/lit/ - Literature

>>18507439
quran

Spinoza

>>18507439
Here's the hierarchy, bud.
1. Quran
2. Bhagavad Gita
3. Old Testament
4. New Testament
5. everything else

>>18507439
You posted it.

>>18507473
No kikes.

>>18507439
all the islamic writers aquinas ripped off

>>18507439
The Catechism

>>18507493
Name some so I can read them.

>>18507493
Christcuck cope. Aquinas would be nothing without Islam.

>>18507484
>racist against Spinoza
>doesn't know who wrote the bible

>>18507473
based
but it would be better to read aquinas and augstine first

>>18507439
Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy
Augustine's Confessions
Pseudo-Dionysius
Duns-Scotus
The Imitation of Christ

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam

>>18507508
Al-Farabi, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina and Al-Ghazali

>>18507652
Not even Averroes anon? Aquinas is influenced by islamic philosophy but he definitely is influenced to the contrary of many of their works.

>>18507673
Wait disregard, I'm retarded. Didn't know that Ibn Rushd is Averroes

>>18507585
This. Excellent list(for scotus start with allan b wolter)

>>18507681
hehehe, was almost gonna say

Paradise Lost
Thus Spoke Zarathustra

>>18507439
>Sometimes anger bad sometimes anger good
This is why no one takes Christian philosophy serious

>>18507515
learn to read shitface

>>18507585
No Aquinas?

>>18507439
On the Jews and their lies, by Martin Luther

>>18507468
No, it comes before.

>>18508165
...based.

>>18507980
People already had mentioned him in the thread

>>18507900
He just ripped it from Aristotle.

>>18508800
nah he was just rational too

>>18507482
>1. Quran
>2. Bhagavad Gita
Kys

>>18507900
Got eem!

>>18507468
fpbp (pbuh).

>>18508800
I learned about this recently and it seriously blew my mind. He wrote the encyclopedia used by Christianity for hundreds of years, and the protestant reformation was even a return, in a sense, to his original writings, and he was very familiar with & heavily influenced by aristotle's works

>>18509276
is this bait? that aquinas used aristotle's philosophy and augustine plato's is some of the most well-known /lit/-related knowledge

>>18509276
>these are the intellectuals posting on the literature board

>>18507585
t.

>>18509360
never read it

>>18509287
Has to be bait or else they're just retarded.
"Aritotelian-Medeval worldview." Prescience was holistic and everything revolved around Aristotle, I don't see how that could be news to anyone (or how they could see it as Aquinas "ripping off" Aristotle...everything was literally systmatized around him). See pic.

>>18509373
He really really really likes Boethius and medieval philosophy.

>>18509409
sounds like my kind of guy haha :)

>>18509410
that book looks pretty based to be honest
have you read feser?

>>18509490
>feser
I have not. Is "Aristotle's Revenge" a good place to start?

>>18509597
that's the only one i've read and it's solid

>>18509597
most ppl recc
Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction
for an intro to feser

>>18507468
cringe

>>18507439
I would start with all the things that came before the bible..

>>18507439
Book of Mormon
Pearl of Great Price
Doctrine and Covenants

>>18509106
You're right. Should be:
>1. Quran.
>2. Hadiths.
>3. Ashtavakra Gita.
>4. Kitab al tawasin.
>5. Aghora Trilogy.
>6. Imitation of Christ.


... Bhagavad Gita doesn't make the list.

>>18511040
Forgot to add:
>7. Mandukya Upanishad.
>8. Kashf Al Mahjub.
>9. Old Testament.
>10. Tripura Rahasya. (Very Underrated).

important historically or philosophically?
for the former, bhagavad gita, talmud, or the book of enoch or the orphic hymns or something.
for the latter, literally the kybalion. and i say that as someone who doesn't believe a single part of its origin story. cos regardless of that, the content itself is the best and briefest distillation of spiritual truths.

>>18507546
They're grandfathered in.

>>18509360
>if u like catholic philosophy ur fat an jack off to dogs lol

t. committed suicide and is now in hell

First and foremost, after the Bible, one should read the Church Fathers.

Beyond the holy scriptures and sacraments themselves, there is nothing so edifying as reading the testimonies of those holy martyrs and saints. With them, we can see an early and authentic witness to the traditions of the earliest Christians - so filled with the Holy Spirit that they were willing to be killed for His sake.

Take a look at sites like the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/demonstr.iv.html)), New Advent (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm)), and churchfathers.org.

After that, I suggest >>18507585 list, with further recommendations being dependent on whether you are wanting to further explore Christian mysticism, or Christian philosophy/theology.

