Plotinus and Christianity

[Anonymous No.18617707]

How did Christian theologians read this and conclude that YHWH was the One?
YHWH is one of many gods in the Bible, this is made obvious when you read the Tanakh, so where's the proof that YHWH is indeed the One — that is, the unrivaled, almighty, omnipotent, omniscient creator and underlying substance of all of existence?

[Anonymous No.18617925]

>>18617707
YHWH and Elohim are all - in both Jewish and Christian theology - accepted to be God. As you probably know yourself this is so accepted that we just translated both words to God (sometimes Lord, Father, etc).

The conclusion that God is the One isn't too hard to get. God in the Bible is omnipotent and omniscient and created the world, and Neo-platonists believe the One is omnipotent and omniscient and created the world. Its not really a matter of believing God=One, but more that the Neoplatonic concept of the One is so similar to the Christian concept of God that you can without problem borrow metaphysical conclusions from the other.

[Anonymous No.18617961]

>>18617925
You're talking to an antisemite. Just ignore him.

[Anonymous No.18617968]

>>18617961
Howdya know?

[Anonymous No.18618022]

>>18617925
>God in the Bible is omnipotent and omniscient
Was he always? See the war against the Moabite deity Chemosh.

[Anonymous No.18618048]

>>18617968
You're talking to a retard, just ignore him. I don't particularly care about Jews, I'm interested in Christianity but am concerned about the worship of YHWH and if there is a possibility for him to not be who he claims to be.

[Anonymous No.18618082]

See Plato's Three Kings.
YHWH is the Father but he isn't the Logos nor is he the Holy Spirit but they are all One

[Anonymous No.18618096]

>>18618082
Could it be said that YHWH is an emanation of the One?
What is, then, the ontological justification for the Trinity?

[Anonymous No.18618182]

>>18618096
Bible said so

[Anonymous No.18618188]

>>18618082
why does a christshit refer to a greek pederast?

[Anonymous No.18618239]

>>18618188
Who else is there to refer to? Kys

[Anonymous No.18618262]

>>18618239
the israelites maybe? retard

[Anonymous No.18618268]

>>18618096
>whats the ontological justification for the Trinity
The political force and extensions of Greek and hellenic conquests

[Anonymous No.18618282]

>>18618262
Which tribe are we referring to? It doesn't even matter. There is no doubt about The One being Yahweh. Both created the world so they are the same person. Slit your wrists or cry about it faggot

[Anonymous No.18618288]

>>18617707
Christians were never able to do philosophy. They took Christianity to be true and then started working from there.

If you are concerned with philosophy and first principles then you should completely forget about everything Christian. Plotinus and the Neoplatonists refuted Christianity but Christians are just too dull to have realized.

[Anonymous No.18618301]

>>18618288
Catholicism is probably the most philosophically rigorous religious tradition in history.
Orthodoxy less so, for some reason.

[Anonymous No.18618308]

>>18618288
>Plotinus and the Neoplatonists refuted Christianity
You're a clown.

[Anonymous No.18618310]

>>18617707
>YHWH is one of many gods in the Bible,
"I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God." - Isaiah 45:5

[Anonymous No.18618324]

>>18618288
One of the greatest Platonists who ever lived, Augustine, converted to Christianity.

[Anonymous No.18618329]

>>18618310
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deities_in_the_Hebrew_Bible
>There is none like you among the gods, O Lord” (86:8)
>For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; he is to be revered above all gods” (96:4)
>etc
It's repeatedly implied that other gods exist.

[Anonymous No.18618343]

>>18618324
Augustine was a Manichean. And even if he had Platonic influences he certainly was far from the greatest.

[Anonymous No.18618374]

>>18618301
>Catholicism is probably the most philosophically rigorous religious tradition in history.

I think you're not taking a wide enough perspective here. Literally every other world religion besides Islam and Judaism has a top tier philosophical tradition, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism all have massive and rigorous philosophical traditions.

[Anonymous No.18618382]

>>18618374
No, I took these other religions into account as well. Buddhism is far from being philosophically rigorous considering fundamental metaphysical questions are conveniently handwaved as "non-conducive to enlightenment" and remain therefore unanswered, by the way. Hinduism's apparent depth is misleading when you realize a lot of it is endless debating over precise terminology.
Taoist alchemy is very rich and vast but I don't know enough about it to comment.

[Anonymous No.18618393]

>>18618329
Above all gods of other religions, your stupid monkey. You are american, right?

[Anonymous No.18618396]

>>18618308
All Christian "platonists" had one thing in common, in that none of them could hack it in the academies. All of them had to fall back on revelation because they couldn't cope with the purity of Platonic philosophy.

They were like those laypeople in the suttas that throw themselves on the ground tearing at their hair and clothes saying "this doctrine will destroy us!" after Buddha had taught them about Nibbana.

[Anonymous No.18618411]

>>18618393
Nah, your interpretation is obviously wrong and makes much less intuitive sense.

[Anonymous No.18618416]

>>18617707
>How did Christian theologians read this and conclude that YHWH was the One?

They didn't. Augustine read Plotinus deeply until he realized he was insufficient and then converted to Christianity.

It's debatable whether Plotinus is even a good reading of Plato and not pure revisionism via the syncretic environment of Alexandria which very likely included Buddhist ascetics.

