Christian Theology General
[This is a continuation of an extended conversation in Shitbox, see there for previous context.]

Apologies to any who feel I may be beating a dead horse, but there returned to me today the most awe-inspiring comment from our conversation yesterday:

@Leverkühn "I, the monolingual man in 2022 knows what the truth of the faith really is!" (Quotation of an ironic paraphrase)

The first of these (which I already commented on somewhat), the perfectly reversed John Oliver, a conclusion from his argument about epistemic authority (and I hope I'm understanding this concept correctly), containing within itself the assumption that all knowledge about Christ and God comes only from having interacted with the incarnate Christ personally, and passing on this knowledge through human word of mouth (or pen) following his leave: the obvious implication to this being that, between that time and the Second Coming, religious knowledge will remain entirely stagnant (and in fact will decline continually, in the process of transmission and "interpretation" - this is a reasonable assumption, no?) - and divine "access" remains closed (that is, to revelation, which Christ offered - exclusively, in this? - and this is what is supposedly passed down, in terms of authority). He tells us, in this statement, that whatever authority he supposes does not have such "access", themselves, only some type of divine permission to correctly interpret and maintain what has already been given. Yet, Abraham never walked with the incarnate Christ. Neither did Moses. Would the opaque teachings of Christ, if he were given them, be sufficient in place of God's precise instruction in building the tabernacle? In place of his personal commands, to march to the left, and then to the right? Contained here is the idea that, on each side of Christ's earthly adventure, God has fundamentally changed in the way he chooses to interact with man, essentially leaving us on our own in the latter days, except for the guidance of his ordained eunuch scribes. (And as I've said before, the Nicaeans are entirely right - about themselves.)

This leads directly into the second part of the deeply revelatory comment in question, the "monolingual man", as an attempted insult specifically at one's holiness or access to divinity via general learnedness. These scribes, being our only divine access and therefore themselves being divine in a practical sense, elevate scribal learning (and especially that of Platonic philosophy) to the means of holiness, so that The Higher Life literally consists of studying out of books in a dark room, rejecting marriage, and seeking by a sort of nerdy asceticism the immaterial hidden forms by which Fallen Man can be personally overcome. Does this sound familiar? I have no new accusations to make, but only hope to better explain those I have made previously. They say that today the West is ruled by trannies, but is this new?
All well put, as you've rightly pointed out I do in fact hold more favor towards those whom Christ ministered to and chose as his Apostles, as well as those that like Paul who became de-facto Apostles after his Resurrection, and those whom they taught in turn. You've also pointed out correctly that I do have high respect for what you describe as the "ordained eunuch scribes," and their life of "studying out of books in a dark room, rejecting marriage, and seeking by a sort of nerdy asceticism the immaterial hidden forms by which Fallen Man can be personally overcome." The single issue I'd take with this is that I don't so much think "studying books" is the correct way to go about thinks: I think the intellectual study of the Christian Faith can be good for some, but it's by no means necessary. I have great respect for Anthony of the Desert and Simeon Stylites and the Christian ascetic tradition. From what I understand they wrote and read rather little, and most of their time was spent in private prayer and they didn't minister to others until later in life. Isaac of Nineveh would be a good figure to look at as someone who was both ascetic and a man of books, and I'd recommend looking at his homilies on the inner spiritual life.

I find your obsession with criticizing "eunuch scribes" (you mention this twice, "rejecting marriage" phrase) odd, as this doesn't seem at all opposed to the Christian faith. Take Paul's First Letter to Corinthians, Verse 7:
Quote:Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man to not touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband...I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
So there you have it from the Apostle himself, there is no problem with "rejecting marriage" or being a "eunuch scribe," as far as the faith is concerned. I'm not sure how Mormons view Paul, maybe they don't view him as an Apostle who was visited and given authority from Christ, but it's something I believe at the very least. And herein is a reason why I brought of the issue of "epistemic authority" (which you did use correctly) when in discussion with you: For whatever reason, you have a personal disdain for celibacy. You call them eunuchs, and with your last sentence it seems you're even implying such people are trannies. Are you calling Saint Paul a tranny? Maybe you are, you should be more explicit in who you mean. But what we have here is a pretty direct contradiction between what you think is correct and moral, and what I find rather explicitly in Scripture. You have an obvious disdain for celibacy, and Scripture is rather clear that not only is celibacy a perfectly fine option, it's actually preferred. Celibacy is the route that all Christians should take, according to Paul, but he recognizes many of us could not handle the flame of sexual desire, so he says in such cases we should get married, "for it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion."