>>18507439
Bhagavad Gita. Abrahamic scriptures literally cannot compete

>>18512751
>Society influenced by Bhagavad Gita: Disgusting poolution, garbage everywhere, sacred river defiled and toxic, human feces everywhere, 3 million gods
>Society influenced by Abrahamic Scriptures: Cathedrals, the modern scientific method, hygiene, public hospitals, public universities, monotheism
Yeah, we really can't compete

>>18512771
>India is shit because of Hinduism
Just imagine how that subcontinent would look like without the Bahagva Gita. Oh wait, you don't have to, you just need to look at Bangladesh for that. Also, lot's of african countries are christian, why didn't they become hygienic places?

>>18507468
based

>>18512771
>>18512856
You can thank Angloid imperialism on both counts.

>>18512856
I never said India is shit because of Hinduism - I just stated a true fact, namely that despite a wide reverence and following of the Bhagavad Gita, the country is a literal hellhole. This is especially true in comparison to countries where Christianity has held dominance the longest.

>>18507482
>>18508165
How does it come before the Bible if it describes Muhammad's life (who was born after Jesus)...?

>>18513191
Because Muslims unironically believe that the Arabic language existed before the world began, and that before creation, the Qur'an's entire text (including passages like "O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you." (S. 33:53)) existed on heavenly tablets that were then transmitted to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. LOL

>>18511078
Holy cringe

>>18513177
And Muslim countries are shining examples on the world stage? Also, the oldest christian nations in the world are ethiopia and armenia, not necessarily the greatest nations on the world stage. Religion has much less to do with that than you think.

>>18513576
Muslim is a false religion created by a false prophet, with principled directly opposed to the teachings of the Bible. Obviously Ethiopia is going to have a harder time creating a civilized society, because it has a much lower average IQ than most Western nations. The point, however, is that Christianity is the driving force that led to the spreading of the principles of advanced civilizations to people like the Germanics - who have a natural high IQ, but were essentially living in squalor, primitively hunting and gathering. It allows peoples a framework to operate within to maximize their prosperity - whereas the Bhagavad Gita, and Sramanic religions have only lead to caste-based oppression, poverty, and uncleanlinesss.

>>18507585
>Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy
excellent taste

>>18512771
>judging truth off of material conditions
Hylic

>>18513727
>my philosophy is superior but it leads to vast amounts of human shit on the streets and beaches, a rape crisis, decaying corpses and garbage floating along the holy river, and the cruel oppression of people solely based on their caste
At least they have the truth, amirite?

>>18513742
>the cruel oppression of people solely based on their caste
All of the above points are the result of not applying caste system enough.

>>18509604
>>18509629
I will check those out. Thanks for the recs

>>18513754
>its not real Hinduism!!! if i were in charge, it would be so much better!!!!!
source: trust me bro

>>18513682
>excellent taste

>>18507468
based

>>18513668
Christian societies have their own caste system

>>18512726
Beautiful, brother

>>18513668
Please read some books before talking about stuff you have not a shred of an idea about

>>18513668
Has there ever been a bigger case of the "i made this" meme than Christianity.
>plagiarizes Judaism
>steals the Roman empire
>thinks it invented social darwinism
Just what will you paw at next?

>>18514025
>plariarizes Judaism
Is the culmination of Judaism.
>steals the Roman empire
Fairly becomes the religion of the Roman Empire after the Emperor has a conversion experience.
>thinks it invented social darwinism
When did anybody claim this?
>>18514011
Wow, really compelling argument there. Are you a butthurt Muslim, or a Eastern-fetishizing pseudo-Hindu?

>>18514070
>my slave-revolt religion helps high IQ populations achieve civilization
You claimed it. This is what you actually believe.

>>18514070
Do you seriously believe that if the bahagva gita was adopted by the germans instead of the bible that they today would live in filth like in india? You are painfully dumb and probably just a nu/pol/ faggot

>>18514095
that's not an image that supports your view, retard

>>18514115
Let's talk about your thesis that "Christianity" enabled apparently high IQ populations (we can't measure dead populations' IQ levels but whatever) to switch from, I guess, using wood as a primary construction material and living tribally, to living in more durable housing on despotic feudal estates. Do you have any way whatsoever to demonstrate this? Otherwise it is precisely the system a victorious slave would implement

>>18514143
i'm not that guy and also not interested in engaging you in this debate, i'm just pointing out that the image you used didn't fit your post since the same is used against the atheists who think "bro we'd be so much more advanced now if it there was no religion" while somehow quantifying scientific advancement and putting it on a chart

>>18514157
Ok good you're not retarded. It's a nonsense claim. He can't cope with high IQ people (if only for argument's sake, since what the fuck is IQ in terms of ancient people) living in huts, so he has invented the idea that they were just waiting for the final piece of the puzzle, which happens to be another thing he likes in addition to IQ metrics, Christianity.

