Orthodox Christians, assemble! Post icons
Daily reminder that Nietzsche was a nihilist by his own definition
>Will to Power; 13 (Spring-Fall 1887)
> Nihilism represents a pathological transitional stage (what is pathological is the tremendous generalization, the inference that there is no meaning at all): whether the productive forces are not yet strong enough, or whether decadence still hesitates and has not yet invented its remedies. Presupposition of this hypothesis: that there is no truth, that there is no absolute nature of things nor a "thing-in-itself." This, too, is merely nihilism-even the most extreme nihilism. It places the value of things precisely in the lack of any reality corresponding to these values and in their being merely a symptom of strength on the part of the value-positers, a simplification for the sake of life.
I hate to single out Christianity in particular as just about every religion is guilty of it, but does it bother you that certain key elements of Christianity have roots in other religions?
From 'Zoroastrian Saviour Imagery and its Influence on the New Testament'
>"The title Sosyant can be translated Redeemer or Saviour, and the form of the word shows that the work of the figure lies in the future. The title is used both in the plural and singular forms in the Hymns of Zoroaster [...] Nevertheless in the singular it definitely refers to the eschatological saviour who will be born of a virgin at the end of the world, but who will also be a son of Zoroaster. His task is to restore the world, which involves defeat of the demons, raising the dead, assembling men for judgement, and the administration of the same. All this means a return to the primeval state which existed before the assault of Ahriman"
I also struggle with the history of the Devil. It's patently obvious he started out as a member of Yahweh's court and that his role as an adversary to God was a later innovation drawing from Babylonian influences. Am I really supposed to believe that centuries of religious syncretism and theological innovation somehow hit the nail on the head?
>>1090715
>Orthodox thread
what's the topic
>Being resentful toward Nietzsche!
Way to prove him right about your religion...
I think you need to look back and try to understand what these words meant to contexualize the quote.
> transitional stage
where
> productive forces are not yet strong enough
or
> still hesitates and has not yet invented its remedies
>Daily reminder that I've never read anything by Nietzsche
fify
Reminder that Constantinople was lost because Latins destroyed it and were robbing it for more than 50 years, Constantinople could never recover from the Roman-Catholic looting, that is why it fell before the Turks. But just like Lord Jesus Christ was killed and resurrected, that is how the Church of Constantinople was killed, but it will resurrect. Still the candles of now modest Patriarchate are burning in dark corners of the city, you cannot destroy the Church of Christ. The most holy Church of Kiev and Moscow was reduced to only 4 bishops during Stalin's era, and look at it now, 3 churches are built per day in that Church.
>>1090808
The point is that you started a "Orthodox" thread with trying to talk down Nietzsche. Rather than talk about some actual aspect of your religion you just are being reactive. Is the take on Orthodoxy so shallow you can't come up with a point of discussion that's actually inductive of it's belief system?
Your train of thought wasn't in something pro-active but in this shitty "no Nietzsche you are the nihilist!!" It's not even a good well informed criticism of the man but a half-assed attempt at grasping the quote that screams of butt-hurt.
>>1090860
I've done plenty of pro-active threads, you're being silly. Just because I say plenty of proactive things doesn't mean a I can't do a thread critiquing Nietzsche, he did plenty of work critiquing Christianity. I've never seen someone get so offended over criticism of Nietzsche before.
>>1090870
Great start a thread about Nietzsche.
you started a thread about Orthodoxy and added your thoughts about Nietzsche as if the two share an obvious connection
Can anyone recommend me some Orthodox black metal?
>>1090715
OP please respond and tell us more about Orthodoxy. Sincerely Prottie
>>1090877
Can you stop derailing the thread and being an asshole please?
>>1090890
That was my first comment, but being as this thread serves no real purpose I see no reason to stop posting whatever I feel like
>>1090900
Yeah, but now you've scared him away with your autistic fact-checking and I just wanted to hear about Orthodoxy for once.
>>1090905
Then stay tuned because they start one of those about once an hour for the rest of the day
>>1090909
Really?
>>1090715
Hey OP, do your homework and get back to us okay?
>>1090715
Nietzdche could see the evolution in nature & man, polytheism to monotheism, judaism to prodestant.
He disliked stagnation especially when the obvious was plain to see.
I'm probably going to get in to trouble on this bit as much as i like east orthodox as protecting the faith from his point of view it's stagnant, judaism more so & cathlocisim did evolve then stopped & just attacked everyone for being backward.
I can see the importance of these faiths for at some time being the holders if human morals but it's right thought right action & stubbonly refusing evolve is an animal or faith doomed.
Nietzsche is branded as the "nazi philosopher" which is unfair.
>>1090733
Not when you realize that the oldest copy of anything having to do with Zoroaster is dated almost 2,000 years after the event.
Not when you realize that the only way Zoroaster knew about anything in the bible was that the Jews brought it with them into Babylonian captivity, which turned into Medeo-Persian captivity.
Not when you realize that Zoroaster believed the bible as then constituted, and merely added a little bit of his own pagan fire god worship to the mix.
So no, not when you know the facts.
>>1090965
>Not when you realize that the oldest copy of anything having to do with Zoroaster is dated almost 2,000 years after the event.
Give me a source for that claim right now.
>>1090965
>Not when you realize that the only way Zoroaster knew about anything in the bible was that the Jews brought it with them into Babylonian captivity, which turned into Medeo-Persian captivity.
