966 >>6799957 Not even him but with what logic? there is no argument there, just a straight "no u".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:02:22 2015 No.6799968 >>6799955 It isn't unconditional since salvation is dependent on the condition on believing in the divine nature and resurrection of Christ.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:03:22 2015 No.6799970 >>6799961 but I'm literally skeptical of my own skepticism and when I think too much about that I become skeptical of my own skepticism regarding my initial skepticism

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:03:51 2015 No.6799974 >>6799970 Good, continue.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:04:22 2015 No.6799978 >>6799968 He was talking about love, not salvation nig. Gotta read closely.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:04:23 2015 No.6799979 >>6799968 Free will, God lets man do foolish things.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:04:51 2015 No.6799982 >>6799956 >Ancient historians Augustine, who wasn't there and magically pulled the idea straight from his ass, as opposed to modern scholars that used linguistic and historical analysis to make a coherent theory with evidence. Tough pick.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:04:52 2015 No.6799983 >>6799966 That's true, he should explain himself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:05:21 2015 No.6799986 >>6799968 >>6799968 Believing in Christ means following his new commandment, to unconditionally love. To do that is to know Christ.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:05:22 2015 No.6799987 >>6799974 the only thing I eventually arrive at is that almost nothing can be undoubtedly known

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:06:24 2015 No.6799996 >>6799987 Congratulations, Socrates.

>>	Thomas Wed Jul 8 22:06:58 2015 No.6799998 >>6799904 You never actually made an argument, so there's nothing I am able to rebut.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:08:32 2015 No.6800001 >>6799979 Yes, I remember believing just that at one time. >>6799986 Yet I can love unconditionally without the commandment of Christ. I don't even see where Christ is necessary.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:08:33 2015 No.6800002 >>6799998 To say that God is literally the force of causality is to identify a natural law as God. When you do that you are equivocating a part of the universe as God and this is pantheism.

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:10:21 2015 No.6800008

>>6799924
What, no. Pantheism is either the idea that everything is divine, or that all is one. Aquinas's arguments explicitly oppose both conclusions. His premises start in the world of diverse and changeable things, reasoning to a transcendent first cause that is not identical with any of those things. Nowhere, moreover, is God reduced to mere natural law- indeed, on Aquinas' metaphysics "laws" are mere abstractions from concrete natures, and natures in turn, insofar as they involve some qualification of Being, are created things, not identical to God.

God is Power Itself (as well as Being Itself, Intellect Itself, Love Itself, etc), sure, but that does not mean that all instances of power are God, because the moment some power is qualified, it is not Power Itself. Precisely as unqualified being, God is unique, the One among the many, hence he transcends everything, even as everything depends upon him. You're importing a foreign metaphysics, thinking that what is in God as Power Itself is in created things as small-P power in an equivocal way. The whole point of Aquinas calling God Power Itself is that God is the primordial reality from which all power derives, and with which there could not in principle be any direct equivalence, but only analogical allusion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:10:40 2015 No.6800009 >>6800001 >Yes, I remember believing just that at one time. He's letting you be an idiot right now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:12:17 2015 No.6800016 >>6799986 >>6800001 unconditional love is an invitation to cuckoldry not memeing

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:13:03 2015 No.6800017 >>6800009 If you like, but I see no reason and no evidence for thinking there is any God taking a personal interest in my life, let alone my 'soul' or 'salvation'.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:13:11 2015 No.6800018 >>6800008 The force of causality underlies all things. It's extremely similar to Einstein's view that the laws of nature are "God", which I don't think is any kind of mainstream interpretation

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:13:34 2015 No.6800020 >>6800001 >Yet I can love unconditionally without the commandment of Christ. I don't even see where Christ is necessary. God is love, to love unconditionally is serving God. This is the teaching of Christ, you can't serve one without serving the other.