I understand your criticisms of my wishing to privilege the opinions and interpretations to those whom Christ ministered to personally and whom the Apostles ministered to. I don't think "the heavens are closed" as I also believe in Saints, hence it's more than fine in my worldview to say people have had visions or blessings from God. But I'm wary of people who have such disdain for this hermeneutical approach to Scripture, because it often ends up being the case that they contradict Scripture themselves in their own readings. In some sense I think that's clearly what's happened with your view on celibacy: you have some personal grievance and it leads you to contradict Scripture. If you paid more respect to Paul you wouldn't fall into such an issue.

Quote:He tells us, in this statement, that whatever authority he supposes does not have such "access", themselves, only some type of divine permission to correctly interpret and maintain what has already been given. Yet, Abraham never walked with the incarnate Christ. Neither did Moses.
Of course, this is true. They did not know the Christ, nor did they know the Holy Spirit, as the Apostles did after the Resurrection (opening of Acts, iirc). My point is not that only those who interacted with the Christ have knowledge of God, but such people have a greater and more correct knowledge of God. And this is why Christ corrects them. The correction on marriage seems the most explicit to me. Matthew Chapter 19, Verse 7, and on:
Quote:“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses order a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away? Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hardness of heart; but it was not this way from the beginning. Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery. His disciples said to Him, “If this is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry.” “Not everyone can accept this word,” He replied, “but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way; others were made that way by men; and still others live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
I put those last sentences in just for you, to show you that Christ Himself showed none of your personal disdain for eunuchs and celibates, and that he speaks positively of such figures: "The one who can accept this should accept it." 
Your analysis is correct in that I'd say (together with the Mormons - though as I've said elsewhere, most of them would never admit this so frankly) that Paul is wrong, on this issue. This is in no way a categorical rejection of the man, who had a great many good and important things to say, in the same way that I would not reject Joseph Smith categorically on account of his going too far in the opposite direction, as I think we'd all agree. Both received visions of the divine, and, it is supposed, were given authority, but as for what they ended up actually teaching, let the Spirit witness. Whether you're Joseph or Paul or Peter, shaking the hand of Christ does not rub off infallibility, and I have no reason to definitively "pay respect" to Paul so long as in my reading I pay respect to God.

Since you asked regarding the Mormons, I'll provide a little context for you: in the LDS church, an unmarried man cannot serve in a position of authority, the thought being, if he cannot manage his own house as a husband, why should he be allowed to manage the Kingdom of God. Further, in the Mormon faith, by theological necessity, the unmarried man is not saved (though with provision for proper marriage arrangements after death - of course, one is not to judge eternal things by earthly circumstance). "Saved" I use here in the stricter sense of "exalted"... we don't have time for a full explanation of this theology to the unfamiliar, but notably those who remain unmarried by choice, eternally, cannot receive the ultimate blessings of God, and - so they teach - are ultimately rendered into sexless, sterile angels, beings of servitude, whereas the exalted enter into the creative nature of God. This is far too much of a tangent for this thread, but on most of this, save some details of understanding, we are at agreement. This is by way of explanation for my "disdain", in the types of natures which have been given rulership over the so-called Church.

(Again, too long, but I figure you'd like to know: ) The Mormons take this so far that the idea of Christ himself being unmarried is unacceptable to them, on many levels, and so it's supposed, as a sort of folk belief (not official doctrine) that he was in fact married in his life, and even produced children, this detail being left out or excised from existing scripture. I would not sustain such a view, but not for reasons that would bring us into agreement. Any further conversation on this should really be in the relevant thread.

Back to the here and now: Declared Saints having supposed visions and divers paltry miracles is fine, but then where is the scripture they've since produced? Why then is the canon formally closed? You say the heavens are not closed, but then what is stopping this? Why do the words of God not flow forth continually, through his ordained Church?

I contest your claim that Moses et al. did not know the Spirit:
...and also that they did not know Christ, the Jehovah will whom they spoke being his own person (and hence it being, truly, their own God who they crucified).