>and Neo-platonists believe the One is omnipotent and omniscient and created the world

But that's flat out wrong. You zoomers have no understanding of neo-platonism. The neoplatonic One is not similar to the monotheist God of the Abrahamic traditions. The neoplatonic One is closer to Buddhism and the sect of Hinduism called Advaita Vedanta, which was an adaptation of Hinduism as a response to Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18618418]

>>18618396
>this doctrine will destroy us
Well, I mean...

[Anonymous No.18618425]

>>18618416
Stop trying to lump in Plotinus with eastern annihilationists.

[Anonymous No.18618427]

>>18618411
yeah because the trinity makes intuitive sense and that's why it's called a mystery
idiot

[Anonymous No.18618430]

>>18618427
Non sequitur. Try again.

[Anonymous No.18618445]

>>18618396
>All Christian "platonists" had one thing in common, in that none of them could hack it in the academies. All of them had to fall back on revelation because they couldn't cope with the purity of Platonic philosophy.

No doubt you're a hardcore partisan to neoplatonism, but the issue with many Christian and Muslim 'platonists' is precisely that neoplatonism is fundamentally insufficient and requires a revelation and a different conception of the One that makes it not just an unconcious lung that breathes things into existence.

There is something deeply unsatisfying about neoplatonism in that it offers no real purpose to life, and this is why it ultimately fizzled out and was replaced by Christianity.

[Anonymous No.18618449]

>>18618411
Yeah, lets ignore that jews were surrounded by politheistic religions in all the bible. Bait shitty thread

[Anonymous No.18618454]

>>18618329
No it isn't because a key point in the Bible is that those "gods" have no power since they don't exist. See when Elijah challenged the Baal worshippers and they couldn't do anything. Read your Bible mate and don't believe everything secular scholars say.

[Anonymous No.18618457]

>>18618425
>Stop trying to lump in Plotinus with eastern annihilationists.

I respect those who try to interpret Plotinus' union as theistic, but it's simply more difficult to do when Plotinus gives you as many, if not more, passages that indicate monistic union.

There's no awareness in Plotinus' ultimate union. You forget everything about your earthly existence. The theistic union interpretation admits only a minimal awareness of not being 99% absorbed.

[Anonymous No.18618460]

>>18618449
>everything that doesn't agree with me is bait
Go throw a tantrum somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.18618462]

>>18618430
get owned christcuck

[Anonymous No.18618471]

>>18618454
But where is it clearly said that they don't exist? It's a much more natural assumption to make that these "gods" or minor deities actually do exist, but are just powerless compared to God. See >>18618022

[Anonymous No.18618474]

>>18618471
>>But where is it clearly said that they don't exist?
When the Baal worshipers try to call on Baal and nothing happens.

[Anonymous No.18618478]

>>18618474
That doesn't demonstrate anything, and you didn't address the post I quoted.

[Anonymous No.18618479]

>>18618427
The trinity is a mystery in the sense that you cannot ultimate understand why or how God exists and decides to create the world. That's beyond human understanding, and not even neoplatonism can figure it out. Just look at how Plotinus' struggles between an emanationist vs a creationist understanding of creation, to say nothing of the One being 'beyond being' and 'beyond intellect.'

But the trinity does make sense in that it is an explanation for how God can be one and yet cause multiplicity. You run into problems when you assume an ultimate source for everything that is so purely one, so purely alone.

Even Hindu and Sufi mystics end up having recourse to a trinitarian aspect of creation.

[Anonymous No.18618486]

>>18618478
Baal didn't answer the prayers of his worshipers because Baal doesn't exist. The Bible makes this quite obvious.

[Anonymous No.18618487]

>>18618457
>monistic union
>no awareness
>You forget everything about your earthly existence
Isn't it the same in platonism? Hell, in every single religion except Christianity and Islam?
All eastern religions are like this (either complete dissolution or downright destruction). Platonism is like this too, as is Hermeticism. What are the religions that don't have this interpretation?

[Anonymous No.18618490]

>>18618457
Plotinus repudiates the doctrines of Buddhists so in no way can he be reconciled to the annihilationism and nihilism of eastern religion.

[Anonymous No.18618499]

>>18618445
>neoplatonism is fundamentally insufficient and requires a revelation and a different conception of the One that makes it not just an unconcious lung that breathes things into existence.
Dunno why saying the personal God of Israel did it is in any way more sufficient.

People only say this solves it because they've already presupposed their flavor of Abrahamic religion to be true, and therefore any system that is without this particularized deity on-top is seen to be severely lacking.

[Anonymous No.18618501]

>>18618457
>There's no awareness in Plotinus' ultimate union
This isn't true. Union to God in Plotinus scheme only ever goes as far as the nous which does contain ideas of particulars, or individual souls.

[Anonymous No.18618506]

>>18618486
>The Bible makes this quite obvious.
Where?

[Anonymous No.18618507]

>>18618499
Most Platonists agree and that's why they converted to Christianity. Intellectual understanding of God is not the same as experience of God. Neoplatonism is the height of human philosophy but it's only that. The height of human philosophy. To go beyond Neoplatonism belongs exclusively to Christian revelation.

[Anonymous No.18618517]

>>18618479
sufi mystics aren't muslims, christcuck

[Anonymous No.18618520]

>>18618506
Baal doesn't answer the prayers of his worshippers. The Bible states this is because Baal doesn't exist. Elijah mocks them, sarcastically saying maybe Baal walked away.