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:14:06 2015 No.6800022

>>6799982
>Augustine, who wasn't there and magically pulled the idea straight from his ass
Iraneus
‘So Matthew also brought out a written Gospel among the Jews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the Church. But after their demise, Mark himself the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke too, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel which was being preached by him. Later on too, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even reclined on his bosom, he too brought out a Gospel while he was dwelling in Ephesus of Asia’

Papias
‘And this the Presbyter used to say: "Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order whatever he [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord; for he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to make teachings according to the cheias, [a special kind of anecdote] but not making as it were a systematic composition of the Lords sayings; so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled [them]. For he had but one intention, not to leave out anything he had heard, nor to falsify anything in them". This is what was related by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew’s this was said: ‘For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able’.

>as opposed to modern scholars that used linguistic and historical analysis to make a coherent theory with evidence.
>Q source
>coherent theory with evidence

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:14:13 2015 No.6800024 >>6799698 Although your Anarchism is a pipe-dream which denies human nature, I do appreciate this principled comment about the fedora meme. tips :^) wew lad

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:15:47 2015 No.6800031 >>6800020 >God is love, to love unconditionally is serving God. This is the teaching of Christ, you can't serve one without serving the other. Did Christ invent unconditional love?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:16:40 2015 No.6800033 >>6800031 He died for it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:17:08 2015 No.6800034 >>6799851 Could Aquinas just be conceptualizing the Big Bang as God?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:17:59 2015 No.6800035 >>6800033 I mean, were people loving unconditionally prior to Christ? Was it even possible?

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:20:43 2015 No.6800046

>>6800018

Yes, everything has causal power in some qualified sense. But unqualified power itself is not identical to the qualified powers of particular things. Aquinas's point, if you read his work as a whole, is that ultimate reality- Power Itself- is not a dead mechanical abstraction like Einstein's, but is rather the God of revelation: immaterial, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, necessarily existent and triune.

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:21:58 2015 No.6800053

>>6800046
>Aquinas's point, if you read his work as a whole, is that ultimate reality- Power Itself- is not a dead mechanical abstraction like Einstein's, but is rather the God of revelation
>ultimate reality is God
Is this not an admission of pantheism?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:22:33 2015 No.6800057 >>6800053 No, because not everything is ultimate reality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:23:12 2015 No.6800058 >>6800057 Fair enough.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:23:49 2015 No.6800061 >>6800035 The spirit of God existed before the creation of the world, "before Abraham was, I am".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:27:32 2015 No.6800077 >>6800022 Not him, but how does Papias's excerpt support your point? I don't see where it talks about chronology

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:28:24 2015 No.6800080 >>6800035 They weren't and they weren't after. We are incompetent sinners until we are united with our Lord.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:33:47 2015 No.6800105 File: 33 KB, 509x480, 1432180916666.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6799698 >atheist thought

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:34:10 2015 No.6800106 >>6800061 Okay. How does that relate to my question? >>6800080 I see. What need does the Lord have for incompetent sinners?

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:34:10 2015 No.6800107

>>6800077
one of the main arguments for Markan priority is the "poor" Greek used by Mark
Why would he change Matthew "good" Greek into "poor" Greek, so Mark must have written first.
But Papias' quote shows that he was recording Peter's "speech" and intended to record exactly what Peter said

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:35:11 2015 No.6800111 >>6800107 Thanks, I wasn't aware of that context.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:35:31 2015 No.6800114 >>6800106 >incompetent speak for yourself

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:36:15 2015 No.6800119 >>6800114 See >>6800080

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:36:34 2015 No.6800120
File: 240 KB, 782x719, cultstructure.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6799851

That doesn't counter what I said. We agree Jesus existed. I don't consider it as remarkable as the author of that article seems to that his religion blew up, because I understand role that the way it's formulated played in that.

Going forward don't just blindly link me to shit in order to avoid thinking about/addressing my arguments in detail. It's low effort and disrespects the effort I put into my side of the discussion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:37:02 2015 No.6800122 >>6800106 >implying the Lord needs you

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:37:15 2015 No.6800125 >>6800106 >Okay. How does that relate to my question? The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three views of the same thing. God, who is love.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:40:01 2015 No.6800135 >>6800125 That's modalism, Patrick.