But this is beside your point, that the Apostles had particularly greater knowledge because Christ taught them personally. I've given my response already, but to reiterate and clarify, the role of Christ as prophet and teacher, as valuable as it is, was not his defining role, was not his reason for being begotten into mortal flesh, and, taken by itself, does not categorically elevate him above any other prophet, in that he spake by the same Spirit which inhabits them all, and which continues to inhabit man in all ages. Christ did not teach anything that someone else could not have taught - his great role, for which he is called God, is in the Atonement, a topic which may better direct this thread.

On your final point, I have no particular issue with eunuchs themselves, only specifically their rulership, spiritual or otherwise, which is comparable to the rule of women. The Kingdom of God is not so.
I'm a bit drowsy from my Saturday nap, so this may not be my best, but lest this thread end up cannibalized by Tibetan Buddhists, I'll provide a few words on Christology and its history.

One cannot understand the follies of Christianity thus taught without understanding the follies of the Greek philosophy on which it is dependent, and by which it was smothered in the crib. While this is in no way an insult to the great Greeks of the more ancient past (that is, not to offend the BAPists), it's moreso the later Hellenists and their full embrace and development of the philosophical tradition which rendered their whole language of conversation a spiritual and intellectual poison to any who should touch it. No true and goodly Christianity could have been inherited which was first put to parchment by a Hellenistic pen, which begins by internalizing and processing all things according to this and that λόγος and οὐσία. Of all of them this comes down most to the shadow of Plato, whose way of thinking (if linguistic sleight of hand can even be called that), in reducing reality to concept, of thing to descriptor, of actual object to imagined category, by means of clever logical formulas, will always Satanically invert and confuse any sort of real understanding. (Beyond our topic, this shadow of "discourse" has determined the framework of not only traditional Christianity but the whole "philosophical tradition" as well, down to our eternally confused autists like Descartes etc. Every philosopher could be shot, and man would lose nothing, but indeed would better gain his life.)

This all being said, with the pens of Paul, John, and others having poisoned true understanding to some degree from the start (as it's said by wiser and more ancient prophets, that writing itself was a fallen thing never intended for man), even then we can see in the history of these Churches, as they develop and branch away, a continual decline and deepening of confusion. The spiraling development of Homoousian doctrine by ever-refining theologians (for so had these philosophers rebranded themselves), is maybe the best example, but still only the beginning.

At first the simplest, truest, and most obvious realities of Christ's existence prevailed (to the degree that they could in a Greek mouth): that he was the Son of God, and eternal High Priest, by which man is saved from sin. Yet (the first perversion), in place of YHWH, they saw fit in insert in the position of higher God, the Father, their own Neoplatonic "First Principle" which they had worshiped before: Christ for them became a trendy new accessory onto their own prior intellectual quasi-religion, not a proper conversion to a foreign faith.

From there, in the excitement of their new understanding concerning the condensation of the divine, they supposed that it was not enough for Christ to be the Son of God (that is, even in the fullness of his glory, a being separate and subsequent to his Father, as Arius tried futilely to reiterate at too late of a date), but that he was also God himself, that therefore they might more properly worship him, not only in relation to the First Principle, but as the First Principle. Here they had - to their great excitement - invented a new philosophical problem, of multiple things at the same time being one. And here, in its resolution, they found it impossible (on account of both native familiarity and spiritual kinship) not lean into or outright adopt from Plotinus (the hypostasis of a tripartite being, where τὸ ἕν, νοῦς, and ψυχή could be quickly and easily reskinned, like a bad Half-Life mod, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and even from their supposed opponents the Gnostics (creators of the concept of "homoousion", as related to ideas of "emanation" from God).

For this ungodly religion of philosophers these newly born Byzantines would persecute and destroy any true Christians that might rear their heads (or else try to hold out in some Vandal kingdom), until, for that age, it was stamped out for good. Luckily, as for the Greeks, this is more or less where their perversion ends. Concerning the nature of Christ's person, the work was done, but much corruption was yet to happen in the Latin West, concerning the nature of his work.