>Not when you realize that Zoroaster believed the bible as then constituted, and merely added a little bit of his own pagan fire god worship to the mix.
Source for these claims as well please
>>1090715
*KGBodox
fixed you
>>1090951
>polytheism to monotheism
But in virtually cases he prefered polytheism to monotheism. He put Hinduism and early Judaism (back when they had many Gods) higher than any monothestic religion with perhaps the exception of Zoastrianism. Greek Paganism was the supreme religion for him.
Monotheism represents a dangerous rejection of life because it has to seperate everything into "good" and "evil" (as opposed to the superior good/bad) and ends up being unable to affirm that which it has called "evil"
> judaism to prodestant
He say Christianity as a rejection and ressentment towards the Jewish priesthood. He ought right said it would be a position of "honor" to be a Sadducee or Pharisee opposing the earliest Christians.
He certainly did not see Christianity as being a step up from the older religions. Although he does clearly state Catholicisms>Protestantism. He would probably rank the Orthodox higher than the Catholics since they lack corrupted ideas like origenal sin. Although this is a minor point because for him the religion was humanities "one big mistake"...at least the version that we got from Paul and the Gospels.
The whole viewpoint you have of constant and continuous "evolution" is actually anti-Nietzchean. History is not a linear path of improvement, escpially in religion. History changes but does not necessarily improve.
The concept of "faith" is also a degenerate under his system.
>>1091033
OuterLimits is that you?
>>1090965
>Not when you realize that Zoroaster believed the bible as then constituted, and merely added a little bit of his own pagan fire god worship to the mix.
Fire veneration was actually a late development in Zoroastrianism. We have external corroboration of Zoroastrian beliefs from the Greeks and others, the age of the manuscript has nothing to do with it. Second Temple Jewish beliefs with Zoroastrian parallels were unheard of before the exile, doesn't take a genius to figure out why.
>>1090860
>It's not even a good well informed criticism of the man
I think for a criticism to do him credit, it would have to be long, and I don't think people would read it if I posted it. However, if you would like an in-depth., Orthodox critique of Nietzsche, Father Seraphim Rose rose an essay called "Nihilism" which asserts that Nietzsche, rather that revolting against nihilism, in fact becomes merely sublated by its dialectic. You can read it here, it's quite good, although I'd skip the foreword: http://oodegr.co/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm
Personally, I am not poorly read on Nietzsche, I've read damn near everything by him.
>>1090881
Orthodoxy sees mystical oneness with God to be both spiritual and physical, hence why we believe, as per John 6, Communion is truly Christ's Body and Blood. The Mystical Union sanctifies your body by making it a living part of Christ's Body, which is what allows you to ultimately be Resurrected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFcxSArewjo
>>1091033
The Pharisees were populist demagogues who represented the working class and poor Jews against the rich Pharisees. The Pharisees thought they were poor but righteous and so they were destined for heaven for sure, but they were BTFO when Jesus said the wealthy and corrupt and collaborating tax collector who asked God for mercy was more blessed than the resentful Pharisee.
>>1091223
The Pharisees weren't prominent or powerful in the Holy Land before the destruciton of the Temple. That was the Sadducees, who controlled the Sanhedrin and were wealthy collaborationists/cucks for the Romans
>>1091212
did you take that photo yourself Constantine?
>>1091131
What you call second temple beliefs were penned in captivity in Babylon/Persia.
So yes, they were very much current.
>>1090970
The earliest surviving Avestan manuscript (the Avesta being the Zoroastrian scriptures), is a the 10th century CE fragment found in Dunhuang, China (see below). The next earliest extant Avestan texts come from Iran and India and date from the end of the 13th century ACE - three hundred years after the Sogdian manuscript was written.
The manuscript is presently housed in the British Library.
The body of the text is written in standard ninth century CE Sogdian using the Avestan script. It describes Zoroaster addressing God supreme. The preface to the text consists of two lines of the Ashem Vohu prayer written in a dialect that is similar to Achaemenid Old Persian. For example, the standard Sogdian equivalent for the Iranian Avestan asha or ashem is rtu (cf. Vedic Sanskrit) or reshtyak. The manuscript uses rtm, a form identical with Achaemenid Old Persian rtam.
>>1090992
Zoroastrianism spread to Iran where it was the religion of the Achaemenid kings (550-330 BC) and their successors until the Arab conquest in the mid-seventh century AD.
Hebrew captivity was 596 to 526 BC. Flipped to Persian captivity right about in the middle.
>>1091229
The Pharisees were certainly powerful in the sense that they wielded the most influence among all the non-elite.
I mistyped my post, I meant
against the rich Saduccees*
>>1091223
The advantage of the Jews and Pharisee is this. There is something earthly of value in their theology, which is the Jewish people itself. In absence of any real nationhood, havign to spend centuaries in forign lands that are constantly trying to make them assimilate, the only real way Jews had to protect this sacred thing (their identity) was to adhere to some laws (even if they were entirly arbtiary such as not eating common foods) in order to create a clear boarder between 'us' and 'them'.
It wasn't even about the after-life, which you are babbling about, most forms of Judaism did not believe in such a thing and the Sadducee were officially against it entirely. The immortality of the soul is more Platonic than Jewish.