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:42:57 2015 No.6800147

>>6800111
No problem

See this: http://www.churchinhistory.org/s3-gospels/clem-trad/contents-clem-trad.htm

It examines The Clementine Gospel Tradition based on the Ancient Historians and contemporary research to give a "new" solution to the synoptic problem

It's a good read, definitely check it out

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:45:14 2015 No.6800156 >>6800135 Who can deny that Christ and the Spirit is anything but love? God is one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:48:09 2015 No.6800166 >>6800156 One being, three persons, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. And in any event, such an affirmation is necessary to coherently affirm that God is love, anyway.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:51:59 2015 No.6800179 >>6800166 Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit and only spoke what was told. If God is love, and Jesus is God, what alternatives are there?

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:08:19 2015 No.6800234

>>6800122

Indeed, I can't imagine why he should.

>>6800179

>If God is love, and Jesus is God, what alternatives are there?

Easy, cut God and Christ out of it completely and love stands on its own. There is that which loves and that which is loved, why complicate it with vague theological assertions?

It's fine and well to say 'God is Love is Jesus is Love is The Holy Spirit is God' but there's no value in this and nothing to understand besides word association. "God is Love" is a meaningless assertion to anyone who's not just saying it because it gives warm fuzzies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:12:06 2015 No.6800242 >>6800234 >Easy, cut God and Christ out of it completely and love stands on its own. Love is imaginary.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:13:11 2015 No.6800248 >>6800242 Even simpler.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:14:56 2015 No.6800252 >>6800248 Then what is real?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:16:20 2015 No.6800257 >>6800252 What difference could it possibly make?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:18:00 2015 No.6800259 >>6800257 All the difference in the world.

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:19:53 2015 No.6800264

>>6800107
>one of the main arguments for Markan priority is the "poor" Greek used by Mark
You're misrepresenting the argument. The quality of Mark's Greek isn't necessarily the point, it's the simplicity of the text itself. The other fact is that Matthew and Luke quote Mark verbatim but Mark doesn't quote Luke or Matthew. Sorry your theory is fringe and the latter writers' ideas are pure speculation that's not backed up by evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:22:14 2015 No.6800278 >>6800259 "Real" is a word. Like "God" and "love" are words. The sun's rising and setting does not seem to depend on them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:23:34 2015 No.6800284 >>6800278 The sun is just a word.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:27:30 2015 No.6800298 >>6800284 Oh yes, "sun" is a word, separate from the seemingly tangible phenomenon it describes, which appears to be more than a word, since words cannot burn your skin with extended exposure.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:29:00 2015 No.6800302 >>6800298 >the seemingly tangible phenomenon it describes

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:30:02 2015 No.6800309 >>6800302 :^)

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:34:41 2015 No.6800327

>>6800264
>The quality of Mark's Greek isn't necessarily the point, it's the simplicity of the text itself
which is because it was a recording of Peter's speech
>The other fact is that Matthew and Luke quote Mark verbatim but Mark doesn't quote Luke or Matthew
Mark is literally a conflation of both Matt and Luke
http://www.churchinhistory.org/s3-gospels/clem-trad/chap2-clem-trad.htm
>Sorry your theory is fringe
says who?
>and the latter writers' ideas are pure speculation that's not backed up by evidence.
except fucking Papias knew John the Apostle and was described as "hearer of John"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:47:36 2015 No.6800371 >>6800327 >says who? Scholarship. Maybe that'll change one day and it probably will, but it won't be Augustine's hypothesis, most likely Q+ or or Mark-Q/Matthew but that's how it is, regardless what your site says.

« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Wed Jul 8 23:49:12 2015 No.6800379

>>6799710
I've "tipped foreskin" at them before, TBH

>>6799894
Bullshit. It comes, we ignore, it still comes, we point out how stupid it is, it still comes. Just bullshit.

>>6799931
>le religion is dumb because dawk–
Le religion is dumb because we've had a long hard thought over it.

>>6800024
It is a "pipe-dream" but it does not deny human nature. We're capable of changing our ways, we've demonstrated it in recent centuries, we're just lulled into lazy thought out of some sick notions from traditionalists.