>>18514175
my guess is he's comparing india to european countries and then going by the logic of "india=eastern religion" and "european countries=christianity", but that makes little sense since japan isn't a predominantly christian country either yet they are economically way different than india

>>18509160
Cringe. You know that post is accurate.

>>18514183
Christians ruled India for most of the last 200 years so a good deal of what he is repulsed by is thanks to the same ennobling force he attributed to the de-hutting of the Germans

>>18514143
First of all,
>we can't measure dead populations' IQ
The modern day Germanic peoples are direct descendants of those ancient populations who lived in the areas of Western Europe, and they have been shown to have a naturally high IQ; probably because of being selected for intelligence due to extremely cold winters.
>I guess, using wood as a primary construction material and living tribally, to living in more durable housing on despotic feudal estates
Yes - not only did they leave their huts, human sacrifice, tree worship, and swamp-dwelling lives behind - they also began to leave lasting works of cultural impact, beautiful architectural achievements, create kingdoms, make important contributions to science, etc.
> Do you have any way whatsoever to demonstrate this?
If Christianity has nothing to do with the rapid and unprecedented development of the Western European peoples, why did they remain culturally stagnant and primitive for thousands of years, until Christianity was brought to them?
>precisely the system a victorious slave would implement
Do you have any evidence to back up this nonsensical claim?
>>18514175
I have no need to "cope" with high IQ people living in huts - I am only stating the clearly observable fact that until the introduction of Christianity, the Western European peoples, despite their high IQ, were living primitive lives and worshipping trees.

>>18507468
eww imagine caring what some goatfucking pedohpile said in some desert 1500 years ago

>>18514025
why are all Muslims so illiterate when it comes to the old testament and its typology with the new?

>>18514282
What about ancient Greece and ancient Rome?

>>18514282
>this retarding single variable actually was an improoovement ahhh i'm improooving
The Romans had used your high IQ German mercenaries for centuries and it got to the point where the people defending Rome and the people who wanted a piece of it were the same people. This sorry state of affairs took place during Christian rule over the Roman empire, in its most decadent and corrupt phase, when a state ruling millions of people somehow could not muster enough men to defend its capital city, because it had outsourced the job. Slaves are not actually prepared to be masters just because they overwhelm them. The Christians were so high IQ they crashed the Roman empire and split it into dozens of states, each ruled by some or other German pretending to be both a chieftain and a Roman governor. So successful were these larpers that they then took control of their old homeland and carried the idea of Rome north with them back to Germany. And it should be noted, by the time the German tribes invade Rome they are largely Christian, but the wrong kind, and eventually convert. But of course, not all the shattered parts of the german rome-larping principalities were successful at defending themselves against the next wave of abrahamism. Spain and North Africa fall to what you would probably call "low IQ" people. So much for being improved by Christianity. And of course today those Germans are all atheists. So what was your point again?

>>18514331
Why do I care what cope fables assmad priests wrote while they had been ousted from political power by foreign armies?

>>18507585
this, but missing Dante's Divine Comedy

>>18514347
They had a religious/spiritual framework whereby their naturally high IQs were allowed to blossom into a flourishing society which maximized prosperity - but there were still major problems, which were later corrected by the introduction of Chrisitanity (eg. pederasty, idol worship, unjust warfare, etc.)
>>18514394
Your unprompted historical diatribe did not refute any of the points I made. Seethe as much as you want, Germanic peoples were wallowing in swamps and worshipping trees for thousands of years until Christianity civilized them, and nothing you say can refute this point, because it is a historical fact.

>>18514406
Because you deny Jesus' identity and claim he was just a prophet, not knowing that even in the synoptics he proclaims his divinity for all to see to people who have an old testament understanding.

>>18514480
Jesus' divinity*

>>18514480
>the sequel was based on the original story
Yeah I really don't care though. Your entire foundation for y assumes I believe x.

>>18514425
Christianity didn't civilize anyone. It just made it more acceptable to the Romans that semi-nomads had overrun them because they both adopted the same "religion," and thereafter the nomads became the custodians of Roman culture, i.e. civilization, which as far as I can tell, vastly predates Christianity.