[Anonymous No.18618523]

>>18618520
Could you address >>18618022

[Anonymous No.18618525]

>>18618506
And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. And as midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention.

[Anonymous No.18618531]

>>18618523
Yes God in the Bible is always omnpotent and omniscient.

[Anonymous No.18618537]

>>18618531
What about Chemosh?
Numbers 21:29; Jeremiah 48:7, 13, 46; 1 Kings 11:7

[Anonymous No.18618542]

>>18618537
Rebellious angel.

[Anonymous No.18618546]

>>18618542
How do you separate other deities (nonexistent) from fallen angels (actually exist)?

[Anonymous No.18618555]

>>18618507
>Most Platonists agree and that's why they converted to Christianity.
That's telling and that even without the persecution. Christian revelation anyway was superceded by the word of Islam.

[Anonymous No.18618558]

>>18618546
Other "deities" are merely powerful beings within the sphere of creation. Whether or not they exist doesn't really matter since they're not on the same ontological plane as God which is the ground of all being. There is only one big G God by definition, this is a metaphysical necessity so what you're talking about are actually just created beings. Whether or not you claim they're "gods" doesn't really matter because they're not rivals to God, they are Gods creations.

As Paul said, the nations are influenced by spiritual powers, these powers unfortunately are sometimes misunderstood to be "gods" when they're actually demons.

So to answer your question any "god" below God that isn't a fabrication is simply a demon. QED.

[Anonymous No.18618566]

>>18618558
Yeah, I agree with that. My disagreement was about dismissing these beings as nonexistent from the get-go simply because there is only one "big G God" as you put it. So we're in agreement.

[Anonymous No.18618595]

>>18618487
>Isn't it the same in platonism?

Well, Plato hints at different realms in the afterlife based on your judgments. As do Orphic texts. I wouldn't lump Plato and the, admittedly impressive revision of Plotinus and his successors together.

>as is Hermeticism

Who cares? It's a half baked syncretic reworking of neoplatonic ideas. A meme.

[Anonymous No.18618598]

>>18618507
>Most Platonists agree and that's why they converted to Christianity
Imagine believing this

[Anonymous No.18618602]

>>18618499
>Dunno why saying the personal God of Israel did it is in any way more sufficient.

Because it is precisely a personal God that has awareness and cares for individuals in creation.

>>18618490
I'm not convinced. Plotinus also 'repudiates' the doctrines of the Gnostics but he still hates matter and is a general cuck like the Gnostics.

>>18618501
Yes, there's individual souls. But what do they know? They forget everything of their earthly existence. What awareness do they have apart from *maybe* the slight awareness of not being totally fused into the One?

[Anonymous No.18618603]

>>18618595
>Plato hints at different realms in the afterlife
I don't think he ever mentions memories of earthly existence as something that persists.
>It's a half baked syncretic reworking of neoplatonic ideas. A meme.
Definitely not. Have you even read any hermetic texts?

[Anonymous No.18618611]

>>18618507
>Neoplatonism is the height of human philosophy but it's only that. The height of human philosophy.

It's really not. There's hard problems with it like the question of emanation vs creation, the multiplicity of divine ideas etc. Read more.

[Anonymous No.18618615]

>>18617925
The Christian God creates out of volition while the One of Plotinus did not possess volition or consciousness, that’s a pretty big difference.

[Anonymous No.18618621]

>>18618603
>I don't think he ever mentions memories of earthly existence as something that persists.

But the judgments and differing experiences in the afterlife that he mentions in Gorgias and the Republic would imply that. Contrast this with Plotinus who explicitly states you lose your memories.

Plato != Plotinus

[Anonymous No.18618625]

>>18618603
>Definitely not. Have you even read any hermetic texts?

Go ahead and convince me that the Hermetic texts are coherent and not just a rehash of neoplatonism and theurgy. I'd really like to be convinced but everything I've read of them has left me disappointed. It's a syncretic larp and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

[Anonymous No.18618629]

>>18618382
>Hinduism's apparent depth is misleading when you realize a lot of it is endless debating over precise terminology.
No it’s not, that’s a lazy attempt at dismissing it

[Anonymous No.18618643]

>>18618611
Those aren't problems. Emanationism vs Creationism is just an issue of revelation superseding philosophical reasoning. There's nothing inherently wrong with emanationism, we just know it's wrong because God revealed it to us. This is not a flaw of philosophy but a divine revealing of its limits.

[Anonymous No.18618652]

>>18618629
He's right though. You establish the basic problems and then 90% of the rest is sperging over semantics and endless sectarianism of interpretations.

[Anonymous No.18618653]

>>18618602
>Because it is precisely a personal God that has awareness and cares for individuals in creation.
Well yeah I guess if you are looking for a father figure then I guess that is more sufficient.

The polytheistic Platonists had no problem ascribing care and awareness to gods though, not just to first principles. And they're right. Broad metaphysical principles do not talk to you. Anything that do is bound just like you, regardless of whether it is telling you truths or not.

[Anonymous No.18618659]

>>18618301
>Orthodoxy less so, for some reason.

The Eastern Orthodox can't produce any interesting theology and they're all conquered by Muslims anyway.