Anonymous Wed Jul 8 23:53:55 2015 No.6800399

>>6800371
>Scholarship
that site is scholarship, it's just scholarship you dont agree with

your entire argument revolves around "buh muh majority!" and dismiss everything that challenges the common opinion.

Besides, you are still holding on to Q source, even though there isnt any evidence about it.
Talk about fringe :^)

funny, you didnt even address the claims of the book, and dismissed the Peter Speech for no reason, talk about intellectual honesty

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:03:03 2015 No.6800430
File: 127 KB, 504x470, thank you jesus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6800399
What part of "fringe" don't you understand? Jesus.

>if I just keep saying there's no evidence for Q it'll be real! Some guy from a long time ago has to be more correct than those nasty secular scholars!

There's literally nothing to address.

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:03:22 2015 No.6800433

I find these threads interesting, the ones where people read Aquinas or Berkeley or whoever you like and are epiphanized into Christianity. I've never read them, but do all their theological hair-slitting and knot-tying really make the Christian scheme of original sin + vicarious redemption seem that much less absurd and unnecessary?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:04:45 2015 No.6800439 >>6800371 also, who the fuck is talking about Augustine's theory? youre the only one who keeps bringing him up This isnt Augustine's theory, it's The Clementine Gospel Tradition, stated by Clement of Alexandria, who lived before Augustine

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:05:01 2015 No.6800442 >>6800433 If you read Catcher in the Rye enough times you evidently will want to kill John Lennon. it's roughly the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:07:01 2015 No.6800453 >>6800442 I tried reading Catcher three different times but it could never keep my interest. >tfw you'll never shoot John Lennon

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:07:04 2015 No.6800454 >>6800439 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_hypothesis

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:09:33 2015 No.6800462

>>6800430
Stop handwaving

>guy who knew John the Apostle vs Le meme scholars living 2000 years after

tough choice indeed

>hey guys! this Q document, it really existed! It's just that..ummm.. no one saw it or heard of it so it's pretty rare, so thats why no historian mentions it, but 2 writers?, yeah they definitely got a hand of it. BUT THEY DIN TELL ANYONE!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:11:47 2015 No.6800474 >>6800454 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Messing

>>	Thomas Thu Jul 9 00:12:23 2015 No.6800480 >>6800002 The argument is that God is the source of causality, not that God is causality itself.

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:17:15 2015 No.6800501
File: 17 KB, 320x210, podrace face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6800462
>Le meme scholars
>The vast majority of biblical scholars aren't REALLY scholars when they disagree with my website!
>guys it's just a magical coincidence that Matthew and Luke quote Mark but Mark doesn't quote them and that Matthew and Luke quote some other unknown source that isn't Mark guys please i want to belieeeeve

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:19:01 2015 No.6800506 >>6800474 >Being this blown the fuck out

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:24:42 2015 No.6800524 >>6799630 Whos this semen demon?

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:26:49 2015 No.6800529
File: 17 KB, 500x371, 10427300_811475225576840_4567949739087122047_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6800501
>muh muh majority! REEEEEEEEE
>being this mad that doesnt realize Mark is just combining Matt and Luke
>still not reading the book
>thinks im advocating Augustinian Theory
>still believes in magic Q

have you thought that maybe, an opinion that a majority holds, can result to, and please dont freak out, be WRONG?

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:36:24 2015 No.6800567
File: 28 KB, 413x395, 1302798335571.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6800529
>still doesn't get that Matthew and Luke are still quoting someone besides Mark
>still thinks just saying something makes it true regardless of what the community of actual experts think
>still advertising for his site as if it's anything but an Augustinian rip-off
>literally relying on old ass "U MAD" meme
>being this super undank

have you thought that maybe, an opinion that a you alone holds, can result to, and please dont freak out, be WRONG?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:38:28 2015 No.6800580 >>6800524 Who has done more nude scenes than any other female actress in the last ten years?