>>18514492
Aren't Muslims supposed to believe in the OT? Oh wait I forgot it's corrupted when you feel like it is.

>>18514492
What do you think happened 2000 years ago, when Jesus' disciples wholeheartedly believed He had appeared to them in a resurrected physical body? What is your hypothesis as to why they believed this so whole-heartedly that they were willing to be tortured and killed?

Genuinely curious, thanks in advance.

>>18514502
>Christianity didn't civilize anyone
Except for the mud-dwellers of Western Europe, who were only civilized after the introduction of Christianity. Seethe, anybody with eyes to see can see this, unless they are anti-Christian.

>>18514505
Have never claimed to be a Muslim. I am merely working pro-bono for the demiurge.
>>18514509
Really don't care what they believed. There are lots of miracle religions. Not all of them acquired state patronage for a thousand plus years so you don't care about them anymore. Why should I? Did not the Egyptians work miracles? Or the various Indian sages?
>>18514524
You are highly reductive and likely do not even understand current events, let alone history.

>>18514537
>I am merely working pro-bono for the demiurge
oh so even more cringe and evil then

>>18514524
An extraordinarily generous reading would place the growth of Western Europe at the start of the HRE several hundred years after Christianity had become the dominant religion in most parts and even that continued mostly as tribal warfare for another couple hundred years. It's hilarious how broadly Christians read history when they want to take exclusively positive responsibility for the organic growth and decline of civilizations.

>>18514537
>Really don't care what they believed.
I'm not asking you what they believed, I'm asking you why they believed it. What do you think happened that led them to believe that so wholeheartedly that they were willing to be tortured and killed?

Surely you have a hypothesis?

>>18514562
Right? It took Muslims invading France to even set off the chain of events of Christians saying it was time to stop squatting over Rome's corpse and picking at it and find a way to make europe Roman again.

>>18514562
>It's hilarious how broadly Christians read history
Maybe because Christianity hadn't been preached to those "barbarians" yet? Ever think about that Bjorn?

>>18514578
Ressentiment, delusion, cope, sneed, etc. There's no reason to take it for fact unless you are a true believer

>>18514590
>Ressentiment, delusion, cope, sneed, etc
A group delusion of an unprecedented scale (shared hallucinations are not even a documented phenomenon), of a physical corpse (rather than the obvious conclusion, a ghost) appearing resurrected for several days (a really long delusion), that they believed to be real so wholeheartedly that they were willing to be tortured and killed rather than recant?

That's your hypothesis? Really?

>>18507439
Philokalia
t. Orthodog

>>18514606
Sounds to me like Jesus lived and didn’t die in the first place

>>18507439
>ctrl + F "Veda"
>ctrl + F "Puranas"
>ctrl + F "Avesta"
>ctrl + F "Mani"
It's official, /lit/ is gigacringe

>>18514625
Bhagavata Purana is great. I wonder if all of the Puranas are this comfy

>>18514623
swoon hypothesis is the least likely one anon

>>18514606
You realize most of these people who lay the foundations of the church and then all the people persecuted 100-300 AD did not know nor have firsthand knowledge of Jesus right? Paul never met Jesus for instance. And people believed in plenty of other religious systems prior to this. The evidence is actually irrelevant to most people believing in it. They did not have evidence. Most Christians have never had evidence. You don't either. So why someone does or does not believe is beyond mere documentation and always has been.

>>18514634
On what basis? The propaganda narrative of the Gospels?

>>18514635
Many did not believe in Christ's resurrection. In fact we have many people in the scripture at first scoffing at it showing that people in that day weren't just oblivious and retarded.

Matthew 28:16-17
Mark 16:12-13
Luke 24:10-11
Even Thomas, Jesus' own apostle did not believe John 20:25

>...Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. (Acts
17:22, 31-32)

The main point here is that Jesus' resurrection was not believed whole heartedly at first. However, he did appear to many, And it is recorded that he did appear to Paul so not sure what you meant by that (1 Corinthians 15:8).

Jesus also once appears to five hundred people at once, 1 Corinthians 15:6

>>18514660
You can't cite scripture to me as evidence. You aren't arguing with someone who shares your beliefs about the text. All that does is tell me why you believe it.

>>18514635
>You realize most of these people who lay the foundations of the church and then all the people persecuted 100-300 AD did not know nor have firsthand knowledge of Jesus right
Why are you tapdancing around the question? We have a very high degree of historical certainty that Peter, for example, was tortured and killed - I will ask again, why did the apostles believe in the resurrection enough to hold to their testimony, even when threatened with torture and death?