More to come.
From the beginning, understandings of the mechanism of Christ's atonement, out of the variegated interpretations of the first few centuries, largely fell into two camps. The first "theory of atonement" was that Christ, in the sacrifice of his death, had served as ransom to the Devil, thereby releasing the souls which had rightfully been given as the Devil's prey, but also, as God, being incapable of bondage by death, thereby tricked and overcame the Devil, leaving him with nothing. This was the understanding which dominating among common Christians in the first millennium, and from which one could attribute the great religious optimism of the Medievals, where the work of salvation had already been done, and the Devil was a powerless figure of mockery. (Many backwardly project early modern Puritan fears in the same way they do with early modern bathing habits.)

The other model which circulated in the earliest writings was the notion of "recapitulation" of man through Christ, something which would develop further in the East but be largely ignored in the West, fixating instead on the sacrificial aspect. We'll return to the relatively truer religion of the Greeks after the descent of the Latins is explored.

Here the influence of Augustine (the nigger Berber), inversely revered in the West and ignored in the East, is the first and great point of descent, with all his rationalistic discourse and philosophical argument that would forever color for the Catholic Church what it meant to be a defender of the faith. His own personal descent in rejection of the Manicheans, precisely and specifically in the points of their greatest viability, in favor of the "evil as absence" type of argumentation with which we are all now so familiar, is a microcosm of his legacy, as well as his switching from this faith precisely at the moment of Christianity's ascent as mandatory state religion and declaration of Manicheanism as a capital crime - of martyrs and bureaucrats, you decide.

With Augustine came a fixation among the priestly class on "original sin", and on the Fall as somehow relating to sexual "concupiscence" above all - that fallen nature is transmitted from one generation to the next sexually, indicating the seed of sin as being in life itself, and its generation, rather than by the agency of outward forces. (Apparently this idea of eating apple = Adam and Eve had naughty sex, still common, he got from the Manicheans, to whom I hope I don't seem like a defender, but only pointing out what Augustine retained of them versus what he rejected, according to his nature.)

These types of things, of course, were known in the eastern church as well, and can only be pointed at as a matter of emphasis. It was in the second millennium, with the ascent of William over England and his importation of a certain southern monk, that the true divergence would occur.

The teaching of Anselm was a fuller realization of the long tradition of Augustine in reducing the role of the Devil concerning the sin and salvation of man in favor of a fundamental pull between God and man himself. Overturning the notion of ransom sacrifice to the Devil, he taught that man had dishonored the justice of God by sinning against him, and therefore it was God, not the Devil, to whom a debt was owed. The salvationary act of Christ, he taught, was in his perfect obedience honoring God to such an extent that the debt of prior dishonor would be fully repaid. Seeing as Christ's obedience in this case consisted of his death, Christ is made out to be a substitutionary sacrifice for mankind as a whole, the fury of an offended God being subdued by a Gandhi play. Once laid out, this theological innovation would rapidly take hold and become the dominant position of the Catholic Church, so that in the modern era the previously affirmed ransom doctrine is not found there at all.

It would be the magisterial Protestants that took this yet a step further, replacing language of honor and its satisfaction with legalistic justice and punishment. That is, Christ did not satisfy the dishonor of God by his obedience and approval, but rather fulfilled and received, in place of man, the fullness of punishment which God's justice demands. This notion is developed more fully among the various descendants of the reformers today, and whence among the Calvinists you have the various arguments about the scope of atonement, whether Christ received punishment for all or only for an elect, and other such technicalities. (Here we find less the philosopher turned theologian, and more the lawyer - a whole new dimension of perversity.)

With these the Mormons are included, who teach the necessity of a perfect execution of God's justice as inherent to his position - even that, were he to intervene by his own arbitrary will against a consistent Code of Law so as to forgive man, the elements of existence would lose faith, protest, and cease obeying him, the universe itself would fall apart, and "God would cease to be God". This is, as far as I'm aware, Christianity's most extreme development in this direction.

While it is within the Protestant milieu that the fruits of rational scholastic Christianity reach their most extreme form, the movement as a whole, being in places more like an opening for breath and speech than a particular idea, cannot be so condemned. (Try speaking to John of Leiden concerning the nuances of homoousian theology!)

Will conclude with a return to the Greek tradition another time.
I have some pretty recent Adventist ancestry, but have never personally interacted with them and know very little. I do personally practice the seventh-day sabbath though, as anyone who's seriously studied the Bible without a strong ecclesiastical lens laid on top ought to.

In this "premillennialist historicism", how do you distinguish between what's happened already and what's still to come? The passages that seem to describe something familiar versus those that don't? I'm not particularly strong on that type of scripture, but for lack of more thorough consideration stick to an assumption of literal millennial reign and so on.

Mormons are also very strong on "developing a Christ-like character", and their scripture emphasizes an "unlimited atonement", both of which I reject, though nonetheless I'd agree with them on the centrality of freedom of the will, or don't see these "opposing" points as contradictory.

I don't understand what you mean about the Mormons' "ultraspiritual view of the soul". They hold that man is composed of a physical body, which can be seen, and a spirit, which cannot be seen but nonetheless is physical:

There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

(An awkward passage, nonetheless strong in its thorough brushing-away of the metaphysical tradition as a whole.)

This "spirit body", they hold, is literally begotten by God, but even prior to this is composed of some older material referred to as "intelligence" which is co-eternal with him, and inherently immortal, incapable or being created or destroyed. God merely organizes the elements which he finds, in line with timely "scientific" views of atomism. What follows necessarily is damnation being an eternal separation from God and inability to progress as a spiritual being through his help ("dam-nation", a folky pun), which itself is eternal torment, in the same way being locked away in solitary confinement would be.

I'd cautiously agree with the Mormons on matter and the underlying foundation of existence having its ancient origin outside of God, being self-creating in some way, but otherwise reject them and agree with you on the inherent mortality of the soul.

You say "our" but also draw yourself apart as "more or less" - where are the areas you find their creeds amiss, or do you mean something else?

(I will wrap up my previous overview focusing on the atonement at some point, but it's a busy time for me.)
Opossum responding on the go.
(05-23-2022, 06:25 PM)skorr Wrote: I see, are you more calvinist/augustinian in your soteriology?
Re: "Christ-like character" stuff this isn't even soteriological. Man is saved, in the eternal sense, simply by choosing to be (on account of his Savior). From there we seek to do God's will not as some sort of self-refining process but because God's will is good, and we want to see it manifested. You could say it's our duty, but even this seems unnecessary; if you're actually saved, you'll want it, and act upon it, and this is sufficient as explanation.
Re: depravity, the thing of concern is that your desires, themselves, remain with God. Man is free (from final and ultimate constraint, not from ongoing and cumulative influence) in his choice of higher power, but in the specificity of daily action the vessel of man is always in the possession of one spirit or another. If the influence of the Devil made man "slave to sin", the influence of God would make him "slave to salvation"; neither is the case. Whether some individual is inwardly inclined to choose the Devil, or is of generally good but weak and unreliable character, we are commanded not to judge, nor would I otherwise want to bother.
(05-11-2022, 05:19 PM)skorr Wrote: In the opposite direction of Mormonism, which has a bizarre, ultraspiritual view of the soul, we hold to a monism of the soul: it is composed of dust (matter, if you will) and the breath of life (or spirit) - see Genesis 2:7. The implications of this include soul sleep and the non-immortality of the wicked, who are annihilated permanently in hell, as opposed to tormented eternally.

Can you explain how this works in light of the decomposition of the body after death? As in, how does resurrection proceed if the body matter is decayed and scattered as nutrients in the soil?
Do you agree with the idea that judeochristian morality is the root of leftism/communism?
(06-05-2023, 07:46 PM)Guest Wrote: Do you agree with the idea that judeochristian morality is the root of leftism/communism?

[Image: FS5a5-X5-WAAI-Xj-J.jpg]
(06-05-2023, 07:46 PM)Guest Wrote: Do you agree with the idea that judeochristian morality is the root of leftism/communism?

Anti-concept. Can you even tell me what Jews believe? Why do they sacrifice animals?
I quite like the Orthodox positions on original sin and their inclination towards the mystical rather than the legal.
I like how Catholicism is essentially the mother religion of the West, which reared her in her earliest years.
I like Protestant hymns and its emphasis (ideally) on literacy and debate.
What am I?
Average day in the life of an Orthodox "theologian":
1. Reject the Catholic position on something
2. Rephrase the Catholic position with oh-so-mystical Eastern wizzdumb window-dressing
3. Go back to arguing about tollbooths
(06-05-2023, 07:46 PM)Guest Wrote: Do you agree with the idea that judeochristian morality is the root of leftism/communism?