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:48:06 2015 No.6800620

>>6800567
oh yes, Luke is quoting someone
it's Matthew

there isnt any evidence for Q, m8, that's a fact

also, did you even read the book? or you cant into different theories?

I already proved Mark can be explained by being a recording of Peter's Speech

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:51:38 2015 No.6800631 >>6800016 no, no, it's not

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:53:29 2015 No.6800637 >>6800567 >have you thought that maybe, an opinion that a you alone holds, can result to, and please dont freak out, be WRONG? you havent even given an argument, how can it turn to be wrong?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 00:57:59 2015 No.6800649 >>6799630 >leads to christianity How is that possible when most people lack any sort of faith?

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Thu Jul 9 01:01:52 2015 No.6800659 >>6800649 Take skepticism far enough and it will require a great deal of faith

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 01:07:31 2015 No.6800675
File: 25 KB, 338x277, 1282908922326.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6800620
Funny how you only mention Luke. Luke quoting from Matthew doesn't stop Q from existing.
>Matthew and Luke contain text from Mark.
>Mark doesn't contain extra text from Matthew of Luke.
>Luke may have copied from Matthew, but both Matthew and Luke contain text from an unidentified source.
That right there is plenty of evidence for Q. If it wasn't, the fact that the Gospel of Thomas exists and probably is Q, or was itself either the source of or a rendition of Q, is. Ancient hearsay doesn't prove Mark is a recording of Peter anymore than it proves Mark wrote it, or Luke wrote his, etc. Do you also think Moses wrote the Pentateuch?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 01:08:31 2015 No.6800677 >>6800637 samefag, please.

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 01:09:41 2015 No.6800680 [DELETED]

File: 25 KB, 480x360, bitch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

[MOOT STATUS: LITERALLY IN TEARS]
[MOOT STATUS: LITERALLY IN TEARS]

https://master[remove]chan.org/b/thread/90287

We need you 4chan. GET IN HERE.
Get on this thread and tell us what you think.

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 01:12:12 2015 No.6800685

>>6799630
I was raised being taught Christianity is a false religion so even if I were to accept the biblical narrative it wouldn't be the Christian's because they reject the law through false interpretations of scripture and miss the profound nature of the bible as a whole, undivided and heavily linked to it's Hebrew roots where Yahweh first commanded Israel.

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 01:18:38 2015 No.6800698

>>6800675
The Clementine tradition, revived in 1764 by Henry Owen ((HO)), holds that Mark’s Gospel was formed by the conflation (two streams mixing to form one stream) of Matthew and Luke. When placed side by side (a synoptic arrangement) we can see where borrowing has taken place.

A Synoptic arrangement may vary slightly depending on how the gospel verses and pericopes are divided. (A pericope is a small section or sub-section of a verse). When illustrating, below, this zigzag effect, the works of several authors were consulted, including H. Riley ((RO 4-18)), Orchard ((RO 263-272)) and Meijboom ((JJK 151-155)).

Where Matthew and Luke are identical, we are not able to decide which gospel Mark/ Peter was following at that moment. But a small variation can provide a clue. For example, at the Transfiguration Mark follows Matthew’s ‘six days’ rather than Luke’s ‘about eight days’.

From the shaded areas we are able to see how Mark’s Gospel borrowed alternatively from the existing two Gospels. OF indicates: ‘The Our Father’ and B: ‘The Beatitudes’.

Mark’s own verses are indicated by { }. T is where Orchard suggests Peter started each talk.

The chart illustrates the alternating borrowing of complete verses, but is not detailed enough to indicate the borrowing of individual words or phrases. For example: Although Mark 6: 7-16 as a whole is drawn from Luke, the words in 6:14 are from Matthew. Although Mark 8: 27-10: 40 is mainly taken from Matthew, the influence of Luke may be seen in 8:38, 9:32-33. ((JJK 153-5)).

The three gospels of Matthew, Luke and Mark are often referred to as: ‘the Synoptic Gospels’.

According to the Markan priority theory, when Matthew ceases to follow the order of Mark, Luke continues in it until Luke ceases when Matthew takes over. This continues throughout the Gospels. This could only have been accomplished if Matthew and Luke co-ordinated their work very closely. But, according to the Markan theory, these Gospels were created in separate communities that were out of touch with one another.