>>18514660
>look what it says in the Bible bro, it totally happened

>>18514641
Well Josephus claims that Jesus was in fact nailed to the cross. Gathering from this we can be assured that he was at least scourged 39 times which would cause a lot of blood loss. The Romans would have then carried off his body to the tomb and guarded it. Then Jesus magically appears to his apostles all fine?

Even Bart Ehrman agrees that he was dead and buried.

>>18514679
Four different testimonies is not enough for you? One big conspiracy where each writer banded together across several miles to make up this big lie? While using women testimony? The gospels resemble Greco-Roman autobiographies often written during this time. We have more reason to believe them than Suetonius' life of Caesar Augustus.

>>18514697
Clearly you've never been part of any organization, gang, army, or cult that involves risking martyring yourself against the authorities to prove a point. The tame Christianity of our age is almost pleasant in that regard.

>>18512771
>the modern scientific method
Don't tell him philosophyofsciencebros.

>>18514724
You just did it again.
>the scripture says SO don't you get it
>it says it FOUR times

>>18514724
You sound like you just mindlessly repeat what William Lane Craig says

>>18514728
That is martyring yourself for something that you wholeheartedly believe in - nobody is questioning that that occurs. The question is, if Jesus did NOT appear to the apostles, why were they willing to be tortured and killed rather than recant that He did? Can you find me a single instance, in all of human history, of somebody being tortured and killed rather than recanting something they DON'T believe in? Not to mention the fact that you're positing this certainty comes from an equally undocumented sustained group delusion of a physically resurrected man?

>>18507585
Excellent taste

>>18514743
What do the apostles have to gain inserting women testimony?

>>18514743
>I will have full faith in Suetonius, Josephus, Lucian, Plutarch, Thucydides, Xenophon, but not the gospels

>>18514752
40 people killed themselves for Heaven’s Gate to become Next Level aliens. Are they the true religion? No one kills themselves for something they don’t believe, in fact the comet was actually in the sky, and they supported their evidence with scriptural references... Heaven’s Gate is the truth

>>18514752
Cults, mafiosi, terrorists, revolutionaries, etc. all do these sorts of things. You've never risked your life for social power so you are giving them a mystique. I never said they didn't believe in it. I said I don't believe it.

Resurrection debunked;
https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2019/04/21/william-lane-craigs-four-facts-about-the-resurrection/

>>18514756
I really don't know. From what I understand, the Romans considered Christianity to be feminine so there might be something to having its earliest testimonies be female.

>>18514765
>>18514772
Again, you are missing the question. These are all people who died for something they wholeheartedly believe in.
The question is, if Jesus did NOT appear to the apostles, why were they willing to be tortured and killed rather than recant that He did?
Can you find me a single instance, in all of human history, of somebody being tortured and killed rather than recanting something they DON'T believe in?

>>18514781
Jesus literally told his disciples to consume his flesh and drink his blood in order to gain eternal life. He was then crucified. Reports circulated that his body was missing. His body was never found. Likely consumed by his disciples. The disciples would retain their faith having consumed the flesh and blood of Jesus, filled with the zeal of faith and willing to die for their beliefs. A bunch of people at the same time were having hallucinations and dreams thinking they had seen an exalted Jesus, obviously in great distress over his death. (((Saul of Tarsus))) would mention this and inflate the number to some arbitrary amount and then millennia later retards like (you) would take them at face value when there is zero evidence except for some jew writing decades after Jesus died.

>two concrete descriptions of (initiation) rites, in which infanticide played an important role, have survived. The first is located on a late-second-century Egyptian papyrus. The text is a fragment from a novel and recounts the ritual murder of a young boy. It features the youth’s heart being removed from his body. The heart is sprinkled with barley, sopped in oil, and subsequently served out to the participants of the initiation rite. Those present swear an oath, eat the heart, drink the blood, and, finally, engage in sexual intercourse with one another.

>An infant covered over with meal, that it may deceive the unwary, is placed before him who is to be stained with their rites: this infant is slain by the young pupil, who has been urged on as if to harmless blows on the surface of the meal, with dark and secret wounds. Thirstily – O horror! – they lick up its blood; eagerly they divide its limbs. By this victim they are pledged together; with this consciousness of wickedness they are covenanted to mutual silence...
"Mutual silence"?

Cannibalism rumors were reported in France, Bithynia, Pontus, Rome, Egpyt - all across the Empire.

>>18507484
>no kikes
>reads the bible
>is a christian
Spinoza was by nearly any measure less Jewish in spirit than Christians are.

>>18514781
>Can you find me a single instance, in all of human history, of somebody being tortured and killed rather than recanting something they DON'T believe in?
No you are missing the point here. I don't doubt they had belief. I question why I should believe. Lots of people believe lots of things and some of them die for those beliefs. Doesn't change the truth evaluation. Totally separate problem.

>>18514781
No one is saying they didn’t believe it you absolute retard

>>18514803
>the disciples ate Jesus
This is possibly the most retarded hypothesis I've heard yet.
He clearly indicates that the ritual meal of "consuming His flesh" is the bread of the Eucharist:
"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, spoke a blessing and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins [...]"

>A bunch of people at the same time were having hallucinations and dreams thinking they had seen an exalted Jesus,
Again, please show documented evidence of a sustained (multi-day) group hallucination of a physically resurrected person ever occurring ever again, after this event?

>>18514811
Because the most likely explanation for the apostles deciding to be tortured and killed rather than recanting that they had seen the physically risen Jesus Christ, who they then say ascend into heaven, is that they actually saw Him, and He actually did so. If you have another hypothesis, I'm happy to hear it. This is how I came to believe - it is simply the most rational explanation. Something supernatural happened to them, and they were willing to die rather than compromise on that.

>>18514821
Then what happened? This is what I asked in the first place.

>>18514803
>Bithynia, Pontus
Just what is going on in Asia Minor at this time in terms of cult? Big think....

>>18514781
Most(if not all) of the accounts describing the martyrs deaths are directly from the Bible. I don't think anyone denies that a martyr cult developed in early Christianity.

>>18514830
>simply the most rational explanation.
>Something supernatural happened

>>18514840
The Bible is a collection of early Christian eyewitness or secondhand-from-eyewitness documents. It is anachronistic to describe these historical texts as "from the Bible", because the Bible didn't exist until centuries later.
>I don't think anyone denies that a martyr cult developed in early Christianity
The question of why the apostles decided to be martyred, rather than recant, is the crux of this issue - as all Christian belief stems from the testimonies of the apostles.

>>18514851
Again, please give your hypothesis, and we will see if it is more rational at explaining the events we are analyzing.

>>18514830
>While they were eating, Jesus took bread, spoke a blessing and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins [...]"
This is a post hoc rationalization of a cannibalistic feast

>>18514874
That is baseless conjecture based upon your hatred of Jesus Christ. Allow me to assert, as well - your hatred is quite possibly stemming from internalized shame from your own disgusting lifestyle, or angst against authority figures in your life.

>>18514863
Anything is more rational than resurrection. You people are a joke

>>18514853
>It is anachronistic to describe these historical texts as "from the Bible", because the Bible didn't exist until centuries later.
Irrelevant.
>The question of why the apostles decided to be martyred, rather than recant, is the crux of this issue - as all Christian belief stems from the testimonies of the apostles.
Impossible to know whether they got martyred. Impossible to know if they were 12. Could have just been made up. People used to be pretty metaphorical, especially with numbers.

Why do you trust the Bible to be historically accurate? Ancient people didn't even view truth in the way moderns do, so talk about anachronistic. What you call a lie they'd call a different kind of truth.

>>18514895
>it was just a metaphor bro
1 Corinthians 15:12-14

>>18514888
I do not hate Jesus. I draw from scripture. John writes that Jesus said to consume his flesh and blood. There was a missing body allegedly. Where did the body go, most rationally? Well it is not a stretch to say that they indeed ate it for eternal life in accordance with Jesus’ words. This is more rational than positing supernatural explanations and explains why the faith was retained among the apostles, especially when combined with vision theories.

Cope

>>18514903
Paul is right here, and it’s funny, because he didn’t raise. His corpse rots

>>18514895
Anyway you do not have to respond. Nothing more pointless than convince someone that Jesus being the son of God probably isn't the most likely alternative. There are hundreds of old grannies in America that think Jesus really did appear in their piece of breakfast toast. Let them.

>>18514903
The old switcheroo from the disciples supposed martyhood to Jesus' resurrection. Epic.

>>18514890
>while I have no alternative hypothesis, I know that my non-existent hypothesis is more rational than yours
Uhhhh, okay?

>>18514895
>Impossible to know whether they got martyred
The historical consensus on the matter of St. Peter is that he most likely was crucified in Rome. Why did he so strongly believe that Christ had risen and appeared to him, and then ascended into heaven?
>Impossible to know if they were 12
I never stated there were 12, although to doubt that is to doubt most historical events that have happened. We have clear witness in from an early Christian, St. Paul, who attested to a group he consulted with in Jerusalem called "the twelve", who were the disciples to whom Jesus appeared. What's your evidence against his testimony?

>Why do you trust the Bible to be historically accurate?
I trust the historical scholarship, especially from atheist and agnostic scholars, who say that not only did Jesus exist, but that His disciples were most likely martyred, especially Peter and James.

>>18514905
So you trust the teachings of John regarding what Jesus says, but don't trust what he writes not a few chapters later regarding His resurrection?
>Well it is not a stretch to say that they indeed ate it for eternal life in accordance with Jesus’
It is a stretch, because we have strong eyewitness testimony that states He was referring to bread and wine when He institutes the Eucharist.

>This is more rational than positing supernatural explanations and explains why the faith was retained among the apostles,
The theory is irrational, for various reasons. If they ate Jesus' body (and bones?), for example, why would they have believed that He appeared to them physically, to the point of willingly being tortured and killed? Your theory is nonsensical after any basic analysis.
>I do not hate Jesus.
Adding lies to your plate of sins? Anybody who posts this picture >>18514803 has a clear hatred for Jesus. Repent.

>>18514927
I'm not the other anon

>>18514936
>not only did Jesus exist, but that His disciples were most likely martyred, especially Peter and James.
I don't doubt this. I doubt the theology, soteriology, eschatology, anything with ology in it really since it means a bunch of post hoc bullshit is going on.

>>18514946
You are free to do this, but you have yet to provide a rational explanation for the events surrounding Jesus' death which accurately explains all of the idiosyncrasies associated with it.
Because of your failure to do so, I have to conclude that your perspective is irrational, which is your right. If it weren't, you would have already posted your position.
I still love you, though. Just saying, you haven't been an effective witness to your side on this matter.

>>18514936
>Why did he so strongly believe that Christ had risen and appeared to him, and then ascended into heaven?
Dunno why did Empedocles throw himself into a volcano?
>I never stated there were 12, although to doubt that is to doubt most historical events that have happened.
Nah you only have to doubt historical events that are supposed to have religious significance.

>>18514946
> it means a bunch of post hoc bullshit
It is the most likely possibility that the Synoptics were written before 70 AD and the destruction of the Jewish temple.
Why?
Because Luke ends acts with Paul's ministry just starting in Rome. Why would an autobiographical like story not end with his martyrdom and death? Many other autobiographies at that time did.

>0 For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. 31 He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!

The only reason why they place the synoptics after 70 AD is because they can't find it possible that Jesus actually prophesized a huge historical event. Even if one is to doubt this, the conversion of the gentiles across the world, "There is something much greater than Jonah here" did indeed happen, and that prophecy cannot be rationalized away so lightly.

>>18514957
>you have yet to provide a rational explanation for the events surrounding Jesus' death which accurately explains all of the idiosyncrasies associated with it.
>Because of your failure to do so, I have to conclude that your perspective is irrational
Jesus Christ. This is like talking to robot. You really think you are being rational here by claiming supernatural, i.e. irrational, events took place in c. 30 AD? And that is how we know the Pauline cult that successfully captures the Roman state after a couple of centuries is telling the truth?

>>18515049
I am being rational by providing a consistent and logical explanation for what occurred after Jesus' death. You still have not provided any sort of rational argument as to what you believe happened - therefore I have to conclude you are the one behaving irrationally. I still love you, though, but I do need to point it out.

>>18514975
>Dunno
Exactly my point. You have no rational hypothesis - and therefore, you concede the argument. I am happy to discuss whatever hypothesis you decide to believe in to confirm your prior belief, but in lieu of an actual argument, I must consider you to be as irrational as your friend above. I love you, and only want you to be consistent here - it is as simple as providing a rational argument, brother.

>>18514289
Don't diss christianity like that

>>18515444
Jesus, the Son of God, was chaste, and never had sex with anybody. Muhammad, on the other hand, had sex with a 9-year old child named Aisha when he was 53. Know the difference - it could save your soul.

>>18515483
>sex with wife bad
Christcucks are so dumb

>>18515512
Would you let your 6-year old daughter be married off to a 50-year old man, knowing he would be mounting her less than 3 years later, while she is still playing with dolls?

>>18515608
I think in Islam you aren't allowed to say Muhammad was wrong with what he did so they have to concede that it's ok lol

>>18515608
life expectancy affected age of consent. if you dont know that most societies in before antiquity, during antiquity, and after antiquity practiced marriage with younger girls, you need to study history a bit more.

>>18515608
If he was a prophet of God, yes. There would be no better partner for my daughter

>>18515431
>I am being rational by providing a consistent and logical explanation for what occurred after Jesus' death
Ok pal. Keep telling yourself that resurrection is consistent and logical.

>>18507493
>ripped off
He explicitly cites them

>When discussing religion, people would rather autistically argue about where it comes from and which ethnic group it belongs to rather than seek the truth
Religion is truly dead isn't it.

>>18516115
The fact that this ‘god’ of the Jews claims them to be chosen over all other people and views them as cattle is worth keeping in mind when looking at this religion

>>18516440
This isn't really true though. Even in the old testament, Jews continually keep straying away from God/falling into idolatry, being harshly punished, becoming faithful again and having the cycle repeat itself. Through Christ, salvation becomes possible to all peoples, in fact, Jews had as much of a need to convert as gentiles. Also keep in mind modern Judaism was established between 5th and 7th centuries as a direct reaction to Christianity, it's as much of a distinct religion from ancient Judaism as Christianity.

>>18516532
Dont Jews technically accept converts? What are the rules exactly

The ones about dead white males.

>>18516539
It's recorded several times in the OT, and while it is possible, modern Jews are very tribalistic and many won't consider proselytes to be real Jews.

>>18516532
Christcuck cope. This is all over the OT

>>18507473
And nothing else.

>>18516576
The """Jew's""" (because at this point we have no fucking idea what they are) own self destructive ideology is going to be the downfall of NWO, or Globohomo, since there's nothing new about it.
Just as their Greed got them to their current position, so too will it destroy them, because greed is like a never ending pit. No matter what you throw into it, the pit will never be full.
The cracks have manifested in the foundation and their debased system. What happens next is entirely down to the people currently enslaved by it.

>>18516547

>>18515768
Logicfags should be banned from /lit/

>>18509276
>and the protestant reformation was even a return, in a sense, to his original writings
Retard

>>18514282
>The modern day Germanic peoples are direct descendants of those ancient populations who lived in the areas of Western Europe, and they have been shown to have a naturally high IQ; probably because of being selected for intelligence due to extremely cold winters.
Nope, look up "Western Europe, State Formation, and Genetic Pacification". It's highly likely that before 1000 ad, your dumb barbarians were exactly that: dumb, retarded barbarians. Also read Ibn Fadlan's account on the Rus and tell me these were high IQ people. They were savages on the level of north american indians or worse, and the Romans told us as much during 1000 years of interaction with them

>>18516787
I want thomist trannies to leave

>>18509597
Feser is based for doing justice to Aristotle. The only shame is he tends to shill for his Christian beliefs through Aristotle. He also needs to take the full luddite pill and realize technological development is actually a cancer and not something to be proud of. He already sort of knows this (like when he speaks about how Christianity was superior because it put emphasis on the development of human souls rather than material/scientific development), but he won't admit it outright.

>>18508165
Based

>>18507473

Spinoza is a proto-hippie. We don't need any of his shit here.

>>18507439
Gathas

>>18515718
in Islam Muhammad is perfect.
Allah said so. You are a human, why are you going against Allah?

>>18514737
Refuted by Lakatos

>>18516874
Not really. Genetic studies have demonstrated that ancient Europeans were basically identical to modern Europeans. Scandinavians, though, they've been undergoing a ~fun~ process of decreasing dopamine levels in exchange for higher IQ, but before this began their IQs would have been in the 100s like all Europeans.

Ironically, though, the average Mizrahi Jew's IQ is in the 80s.

>>18516532
The Old Testament is a fictional narrative. It's not saying any kind of historical facts (many things are just outright madeup, like the First Temple, or the various Golden Ages that Israel is supposed to be going through between 1,500BC and 1,300BC). We also know that "Judaism" is only created around 600BC as a justification by a mercantile elite housed in Babylon to curry favor with the Persian government (that was, at the time, in conflict with Babylon). It's only after 600BC that the Torah narratives are invented.

Rather, we have to read it as a text by certain authors who are crafting fictional historical narratives to justify certain action in their day. Why do the Jews "constantly" fall in and out of idolatry? Because the Temple-Monarchy elite were trying to engage in largescale state and ethnos formation and that required beating the existing Canaanite Polytheism that Yahwism arose from out of them, and that required explaining WHY these people were even worshiping multiple deities at all. It's one thing to argue that Gentiles don't have souls and are retarded so they worship their ancestors which are rocks and trees, it's another thing to argue that some of God's Chosen People engaged in polytheism (something that makes no sense in a monotheistic world).