[Anonymous No.18618668]

>>18618643
>There's nothing inherently wrong with emanationism,

Are you sure? The problem for Plotinus was it seems to make the One constrained. I personally think Plotinus opts for a creationist interpretation, but creationism is much better done by Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.18618669]

>>18618501
>Union to God in Plotinus scheme only ever goes as far as the nous which does
That’s not true, there are passages in the Enneads where Plotinus speaks of the soul attaining union with the One itself and not just the nous, where in other passages he writes about union with the nous. Plotinus never worked out and wrote a final and definitive system that explains which of the true is the higher goal or which one is actually possible, because the Enneads span throughout his life they are inconsistent; this leads to people selectively picking certain passages they agree with as being the goal his metaphysics leads to even when there are passages supporting an alternative assumption.

[Anonymous No.18618681]

>>18618416
>sect of Hinduism called Advaita Vedanta, which was an adaptation of Hinduism as a response to Buddhism.
That’s not true, Advaita teachings are often talked about in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads and Advaita teachings derive from these instead of being a response to anything else.

[Anonymous No.18618682]

>>18618653
>Broad metaphysical principles do not talk to you. Anything that do is bound just like you, regardless of whether it is telling you truths or not.

You could argue this is an imperfection. But again, I will say that neoplatonism offers no explanation for purpose in life. It is psychologically unsatisfying and waving this away is "muh sky daddy issues" is a cope. Neoplatonism is stultifying and cultimates in secret homosexual clubs like we saw in Renaissance Florence and continue to see with Freemasons.

[Anonymous No.18618693]

>>18618669
Yeah, there's real inconsistencies and ambiguities in Plotinus that aren't fully worked out and it's disappointing.

Pierre Hadot mentioned that Eutochius published his own version of the Enneads, now lost of course, because he felt Porphyry didn't represent them accurately enough.

[Anonymous No.18618705]

>>18618602
>he still hates matter
The point is to not be attached to matter, to know it's not true reality. It's not hatred

[Anonymous No.18618706]

>>18618682
>Christianity is stultifying and cultimates in open homosexual clubs like we see in Rome and continue to see in the new world

[Anonymous No.18618712]

>>18618621
Then is Platonism the only non-Christian (or non-Abrahamist if you want to include Islam) philosophy to not be annihilationist?
>>18618625
Do you find Christian hermeticism and alchemy to be vacuous larping?

[Anonymous No.18618714]

>>18618643
>There's nothing inherently wrong with emanationism
The immutable cannot transform itself into mutable things or eject a portion of itself which does or its not immutable to begin with.

>>18618652
>90% of the rest is sperging over semantics
No it’s not that’s just simply wrong, the debates between different schools of Hindu philosophy deal with many of the same subjects found in western philosophy in the debates between Platonists, Peripatetics, Christian and Islamic theologians etc etc.

[Anonymous No.18618721]

>>18618643
>we just know it's wrong
Not that guy but emanationism makes complete sense to me, and elegantly answers the problem of evil as well. Why aren't things just emanations of God that degrade the farther they get from His divinity?

[Anonymous No.18618737]

>>18618659
It's more that they care more about mysticism than theology. There's a reason why hesychasm is in the EOC and not the RCC.
>>18618653
>Anything that do is bound just like you
By this statement you're binding first principles. You cannot proclaim something to be unbound while saying that there's something it cannot do (acquire a personal quality, in this case).

[Anonymous No.18618881]

>>18618693
>that aren't fully worked out
Look at the Christian Neoplatonists

[Anonymous No.18618918]

Yahweh means "that which is."
Exodus theology is very important to the Church Fathers

[Anonymous No.18618979]

>>18618374
>besides Islam
Ashari Islam is fucking based with its hyper-reductionism, occasionalism, and atomism. Gayreek philosophy is shit and needed to be swept away for modern science to occur.

[Anonymous No.18618990]

>>18618705
Neoplatonism argues for prime matter being intrinsically evil.
>to know it's not true reality
Well this is a huge metaphysical difference between the Christians and Neoplatonists

[Anonymous No.18619010]

>>18618990
The fact that Christians think heaven will be a world of matter is a part of the doctrine I'm very skeptical about
>intrinsically evil
In the emanationist sense it's just farthest from the One, so it is understandable since evil is defined as the absence of God, yes?

[Anonymous No.18619016]

>>18619010
I'm not the anon before but I'm not here to argue which philosophy is correct, I'm here to argue what each philosophy espouses.

[Anonymous No.18619044]

>>18619016
>what each philosophy espouses.
Why did Christians reject the platonic view of matter as something to be ultimately disregarded, anyway?

[Anonymous No.18619045]

>>18617707
>YHWH is one of many gods in the Bible, this is made obvious when you read the Tanakh
YHWH is a name used for Jesus and God but never anyone else. you're thinking of el.

[Anonymous No.18619054]

>>18619044
Because revelation, particularly Genesis and the goodness of God

[Anonymous No.18619071]

>>18619054
But God himself is above matter, the realm of the spirit is an immaterial one. Why, then, assume that perfection (heaven) will take place in a material realm?
It's possible to dismiss matter as ultimately illusory without ascribing to it an evil quality.

[Anonymous No.18619119]

>>18619071
>It's possible to dismiss matter as ultimately illusory without ascribing to it an evil quality.
But non being is what neoplatonism argues is evil. Matter is closer to non being therefore it is evil.

>Why, then, assume that perfection (heaven) will take place in a material realm?
It's not physical in the sense that we experience now if that's what you mean. It is a "place" where our bodies will be reunited with our souls to be in union with God.

[Anonymous No.18619128]

>>18618881
the same problems plague Eriugena and Pseudo-Dionysius

[Anonymous No.18619155]

>>18619119
>therefore it is evil.
Neoplatonists think that matter as the emanation that is closest to non-being is evil, I get that. Christians think that matter was created and therefore couldn't be evil. I'm saying that, putting aside the neoplatonist point of view, matter can ultimately be dismissed as illusory (which it is, for all intents and purposes; I don't think this can be denied in good faith) while not necessarily being evil. Hinduism has a similar take.
>It's not physical in the sense that we experience now
In what sense, then? To me, matter means precisely what we're experiencing now, that is physicality in space-time.
Mystics sometimes talk about their experiences as being beyond the senses ("seeing" with no eyes to see, for instance, a more perfect and pure kind of perception). This is not physical.

[Anonymous No.18619180]

>>18619155
>matter can ultimately be dismissed as illusory (which it is, for all intents and purposes; I don't think this can be denied in good faith)

can't wait to punch you in the face, pilpulling guenonfag

[Anonymous No.18619182]

>PLOTINUS was often distressed by an intestinal complaint, but declined clysters, pronouncing the use of such remedies unbecoming in an elderly man: in the same way he refused such medicaments as contain any substance taken from wild beasts or reptiles: all the more, he remarked, since he could not approve of eating the flesh of animals reared for the table.

so plotinus was a sickly basedboy whose depressive state gave him stomach pains but he refused to stop being a vegan...into the trash he goes

[Anonymous No.18619183]

>>18619180
>mistaking me for an annihilationist schizo
I'm deeply hurt by this. But I stand by what I said, a lot of ancient philosophy points towards reality being what we would nowadays call holographic.

[Anonymous No.18619186]

>>18619155
>matter can ultimately be dismissed as illusory
You are confusing prime matter with matter we experience

[Anonymous No.18619191]

This too
Please watch

https://youtu.be/VrBN0XFyMGk

[Anonymous No.18619199]

>>18619180
>>18619183
Just look at any mystic's writings and at some point they'll mention that this world is not quite real, or illusory, or dreamlike, or something along those lines. I don't understand how you could possibly disagree with this.
>>18619186
What is the difference? If "prime matter" is not physicality, why call it matter?
Just to be clear I'm not being disingenuous or purposefully obtuse here.

[Anonymous No.18619215]

>>18619199
Prime matter is that which has no substantial form. It is the metaphysical basis for all matter which the Neoplatonists say is evil. I took your "matter is illusory" take to mean some sort of Berkelian idealism argument.

Again, I'm not here to argue. Although I am a Catholic and side with Augustine on this issue here.

[Anonymous No.18619236]

>>18617925
I’ll say again but mormon theology fits the original Hebrew text most accurately

[Anonymous No.18619241]

>>18619215
>It is the metaphysical basis for all matter
Sorry but I don't understand how that goes against what I said.
Speaking of Berkeley, he was a Christian (inb4 prots aren't Christian), so how does his idealism make sense considering Christianity's stance on matter?
>I'm not here to argue
I'm not trying to start an argument, but just so I'm clear on what you're saying: prime matter is the metaphysical basis for our experience of physicality, it's the constituent of our current perception, right? Then how does the "matter" of heaven differ from the "matter" of this world? And considering the words of many mystics as I mentioned earlier, how can this prime matter not be interpreted as a mere projection of a less comprehensible, and immaterial, spiritual essence?

[Anonymous No.18619261]

>>18619180
Since matter ostensibly has its existence entirely contingent upon God who has self-sustaining existence, why should we take that matter as being as real as the thing which has self-sustaining existence? If removed of the support provided by God matter would vanish in an instant, how can we then say it's just as real as God?
>b-b-but it's real because its empirically experienced
God isn't the object of empirical experience, so if empirical experience becomes the measure of reality that leaves the material world as alone being true and it makes God into a fictitious non-existent thing.

[Anonymous No.18619471]

>>18619261
>>18619199
I don't care about your pilpul cope. I'm not a LARPing Hindu, so I think there's more to life than endless debating terms and then annihilation.

[Anonymous No.18619483]

>>18619471
But I'm not an annihilationist you fucking retard, nor do I give a fuck about hinduism, why don't you read >>18619199 again and actually address my points this time? I've been asking questions in good faith and all you're doing is deflecting.

[Anonymous No.18619782]

>>18619182
He had a mommy fetish so he was based

[Anonymous No.18619905]

>>18619782
imagine how many texts of trancedence we were denied because they refused to suckle him into adulthood

[Anonymous No.18619976]

>>18619905
>when your entire metaphysical system is just a return to mommy

[Anonymous No.18619989]

>>18619976
at last, it all makes sense

[Anonymous No.18620043]

>>18619989
I don't get the second to last pic

[Anonymous No.18620060]

>>18620043
Symbols of the divine found in the natural world (at least that is my understanding of it)

[Anonymous No.18620063]

>>18620060
Ah yes, I see

[Anonymous No.18620337]

>>18619241
bump

[Anonymous No.18620364]

almost completely OT, but I gotta ask - need help with latin phrase, are there latinfags willing to lend their brains to feller in a bind?

[Anonymous No.18620525]

>>18620364
it's so slow moving that I might better post the question and hope I get the answer...
so, translating "so that History would not be forgotten"
which would be true (if any, feel free to obliterate my vulgata)
>Tam historia non oblita fuerit
or
>Tam historia non oblita sit
?