This is an insoluble difficulty for the Markans. This difficulty also applies to other phrases. Matthew and Luke use exactly the same five Greek words to form a phrase concerning Peter’s denial. Mark uses three different words conveying the same meaning (Mark 14: 72). If Markan priority is correct, Matthew and Luke chose the same phrase without having been in contact with each another ((DBP 303)).

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 01:21:42 2015 No.6800708

>>6800698
The duplications of Mark are a feature of his style. They are often referred to as his ‘redundant clauses’ or ‘duality’. To take an example:-
.
Matthew: "That evening they brought to him" (Mt.8:16-17). .
Luke: “Now when the sun was setting, they…brought them to him" (Luke 4:40-41).

The gospel of Mark (1: 32), conflates the material together as: - "That evening, at sundown they brought to him …” By using ‘evening’ and ‘sundown’, Mark is duplicating himself. For those who accept that Mark is conflating, there is no difficulty as it is just part of his style. But for Markans duality is a serious problem. If there were only a few instances of duality, they could be ignored. It could be said that Matthew just happened to use half of the duality and Luke happened to use the other half. But there are many dualities and where both halves are of equal importance, they authors do not chose the same half.

Matthew and Luke would have had to divide up Mark’s dualities between them in a consistent manner to avoid them using the same half. The only way this could have been achieved would be for their gospels to have been brought together in some way. Again the advocates of Markan priority meet the problem that, according to them, Matthew and Luke did not know one another.

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 01:22:58 2015 No.6800712

>>6800708
Realising the strength of the Clementine case, Markans have attempted to answer this problem. In 1983, C.M.Tuckett claimed there were 213 dualities in Mark’s gospel, so chance would explain the 17 cases where Matthew and Luke chose different halves ((CMT 20-21)). At first this appears a plausible argument, and many feel overawed by statistics. A few comments are therefore required.
1). Let us presume for the moment, that Markan priority is correct. Of the 213 dualities Matthew and Luke did not use either half in 157 of them. It is correct that 39 do not use the same half. But these instances are where dualities are vague or do not have ‘equal value’ (i.e. one word is more suitable than the other, so was highly likely to be chosen by both). The debate must be judged on the 17 cases where there is a clear duality of equal value and meaning (e.g. ‘evening’ and ‘sunset’). Markans need to explain why, whenever there was such a choice, Matthew and Luke always chose differently.
2. An interesting observation may also be made regarding the 213 dualities examined by Tuckett. Matthew has one or both halves 152 times, of which 124 are when Matthew and Mark are in the same sequence. Luke has one or both 116 times, of which 114 are when one or both are in the same sequence. This is further support for the view that Mark was conflating the other two.
3. As Riley has pointed out, the normally accepted number of dualisms as listed by Neirynck, a Markan, is 217. Tuckett omits many of these while adding others of his own. So the statistical basis for his calculations is itself open to questioning ((RO107-8)).
4. A more detailed response to Tucket was made in 1987
by Allan J. McNicol ((AJMT)).

Of the ten healing stories in Mark, eight appear in Matthew and Luke. Both had chosen exactly the same eight ((WRF 166-7)).

Mark lists six Commandments (Mark 10: 19). Matthew and Luke list five and these are exactly the same five ((WRF 160)).

If Mark was reading from the other two there is no problem in accepting that he copied what was in front of him and added something of his own. .

But if Matthew and Luke were using Mark, the pattern of choosing exactly the same items would be highly unlikely unless they consulted with one another. Markan priority insists that they did not know one another.

>>	Thomas Thu Jul 9 01:23:57 2015 No.6800714 >>6800685 If the Trinity is wrong, then explain God referring to himself in the plural

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 01:24:12 2015 No.6800716
File: 120 KB, 434x400, zechs marquise the lightning count millardo peacecraft laughs at your self-detonation.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6800698
>>6800708
>the vast majority of scholars will still always affirm the reality of the logia and no amount of going full autism and copypastaing your site content will change it

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 01:25:17 2015 No.6800718 >>6800714 "Royal We" is a common occurrence in languages that support the grammatical possibility of it.