This ancient trope ideally should be buried by now but since it won't be anytime soon, the whole point of most of the 19th and early 20th century commentators who made such claims was that these ideologies were some aspect of Christianity in decline, not that Christian morality was their direct ancestor. Enough ink has been spilled debunking the supposed egalitarian nature of Christianity or its lack of martial role models, so the decline argument is the only one that I think deserves attention.

Agreeing with a dominant strain of scholarship on the issue, I think the pre or non Abrahamic paradigm was more similar in cultures across the world than the same locations before and after Christianity, e.g Japan and Pagan Rome more alike than Pagan Rome and Christian Medieval Kingdoms. This digression is so we can make sense of the argument that Christianity in decline leaves some sort of "hole of meaning" that needs to be filled by rabid ideologies like leftism/communism with the latter having been called "secular messianism" for its utopian character. This is the steelman form of the guest's question. There is ofc the obvious link to the Nietzschean critique that Abrahamic religions introduced 'good vs evil' which was in some way a more addictive and powerful ideology, that needs new 'evils' to pursue because that is the mindset it has cultivated. 

To the extent that this argument has some merit, I'd like to mention Japan again which I did for a reason previously since I've been interested in its modern religious condition, that is to say it barely has one. This was a source of debate on Twitter some while ago, and while I do agree that religion can be 'diffuse' or 'subtle' and especially in a non Abrahamic paradigm doesn't have to take the form of 'beliefs' as artificially opposed to 'rituals'. Nevertheless, I've been persuaded that Japan really isn't religious, and yet is also not especially ideological. For certain pagans or non Christians or those skeptical in a Western Christian revival, no one has to place their hopes on the Japanese model, but it is undeniably interesting if it represents 'paganism in decline' yet remains functional, with the expected lack of a 'hole of meaning' that needs to be filled by ideology, or at least the hole is not so obvious (Imperial state ideology and new age Japanese cults seemingly having had their day, unlike South Korea where the latter is apparently still strong). 

As someone who believes religion can be the height of civilisational expression I don't exactly take solace in this example, but in any case, it's one way to answer the guest's question through a counterfactual, while acknowledging that it's by no means Christians or Christianity that can be held responsible. In the same way that the Mosaic Law introduced some idea of sin where it might have never occurred to the minds of the innocent one cannot say the Law caused the sin or Christian morality is the root of leftism/communism
(06-06-2023, 04:08 AM)Guest Wrote:
(06-05-2023, 07:46 PM)Guest Wrote: Do you agree with the idea that judeochristian morality is the root of leftism/communism?

Anti-concept. Can you even tell me what Jews believe? Why do they sacrifice animals?

Jews have not practiced animal sacrifice on a regular basis in centuries. The term Judeo-Christian is not an oxymoron, nor is it an "anti-concept", but rather a useful term for distinguishing two closely related branches of Abrahamic religion from Islam (which is quite unique as far as Abrahamic religions are concerned). It is a pretty accurate term, too, seeing as it ties Christianity to the Abrahamic tradition from which it arose. There are a lot of similarities between Judaism and Christianity even today in terms of beliefs, namely regarding the identity of God, the nature of God, moral law, etc., and this was even more true in the days of Christ (this is not to say that there aren`t irreconcilable differences between them, such as belief in the Trinity, the identity and nature of the Messiah, etc.). 

In fact, the two were so similar at the time of Christ and in the first two centuries after his death that the Romans struggled to differentiate between Christians and Jews. It is also quite telling that although Christ disagreed with other Jews on certain theological matters - specifically on moral law, as his primary gripe with them was on their interpretation of the Law and the practices that arose therefrom - he agreed with them on a lot; interestingly, the Pharisees actually believed in resurrection, angels and demons (Paul, a Pharisee, actually had a mystical experience with the latter, which he discusses in 2 Corinthians), disliked the Sadducees for their legalistic view of the Law and their elitist nature, and believed divine revelation just as early Christians did. Similarly, many of the religious practices of the Jewish Essenes likely inspired early Christian ascetic practices. Not only that, but both Essenes and Christians had many of the same gripes with mainstream Jewish society and believed in "inspired exegesis" of Scripture. 

Similarities between both modern Christians and Jews and their counterparts in antiquity aside, one would have to be a liar or an imbecile to deny the fact that the milieu from which Christianity emerged was uniquely Jewish - the early Christians were overwhelmingly ethnically Jewish, Christianity and Christ`s claims to being the Son of God were predicated on his alleged fulfillment of a Jewish prophecy (the Messiah prophecy in Isaiah and other OT prophecies), and Christian theology was initially rooted exclusively in Second Temple era Jewish theology (the majority of the Greek influence came in the 3rd-6th centuries). 

Oh, and inb4 any of the following sophistic (and quite frankly, retarded) arguments intended to distance Christianity from its parent religion: 

1) Christianity isn`t an offshoot of Judaism because the religion of the Israelites in the Old Testament is different from modern Rabbinic Judaism (seeing as the latter is the result of the former evolving as the material circumstances of the Jews changed) and therefore isn`t Judaism, but rather a sort of proto-Christianity that was rendered obsolete when Christ showed up.

2) Christianity isn`t an offshoot of Judaism because of Hellenistic influence on Christianity (Almost 100% of which came after Christ`s death)

3) "Erm akshully Christianity can`t be tied to Judaism because Jews are Khazars/Edomites/*insert some other obscure and long-extinct ethnic group with no relation to Ashkenazi Jews* and Israelites were Aryan."
(06-10-2023, 01:45 PM)GraalChud Wrote:
(06-06-2023, 04:08 AM)Guest Wrote:
(06-05-2023, 07:46 PM)Guest Wrote: Do you agree with the idea that judeochristian morality is the root of leftism/communism?

Anti-concept. Can you even tell me what Jews believe? Why do they sacrifice animals?

Jews have not practiced animal sacrifice on a regular basis in centuries.

Kapparot is still practiced every year in jewyork. Opening with a ridiculous lie. Most likely everything thereafter will be imbued with the same Talmudic tongue lashing sort of sophistry.
(06-10-2023, 10:21 PM)Anti-Semite Wrote:
(06-10-2023, 01:45 PM)GraalChud Wrote:
(06-06-2023, 04:08 AM)Guest Wrote:
(06-05-2023, 07:46 PM)Guest Wrote: Do you agree with the idea that judeochristian morality is the root of leftism/communism?

Anti-concept. Can you even tell me what Jews believe? Why do they sacrifice animals?

Jews have not practiced animal sacrifice on a regular basis in centuries.

Kapparot is still practiced every year in jewyork. Opening with a ridiculous lie. Most likely everything thereafter will be imbued with the same Talmudic tongue lashing sort of sophistry.

What part of “on a regular basis” did you not understand? Orthodox Jews doing kapparot once yearly (which is controversial in the Jewish community and not something most non-Orthodox Jews do)  is not the same as Jews engaging in sacrifice regularly (as they did in the past). Furthermore, some versions of kapparot don’t involve the sacrifice of a chicken, but rather the swinging of a bag of money around one’s head and the donation of said bag to charity. 

Can’t you come up with a more substantive critique of my point than focusing on a relatively unimportant part of my response to the comment about “Judeo-Christian” being an anti-concept? 

Even if we accept that Jews as a whole regularly engage in sacrifice (they don’t), this neither show the lack of a relationship between Judaism and Christianity nor that the two are antithetical to one another, it simply shows that there is a difference in their respective religious praxes and the metaphysical implications thereof - that Jews think that sacrificing animals is a valid religious practice, while Christians reject animal sacrifice wholesale. This is akin to arguing that Orthodoxy and Protestantism aren’t both Christian because they differ in regards to their beliefs re: scriptural exegesis, metaphysics, and practices (while ignoring the fact that in spite of these differences, both are branches of the same religious tradition).
You cannot advocate TND and be a Christian.
(06-11-2023, 03:09 PM)arms_race Wrote: You cannot advocate TND and be a Christian.

My first thought to respond to this is that's obvious, but I would like you to expand on why would you say such a thing here where nobody is making such a claim.
[Image: 3RVIe13.gif]

“Power changes its appearance but not its reality.”― Bertrand De Jouvenel

Quick Reply
Type your reply to this message here.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)