[Anonymous No.18620898]

>>18620337
Nobody?

[Anonymous No.18621204]

>>18618659
Sergey Bulgakov is the best thing that happened in the 20th century philosophy/theology. Florensky comes second.
Although their philosophy can't be called Orthodox in a dogmatic sense.

[Anonymous No.18621214]

>>18621204
>Orthos can't produce theology
>Hey, what about these two guys widely considered heretical by the Eastern Orthodox and one of them became Catholic?

[Anonymous No.18621222]

>>18618301
Doesn't matter how rigorous they are if their axioms are retarded

[Anonymous No.18621485]

>>18621214
I think you confuse one of them with Vladimir Soloviev.
Florenskiy was executed by communists and Bulgakov ended up in France where he was teaching in an Orthodox university.

[Anonymous No.18621876]

>>18621485
You're right, I did. Quick rundown on Florensky and Bulgakov?

[Anonymous No.18622577]

>>18621214
It never ceases to amuse me that the Orthodox church condemned three of it's brightest and best theologians of the modern era.

[Anonymous No.18622595]

>>18618082
The fuck? Thank Allah for Islam

[Anonymous No.18622820]

>>18619236
Yeah right i am sure the hebrews were all about murica

[Anonymous No.18623257]

>>18622595
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH8L3XiVrXw

[Anonymous No.18623425]

>>18621485
There are orthodox universities in France?

[Anonymous No.18623509]

>>18618615
>hasn't read Plotinus and talks out of his ass

[Anonymous No.18623543]

>>18623257
Sending this video to his local mullahs for beheading

[Anonymous No.18623556]

>>18618096
Only the trinity contains both multiplicity and unity. A mere Monad would just be one but not multiple, and thus incomplete. The second hypostasis which is the Son is also necessary so that the realms of the eternal and temporal can even meet with each other. Afterall how should something temporal be able to participate in something eternal? Plato on his own doesn't offer any answer besides Annamnesis, whereas Christianity uses Christ for this.

[Anonymous No.18623568]

>>18623556
>Anamnesis
Which is a very elegant theory, you have to admit. I still find it compelling.

[Anonymous No.18623575]

>>18617707
YHWH is described as a reptilian dragon demiurgic god isn't he?

[Anonymous No.18623581]

>>18623575
Wrong image

YHWH = Demiurge

[Anonymous No.18623598]

>>18623575
>>18623581
He's only described that way in gnostic apocrypha that are dated centuries later than the canonical gospels

[Anonymous No.18623677]

>>18623598
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XogaHpV5oUs

[Anonymous No.18623687]

>>18623575
>>18623581
niggas really be posting stupid gnostic shit in a Poltinus thread smfh

[Anonymous No.18623694]

>>18623687
pseud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nabAko23a_s

[Anonymous No.18623751]

>>18623568
Only Annamnesis is inherently unsatisfactory. How should a finite being be able to remember the infinite? It doesn't make any sense. The only way the infinite and finite would be able to interact would be out of a will on behalf of the infinite which contains the finite and wishes for it's perfection. Only a merciful Godhead who cares for his creation and has willfully created it can be the answer. Thus you need the trinity, which enscribes Love as the fundamental nature of the Godhead. The unaffectionate One of Plotinus doesn't offer this, it just is.

[Anonymous No.18623775]

>>18623751
>How should a finite being be able to remember the infinite
But the finite being never fully remembers, it's always confined to the limitations of materiality. Full reminiscence is only achieved after death.

[Anonymous No.18623791]

>>18623694
have you read the enneads?

[Anonymous No.18623917]

>>18623677
I'm not watching all this, qrd?

[Anonymous No.18623953]

how do you guys read this stuff with out falling asleep mid way? ive tried multiple times to get through this and every time i pass out

[Anonymous No.18623984]

>>18623775
>Platonism: the quest of life is to remember and thoonk those nice blueprints; le contemplation to think urself out of reality
gay and stempilled; for introverted bucks
>Christianity: The quest of life is one of virtue and gratitude towards the highest; sanctify your character and accept fate
based and romancepilled; for extroverted chucks

[Anonymous No.18623986]

>>18623984
Platonism and Christianity are far from being incompatible.

[Anonymous No.18623996]

>>18623775
What's the point of material existence then? Did the One make a mistake?

[Anonymous No.18624023]

>>18623953
well it is a very comfy book.

[Anonymous No.18624067]

>>18623996
There isn't a point to it. That's why it fizzled out and is only being revived by crypto-Buddhist perennialists and bourgeois NEETs who like the aesthetic of esoteric mysticism.

[Anonymous No.18624072]

>>18618487
>>18624061

[Anonymous No.18624334]

>>18623509

>The Neo-Platonic God of Plotinus (204/5-270 A.D.) is the source of the universe, which is the inevitable overflow of divinity. In that overflow, the universe comes out of God (ex deo) in a timeless process. It does not come by creation because that would entail consciousness and will, which Plotinus claimed would limit God.
https://iep.utm.edu/god-west/#SH2a

[Anonymous No.18624697]

>>18624334
To be fair, it's not clear what Plotinus thinks on this. He knows it's a problem for his metaphysics and sometimes he leans emanationist, other times he leans creationist.

The smartest scholars of Plotinus today, Lloyd Gerson and Kevin Corrigan, see that the creationist aspect is better, so they claim that's what Plotinus must have really meant, but the truth is it's not clear in Plotinus. He just didn't know what he wanted.

[Anonymous No.18624887]

>>18624697
>it's not clear on Plotinus
thats called being incoherent

[Anonymous No.18624912]

>>18624887
Of course.

[Anonymous No.18624920]

>>18623598
>centuries later
No.

[Anonymous No.18624923]

>>18623791
We've all read the fucking Enneads, no one's impressed you read On Beauty on your faggot patio, stop it.

[Anonymous No.18624930]

Daily reminder Plotinus is an annihilationist.

[Anonymous No.18625173]

>>18623581
isnt this abraxis depicted?

[Anonymous No.18625178]

>>18625173
nvm i was confused>>18623581 disregard

[Anonymous No.18625252]

>>18623984
It really seems like there's something to anamnesis though. A recurring theme among people of all cultures who've glimpsed beyond the veil is the impression of remembrance, of recalling a forgotten truth

[Anonymous No.18625312]

>>18624930
Seems like all relevant philosophers are annihilationists

[Anonymous No.18625355]

coingestions

[Anonymous No.18625586]

>>18625312
>All relevant philosophers

Only if you turn your brain off because you drank the new-age guenon kool-aid. Stop being dishonest.

[Anonymous No.18625595]

>>18625586
I mean, who isn't?
All the most revered philosophers usually end up subscribing to some kind of monistic reintegration, dissolution, something like that. Pretty much none of them believe in the individuality and personhood of the soul, much less the preservation of identity and memories after death

[Anonymous No.18625616]

>>18625595
Still going to make it

[Anonymous No.18625619]

>>18625616
What?

[Anonymous No.18625629]

>>18625595
>Pretty much none of them believe in the individuality and personhood of the soul, much less the preservation of identity and memories after death

Just because Advaita and Buddhism agree on this doesn't mean everyone else does. See the non-annihilationist sects of Hinduism that predate Shankara and the ones that came after him too. Hinduism alone is enough to refute annihilationist advaita and the equally nihilist Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18625632]

>>18625619
Not going to make it

[Anonymous No.18625636]

>>18625629
I'm not talking about eastern stuff. Plotinus and all the neoplatonists, the german idealists, they are all "annihilationists" are they not?

[Anonymous No.18625661]

You're not going to be in Limbo forever, Anon...

[Anonymous No.18625671]

>>18625636
Some brown people and Germans are annihilationists...therefore it's universally agreed upon everywhere.

Got it!

[Anonymous No.18625730]

>>18625671
You have yet to cite counter-examples though

[Anonymous No.18626223]

>>18624920
Yes.

[Anonymous No.18626610]

>>18625661
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.18626718]

>>18619989
What's tier 4 supposed to mean - nature, introspection and pedophilia?

[Anonymous No.18626722]

>>18626718
>letting fags corrupt the rainbow's symbolism in your mind
Weak

[Anonymous No.18626759]

>>18626718
Nah it (for me at least, though I have heard other opinions on it) represents the immanent aspect of the Divine, as can be represented in these natural symbols of it. For example, the swirlling symbol (which I assume is what you are refering to with the pedaphilla, but that is a modern use of it) represents underlying unity in multiplicity, in a similar way that the rainbow does.

>>18626722
This

[Anonymous No.18626830]

>>18626722
>rainbow

I was talking about the pedo circle.

[Anonymous No.18626880]

>>18623751
Do all Christians unanimously reject anamnesis? Do some try to include it in teachings?

[Anonymous No.18626934]

>>18618517
>>18618462

your cope is not an argument muzdog

[Anonymous No.18627293]

>>18626880
Augustine has a modified version of it. But he's critical of Plotinus and neoplatonism. Augustine ends up closer to the Plato's dialogues then Plotinus himself.

[Anonymous No.18627362]

>>18627293
>he's critical of Plotinus and neoplatonism.
>closer to Plato's dialogues
Sounds good, I should read him.

[Anonymous No.18627414]

>>18617707
>How did Christian theologians read this and conclude that YHWH was the One?
Because the Jews & Greeks wanted to Synchretise Judaism with the Hellenic Empire aka the Roman Empire ergo they mixed both Fan Clubs and their respective E-Celebs were in charge of mixing both things together.

[Anonymous No.18627426]

>>18617961
>You're talking to an antisemite. Just ignore him.
>t. The eternal Shrewd Jew.

[Anonymous No.18627437]

>>18627362
Start with Confessions.

[Anonymous No.18627438]

>>18623581
>how to Copy/paste Egyptian Teachings while Inverting them

[Anonymous No.18627446]

>>18618479
>Even Hindu and Sufi mystics
I've always found this intriguing. Even Buddhists have something like this with their trikaya doctrine. There's something called the Adibuddha that's suspiciously similar to the idea of a god divided in 3 aspects. They can claim it's not a personak creator and closer to a metaphor for emptiness, but read up on Vairocana and tell me it doesn't sound like they're just stopping short of using the g-word.

[Anonymous No.18627469]

>>18627446
Ibn Arabi claims that 1 isn't a number, it just signifies numbers, and so the first 'solitary' (ie odd) number is 3. He thinks when God creates it has a trinitarian aspect, and at in the last chapter of The Bezels of Wisdom he talks about how Muhammad has this trinitarian aspect of loving perfume, women, and prayer. Sounds banal but he does some incredible eisegesis out of it. And Muhammad for him is the logos. He existed before Adam.