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 01:25:34 2015 No.6800719

>>6800712
The 'Q' Source

There are identical verses in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Markans claim both authors copied from Mark's Gospel. They further assert that Matthew and Luke had no knowledge of each other. So where did they obtain their many identical verses that were not present in Mark's Gospel? Markans say they copied from a lost document, which they call 'Q' from the German word 'Quelle' (Source).

There is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that 'Q' or its author ever existed. If 'Q' had existed, it would have been the most treasured, copied, precious scroll of Christianity during the first 50-70 years of the new religion. According to the Markans we owe the preservation of 'The Our Father' and 'The Beatitudes' to 'Q'. Mark did not bother to record them. If 'Q' had been the key document containing the sayings of Christ, it would have been passed from hand to hand and read at Services.

Markans want us to believe that the community that produced 'Q' made such few copies that none have been found or have been mentioned by historians. Yet the anonymous authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, found two rare copies and made them the basis of their writings. Then the communities of both Matthew and Luke lost 'Q'. If 'Q' was so important, multiple copies would have been made for many communities. Markans have not explained how all copies of this key Christian document were lost. Also, how did all knowledge of 'Q' disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of Christian or heretical literature?

Those who hold the Markan theory demand the most stringent proof for the historicity of the Gospels, for which we have much historical evidence. Yet they accept conjectures and theories about 'Q', based on further conjectures and theories for which there is no evidence at all. In reality 'Q' was created out of nothing by theologians in the 19th century, to fill a hole in the Markan priority theory.

Anonymous Thu Jul 9 01:26:52 2015 No.6800722

>>6800719
Markans describe the period between the time of Christ and the writing of the Gospels as: 'A long dark tunnel'. They have spent years, at the expense of Universities, looking for 'Q' and its author in darkness. But historians tell us the period was short. The 'long' is not a fact, but a further creation. They are working in a long dark tunnel, because they refuse to turn on the lights provided by the ancient historians.

I have no wish to be facetious, but it is necessary to be blunt in order to bring home another important point. The use of familiar names to describe unknown alleged authors, clouds a clear understanding of what Markans wish us to accept.

They call the anonymous authors, they have invented, by the names of actual people (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). This makes them sound familiar, real and comforting. But, if the Markans are correct, more appropriate names would be: Saints Tom, Dick, Harry and Janette, while not forgetting the venerable 'Q'.

Irenaeus, Eusebius, Tertullian and others had travelled throughout the Roman Empire, and were well educated. Why did they have no knowledge of the alleged anonymous authors or 'Q'? Why did the Jews, heretics and pagans never mention them or it? Why were all the ancient historians and theologians completely ignorant of 'Q'? Or the name of the genius, who had produced the key written account of the life and teaching of Christ? Also, why did all the historians of the period, alleged to have lived far apart, accept the gospels were written by four other men and agree their names and backgrounds?

>the vast majority of scholars will still always affirm the reality of the logia
just like scientists affirmed the reality of geocentrism, right?

>>	Thomas Thu Jul 9 01:28:01 2015 No.6800723 >>6800718 Then why isn't it consistent?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 01:38:27 2015 No.6800742 >>6800680 disgusting. these things never catch on 'free speech' is a spook

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 06:52:08 2015 No.6801350 >>6799886 Fuck off

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 16:11:36 2015 No.6802969 >>6801350 but it was

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 21:47:39 2015 No.6804367 >>6800017 He is, He does, He will. Don't worry anon, you aren't forgotten.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 21:48:19 2015 No.6804372 File: 33 KB, 1024x576, 4ccb243504fe3f3dd1a53a9205e41fa1b94af3a3a80b9bbb869a4c7a76db3c67_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6799698 >atheist "thought"

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 9 21:50:59 2015 No.6804381 >>6799776 >four Greek classical elements >outdated Fucking periodic table fedora tippers.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature