Christian Theology General

[Mladorossi88]

So what exactly is the issue with supersessionism? The only people I see countersignaling it are brown liberation theology commie troons, on the basis that it is a hotbed for Nazism. This alone affirms that replacement theology is rooted in divine, universal truth.

[ꦈꦒꦲꦸꦫꦲꦺꦴꦗ꦳ꦲ]

If you have a problem with Christianity being made up of weak bellied cucks, Mormonism is no better or even worse outside splinter groups of 100s of fundamentalists that retain the polygamy and blood atonement theology. Mormon's do not live in a bubble of their own creation either as inconvenient history keeps coming to light, especially with the rise of the internet. I recommend this article which goes into how Joseph Smith was maybe one of the greatest cult leaders/con men of the 19th century, founder of a great faith, less so.

🅘 🅝🅴🅥🅴🅡 🅢🅰🅘🅳 🅸🅝🅵🅐🅻🅛🅸🅑🅻🅔. 🅰🅛🅻 🆁🅔🅻🅘🅶🅘🅾🅝 🅘🆂 🅱🅔🅸🅝🅶 🆂🅤🅱🅥🅴🅡🆃🅔🅳, 🅑🆄🅣 🅢🅾🅜🅴 🅷🅐🆅🅔 🅑🅴🅔🅽 🆂🅤🅱🅥🅴🅡🆃🅔🅳 🅵🅞🆁 🅷🅤🅽🅓🆁🅔🅳🅢 🅞🅵 🆈🅔🅰🅡🆂, 🅦🅷🅘🅻🅔 🅞🆃🅗🅴🅡🆂 🅰🅡🅴 🅾🅝🅻🅨 🅑🅴🅖🅸🅝🅽🅘🅽🅖 🅣🅾 🅱🅔 🅒🅷🅘🅿🅟🅴🅓 🅐🆆🅐🆈.

🅱🅔🅸🅝🅶 🆃🅗🅰🅣 🅘 🅗🅰🅥🅴 🆆🅘🆃🅝🅴🅢🆂🅔🅳 🆆🅗🅰🅣 🅒🅷🅡🅸🅢🆃🅘🅰🅝🆂 🅰🅡🅴 🅰🅝🅳 🅳🅞 🅘🆂 🅵🅐🆁 🅼🅞🆁🅔 🅔🆇🅣🆁🅔🅼🅔 🅞🅵 🆆🅗🅰🅣 🅨🅾🅤 🅒🅾🅝🆂🅘🅳🅔🆁 "🅑🅰🅓" 🅵🅡🅾🅜 🅜🅾🅡🅼🅞🅽🅢 🅦🅷🅞 🅐🆁🅔 🅞🅽🅛🆈 🆃🅡🆈🅘🅽🅖 🅣🅾 🅿🅡🆈 🅾🅟🅴🅝 🅟🅰🅝🅳🅞🆁🅐'🅢 🅑🅾🅧. 🅸 🅴🅧🅿🅔🅲🅣 🅜🅾🅡🅼🅞🅽🅢 🅣🅾 🅱🅔 ➊0 🆈🅔🅰🅡🆂 🅱🅔🅷🅘🅽🅓 🅒🅷🅡🅸🅢🆃🅘🅰🅝🆂. 🅞🅽🅛🆈 🆃🅗🅴 𝐅𝗟𝑫𝗦 🅐🆁🅔 🅐🅲🅣🅸🅥🅴🅛🆈 🆁🅔🆂🅘🆂🅣🅸🅝🅶 🅳🅤🅴 🆃🅞 🅣🅷🅔🅸🅡 🅝🅰🅣🆄🅡🅴 🅾🅕 🅑🅴🅘🅽🅖 🅜🅾🅡🅴 🅾🅡🆃🅗🅾🅓🅾🅧.

ℂ𝕙𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕤 𝕙𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕤𝕚𝕞𝕡𝕝𝕪 𝕓𝕖𝕖𝕟 𝕔𝕦𝕔𝕜𝕤 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕙𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕣𝕖𝕕𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕪𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕤, 𝕔𝕙𝕒𝕟𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕒𝕕𝕠𝕡𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕨𝕙𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕣 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕘𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔𝕪 𝕤𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕕 𝕓𝕪 𝕤𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕕 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝕟𝕠 𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖 𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕦𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕞𝕒𝕝𝕝 𝕔𝕦𝕝𝕥𝕤 𝕝𝕚𝕜𝕖 𝔼𝕧𝕒𝕟𝕘𝕖𝕝𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝𝕤.

Rₑₗᵢgᵢₒₙ ᵢₛ ₚᵤᵣₑₗy fₒᵣ ₜₕₒₛₑ wₕₒ caₙ'ₜ ₜₕᵢₙₖ fₒᵣ ₜₕₑₘₛₑₗᵥₑₛ.
Wₕₒ dₒ gₒₒd ₛₒ ₗₒₙg aₛ ₜₕₑᵣₑ ᵢₛ a ᵣₑwaᵣd aₜ ₜₕₑ ₑₙd.

[GraalChud]

I hardly ever post anything against the Jews as a religious group because (like pagans, which I also almost never mention) they are completely irrelevant, hypocritical r-tards who never practice what they preach because it's impossible to. So Judaism is "maligned" by "our side" but in conjunction with Christianity it's also the sowing ground for communism and leftism of all stripes? Give me a break. Your thoughts about religion are in such disarray that you're better off making tier lists like the Wholesome Anime Trads.

If you're going to start pointing fingers by tracing ideas back hundreds of years it is atheists who have been the instigators of l-btardation. Christianity didn't pop out of nowhere and I know you haven't read the books of the prophets because it is so glaringly obvious that Jesus was always the hope of (religious) (and at the time, also ethnic) Jews. You can even go back to Genesis!

"And I will put enmity
Between you [the Serpent] and the woman [Eve],
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."

Noah was a Christian. Shem was a Christian. Japeth (my spelling) was a Christian. Note that there's no point in blessing Japeth by implying he'll worship the same God as Shem (tents being tabernacles / churches) if OT Judaism is continuous.

"Blessed be the Lord,

The God of Shem,
And may Canaan be his servant.
May God enlarge Japheth,
And may he dwell in the tents of Shem;
And may Canaan be his servant."

The ceremonial laws of the Old Testament regarding sacrifice and placing the heart of the supposed continuous Jewish religion in the physical confines of a temple were rebuffed by God through His tool (the Roman Emperor Titus) in 70 AD. Guess who predicted that?

Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

That's all I'll say on the topic because I only mention it when Christianity is accused of being subordinate to Judaism. Forget about whether that religion is even correct — it doesn't exist any more. 

Now let's talk about something interesting and productive instead.

This is little more than a series of conclusory statements on your part, I hardly know where to begin. It is as though you typed this without thinking twice about what you`re saying.

Let`s go in order and start here: "I hardly ever post anything against the Jews as a religious group because (like pagans, which I also almost never mention) they are completely irrelevant, hypocritical r-tards who never practice what they preach because it's impossible to." The irony in this comment is palpable on the account of the fact that I could just as easily level the same critique re: not practicing what they preach at Christians, who also believe in a lofty set of ideals that are exceptionally hard to live up to. You`ve basically taken the classic New Atheist critique of Christianity and re-directed it at the Jews, but sans any examples of the party you`re leveling this accusation at failing to practice what they preach, which makes it an infinitely weaker claim. Moreover, you`re engaging in the same homosexual, catty behavior as MALDer - why take a shot at paganism here? Are you trying to derail the conversation and move the goalposts, or are you just lashing out because you are upset that Christianity has been rendered more or less impotent in the West and will be the religion of Africans and Latrinos within a century? If you want what was at one point a semi-productive and interesting conversation to devolve into religious shit-flinging, I`ll happily oblige.

Next: "[Judaism] in conjunction with Christianity it's also the sowing ground for communism and leftism of all stripes? " This comment leads me to believe that you have the reading comprehension skills of a mentally retarded Cameroonian kindergartner. I never made this claim, and if you took anything I wrote to mean this, then that`s on you; it would behoove you to brush up on your RC skills, maybe getting a tutor would help you with this. 

Now: "Christianity didn't pop out of nowhere and I know you haven't read the books of the prophets because it is so glaringly obvious that Jesus was always the hope of (religious) (and at the time, also ethnic) Jews. You can even go back to Genesis!" 

A) Didn`t claim that Christianity "popped out of nowhere", this subsection of the "debate" was discussing who has a better claim to being the successor of OT Judaism, not about where Judaism and Christianity came from; after all, how could we have a discussion about which of two religions has a more valid claim to being the legitimate successor of an older religion if both do not have some ties to/originate from said religion? Again, it would really behoove you to get better at understanding the English language, just as it would behoove you to keep track of the "threads" of an argument so that you don`t end up railing against claims that nobody (or at least not your opponent) made.; 

and B) No, it is not "glaringly obvious that Jesus was always the hope of the Jews" by reading the Bible, as evidenced by the fact that most Jews didn`t just accept Christ as the messiah because his followers claimed that he was or even view the coming of the messiah as the end-all-be-all of their faith lmfao. There is more to Jewish eschatology in the OT than just the arrival of the messiah. It is silly to claim that the Old Testament is clearly intended to lead to Christ`s coming, and it is even sillier to cite the verses in Genesis that you did in support of this. In what universe does a verse in which God is outlining the consequences of his and Eve`s actions as they relate to man imply that there will be a Messiah who comes along and sets things right? Your reading of those verses is a stretch, as there is nothing related to eschatology in Gen. 2-3:24 and talk of a Messiah in Scripture comes in later, with the earliest possible reference to the coming of a Messiah showing up in Deuteronomy. At best, you can argue that the verses in Genesis that you`ve cited in support for your position imply that there is a need for a messiah, but the text neither explicitly says as much nor implies that one will come (hilariously, when you Google "first messiah prophecy in the bible", you`ll get a bunch of results from random Christian sites saying that it`s Gen. 3:15, which almost leads me to believe that you`re relying on arguments from Google at this point).

Further: "Noah, Shem, etc. were Christian." This is a laughably stupid argument, it sounds like something you`d get from Pastor Jimbob with the 41st Lutheran Synod of Jesus Christ (Tennessee Branch, not to be confused with the Alabama Branch or North Carolina Branch) or some other retarded hick "pastor" if you were to ask him his take on this. You don`t seriously believe this, you`re just repeating things you`ve heard elsewhere because you`re hoping that if you say them with enough confidence, I`ll back down. It`s really this simple - Christianity and adherence thereto is predicated on adherence to Christ`s teachings and being bound by covenant that he ushered in. If Christ had not yet delivered his teachings and figures like Noah and his descendants were reliant on old laws pursuant to the old covenant - the very covenant that you are contending was replaced and rendered obsolete by his birth, ministry, death, and resurrection a long time after they died - then these men could not have been Christian, as they were not bound by the new covenant ushered in by Christ, nor were they acting in accordance with his teachings. To contend otherwise is foolish, and anybody capable of critical thought will recognize this.

Additionally: "If Judaism have continuity with OT religion, then why we use BC/AD in our calendar??? Gotcha there!" Wow, truly ingenious line of reasoning you used here. I never realized that you could settle a major dispute between two world religions by simply pointing out that we use BC and AD when discussing time. Why didn`t anyone think of this before? It was right there in our faces all along! 

Lastly: "Practicing Jews don`t exist, all of them are LARPers" again, bravo, this is an unbelievably well thought out and sound line of reasoning. It is certainly not a conclusory statement that is not backed by any evidence, nor does it betray your total ignorance re: Judaism and refusal to acknowledge the nuance of Judaism, including the sectarian religious conflicts between Jews. You`ve singlehandedly put an end to Judaism by pointing out that *some* of them don`t sacrifice chickens, and personally, I don`t believe that any would-be apologist for Judaism could possibly come up with a counterargument to what you`ve said that would be worth making. All anti-Jewish Christian polemicists from Tertullian to Ambrose are smiling down upon you from Heaven, lauding you for doing what they could not do - ending Judaism through reasoned debate. 

In all seriousness, you`ve done a terrible job here. You`ve neither refuted what I claimed re: the extremely clear line that can be drawn from OT Judaism practiced by Jews from the days of Abraham to the days of the Maccabees to the beliefs of Rabbis like Hillel the Elder to the religion of the Tannaim to the Rabbinic Judaism of the Talmud, nor have you managed to make a half-decent case for Christianity as the true successor to OT Judaism/Christianity as the religion of the OT. It is fairly obvious that your knowledge of Judaism and Jewish religious history is lacking at best and that you`re a mediocre apologist for Christianity.

---

Have you read these? Feels pertinent to the theological discussion, hopefully mentioning Church Fathers doesn't summon the Orthobro coalers.

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrys...omily1.htm

Seems like a fairly standard anti-Jewish polemic that you might expect from other Church Fathers: "Jews are bad because they rejected and killed Christ and thus are damned." That said, it seems that Chrysostom takes a bit of a different, less nuanced view on Jews than does Augustine, who in "Contra Faustam" actually references the story of Cain and Abel but for a very different reason.

What is particularly interesting to me about this text is his attacks on Judaizers. One could liken his hostility toward the Judaizers of his day to Paul`s hostility toward Judaizers, even arguing that Chrysostom is a sort of spiritual successor to Paul who has taken it upon himself to oust Judaizers from Christianity. More interesting still is the fact that such people still existed in the 4th century and were actively partaking in Jewish religious rituals ("Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts") often enough that it drew Chrysostom`s ire; one might expect that these people would exist in the first century AD, when the lines between Christianity and Judaism were blurrier and many Christians were ethnic Jews, but this was written in a post-Council of Nicea Rome. Wonder why that was.

[GraalChud]

So all of a sudden I'm a faggot again for saying something bad about something. Oh, but it's not just any something, it's the irrelevant retarded something you are that's throwing a wrench into any even-handed analysis you'd otherwise make about anything religious. Literally just be an atheist, it's more honest and you don't always have to be on the defensive from standing for nothing but the inverse of anything good. Notice in subsequent posts I made it clear that no religion is relevant other than Christianity or the lack thereof, but you, again, fixate on the one offhand remark anyone says about your meme religion (which is itself degenerate from OT Christianity or "Judaism") and scream for the rhetorical referees to come to your aid.

And you're accusing Christians of holding people to impossible standards how exactly? First you say that Christianity isn't keyed, and now you're incoherently babbling about how no Christian is keyed enough. Unfortunately for you, I am that Christian.

(hilariously, when you Google "first messiah prophecy in the bible", you`ll get a bunch of results from random Christian sites saying that it`s Gen. 3:15, which almost leads me to believe that you`re relying on arguments from Google at this point).

Hilariously, a lot of other Christians believe in the same things I do. It's almost as if I'm using the same holy book as them and that in lieu of being "catechized" by Arrus (a real faggot, because you seem to have forgotten what the word means) I actually read my Bible. Next time I'll change my pfp to a swastika and you'll write an essay about how I'm secretly a Nazi.

And don't ever accuse me of using Google again, because in true Protestant fashion I only search up verses I already have a mental note of in the NKJV Bible on BibleGateway. You, on the other hand, who spend hundreds of words arguing points that can be summed up in a single short sentence from obscure texts nobody cares about, are the one in need of JSTOR. 

"""Nuance of Judaism"""

KOL'ed at this. The moment you whine about nuance you've already lost. You're not even a Jew and you haven't demonstrated any more understanding of the faith than I have. A religion is either correct or not, and calling modern Judaism continuous with the OT is like calling Italy the Roman Empire. You also haven't addressed why God blessed Japeth with Shem's faith ("Judaism") through Noah, if Japeth (Iapetus) is by every Jewish and Christian account verified to be the progenitor of the Europeans (Gentiles), thereby making the ethnically exclusionary Jewish faith completely null with sufficient time.

You have No Arguments. I'll just ignore what you have to say from here on out because the winners of forum threads are generally those with nothing to say but infinite time to say it. Get back on Twitter where you have to pause for 5 seconds between blocks of text to keep you from inundating people with pedantic drivel.

"Notice in subsequent posts I made it clear that no religion is relevant other than Christianity or the lack thereof" No. Just because you say it doesn`t make it so. You did not make any cogent argument showing why this is true, you just said "Christianity is the only relevant religion because... it just is, ok?" Instead, the opposite seems to be true, especially in the West - the stats show that Christianity is dying in the West and it is apparent that is more or less something genuinely believed in by immigrants and the elderly; you and the relatively small cadre of "based" e-Christians who functionally only exist on the internet cannot rejuvenate your dying faith, yet alone restore it to what it once was.

"And you're accusing Christians of holding people to impossible standards how exactly? First you say that Christianity isn't keyed, and now you're incoherently babbling about how no Christian is keyed enough." Language Arts Tutors | Wyzant Tutoring. How this is what you`ve taken away from what I wrote is beyond me. Feel free to get yourself an English tutor, the above-linked site ought to help you find one. What I`ve said about Christianity to this point has been very, very simple: 1) Christianity is not some ultra-keyed religion, though it had its keyed moments after being heavily bastardized from its original form after becoming a Europeanized religion; and 2) that I *could* level the same accusation you`ve leveled towards the Jews - that they do not practice what they preach and neither live up to their lofty religious ideals (which are not "keyed", something I`ve been clear about since this exchange began) nor adhere to the core tenets of their faith - toward Christians.

"...calling modern Judaism continuous with the OT is like calling Italy the Roman Empire" Terrible argument by analogy, unless you`re trying to say that Jews are the blood descendants of the Israelites but are a shadow of their former selves (I highly doubt this is what you were getting at; instead, it would seem that you`re trying to get at something like "Jews have little/nothing to do with OT Judaism and their connection thereto is tenuous"). A more apt argument by analogy would be "saying that modern Judaism is a continuation of OT Judaism is like saying that modern *insert obscure protestant denomination with idiosyncratic views on certain things* is a continuation of pre-Schism Christianity in the HRE" - this, like the argument you`re trying to make, would be a terrible argument since you can very much draw a line from the Christianity of Charlemagne to the Christianity of any one Protestant denomination (after all, the latter is the product of "religious evolution" that the former underwent) just as you can draw a line from the Italian state as it exists today back to Rome. 

 "You also haven't addressed why God blessed Japeth with Shem's faith ("Judaism") through Noah, if Japeth (Iapetus) is by every Jewish and Christian account verified to be the progenitor of the Europeans (Gentiles), thereby making the ethnically exclusionary Jewish faith completely null with sufficient time." I need not do so; you`re citing a statement made by a character in a myth written by Jews intended to explain their relationship to other peoples, a myth which is wholly unfounded in reality - we Europeans are not descended from some mythical jew who lived outside of Europe, so any claims that something said about "Japheth" (a person who has nothing to do with us) in Jewish scripture actually apply to us are irrelevant. Even if we opt for an allegorical reading of the story rather than a literal one, the verses about Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem (i.e. Japheth being blessed with Shem`s faith) can be interpreted differently. One might interpret this as meaning that at some point Japheth`s descendants will adopt some iteration of Shem`s religion, which could seen as be a prediction that Gentiles will literally convert to OT Judaism, but it could just as easily be taken to mean that they will adopt some derivative of OT Judaism - in this case, Christianity, though Muslims could just as easily claim that the text is talking about Islam. I`d imagine that you`d agree with the former of these interpretations and claim that Gentiles do adhere to "OT Judaism", which you believe to be Christianity, but it`s obviously an incorrect one because one of the defining aspects of the religion of Noah and his son Japheth included Noahide law (which is established pursuant to the covenant Noah made with God almost immediately before the verses you`ve cited in favor of your position), which is something that Christians are not bound by; the latter of these interpretations (which you`re far less likely to agree with because you insist that the religion of the OT is Christianity) does not bode well for the claims you`re making about Christianity`s relationship to OT religion either, as if we accept this interpretation we must accept that the religion that Gentiles would be blessed with would be a derivative of the religion of Shem, not the same religion.

In the end, you can cry about me being pedantic, claim that I`m using semantic arguments, say that my arguments are incoherent (the irony in this is palpable), continue to pull "no you"s by claiming that I`m doing what I`ve accused you of doing, or claim that you`re going to ignore me, only to turn around and bitch and moan about what I`ve said in the Shitbox, but it won`t make it any less glaringly obvious to readers that you`ve done little more than insist that you`re right and I`m wrong without providing evidence to prove it or refuting a single point I`ve made thus far.

[Mladorossi88]

Yeah, using a lot of fucking text to say absolutely nothing lol

[GraalChud]

Yeah, using a lot of fucking text to say absolutely nothing lol

I`m slowly becoming convinced that none of you people can read. To recap the bulk of Miso`s points and my responses to each thus far, in no particular order:

A) Strawman where he claimed that I said that Christianity is somehow the root of leftism. He evidently confused me with someone who had asked about this earlier, and I made it explicitly clear that this was not a position that I`ve taken and that he clearly cannot read if this is what he took away from my responses

B) The batshit insane take about Noah, Shem, and Japeth being Christians. This was addressed in my last post, which had a coherent response and a refutation of this claim, a refutation that was made by pointing out that the verses he is citing in support of his claim come right after Noah made a covenant with YHWH, part of which was the establishment of Noahide law and adherence thereto by Noah and his sons - since Christians do not adhere to Noahide law, which was abolished long ago (Miso agrees, as he believes in replacement theology - the abolishment of all pre-existing covenants between the Jews and YHWH after Christ established a new covenant), but Noah and his sons did, the latter were not Christian. I also bolstered this argument by pointing out that Christianity is defined in large part as adherence to Christ`s teachings and the establishment of the new covenant, and since said covenant was not yet established in the days of Noah and since Christ’s teachings wouldn’t come for another 1k + years, they quite literally could not have been Christian.

C) The argument that Japeth (the mythical ancestor of Europeans in Jewish and Christian literature) being enlarged and dwelling in Shem`s tent showing that there is no point in implying that he`ll worship the same God as Shem if OT Judaism is continuous with modern Judaism AND that OT Jews were actually Christians whose religion would eventually become the religion of Europeans. I responded to this by showing that there were different, equally plausible interpretations of the verses he cited to support this position, none of which are favorable to his position, and even took the time to lay out a fairly comprehensive explanation of each of these interpretations and how they do not support his claims. I also made sure to point out that Europeans are not literally descended from Japeth, as Japeth was an Israelite and Israelites have nothing to do with White Europeans and vice versa when it comes to the ancestry of either group (something that geneticists have definitively proven). 

D) The claim that "Christianity is the only relevant religion, which I`ve already proven", to which I responded by simply pointing out that this was a conclusory statement that has no backing - he basically just said "Christianity is the only relevant religion because... it just is, ok?!", which proves nothing.

E) The whole "You`re accusing Christians of holding people to impossible standards how?" thing, to which I responded by saying that I never made that accusation, but rather said I *could* use the same argument he made about Jews not practicing what they preach/not living up to their religion`s moral standards. I also noted that this argument, which he actually made against the Jews, is eerily reminiscent of the supremely gay New Atheist arguments against Christianity. 

F) A terrible argument by analogy: calling Judaism continuous with OT religion is like calling Italy the Roman Empire. I broke down why this was a bad argument by analogy quite clearly - whether you interpreted it as saying that Jews are the blood descendants of the Israelites but their religion is a "fallen" version of OT Judaism (Just as Italians are blood descendants of the Romans but Italy is a shadow of its former Roman self) OR as meaning something like "Judaism has little/nothing to do with the religion of the OT", it is a shitty analogy as neither of these things are true. I then provided a better argument by analogy that he could`ve used - likening the relationship between modern Judaism and OT Judaism to the relationship between pre-Schism Christianity and some small, idiosyncratic sect of modern Protestantism (this works because Judaism has underwent a lot of development since the days of the OT, just as Christianity has since the days before the Great Schism and the rise of Protestantism, but both modern Judaism and modern Protestants of all stripes are still very much Jewish and Christian, respectively).

You`ve both now said that I haven`t actually made an argument and that I`m writing a lot without saying anything. This means I must be retarded and functionally illiterate or you guys really, really struggle to understand the English language in its written form and with following arguments and counterarguments; since I was just able to type up a pretty simple summary of the past couple of messages Miso and I have sent fairly quickly, complete with coherent and easy to follow summaries of most his arguments and my counterarguments against them, I`m inclined to believe that it is definitely the latter - you are both exceptionally bad at arguing/following arguments and need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

I’m not closed off to the possibility that I’m wrong here. If I’m wrong about this and I’m the one who is really making 0 sense, can someone other than Mlad or Miso (or any other biased party) say so and perhaps explain why. Am I missing something?

[Guest]

lmao k, imagine malding this hard

[GraalChud]

I also made sure to point out that Europeans are not literally descended from Japeth, as Japeth was an Israelite and Israelites have nothing to do with White Europeans and vice versa when it comes to the ancestry of either group (something that geneticists have definitively proven). 

just to clarify things, Japeth was not an Israelite. The Israelites of the Bible are the descendants of Jacob (aka Israel), who was a descendant of Shem, not Japeth.

Wouldn’t have any effect on what I said even if true; the overwhelming majority of the peoples mentioned in the Old Testament are racially Semitic (CHG + Natufian/Levant_N+ANF/Anatolia_N) or West Asian (CHG+Iran_N+Levant_N with the occasional smattering of ASI-like or Indo-European DNA after the Bronze Age) the distinctions between them are, in most cases, ethno-cultural. The only exceptions that really come to mind are Philistines (who in the days of King David were mixed race with Southern European admixture, per genetic studies), Greeks, and Romans. 

In the instance of Japheth, son of Noah, he would most likely be racially Semitic. If not, then he was unquestionably West Asian, seeing as the ark landed in Ararat, Turkey, a place where the Indo-Europeans struggled to penetrate into due to large pre-existing population of sedentary West Asian and Semitic peoples with well-established settlements (like those of the Hurrians). There is no reason to suspect that if he was real at all, he was White/Aryan in any capacity even though the Jews saw him as the of mythical ancestor of European peoples. 

All of this is to say that the distinction is terribly unimportant, as the genetic differences between an Israelite and a member of some other Semitic group (like an Amorite, Canaanite, or Syriac) are akin to those between a German and an Englishman; those between West Asians and Semitic peoples are more akin to those between a Frenchman from Provençal and a Swede.

[Guest]

https://weev.livejournal.com/324770.html

an old post from weev on christianity in a favorable tone, weird how he is generally a pagan and yet posts this

it serves to demonstrate as well that 2000s nazi edgelordism was anti-establishment chungus

[Guest]

https://weev.livejournal.com/324770.html

Nice story thanks for posting it.

[august]

Some nuance will naturally be left out in such a message, as I`m not writing a novel.

Really? You're not?

True as it may be that there were large numbers of Christian soldiers and that it is certainly relevant, it is important to note that there is a qualitative difference between the Christian layperson who has his own idiosyncratic understanding of Christianity and his own praxis and the theologian/clergyman who dedicates a significant portion of his life to understanding the Christian faith and educating others thereon - this is especially true when talking about these two groups of people and their relationship to Christianity-in-theory (the faith, a set of religious and moral ideals and teachings given by Christ and handed down to his successors, who were tasked with preserving it and spreading it) and Christianity-as-practiced by your average person.

You are all over the place and the lengths that you go to, trying to contextualise all of these different aspects, makes every message read like a disorganised mess. And I'll save you the burden of having to say, once more, that it's because of someone's low reading comprehension that they can't make sense of what you're saying. I don't think that's been the case at any of the various points that you've accused someone of not knowing how to read.

I am not sure what your argument is, or was, at most points throughout this thread, though I've painstakingly tried to comb my way through the thousands of words you've now spent toward this end. Seems like you're autistically looking for some sort of literal explanation, on the whole, for Christianity as a religion, which in itself is ridiculous enough. Maybe that's not what you're doing, but that's what it seems like. You should try taking a step back and considering the allegories of a spiritual faith.

I've only chosen the example quoted above because I find it so obvious, but I'm sure that you can conduct this simple exercise on many of the other areas if you're keen to it.



"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God." Acts 10:44-46.

Cornelius, Roman centurion and first gentile to be baptised into the Christian faith.



"When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, 'I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.'" Matthew 27:24.

Pontius Pilate, Roman prefect and gentile, forever cemented in the Christian faith.



"So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, 'Truly this was the Son of God!'" Matthew 27:54.

The Roman centurion and gentile, present at The Crucifixion, acknowledging the validity of the Christian faith. 



"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood," Galatians 1:15-16.

"where we found brethren, and were invited to stay with them for seven days. And so we went toward Rome." Acts 28:14.

Saint Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, who brought to the gentiles of Rome the Christian faith.


As I think you mention at some point, somewhere, it's obvious what Rome represents: the martial, pagan world. Thus in each of these contexts, the gentile can only really be seen as a representation of the "layperson", who in turn also happens to be a soldier. How is it then that the Christian soldier's understanding of Christianity can be at odds when we are clearly given these examples of soldiers being among the first of the gentiles/laypersons to experience, for all intents and purposes, some form of Christian revelation? Why would Paul, an original "theologian/clergyman", travel to the beating heart of these laypersons' society to bestow upon them the Christian faith if they would never be capable of truly understanding it in the same way that he did?

You can spend your entire life trying to dissect the historical veracity of these things, as many have spent their entire lives doing, or you can interact with the words of the scripture as, in my opinion, they were largely intended to be: allegorically (philosophically).

[GraalChud]

Some nuance will naturally be left out in such a message, as I`m not writing a novel.

Really? You're not?

True as it may be that there were large numbers of Christian soldiers and that it is certainly relevant, it is important to note that there is a qualitative difference between the Christian layperson who has his own idiosyncratic understanding of Christianity and his own praxis and the theologian/clergyman who dedicates a significant portion of his life to understanding the Christian faith and educating others thereon - this is especially true when talking about these two groups of people and their relationship to Christianity-in-theory (the faith, a set of religious and moral ideals and teachings given by Christ and handed down to his successors, who were tasked with preserving it and spreading it) and Christianity-as-practiced by your average person.

You are all over the place and the lengths that you go to, trying to contextualise all of these different aspects, makes every message read like a disorganised mess. And I'll save you the burden of having to say, once more, that it's because of someone's low reading comprehension that they can't make sense of what you're saying. I don't think that's been the case at any of the various points that you've accused someone of not knowing how to read.

I am not sure what your argument is, or was, at most points throughout this thread, though I've painstakingly tried to comb my way through the thousands of words you've now spent toward this end. Seems like you're autistically looking for some sort of literal explanation, on the whole, for Christianity as a religion, which in itself is ridiculous enough. Maybe that's not what you're doing, but that's what it seems like. You should try taking a step back and considering the allegories of a spiritual faith.

I've only chosen the example quoted above because I find it so obvious, but I'm sure that you can conduct this simple exercise on many of the other areas if you're keen to it.



"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God." Acts 10:44-46.

Cornelius, Roman centurion and first gentile to be baptised into the Christian faith.



"When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, 'I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.'" Matthew 27:24.

Pontius Pilate, Roman prefect and gentile, forever cemented in the Christian faith.



"So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, 'Truly this was the Son of God!'" Matthew 27:54.

The Roman centurion and gentile, present at The Crucifixion, acknowledging the validity of the Christian faith. 



"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood," Galatians 1:15-16.

"where we found brethren, and were invited to stay with them for seven days. And so we went toward Rome." Acts 28:14.

Saint Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, who brought to the gentiles of Rome the Christian faith.


As I think you mention at some point, somewhere, it's obvious what Rome represents: the martial, pagan world. Thus in each of these contexts, the gentile can only really be seen as a representation of the "layperson", who in turn also happens to be a soldier. How is it then that the Christian soldier's understanding of Christianity can be at odds when we are clearly given these examples of soldiers being among the first of the gentiles/laypersons to experience, for all intents and purposes, some form of Christian revelation? Why would Paul, an original "theologian/clergyman", travel to the beating heart of these laypersons' society to bestow upon them the Christian faith if they would never be capable of truly understanding it in the same way that he did?

You can spend your entire life trying to dissect the historical veracity of these things, as many have spent their entire lives doing, or you can interact with the words of the scripture as, in my opinion, they were largely intended to be: allegorically (philosophically).

It`s all over the place because I`m arguing with 2-3+ users at a time, trying to respond to each of their sets of claims while also discussing the exchanges I`ve had with one user with another (for example, explaining my exchange with Miso to Mlad and vice  versa) while also addressing any claims they piled on to ones which were already made and trying to elaborate on my own positions. To sum much of it up, since it is admittedly a web of claims that can be confusing to follow: 1) I don`t believe that Christianity as traditionally practiced by your average European from the Middle Ages to Early Modern Period is the same religion that was practiced by Early Christians (insofar as their understanding of what it means to be Christian, what acts are/are not Christian, etc.) or that European Christians were as devout, historically, as many try to paint them as having been; 2) I think that Jews have a better claim to being adherents of/the spiritual descendants of whatever you want to call the religion of the Old Testament Israelites than do Christians; 3) Christianity in Europe changed markedly as a result of its contact with various traditions, peoples, etc. 

Honestly, I think that point 2) is the most controversial of these, as it is the crux of a 2-millennium long debate between Jews and Christians and goes against the narrative that most of us are used to/the traditional "based RW Christian" narrative re: the Jews, so I understand why people are reacting so harshly to anything I`ve said in defense of this position. 

As for your point, I`m far more interested in dissecting the historical veracity of these things than I am in engaging with Scripture on a spiritual level. Personally, I don`t believe there`s anything for me in either testament as far as spiritual or philosophical wisdom are concerned, and my interest in Christianity as a whole is centered around my interest in how Europe became Christian, how Christianity interacted with the existing religious traditions in Europe, its relationship to Judaism, and the various ways Christianity has changed throughout the ages and why. You`re free to opine about how Christianity is a wonderful creed that offers adherents all sorts of profound spiritual insight until you`re blue in the face, but as far as I`m concerned, it`s just an interesting religion with its own unique history that is fun to study, which is why I read about it in the same way as I`d read about Judaism, Islam, or Buddhism (none of which I adhere to or believe to have anything to offer me, but do have varying degrees of academic interest in).

[august]

1) I don`t believe that Christianity as traditionally practiced by your average European from the Middle Ages to Early Modern Period is the same religion that was practiced by Early Christians (insofar as their understanding of what it means to be Christian, what acts are/are not Christian, etc.) or that European Christians were as devout, historically, as many try to paint them as having been; 

Whatever it was that they practiced in Europe from the Middle Ages to 1815, it's hard for me to believe that it wasn't a religion of a Chosen People when I look at all the other races or peoples of the world in comparison.

2) I think that Jews have a better claim to being adherents of/the spiritual descendants of whatever you want to call the religion of the Old Testament Israelites than do Christians;

Okay. Is supersessionism a legitimate concept to you? I ask the question even though it probably doesn't matter what you say, since Christianity (by and large) saw it as a legitimate concept until the 1960s (interesting decade), after blah blah blah twenty years earlier (weird thing to happen to the people who have a covenant with God). 

3) Christianity in Europe changed markedly as a result of its contact with various traditions, peoples, etc.

This is just 1) but worded differently.

[casual rapist]

1) I don`t believe that Christianity as traditionally practiced by your average European from the Middle Ages to Early Modern Period is the same religion that was practiced by Early Christians (insofar as their understanding of what it means to be Christian, what acts are/are not Christian, etc.) or that European Christians were as devout, historically, as many try to paint them as having been; 2) I think that Jews have a better claim to being adherents of/the spiritual descendants of whatever you want to call the religion of the Old Testament Israelites than do Christians; 3) Christianity in Europe changed markedly as a result of its contact with various traditions, peoples, etc.

1. Christianity is European in that it models platonic metaphysics. There is no Kike source for this. Christianity is accordingly European.  All that is Kike achieves its essence in opposition, to all 3 roots - the european, the platonic, the christian. 

2. There is nothing "spiritual" about dirt kikes.  But if you want to connect to what we today call "old testament" (and notice this is a Christian framing, the dominant framing), it is true that Rabbinical kikery does connect as a similarly manufactured artificial ethnic doctrine.  The "old testament" is manufactured artificial ethnic doctrine produced in 3rd century BC in emulation of Platonic political realism, as opposed to Platonic idealism.  

3. Platonic idealism is an aspiration, a potentiality to be brought into being. That is the Christian world.  It is a choice, and in this sense no different than what any social group chooses to center.  Your objection to "various traditions" - or social variation - is moot because that is the normative state of man.  The distinction of Christianity is that it de-centers the center, creating a realism directly accessible to the individual without mediation of center.  This is how western european man lives BUT THIS IS NOT HOW MAN LIVES.  Christian or Platonic realism has become our normative ontology which you dumb niggers don't realize must be accounted for - ALL your arguments are sitting within something that must be accounted for, because it's not shared, not normative to all peoples.  And it's explicitly rejected by kikes. 

We have "right wing" Whites outside of any social order, oblivious to any social center, making grandiose claims about "how the world is".  Can you grasp how ridiculous this is?  Of course its effects are nil.  Uh duh, ya dumb nigger.  The entire posture and all of its proclamations are grounded in a platonic realism that itself does not accommodate the REALITY of man. 

We have  confused mischlings that don't know what to do. 

And absurd kikes, themselves ensconced in the White man's world, a White man's ontology, and making delusional claims to "greatness" which are not and cannot be part of their world.  Total clownworld.

[GraalChud]

A) Whatever it was that they practiced in Europe from the Middle Ages to 1815, it's hard for me to believe that it wasn't a religion of a Chosen People when I look at all the other races or peoples of the world in comparison.



B) Okay. Is supersessionism a legitimate concept to you? I ask the question even though it probably doesn't matter what you say, since Christianity (by and large) saw it as a legitimate concept until the 1960s (interesting decade), after blah blah blah twenty years earlier (weird thing to happen to the people who have a covenant with God). 


C) This is just 1) but worded differently.

A) Why must there be a "chosen people", and what reason - sans some obscure, vague lines about Japeth from the OT (which, as I showed earlier could be interpreted in a number of different ways) - do we have to believe that Europeans are chosen by the God of Israel? A review of the historical record makes it clear that the Aryan race has been running the show in Eurasia since the Bronze Age: we had the chariot, we had cutting edge bronze weaponry, etc. and used it to conquer everything from Iberia in the West to Siberia in the East. We sowed the seeds of great and prosperous civilizations wherever we went as we did so; Rome, Alexander`s Greece, Ancient Persia, the trader-states along the Silk Road, etc. were all built by Aryans who had lived before Christ ever walked this earth. If the fact that White people achieved great things as Christians is evidence that we were chosen by the God of Israel, then you`ll have to find a way to explain away the comparable degree of success we had in the 2,000 years before Christ (unless, of course, you`d contend that we were chosen before Christ, though this would be contra Scripture). Furthermore, in light of the fact that we were successful both before and after our adoption of Christianity, does it not make more sense to attribute most, if not all, of this success to the common denominator that both pre-Christian and Christian whites shared: their blood? 

B) Supersessionism is legitimate insofar as it has a basis in Scripture, but, like many biblical concepts, contradicts other bits of Scripture. In this particular case, supersessionism is supported by the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 8:13), authored by Paul, but is contradicted by Paul`s Epistle to the Romans. In the former, Paul explicitly states that "...a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away", which could not be interpreted as saying anything less than the covenants made by the Jews with YHWH have been replaced by that ushered in by Christ. That said, Romans 11:28-29 paints a very different picture of the state of the Jews` covenants with God/the fruits thereof, saying "but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable." The word "gifts" here is important, as in the original Greek this word was "χαρισματα", a word Paul uses throughout his epistles that seems to be used in 2 different ways throughout his writings depending on the surrounding context: 1) in reference to unique gifts given to individuals (specifically Christians) by God; and 2) in reference to the fruits of covenants made with God that are given to those bound by those covenants. In this particular case, it seems as though he`s using it in the latter of these two ways, and the fact that he invokes the Patriarchs (who are the ones who made covenants with YHWH in the OT) immediately before bringing up these "irrevocable gifts" further bolsters the interpretation of this verse as saying that the covenant(s) made by the Jews with God are still in effect. Additionally, the analogy Paul makes about the olive tree in Romans 11:11-24 seems to further bolster the interpretation of this verse as affirming the continued existence of the Jews` covenant(s) with YHWH in a post-Resurrection world, as he likens Christian Gentiles to olive shoots grafted on to an existing olive tree (the Jewish covenant(s)) and says that they are nourished by the "root" of this pre-existing olive tree (most likely either the covenant between God and Abraham or God and Moses) and should not consider themselves superior to the other branches; it is highly unlikely that Paul, a smart guy, would make an analogy where he likened Gentiles to olive shoots grafted onto an olive tree if that olive tree was dead (i.e. if the Jews` covenants had been totally abolished), as if this were the case, then his analogy would make no sense (how can the root of a dead olive tree sustain a branch that has been grafted onto it?). Point being that supersessionism is not incontestably true, it is contestable and it is fairly obvious that the case for the Christian covenant replacing the Jewish one was never *that* strong, as if it was, the Jews would`ve collectively "seen the light" and converted to Christianity after realizing that their covenant(s) had been rendered obsolete and replaced by a superior one (you can argue that they`ve always been acutely aware of this on some level and are just coping, but that is a shitty argument and the burden of proof would be on you to show that there is literally no other reason for the Jews, who have regularly engaged in religious debates with Christians since the days of the Roman Empire and thus were well aware of the Christian arguments re: supersessionism, not converting to Christianity other than pure spite). 

C) Sort of? 1) was more about the end result of the processes mentioned in 3), whereas 3) itself was about those processes themselves and what was responsible for them.

[Julien Sorel]

1. Christianity is European in that it models platonic metaphysics. There is no Kike source for this.

A review of the historical record makes it clear that the Aryan race has been running the show in Eurasia since the Bronze Age: we had the chariot, we had cutting edge bronze weaponry, etc. and used it to conquer everything from Iberia in the West to Siberia in the East. We sowed the seeds of great and prosperous civilizations wherever we went as we did so; Rome, Alexander`s Greece, Ancient Persia, the trader-states along the Silk Road, etc. were all built by Aryans who had lived before Christ ever walked this earth.

Platonism is a result and symptom of the degeneration of ancient Greek culture - in other words a degeneration from precisely the Aryan aristocratic culture which gave birth to the ideal of paideia that is the beating heart of Western Civilization. The moralizing and flight from nature central to Platonism are more similar to the Jewish cultural perspective than they are to anything that preceded them in ancient Greek culture. Turn off Keith Woods and read Nietzsche...

IIRC Nietzsche even speculated that Plato directly absorbed some 'Semitic' ideas during his time in Egypt. Though I consider it just as, if nor more likely that Egypt - a far older and greater civilization - influenced both Plato and the Jews.

[GraalChud]

1. Christianity is European in that it models platonic metaphysics. There is no Kike source for this. Christianity is accordingly European.  All that is Kike achieves its essence in opposition, to all 3 roots - the european, the platonic, the christian. 

This is a dogshit "argument". You do understand that Platonic metaphysical concepts were adopted by the Christians a few centuries after Christ died and were not there from the start of Christianity, right? Paul wasn`t running around giving lectures on YHWH-as-Divine Intellect, the world of forms, etc.; instead, Platonism was slowly integrated into Christianity (largely because without a Platonic framework, Christianity generally did not appeal to the sensibilities of the Greeks and Romans and seemed to be little more than superstitio from Judea that was in opposition to true religio). It really wasn`t until the 4th century that you had strong Platonic influence in Christianity thanks to Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, and others, and its adoption seems to have been a practical one (it is no coincidence that Christians began moving away from writing almost exclusively to Christian audiences and started seriously debating with those whom Celsus characterized as "learned men", educated Pagans who the earliest Christians avoided debate with like it was the plague, around this time). Sure, prior to that there were Platonic influences in Christianity, but some of their strongest proponents were also viewed as controversial in Christian Proto-Orthodoxy (see Origen and Pseudo-Dionysius, for example) and by no means did these influences take precedence over the tenets of Christianity (such as the historicity of Christ`s ministry and the truth of his Resurrection). 

If you accept this as true (though ultimately, it doesn`t matter if you accept it or not because it is simply fact), then you admit that Christianity was not originally European (seeing as your understanding of Christianity as European is contingent upon Christianity "modeling platonic metaphysics", whatever that means), but rather became Europeanized through the very fucking process of Europeanization that I`ve been talking about since I began posting in this thread.

Furthermore, the bit about the kikes being in opposition to "the platonic" betrays your total lack of knowledge regarding the religious history and developments of Judaism. Jews are opposed to "the platonic"? Really? That would probably have been news to Philo of Alexandria and basically every Kabbalist ever. Seriously, where do you think the concepts like Sefirot and Ein Sof came from lmao? Did Jews stumble upon these concepts by chance, wholly unaware of the fact that they strongly paralleled earlier Platonic/Neo-Platonic concepts? This whole Platonic Christianity v. Judaism dichotomy is patently retarded and you should be ashamed of having wrote what you did.

[GraalChud]

Platonism is a result and symptom of the degeneration of ancient Greek culture - in other words a degeneration from precisely the Aryan aristocratic culture which gave birth to the ideal of paideia that is the beating heart of Western Civilization. The moralizing and flight from nature central to Platonism are more similar to the Jewish cultural perspective than they are to anything that preceded them in ancient Greek culture. Turn off Keith Woods and read Nietzsche...

IIRC Nietzsche even speculated that Plato directly absorbed some 'Semitic' ideas during his time in Egypt. Though I consider it just as, if nor more likely that Egypt - a far older and greater civilization - influenced both Plato and the Jews.

I`ve always been hesitant to adopt the sort of Nietzschean view on Platonism uncritically. It would seem that Nietzsche interacted with a Plato show to him through a Christian lens, which caused him to project a lot of the issues he had with Christianity onto Platonism and even go as far as to attribute these baked-in flaws to Platonism. I highly doubt that Nietzsche`s critiques of Platonism would apply to the religious worldview of Alexander the Great, who was taught by none other than Aristotle himself (I`d think it highly unlikely that Plato didn`t influence Alexander, seeing as the latter was taught by the former`s greatest student who disagreed with him only on certain points). 

As for the origin of Plato`s own ideas, a more realistic, less narratively-charged view on where they came from seems to be that he basically synthesized and expanded upon the ideas of various mystery cults and Homeric Greek religion - various of the ideas of Pythagoras, the Eleusinians, the Orphic Cultists, etc. synthesized into one doctrine and given a Platonic "spin." 

I`m also far less hesitant to dichotomize Platonism and its fruits from some earlier Aryan religious tradition - with the former being a bunch of semitic nonsense and the latter being the "trve Aryan Evropan religion" - on account of the fact that Plato`s ideas, as mentioned above, did not form in a vacuum, but rather were brought up in a religious milieu rife with mystery cults that had their own complex relationship to the faith of Hesiod and Homer and were not necessarily in total opposition to them (even if they leaned more heavily on mysticism, tended to deal with abstractions, and were not as focused on the myths as their traditional counterpart was). It is evident that Plato himself did not see his own views as in opposition to or somehow mutually exclusive with Classical Greek religion, and this is even more true of his disciples in the centuries after his death, as they seemed to see no such dichotomy between Classical Greek religion and Platonism and instead saw them as complimentary (oftentimes drawing on allegories as Plato did to interpret myths and draw out their "true" meanings, relating Zeus to The One/Monad, etc.); rather it was Nietzsche who opted to come up with this framework for some reason, perhaps so that he didn`t have to place *all* of the blame for Christianity`s perceived failings on Christianity itself (why he might do this I cannot confidently say, though if I had to guess, maybe it was because he still secretly had a soft spot for the faith he was raised in and studied).

[casual rapist]

relating Zeus to The One/Monad, etc.

Is a rationalization and, as such, degeneration. 

But the idea plato cribbed from the kikes is impossible because the kikes, as such, don't come into being until 3rd century BC, and then as plagiarists... of the greeks. 

What Christianity is stretches for many more centuries than your argument can acknowledge.  In its totality, it's European who themselves are also platonists.  It's one tradition.

Hellenistic jews will appeal to greek thought because as a formalized system of thought it is superior to anything jewish.  The hellenistic Jews, however, for some reason disappear.  Some say they became Christians.  Evidently, there's a dichotomy between disgusting kikes - the people we today call jewish - and this other tradition.

You seem to be dominated by the needs of your own identity.  There are a lot of ridiculous kikes out there today, who consider themselves "elites".  They seem to gravitate towards the European right, but use the right to sublimate their kike delusions and in this way fuck it all up.  You seem too invested in combining things opposed by their very essence. 

Every kabbalists ever.  Sure, jew boy.  For the rest of us, who gives a shit about lying kikes in the 13th century. Complete frauds.  Delusion is a constant.  A "tradition" of delusion.  A delusional jewish individual. 

A better reference for you would be Maimonides' reliance on Aristotle, which inspired the apex parasitical rhineland Kikes to go line by line through his work and excise anything they could attribute to Aristotle.  Diametrically opposed.

[august]

A) [...] do we have to believe that Europeans are chosen by the God of Israel?

Do we (today) believe? Or did they (that is, historically, after the Christianisation of Europe) believe? 

If the fact that White people achieved great things as Christians is evidence that we were chosen by the God of Israel, then you`ll have to find a way to explain away the comparable degree of success we had in the 2,000 years before Christ (unless, of course, you`d contend that we were chosen before Christ, though this would be contra Scripture).

"Christianity as traditionally practiced by your average European from the Middle Ages to Early Modern Period" is what you said and is window of time that I was responding to. "Whatever it was that they practiced in Europe from the Middle Ages to 1815" is what I responded.

I didn't "have to explain away" what happened before the referenced period that I was responding to, but I will give my humble thoughts for the sake of cordial discussion. Of course, this correlates to the doctrine of supersessionism to some extent in that many of the great European achievements post-Christianisation began taking the form of being done in the name of and in accordance with the will of God (as opposed to this glory of the state). But, broadly speaking, I do not see them as that much different, especially during the Middle Ages. I will expand more on how I believe Christianity changed European traditions and institutions from this 2,000 year period before Christ, and how ingrained holdovers from these traditions and institutions shaped European Christianity, in the last point below.

B) Supersessionism is legitimate insofar as it has a basis in Scripture, but, like many biblical concepts, contradicts other bits of Scripture. [...] Point being that supersessionism is not incontestably true, it is contestable and it is fairly obvious that the case for the Christian covenant replacing the Jewish one was never *that* strong, as if it was, the Jews would`ve collectively "seen the light" and converted to Christianity after realizing that their covenant(s) had been rendered obsolete and replaced by a superior one (you can argue that they`ve always been acutely aware of this on some level and are just coping, but that is a shitty argument and the burden of proof would be on you to show that there is literally no other reason for the Jews, who have regularly engaged in religious debates with Christians since the days of the Roman Empire and thus were well aware of the Christian arguments re: supersessionism, not converting to Christianity other than pure spite). 

You have mentioned before that you are an American law student. It could very well be that I am just ignorant of the happenings in American jurisprudence, but since you make use of legalese, I am wondering: where does this absolute, "literally no other reason" burden of proof standard appear in common law? Maybe you just got carried away, which is okay - you can rephrase it if you'd like. Or maybe you know that one of the most civilised (and nuanced) legal systems ever created would surely never survive the many centuries that it has, or function as intended, with a burden this high and you were just being a deliberate rhetorician. In any case, I obviously can't meet this "burden of proof" because it just isn't possible to do. Why didn't you phrase the burden as having to prove that they didn't convert out of spite by a preponderance of the evidence? Ahh.  

C) [...] whereas 3) itself was about those processes themselves and what was responsible for them.

Early Greek and Italic (predominant reference to the Latins) religious culture was intertwined with those peoples' respective social traditions and institutions. Actually, it's not enough to say that they were merely intertwined, but rather religion was the driving impetus for the composition of their social systems given that religion was domestic - respective to each individual.

Because these religions were centered, in part, on ancestral worship, it's not incorrect to say that these societies really had as many "religions" and "gods" as they did individual families, with the patriarch of each individual family at the head of his respective religion. This has to do with how the city-state itself took its form: a small number of individual families would join together to form a phratry, "φρᾱτρῐ́ᾱ", or a curia --> a small number of these phratries or curie would join together to form a sort of tribal group --> a small number of these tribal groups would eventually become the city. A series of increasing confederations culminating in one ultimate confederation. The other part of these religions was that of nature. If each individual were to deify some force of nature, you'd expect to have thousands of gods that represent the same thing, which is what happened - but they remain different gods because each was subject to the individual that deified it. One could also see how over time the gods of a prominent family in the city attracted the attention of other (familially unrelated) citizens who then wished to offer worship to them and earn the good graces of the gods that had aided this one family in achieving its prominence. 

In time, obviously, this ancient form of religion became more separated from the social system, or should we say government, of the city/nation. This is to say that the religion itself gradually lost its power over society. And thus the entrance of Christianity. Whereas the religious and social institutions were intertwined pre-Christianity, Christianity distinguishes religion from the state. Caesar is no longer a "god" because there only exists the "God". 

The reason for this extremely simplified background information is that it serves as a preface for my main point, one in which I think that we are in agreement, which is that of course there was a Europeanisation of Christianity, just the same as there was a Christianisation of Europe. This is the exact reason why people acknowledge that Catholicism retained a number of pagan elements, Medieval Europe being the best example of this. But we need to ask, and I believe this is one of the whole points of this specific discussion, how much was the doctrine of Early Christianity perverted by Europeans, and was this wrong to happen? Well I guess your answer on that depends on how you view supersessionism and predestination. It's interesting and certainly worthwhile to think about on the whole, but can you get a definitive answer that all can accept as true, especially in the year 2023? I doubt it.