/lit/ - Literature

>>19407673
Any specific books of St. Justin Martyr that I should read?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclogue_4

I swear there’s no end to the depravity of christoids and their filthy lies and copes

Why do you keep posting this retarded cope? Putting aside that Moses not write the Torah, which is a composite text of multiple different authors, nothing in Hebrew was even translated into Greek in Plato's lifetime. So how would Plato have even read about Moses? The Septuagint wasn't written until centuries later. Justin was a rando idiot who had no idea what he was saying.

Anyway, the author of the prologue to the gospel of John stole the idea of Logos from the Jewish Platonist Philo. So there's that.

>>19407673
If that is the case, the argument for the Revelation of the Hebrews stands only due to its antiquity - and conversely, if any other revelation is also theistic and more antique, either the hebrews are NOT the sole chosen people of the revelation, or God has chosen to reveal Himself to more than one people - at which point His revelation was corrupted by the Hebrews, and that opens a whole can of worms.

Now let us thing for a second. Is there any more ancient race that has claimed to have received Revelation of an invisible One God?
>Akhenaten
>Bhagavad Gita
>King Numa
Oh yeah, there are

>>19408070
>composite text of multiple different authors
>nooo it can't be a single author because.... we just KNOW the priest thing was a later addition because I dont like it... how do we know it? we just do, okay?!

>>19408070
>nothing in Hebrew was even translated into Greek in Plato's lifetime. So how would Plato have even read about Moses?
It's amusing to see how the atheist operates on sola scriptura presuppositions without even realizing it. Plato didn't have to go to walmart to buy a papercover bible, you do realize that tradition was primarily past down orally in that time? Especially considering that nobody would have given a gentile like Plato the Torah to read.
>>19408301
>if any other revelation is also theistic
Any other revelation is demonistic, not theistic. God did reveal Himself to all people even before the Hebrews, but only they were given the prophets and guided by Him as a nation state. The rest also had priests though (see Melchizedek) and the knowledge of God and worshippers of Him existed in all peoples until quite late, but most eventually preferred demonic worship to God.
>revelation was corrupted by the Hebrews
No, the Hebrews were chosen to carry God's revelation of the Old Covenant until the Messiah comes, as per the promise of God to Abraham.

>>19408070
>stole the idea of Logos
The idea of Logos is from the wisdom literature of the Old Testament.

>>19408442
Because they're multiple different books. Nowhere do they even claim to have been written by a single author. Mosaic authorship was invented in the Hellenistic period when the Jews started copying Greek practices of attributing texts to individual authors (like Homer as the author of the Iliad and Odyssey, who was also not the case).

>>19408450
>It's amusing to see how the atheist operates on sola scriptura presuppositions without even realizing it. Plato didn't have to go to walmart to buy a papercover bible, you do realize that tradition was primarily past down orally in that time? Especially considering that nobody would have given a gentile like Plato the Torah to read.
So how could Plato have learned anything from Moses then? What evidence is there that any contact even took place? Plato's theology is pretty straightforward Pythagoreanism combined with Greek rationalism and naturalism. The superficialities with the Torah is because Jews became Hellenised when they were conquered by Greeks after Plato's death.

>>19408455
It's a Greek philosophical concept from Heraclitus onwards, which got into the NT via Philo's Platonism.

>>19408450
>It's amusing to see how the atheist operates on sola scriptura presuppositions without even realizing it. Plato didn't have to go to walmart to buy a papercover bible, you do realize that tradition was primarily past down orally in that time? Especially considering that nobody would have given a gentile like Plato the Torah to read.
so your position is somehow even more retarded and you believe plato heard about Moses by word of mouth

>>19408465
>Nowhere do they even claim to have been written by a single author.
What sort of idiocy is this? If I don't claim all of my diary was written by my in the book itself, does it mean multiplte people actually wrote it?

>>19408474
>What evidence is there that any contact even took place?
St. Justin Martyr's words and the similarity of Plato's conceptions being just a distorted version of Judaism, which all other religion essentially is.

>>19408465
>Because they're multiple different books. Nowhere do they even claim to have been written by a single author. Mosaic authorship was invented in the Hellenistic period when the Jews started copying Greek practices of attributing texts to individual authors (like Homer as the author of the Iliad and Odyssey, who was also not the case).
>>19408474
>It's a Greek philosophical concept from Heraclitus onwards, which got into the NT via Philo's Platonism.

>>19408474
>Heraclitus
The Old Testament wisdom literature predates Heraclitus, whose ideology is in no way similar to what is taught by Christ. This is just modernist biased pseudo-science which sees a Greek word and simply has to assume it was the pagans who invented it, because they are by default more "enlightened".

Fake texts, forgeries & made up stories used by Christians to discredit other religions:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Orpheus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepitus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine#:~:text=The%20Donation%20of%20Constantine%20(Latin,Roman%20Empire%20to%20the%20Pope.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termagant
This is the religion of truth, everybody

>>19408465
>Nowhere do they even claim to have been written by a single author.
The one who inspired it, Jesus, says that Moses wrote it. He's speaking about the same scripture we have today as preserved in the Septuagint and Mosaic authorship was traditional at this point. Also your objection that it's not written down in the Torah that he wrote it is strange, nothing obligates him to do it. Everyone of his people would know it anyway because they were all there at Sinai.

"Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”"

>>19408511
This might be a fair analogy if your diary was not a diary at all but a collection of varying myths in different books only found in a canon together with books by different people and compiled at a later date .

Again, the idea that Moses wrote the Torah only developed after Jews came into contact with Greek literary norms which attributed works like the Iliad and Odyssey to individual mythical authors. Literally no-one has defended Mosaic authorship for centuries outside of like fundies and Orthodox Jews.

>>19408526
>The Old Testament wisdom literature predates Heraclitus, whose ideology is in no way similar to what is taught by Christ.
It's very similar to Philo though, who was a Platonist who got the idea from Greek philosophy where there was a demiurge between God and man.
>This is just modernist biased pseudo-science which sees a Greek word and simply has to assume it was the pagans who invented it
Yeah, who would be stupid enough to believe that the Greeks invented the Greek philosophical term Logos?

>>19408541
>The one who inspired it, Jesus, says that Moses wrote it.
Well, he was wrong. Jesus lived centuries after the Pentateuch was compiled and had no idea how it was formed.

Spinoza demolished Mosaic authorship 350 years ago. No-one has seriously held to it in centuries.

>>19408565
>Well, he was wrong
>the incarnate Logos was wrong
Or maybe the modern paganistic Jew Spinoza was wrong? Really makes you think which of this is more likely.

>>19408553
>Literally no-one has defended
Not an argument. Most arguments for the "Q" nonsense have been thoroughly debunked by now. For any new argument just wait five years and they debunk themselves.
>It's very similar to Philo though
False attribution of causation. Philo didn't write OT wisdom literature which very clearly talks about Jesus pre-incarnation.
> Greeks invented the Greek philosophical term Logos
Word concept fallacy. The Greek concept of the philosophers was a corrupted borrowing from Hebrew, not the letters themselves which can be used in the correct way as John uses it.

>>19408572
If your evidence for Mosaic authorship is axiomatic faith in the inerrancy of scripture, then go ahead. Just don't expect to convince anyone who isn't a fundie.

>>19408553
>outside of like fundies and Orthodox Jews
>noo nobody has defended! well except these groups! but we'll just ignore it because... like... Moses didn't write it! SCIENCE SHOWS!

>>19408581
>axiomatic faith
It's a real faith in Jesus, who shows His divinity in His works to this day, as He promised. You trying to invent nonsense to disprove His words is precisely what blocks you from seeing the truth, if you wanted to see it you truly would but most "textual critic" types are more interested in proving their case and worshipping the intellect, not in genuine discovery.

>>19408553
>idea that Moses wrote the Torah only developed after Jews came into contact with Greek
This is just an assumption trying to explain the facts by already presupposing God didn't inspire it.

>>19408580
>Most arguments for the "Q" nonsense have been thoroughly debunked by now.
I find it funny when conservative Christians hate on Q. It literally exists to get the synoptic gospels a source closer to Jesus, because the alternative is that Luke copied Matthew copied Mark.
Anyway, doubt of Mosaic authorship is universally held by everyone who doesn't have religious pecommitments to believe in it like Orthodox Jews.
>>19408580
>Philo didn't write OT wisdom literature which very clearly talks about Jesus pre-incarnation.
No, but he was using Platonic philosophy and Greek philosophical terms like Logos to explain that Platonism.
>The Greek concept of the philosophers was a corrupted borrowing from Hebrew
If you want to assert this without evidence because it protects your faith, go ahead but it it's not an argument. Even granted, you still have the problem of gJohn's theology being mediated through Philo's Platonic conceptions of the demiurge.

We know both Philo and the author of gJohn were writing in Greek in a Greek philosophical milieu and were influenced by it. The idea that Hebrew scripture influenced 5th century Greek philosophers who had no knowledge of Hebrew or any evidence of contact with it is hilarious cope.

>>19408590
This. All of this this type of reasoning is only throwing out the traditional explanation in search of anything else, no matter how unlikely or unprovable, because it is axiomatically assumed that naturalism is true without any proof, even with it being self-refuting and incoherent. It's all built on sand.

>>19408584
>>19408590
Again, if your basis for making up shit about Plato's philosophical development or the authorship of the Torah is purely faith-based, then go ahead. It's just not a rational argument that will convince anyone and makes you look stupid and your faith ridiculous to outsiders.

>>19408603
>It literally exists to get the synoptic gospels a source closer to Jesus
You don't need to invent an abstract concept to do this. Matthew wrote the first Gospel in Aramaic for the Jews which was translated later into Greek before the destruction of the temple, in about 60 AD even by secularist metrics, but it is known in the same way the texts themselves are known to us, i.e. by transmission in the Living Body of Christ.
>universally held by everyone
This is not an argument and assumes the thing you're trying to show, that religious precommitment leads people into a false understanding.

>>19408608
>not a rational argument
It is more rational than atheism. You deny Mosaic authorship only because that better fits into a naturalistic framework, which itself is irrational, destroying the whole point of doing so in the first place.

>>19408590
No, it's looking at when the texts were written, and then why the people making certain claims are making them. The Torah narratives were invented between 400BC and 300BC, centuries after Homer was composed. The Jews explicitly write down the Torah the first time as a counterbalance (in Jewish culture, the Greeks didn't give a fuck about the Jews) to the Iliad, in part because of the disastrous effect that Greek culture had had on Jewish culture (completely obliterating Hebrew as the language of religious and academic Jewry and replacing it with Greek).

The Mosaic authorship is a cope by Rabbis desperately trying to hold onto power in the wake of a superior civilization coming along and knocking over their mudhuts.

You're coping for the Jews, anon. That's what it comes down to.

>>19408644
>The Torah narratives were invented between 400BC and 300BC, centuries after Homer was composed.

>>19408644
>No, it's looking at when the texts were written
>Just look at the facts!

>>19408627
>Matthew wrote the first Gospel in Aramaic
LOL why then does Matthew use the Greek Septuagint?
Why is it shown through editorial fatigue that Matthew copied Mark? Is there any evidence for an Aramaic origin for Matthew other than a single decontextualised quote of hearsay from (presumably where you're getting this unsupportable idea) Papias?
> in about 60 AD even by secularist metrics
By "secularist metrics" the earliest gospel, Mark, is sometime after 70.
>This is not an argument and assumes the thing you're trying to show, that religious precommitment leads people into a false understanding.
If faith commitments lead people to argue plainly false assertions like Moses wrote the Pentateuch (lmao) then yes, it does lead people into a false understanding.

>>19408632
>It is more rational than atheism.
There are many, many, many Christian, Jewish and other religious scholars who look at the evidence and don't believe Moses literally wrote the Pentateuch. Jews didn't even believe Moses did until the Hellenistic period. Try again.

>>19407673
>Any other book with chad Christian takes?

Matthew published the Scriptures of the Gospel among the Jews in their own language, while Peter and Paul in Rome evangelized and founded the Church. After their departure, Mark, Peter's disciple and translator, gave us in writing what had been preached by Peter. And Luke, Paul's companion, set forth the gospel he preached in the book. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, reclining next to Him, also published the Gospel during his stay in Ephesus of Asia.

>>19408676
>Why is it shown through editorial fatigue that Matthew copied Mark?
>Is there any evidence for an Aramaic origin for Matthew? but other than this evidence which shows it! if we can't find it today means it didn't exist!

>>19408678
>look at the evidence

>>19408678
>Jews didn't even believe Moses did until the Hellenistic period.
>We do not have a writing of a Jew saying it from period X, therefore it was not part of oral tradition.
Is this the reasoning atheism leads one to? This is a complete dissolution of the intelligence.

>>19408676
>LOL why then does Matthew use the Greek Septuagint?
Why would he not use it? The Greek Septuagint and its original text was commonly used in that time and the Masoretic text today is literally a thousand years older than what Matthew would have had.

I wonder if this tradlarper realises how cringe he looks spamming basedjacks in lieu of an actual argument.

>>19408704
>I wonder if this tradlarper realises how cringe he looks spamming basedjacks in lieu of an actual argument.

>>19408704
>Bro, just look at the evidence! It interprets itself, it's the facts! If we don't see oral tradition written down it means it never existed! We need YouTube to see that it was recorded on video! Then we will belive it!

>>19408696
You can make up oral tradition to prove anything was held at any date. Without evidence of such an oral tradition it's a meaningless assertion. And no, we have no writing in the Bible or anywhere else from Jews advancing Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch until the Hellenistic period.

>>19408699
>Why would he not use it?
Because if he was writing in Aramaic originally he would have quoted from the Targum (or the Hebrew original) and later translated it. Instead the author of Matthew originally quoted from Greek scripture, as one would expect from a Greek writer writing a Greek text with the bulk of its material copied from an earlier Greek text (Mark).

>>19408720
>he would have quoted from the Targum (or the Hebrew original) and later translated it
Why would you translate the scripture yourself, instead of just taking it from the known and widely accepted Greek translation? This is unparalleled levels of mental gymnastics.
I don't read my Bible in English, but whenever I quote it in English to someone I use a known English translation, I do not translate it by myself.

>>19408720
>Without evidence of such an oral tradition it's a meaningless assertion.
There is evidence of such oral tradition, namely Jesus saying it in John. But of course this is not evidence because atheism simply has to be true.

>>19408735
>Why would you translate the scripture yourself, instead of just taking it from the known and widely accepted Greek translation?
Because that's what authors did in the ancient world. And Matthew copied Mark's Greek, including his Septuagint quotes verbatim.

>>19408742
>There is evidence of such oral tradition, namely Jesus saying it in John.
How is a 1st century AD text evidence of an oral tradition existing 500 years earlier? Look, if you want to just assert an oral tradition existed on the basis of faith with your only evidence being centuries later, go ahead.

>>19408644
We have scientific basis to date most of the Torah to a period before Plato, Homer. This with certainty.
Evidence?
>The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance by Gary N. Knoppers, Bernard M. Levinson

>The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketef_Hinnom

etc.

>>19408847
>Uhh... Rick and Morty showed this was a later interpolation..