Ibn Arabi, like Meister Eckhart, have recourse to a trinity, but ultimately place the One above it.

[Anonymous No.18627747]

>>18627469
>>18627446
It has to do with Language.

>In the first place, three were the sexes of the people, not two, as now, male and female; there was,in addition, a third who participated in both, whose name still survives, although he himself has missing.
>After careful thought, Zeus finally said: “It seems to me that I have found a way to allow men continue to exist and, at the same time, cease their debauchery: make them weaker. Right now, "he said," I will cut them into two halves each and in this way they will be weaker and at the same time more useful to us, as they will be more numerous. And they will walk upright on two legs”.»
>That said, he would cut each individual into two halves, like the ones that cut rowanberries and put them in preserves, or those who cut the eggs with manes.»
>Since time immemorial, love for one another is innate in humans and has the ability to restore his old nature, in his eagerness to make one of two, and to heal nature human.(5)
>Plato; The Banquet

>WITH OR WITHOUT SOUL. THE NEUTRAL
>In our language we can give face, color and nature to the things of the worldonly in two genders: male and female. Ancient Greek had a genus plus: the neutral. In our language we can count ourselves and regulate life in just two numbers: singular and plural. The ancient Greek had one more number: the dual.
>Ancient Greek had a very intense way of giving a face to the world. A way of valuing nature many leagues below the surface oft hings. In addition to the female gender and the male gender, the same in the that we have chosen to express life in our language, Greek had another gender: the neutral.
>The ancient Greek distinctionit was between animate gender, male or female, and inanimate gender. Things of life were grammatically classified into two types: with a soul or without a soul. Gender neutral were abstract concepts
>The opposition of two genders, the animate (masculine or feminine) and theinanimate (neuter) is typical of Indo-European and is preserved in Greek withou tvagueness. Furthermore, the Indo-European inflection did not even distinguish in masculine and feminine good part of the animated nouns; they were both a single gender,they responded to the same perspective of the world endowed with a soul.

>Masculine is "life", ὁ βίος, and masculine is "death", ὁ θάνατος. Neutral is the sense of "living being", τὸ ζῷον.In short, the three-gender system of Greek was based on the ancient distinction between words of animate or inanimate meaning, with or without a soul. The opposition between masculine and feminine was much less clear, far from the original meaning, sometimes confusing or blurred.
>The names of the trees are feminine, because they generate life, like the land. On the other hand, the fruits of the tree are neutral, seen by the tongue as objects.
Andrea Marcolongo; The Language o the Gods; Three Genres, Three Numbers, pg 48

[Anonymous No.18627912]

>>18627747
>From Indo-European, prehistoric Greek — and hence ancient Greek—it preserves distinctive and formidable structures, bearers of the old sense and of the ancient world view. The first among them is the clear distinction betweenthe nominal system and the verbal system. Each name has three genders,masculine, feminine and neuter, and three numbers, singular, dual and plural, and articulates in a system of cases.

>In ancient Greek the dual was not a rarity. It was not a mathematical quirk of the language and who spoke it. This number was used on purpose, both in each case of the nominal inflection as in each person of the verb conjugation,all the times that two people or two things were spoken of together;
>The dual was a way of computing the world, of measuring the nature of things and the relationships between them. It was a very specific number.
>Very human.Sensitive, logical or illogical according to each case;
>this is life

>When Greek civilization became more complex, the numbers of the language went from concrete to abstract. Strictly logical numbers. Measurable without oscillations, without ties with what is now together, but perhaps later won't be. Linguistically mathematical numbers.

>The dual makes sense only because the ancient Greek felt the need to express through language something more than a mathematical number, something that we have lost, determined to account linguistically with the abacus of life in hand:
>the sense of relationships between things and betweenpeople.
Andrea Marcolongo; The Language o the Gods;

[Anonymous No.18628440]

>>18617925
>God in the Bible is omnipotent and omniscient
clearly not, you have to ignore half of it as allegory for that interpretation to make sense

[Anonymous No.18630226]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18630468]

>>18618188
Plato may have been jewish or studied under jews at one time. There was a lot more jewish influence contemporary Greece than many think. Is it any wonder then that some Greek thinkers had very jewish sounding ideas?

[Anonymous No.18630691]

>>18630468
>Plato may have been jewish

[Anonymous No.18630705]

>>18630468
Been looking for books on this topic.
Any reccomendations?

[Anonymous No.18630724]

>>18630468
The Hellenes were a Jewish tribe

[Anonymous No.18631066]

>>18630468
>Plato may have been jewish

[Anonymous No.18632426]

>>18630691
This animation is an uncanny mix of 3D poser trash and weirdly realistic facial animation and it's creeping me the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.18632571]

>>18623598
>centuries later
They predate the canonicals.

[Anonymous No.18632580]

>>18632571
lazy retard

[Anonymous No.18633180]

>>18623917
basically
>YHWH is somthing described with a snout or at least long nostril in the original hebrew
>sometime described as having wings
>demands livestock
>the only idol he permited was of a fiery serpent, nehushtan. It was also made of copper which YHWH is often associated with
>seraph is usually translated as serpent, except in Isaiah where the seraphim are described with wings
>YHWH might have originally been one of multiple god under the supreme god El
he also talks about how winged serpent and dragon in general were common in that era imagery and myths

[Anonymous No.18633295]

>>18633180
What the fuck the gnostics were right all along?