So Jesus (at least most accepted Gospel version) represents the death of the last sacred thing. Destruction of the Jewish identity via destruction of the laws that made it distinguishable from Gentiles. It even goes full slave morality and declares that Jews have oppressed their own God.
It's importaint to realize though the Gospel/Paulian Jesus is a seperate item from the historical Jesus and I'm mostly talking about how Jesus is represented in the Gospels.
>>1091301
>It's importaint to realize though the Gospel/Paulian Jesus is a seperate item from the historical Jesus and I'm mostly talking about how Jesus is represented in the Gospels.
It's not important. It's a lie. Lies are not important.
>>1091231
I wouldn't post any of the photos I took myself, if you know what I mean. Too risky.
>>1091301
The only reason the Jews exist is because God took them for Himself, and protects them so that He can carry out His promises to Abraham's descendants.
That's it.
They were chosen because God loved Abraham, even though they were weak, few in number, and really bad fighters.
>>1090733
The Church has held since Tertullian that wise and virtuous pagans would have perceived the existence of God and Jesus Christ
Christ was before all ages, and the Cross echoes and ripples through all of time. There are dim but unmistakable outlines of Christ in the Vedas as well
>>1091301
Sadducces were not freindly with Pharisees, who absolutely believed. The Pharisees represented the lower classes, Sadducees representd the up classes. Pharisees fasted all the time, Sadduccees lived merrily saying there is no afterlife. Pharisees loathed Sadducees. You think the idea that the downtrodden shall inherit the earth and all that jazz started with Jesus? It's in the OT (Psams 37:11). Jesus came and said the downtrodden and poor that the Pharisees were part of, would get no reward because they were spiteful and judgmental. They are the salt of the earth, but they were losing their saltiness, as he put it.
>>1091256
I'm not that guy (I'm >>1091243) but I already pointed out that the age of a manuscript =/= age of its contents. There's a demonstratable continuity of Zoroastrian beliefs from about 1000BC through to the Islamic conquest. There is widespread agreement amongst scholars on the antiquity of the Pahlavi texts and the continuity of the eschatological beliefs, including the 6th century BC (they use textual criticism and external corroboration from Greek and Roman sources to deduce this), Mary Boyce and John Hinnells are two such scholars off the top of my head.
I'm not a scholar but I think the most damning evidence is contrinuous Zoroastrian beliefs (namely the resurrection ofr the dead, the Devil as God's demonic adversary, and the 'world to come') that didn't exist in Judaism before the exile suddenly popping up in Judaism. The mistaken assumption you are making is that the Jews must have copy pasted the details of these beliefs word for word, but nobody is suggesting that is what happened.
It's an interesting debate and I will admit it is inconclusive, but the evidence available points towards the Jews copying the Zoroastrians rather than vice versa
>>1091271
I don't see how this proves that Zoroaster "believed in the Bible" especially when he had been dead for hundreds of years when the exile happened. I think you are pulling information out of your bottom here mate.
>>1091321
Tertullian is considered heretical by both Catholics and Orthodox
Zoroaster was never portrayed as born from a virgin before Christ
>>1091331
>I don't see how this proves that Zoroaster "believed in the Bible"
I was not the one who said that, I'm just the OP.
>>1091335
Zoroastrianism doesn't hold that he was born of a virgin, they believe that the 'savior' at the end of time will be.
>>1091335
Not everything he wrote is considered heretical, and he was writing before the Church ecumenical councils that settled the questions on which his writing was later condemned. Therefore he wasn't doing it with ill will, and although he wrote some incorrect things he is still considered a Church Father
>>1091345
Whatever, I mean there is no source of that prior to Christ.
>>1091350
Yeah, Orthodox do not consider you a Church Father unless your teachings are sound. The farthest we'll go with that is Saint Augustine, who had several wrong teachings but his heart was in the right place and didn't know any better.
>>1091321
Lol this reminds me of the crap Muslims pull about other religions corrupting the message from pre-Muhammad Muslim prophets. Convenient way of making the plagiarism look innocuous
Lemme dump some pics
>>1091377
>>1091383
Early Golden Dawn volunteer battalions in Srebrenica,they were the one that liberated Orthodox church in the city.
>>1091359
>literally claiming Tertullian wasn't a Church Father
He's not regarded as a saint because Church councils later disagreed with some of the things he wrote but he basically came up with the Trinitarian formula that the Council of Nicea blessed so...if you want to call him a heretic go ahead
>>1091388
>>1091326
The idea of the downtrotten inheriting the earth is in the Old Testament but it wasn't a generic group of "the weak" it was a very specific one: the Jews.
The Jews may have been sickly enough to consider their oppression a holy sign but at least we can understand it as a survival mechanism. If some guy were to come up and declare "Actually God is giving his boon to everyone, cuz we're all equal...also your priests worship Satan and the laws that have sustained your society are actually corrupt" you'd understand why you'd want to kill the guy and you'd certainly not want to join the guy's religion; it would be cultural society.
However like I said the Gospels are more like political hit pieces by Gentiles than actual history, John's Gospel is especially that way since it's written so much later than the other gospels and thus is going to be even less accurate.
>>1091308
You can discuss how a religion has worked ideologically. Jews genuinely believed there was a pact between them and a deity: exclusive worship of the deity and submission to some weird laws in-exchange for prosperity of their race.
Strange laws gave them a unique identity that managed to allow them to recognize each other and resist assimilation into other cultures and the firm beleif in one God did keep them united. The payout is pretty obvious, Jews got their land back in the form Israel and through-out history have continually had good wealth, high influence, and help their own more than others.
This is really a story about how cultural unity and tribalism has a high pay-out.
>>1091389
You can't even be considered a Church Father in Orthodoxy without being a saint.
>>1090965
Zoroaster was dead a thousand years before the Persians meet the Jews.
>>1091388
I thought the Golden Dawn were neopagan
>>1091391
Pic taken in Russian church of Holy Trinity in Belgrade. This dude lookes like wax figure of Frank Underwood to me.
>>1091403
Hell no,as far as i know most of them are ultra orthodox, like Codreanu or Ljotic were.
>>1091405
>>1091243
I'm a bit puzzled by this. This suggests the influence flowed from Zoroastrians > Jews more than anything else.
>>1091398
I don't even know why we're arguing about this because the idea that virtuous pagans were effected by Christ throughout time isn't in dispute
>>1091419
>>1091397
>The idea of the downtrotten inheriting the earth is in the Old Testament but it wasn't a generic group of "the weak" it was a very specific one: the Jews.
No, the prophets are full of condemning wealthy Jews for stepping on poor Jews.
>John's Gospel is especially that way since it's written so much later than the other gospels and thus is going to be even less accurate.
The Gospel of John is a Gospel explain the mysteries of Christianity privy only to the baptized, it's going to be a lot different for Gospels written for the general public. It wasn't by gentiles, it was by John himself. The reason it is written much later is because John (who was a boy in Christ's time) didn't want to step on any toes while the older Apostles were alive, whom he was supposed to always defer to. Once they were deceased and he was the last living of the twelve, he started writing his authoritative works, and by now he was very ascetically developed; Saint Jerome says he achieved greater spirituality than any other Apostle, because he is the only one who became a prophet (Revelations).
>>1091331
>that didn't exist in Judaism
They're all in Job and the Psalms, at minimum. Job is likely 3500 to 4000 years old.
>>1091427
>>1091429
John was an amazing figure. The insights in what he wrote really are other-worldly
>>1091403
Used to be but that repulsed people so they changed.
>>1091425
I don't dispute that, I just think it is important that atheists aren't given the impression that Christianity is a syncretic religion, which unfortunately the RCC has actively worked to give the impression of by saying Christianity got this and this and that from pagan thinkers.
>>1091331
>I don't see how this proves that Zoroaster "believed in the Bible" especially when he had been dead for hundreds of years
Some scholars say that Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) lived around 600–500 BC. If that is the case, David, Isaiah, and Jeremiah (all of whom mention the Messiah, the resurrection and the final judgment in their writings), lived and wrote before Zarathustra.
Never mentioned by Herodotus.
Give it up dude. Zoroaster was basically a pyromaniac Jewish convert.
>>1091434
>>1091389
Churches don't vote on who saints are.
The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit determines who the saints are.
>>1091438
As Saint Jerome points out, the only reason he wasn't appointed the leader of the Apostles is because it would have been improper to appoint the youngest over the elders
>>1090965
>Not when you realize that the only way Zoroaster knew about anything in the bible was that the Jews brought it with them into Babylonian captivity, which turned into Medeo-Persian captivity.
First off, what the fuck. The earliest scripts and text of Zoroastrianism from the Avesta date back to the latest in the 10th-9th centuries BC. So that's fucking impossible.
Also secondly what the hell is this nonsense about "Medeo-Persian" captivity? The Jewish and Babylonian sources state that Cyrus the Great told any Jew who wished to remain in Babylon or not to return to Judea that they must help finance their kin who wanted to return, there was no captivity once they were liberated.
And either way, Zoroaster was dead long before any Iranian and Jewish interactions.
>>1091441
Wrong. That was an outdated belief from a writer in the 18th century that has been proven to be false. Zoroaster spoke Avestan, a language that was already extinct by the time of the 8th century.
>>1091429
>Revelations are prophecy
Southern Baptist spotted
>>1091439
>the RCC has actively worked to give the impression of by saying Christianity got this and this and that from pagan thinkers.
It was the other way around, those thinkers got those things from Christ and they didn't even know it
And yeah the RCC's problem is too many of the clergy don't believe at all anymore, ultimately
>>1091442
Armenian fedayii
>>1091454
>>1091457
now i need some help here.Pic related is Cezare Mori,italian fascist politician.Why is there Orthodox priest behind him?
>>1091441
>Some scholars say that Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) lived aroudn 600-500 BC.
Wrong.
>Modern scholars believe that Zoroaster must have lived at some point between c. 1500 and c. 600 BCE
>The earlier date in the range, 1500 BCE, is based on linguistic evidence found in the Avesta. This work is composed of several different texts and one of these texts, the Yasna, is considered to be the oldest of the Avestan texts. Its language is Old Avestan (sometimes called Gathic Avestan), which is grammatically comparable to the language of the Indian text known as Rig Veda, since the languages of Persia and India belong to the same language family (the Indo-European Languages family).
>It is therefore believed that the Rig Veda and the Avesta are about the same age, dating to c. 1500 BCE. The range of speculation for Zoroaster’s life is wide. Saying that he lived in around 1000 BCE, give or take a century or so, is an estimation that would be acceptable to most scholars.
>>1091467
>>1091451
Saint Jerome is a Southern Baptist?
>>1091467
Presumably because there are Orthodox people there.
>>1091446
Are you one of those idiots who believes a certain retard's theory that Zoroaster was alive around Cyrus' time?
>>1091450
>The earliest scripts and text of Zoroastrianism from the Avesta date back to the latest in the 10th-9th centuries BC. So that's fucking impossible.
B-but muh 10th century manuscript
>>1091429
If you want to adopt the stance that the despite between Jesus and the Orthodox Jews had to do with wealth inequaity than you've already stepped into Liberation Theory and have made Marxism comaptable with Christianity: why not invite all these poor refuggees and illegals into your country and share the wealth? You arn't some sort of pharisee are you?
But this really isn't the direction seems to move. Jesus asks his followers to remove all their material positions. I think in Mark he even says to give away your shirts and shoes, even the non-cannonical Thomas has Jesus saying you should give away all your money. This is not a case of fighting wealth inequality, it's just saying get rid of all your money, not to live with a moderate amount but to have none! And here you are with a nice internet connection!
The reason John's Gospel is so different is the only one that doesn't use Mark as a source, Luke and Mathew literally copy-paste from Mark. It almost certainly wasn't written by John who would be a 90 year old man by the time it's being written....he sure waited awhile (hope he didn't get senile lol!) and he'd be writing in Greek rather than Hebrew.....also he forgot to sign his name (yes it's an anonymous document)
>>1091431
Satan is not opposed to God in Job. I don't see any mention of a final judgment in there either.
>>1091486
I get that but Mori wasstationed in Sicily, how many orthodox people are in Sicily.
>>1091496
Kek, I'm not saying that at all, as I've already said, Christ said God loved remorseful prayers of the wealthy and corrupt tax collector, more than the prayers of the poor, devout but proud Pharisee. Christ doesn't think being poor means anything if it doesn't bring you humility, and that is what he points out: the wealthy and corrupt who say, "Have mercy on me, a sinner," are better off than the poor who say, "I am blessed for being poor and righteous!"
>>1091490
It's just a lie. They date back to the 9th and 10th century CE.
You're easily confused.
>>1091496
>Luke and Mathew literally copy-paste from Mark
And by the way, this is an absolute lie, they don't even have the same syntax or tenses. They tell the same story, but in very different styles.
>>1091423
Yup. Zoroaster read the scrolls the Jews brought with them into captivity.
It doesn't work the other way around. There is no record of Zoroaster visiting Jerusalem.
And the similarities are fairly well taken.
>>1091496
>It almost certainly wasn't written by John who would be a 90 year old man by the time it's being writte
No, John was teenager in Christ's time, the Gospel of John was written about 90 AD, some sixty years later.
>>1091490
If we are going to go by oldest known fragment can we say the New Testament is from the 2nd or possibly 3rd centuary?
oh and the oldest old testament texts are only form the year 400 BCE...
So you'd still have to concede that Zoastrianism is older.
>>1091500
He might have been meeting with an ambassador from an Orthodox country.
>>1091429
John the beloved apostle was not a boy at the time of the resurrection, nor did any other John write the Gospel according to John.
It's so weird to read this thread. Jews that don't know anything about Judaism, Zoroastrians that don't know anything about Zoroastrianism, and Orthodox that don't know anything about Christianity.
>>1091509
>It's just a lie.
Are you retarded or just a shitposter? For one we have a complete intact master copy of the Avesta dating back to the start of the Sassanid dynasty from the early 3rd century, and the Gathas which are far older you faggot.
>>1091514
Zoroaster wasn't alive when the Persians met the Jews.
>>1091450
9th and 10th century CE.
You are another easily confused person, or the same easily confused person.
>>1091525
He was a boy, this has always been Church tradition. That is why in icons he is the only beardless Apostle.
>>1091534
woops I meant age of a manuscript =/= age of its contents
>>1091515
So how do you know it's written by John? It wasn't signed?
Why is someone with a shit education like John writing at all? And furthermore in a completely foreign language like Greek? This alone should disqualify him.
Why does he have intimidate knowledge about what happened at Jesus's trial when he himself says the trial was not open to the public? John describes what happens during the resurrection when other Gospels say none of the disciples were present. And this should disqualify the document as being an eye-witness report.
>>1091536
>9th and 10th century CE.
Wrong.
>implying (You)
Also wrong.
>>1091536
>CE
Nice meme.
>>1091450
>I know when languages went extinct.
Avestan & Pahlavi Scripts
The direction of writing using the Avestan (the Old Iranian language) and Pahlavi (the later, Middle Persian language and predecessor of Modern Persian) is right to left, and the shape of the letters are cursive. For an example of the Avestan alphabet see below. The range of vowel and consonant sounds in Avestan is wide in a manner similar to Sanskrit and greater than the range in Pahlavi. Some of the earliest known surviving examples of both languages date to the 3rd century CE to 4th century CE from the Sassanid era (226-651 CE).
Do you just hit keys at random?
>>1091545
Avestan was only used in religious texts and ceremonies, there was no regular indigenous speakers of it outside of Zoroastrian clerical users.
>CE
Stop this meme.
>>1091532
Then how did he read the scrolls they took with them into captivity?
To be a liberal, one must abandon reason. And hope.
>>1091555
Post evidence of Zoroaster being alive in the 6th century BC.
>>1091537
Ask me how many figs I will give you for your "church tradition".
Zero. Zero figs. Not even two.
John died @ 97 AD, so he must have been born no later than say 24 BC, which makes him at the oldest at the time of the cross 55 years old.
Hardly a boy.
>>1091559
>Then how did he read the scrolls they took with them into captivity?
How did a dead man read anything when the Persians and Jews didn't interact for another thousand years after his life time?
>>1091555
This sounds like a terrible attempt at poisoning the well. There is not a single mention of Achaemenids from Zoroaster, so why would he ignore the existence of his benefactors assuming he was alive during their rise to power and were ardent enforcers of Zoroastrian beliefs themselves?
That sure isn't fishy huh.
>>1091538
Exactly. The oldest manuscript was not concurrent with the events, but was dated much later than the life of Jesus.
And Jesus changed everything.
>>1091539
John has Christ's words to John when he says behold your son. No one else was present, so it was either John or someone who talked to John. John 21:24 says John wrote it.
John talked to Christ after Christ's Resurrection, and Christ told him about the trial.
John wrote in Greek because it was the lingua franca of the Eastern Empire in the same way Latin was in the West
>>1091560
I already have. Many times. In this thread.
Stop throwing out evidence and whining that there is no evidence.
>>1091559
>Then how did he read the scrolls they took with them into captivity?
a) He was long dead
b) He therefore couldn't have
c) Zoroastrianism in no way shape or form was ever influenced by Jewish thought even after Persian and Jew encounters with the liberation they possessed with the conquest of Babylon
>>1091571
>so he must have been born no later than say 24 BC
Explain how you figure this
>>1091572
Yes, let's not learn anything today. Let's keep holding onto our preconceived biases, with absolutely no information as to how Zoroaster and the Jews have so many beliefs in common.
>>1091577
Still waiting for that evidence when the Gathas composed by Zoroaster himself have been dated via C14 testing to be older then 3000 years old. Go ahead, Cletus. We're waiting.
>>1091578
Yes, that's when Zoroaster was alive, and reading the scrolls the Jews brought with them into captivity.
(and the document you rely on to say otherwise was written 1600 years later)
>>1091579
Maximum human life span is 120 years. Anyone from the Exodus forward claiming to have lived longer is a proven hoax and a fraud.
>>1091581
>preconceived biases
>using an outdated rhetoric made up by an ill-informed Christian writer in the late 18th/early 19th century that groundlessly claims Zoroaster was alive in the 6th century BC
Top kek.
>>1091582
I'm sorry that you believe in C14 dating. It means you're incapable of rational thought.
>>1091586
Why do you assume he lived 120 years?
>>1091589
Yup. Truth > godless bias, all day, every day.
History is His Story.
>>1091593
I do not. I know when he died, and went backwards 120 years to see how old he could have been at the cross. 55. Hardly a boy. If he died at 100, he was 35 at the cross. Jesus' age.
>>1091583
>That's when Zoroaster was alive
No he wasn't.
>reading the scrolls
He wasn't alive, ergo he couldn't have.
>brought with them into captivity
He was both long dead and geographically completely isolated from any area where the Jews were prominent in population wise.
>document
The Sassanid master copy was based off the original copy, and predates either way your retarded claim it was only codified in the 10th century AD.
>>1091592
So no rebuttal? Good to know then.
>>1091597
Why do you assume he lived that long?
>>1091576
You havn't addressed any points.
How does a poor fisherman know how to write ANYTHING? This wasn't exactly the most educated part of the world. Furthermore how did he also learn a foreign language like Greek? And furthermore write learn how to write in the style of Greek Poetry?
How is John getting information on events he himself would not be present at?
There is still no reason to consider this an eye-wittness report or even to consider that it was not written by a Gentile.
If your only explanation is "the Ghost of Jesus did it" that's not gonna cut it.
>>1091592
>Gathas scientifically prove that Zoroaster was dead between 500 to 800+ years before the Achaemenid Empire even existed
>"no it doesn't count your incapable of rational thought despite evidence proving me wrong"
Top kek.
>>1091586
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment#Early_life
Why is this woman 122 years old than?
Guess God dropped the ball.
>>1091545
>The script used for writing Avestan developed during the 3rd or 4th century AD. By then the language had been extinct for many centuries, and remained in use only as a liturgical language of the Avesta canon. As is still the case today, the liturgies were memorized by the priesthood and recited by rote.
>>1091611
If he already knew how to speak Greek, that would hardly be surprising. I don't know how he learned how to write, but decades with Greeks doesn't make the idea ridiculous at all.
John is not in the style of Greek poetry, which is dactylic hexameter.
I've already answered you as to how he got information on events Christ was only present for, Christ told him. He even says in the Gospel that Christ said and did many,many things after the Resurrection, but there isn't room for them.
If we have to accept your premise that there was no Resurrection, then of course it is all unlikely, but I don't accept that premise, and if I did, then I wouldn't be defending the Gospel, would I?
>>1090849
> constantinople was razed by the Latin
> it's all their fault we were invaded 200 years later
Bruh I'm a byzantist and I realize the fourth crusade was as much the byzantines faukt as it was the Latin. Don't make a boogeyman oit of a situation that you're not going ti give full understanding too.
>>1090715
I want to convert to be an orthodox christian to connect to my Romanian parents but I have no idea how or where to start or what even it means to be an orthodox christian.
Can someone help me on this?
>>1091669
Here you go: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
>>1091640
If you had to approach every historical text with the idea that supernatural events actually happened...with very little evidense (in fact your only evidense is the bible itself which is circular reasoning), than you would have to accept the claims of ALL religions. Are you willing to give this same approach to the supernatural for Buddhist, Pagan, Islamic, and Hindu claims?
If your best answers are "I don't know how he did it but he probably did"
and
"A ghost told him"
I think it's safe to say John's Gospel is not written by John nor is it reliable.
You might believe it is personally as a matter of faith but in historical context it cannot be considered a proper source for just about anything.
>>1091441
>David, Isaiah, and Jeremiah (all of whom mention the Messiah, the resurrection and the final judgment in their writings)
Source for this?
>>1091695
Here is an argument for the Resurrection: http://pastebin.com/9XxNnSU6
>>1091719
You wanna actually make a point instead of vommitting up a notorious lying tripfag's wall of text?
I find it hilarious that you can't even defend the Gospels as being historically relaible without invoking ghosts and magic.
>>1091625
Why is that bait
>>1091734
Hey, I resemble that remark. I am that tripfriend. I think it is a bit weird that you want historical proof for the Resurrection, and when it is offered, you say, tl;dr. Did you want it proved in a soundbyte?
If John got his information from Christ, I'm not going to make up a phony explanation because you don't like that one. The truth explanation is the truth explanation.
>>1091779
And its a truth that almost all scholars reject, textual analysis suggests that John was written my multiple people over a long period.
If that disagrees with church tradition than that tradition is probably wrong
>>1091795
Have you actually read any of these scholars? I presume not, since you lack the attentions span to even read a three-page rebuttal.
>>1091795
I'll state upfront: you haven't read them, because if you did, you'd know textual analysis doesn't show that at all, the text has strong uniformity. The argument is based on textual criticism, not textual analysis.
>>1091779
Of course you're that tripfag. She/he/it is the only one that references that page.
Both of us seem pretty easy to recognize without our respective trips.
Now back on the subject.
If you want to say that John is accurate because a ghost told him the complete history, this statement requires already believing John is accurate in the first place. It's circular reasoning.
And what a strange ghost he must have talked to. The ghost gave a different account to all the different disciples. Than he went to the Gnostics, to Adam Smith and told them something different. Essentially seeing the ghost of Jesus is a free ticket for historical revisionism.
>>1091602
The rebuttal is that your faith in carbon dating is misplaced.
Just ask the Shroud guy. He'll tell you.
>>1091604
He wrote the Revelation in 95 AD, and Jesus rose in 32 AD.
Why are you asking me idiotic questions?
>>1091611
You'll never understand the Word of God because you do not understand "inspired by the Holy Spirit."
>>1091615
Known fraud, proven hoax. Is that the one who says she saw Picasso in a French cafe at 5? And that's her proof of her age?
kek
>>1091625
>Things that were and now are were somewhere in the meantime.
>>1091712
The bible.
>>1091795
Disregard liberal scholars. You'll never go wrong.
>>1091887
But where exactly?
>>1091882
if you would actually look at the link it has a copy of her birth certificate.
>>1091876
You have no rebuttal, gotcha.
>>1091892
John's trial is different from Mark 15:1-3 gives the full description of the trial. Jesus says a single line and is said to remain silent during all other moments. None of John's dialogue is there.
We have two totally different accounts. Even if a magical ghost did say what happened at the trial it gave two different descriptions to two different people.
There may be crockpot theories that try to tie this togeather, while also explaining why a bunch of uneducated fishermen have learned how to write...in something as foreign as Greek no less...and only commited their writings to pay some 40-60 years after the event. But saying these were written by Gentiles trying their best to come up with a neat story from their own imagination, and from hear-say solves it a lot more neatly....without the need to have a magic ghost.
If a supernatural force were behind the Gospels I would expect shocking accuracy and detail. Plato's description of Socrate's trial has far, far more detail and fills in all the plot-holes without the reader needing to guess (ie Plato was abscent from Socrate's execution but tells us the names of the men who told him what happened, he doesn't need to talk to Socrate's ghost)
>>1091917
I sometimes feel like the Qur'an was invented precisely because the Bible is so buttfuckingly contradictory and distorted.
It's especially infuriating when Christians accept the flaws in the Gospels then start picking out verses to justify their sect's dogma.
>>1091917
Plato has more detail because it is a re-imaging instead of a honest effort to relay facts as best as they are remembered
If two Roman historians had such minor differences of recording a single event, one with more dialogue, one with less, both would still be considered reliable testimonies, one would just be seen as truncated.
all, the Four Gospels stand up to what they purport to be. The Gospel of John stands up to being by John, since it has personal details, most particularly Christ entrusting John with his mother; the alternative to believing this happened, would be to suggest the Gospel is not written by John, but by someone simply lying and claiming his name. One piece of evidence used to support this is John giving a different date for the Crucifixion, but in fact John doesn't: Leviticus 23:5 says Passover starts on the 14th day of the first month, which is the day the Passover Lamb is killed--Jewish time reckoning (as well as Orthodox Liturgical reckoning) gives the evening as the *start* of a day, meaning the Mystical Supper takes place on the fist day of Passover, and so does the Crucifixion, with Christ being entombed right before the end of the day. To cement the Gospels, however, the best source is the Gospel of Luke: it is written by the same author as Acts (in fact they were probably originally one work), who participated in Acts judging by the use of first-person plural later into the work. Now, why should we believe this author is who he indicates he is? Well, if the author were a fraud, why would attribute the work to Luke? He'd attribute it to someone who had a great deal of authority, yet he didn't.
cont
>>1091928
Secondly, the Gospel being Luke's coincides with its more detailed account that would come from women: Matthew and John are firsthand accounts, besides that they include what the disciples would have heard from those they knew, with the Gospel of Mark being entirely based on Mark's conversations with the Apostles about what they saw first-hand. Luke, on the other hand, would have to be an assembling of accounts, Luke goes and talks to different people about different things and weaves his Gospel out of them. So taking all this together, the Gospels are at least consistent with being authored by whom they are attributed to. What really puts the nail in coffin of the Q theory, is that it requires Mark to be the earliest Gospel other than Q, and to be the other common source used by Matthew and Luke, which is wrong: when Christ says it is not when goes in which defiles, but that which comes out, Mark 7:19 has the gloss explaining in saying this, Christ made all foods clean, something that was only universally accepted after the Council of Jerusalem; Matthew has no such gloss, indicating that it is the earliest Gospel, and predates the Council of Jerusalem.
cont
>>1091930
If Matthew were written after the Council of Jerusalem, and was using Mark as a source for this saying, surely it would have included this gloss. There is also another gloss, in Matthew 19:29 says those who leave mothers and brothers and wives and fathers and sisters and houses and fields for Christ's sake will receive a hundred times in the age to come; Mark 10: 29-30 says the same thing, but then adds a parenthetical gloss right after Christ says a hundredfold, saying "now" repeating what Christ just said, explaining "with persecutions", (as in you will lose these things in persecutions, maybe these things might even be doing the persecuting); then the parenthetical gloss ends, and Christ finishes "in age to come". Mark was clearly written after the persecution of Christians became intense, whereas Matthew was written before then. Rather than Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source, is make more sense to say Mark used Matthew and Luke as sources. Finally, Matthew was clearly written in Hebrew and translated (as Papias says), unlike the other Gospels, because it uses Hebrew syntax and tense; for instance, see the very Greek syntax of Mark 15:21: "And they compel passing a Simon [a passing Simon] of Cyrene, coming from country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, that [he might] carry the cross of his [Christ's]."
cont
>>1091931
This sort of syntax sounds natural in Greek (where inflection and declension almost completely determine grammatical relations), but in English or Hebrew, languages that rely heavily on syntax to express grammatical relations, it's chore to parse (and remember there was no punctuation, lowercase and uppercase, or even word spaces, in ancient times); Matthew 27:32, by contrast, reflects a Hebraic syntax: "Going forth and they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon: him they compelled to carry the cross of his [Christ's]." Here is another example, Mark 1:12: "And immediately the spirit him drives into the wilderness." Compare the Hebraic Matthew 4:1: "Then he, Jesus, was led into wilderness by the spirit." In Mark, the indirect object is adjacent to the object, which is quite normal in Greek, but generally not feasible in Hebrew.
>>1091933
Q1: Why are there two conflicting patrilineal genealogies of Christ?
A1: "Father of/"Son of" doesn't necessarily mean direct son of someone, it can, and often does, mean someone's general descendant (Luke 18:38, John 8:39). Neither genealogy is comprehensive, there are several gaps (not like the gaps you only notice when you think about it, but gaps would which would be quite evident to both writers) in both, so within both genealogies the "father of"/"son of" is used in a general sense in several instances, and therefore they are not contradictory, but complementary. I'm sure you're a bit underwhelmed by this explanation, especially since there are so many elaborate explanations in the West (one genealogy is Mary's; Joseph was adopted and one is his adoptive father and one is his biological; one is the Joseph's legal father, one is his levirate father; etc.), but it's the teaching of the Church and always has been.
Q1a: How can Christ be of the seed of David (John 7:42) if Joseph isn't his real father?
A1a: In Hebrew society, the legal progeny of someone was considered his seed, regardless of biological issuance (Genesis 38:9). Christ is the Son of God in the sense of being begotten of the God the Father before all ages, rather than referring to his conception by the Holy Spirit.
>>1091937
Q2: Why are there different accounts of Christ's last words?
A2: The last thing most of the witnesses hear is Christ's cry of agony (Mark 15:37, Matthew 27:50); Luke elaborates on what Christ was saying in that cry (Luke 23:47), which may not have been have been intelligible to many witnesses. Everything he said afterward was probably in the faintest of whispers, which is why only John reports it, since John was close enough to hear (John 19:26).
Q3: Luke places Christ's birth as during the Census of Quirinius, which was in 6 AD whereas other Gospels place it during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC.
A3: Quirinius most likely had a prior tenure as governor of Syria, and conducted a census then. Josephus (the source for the 6 AD census) used written sources in many instances, and was often *extremely* sloppy with them, so sloppy in fact he gives numerous accounts drawn exclusively from the Hebrew Bible which blatantly contradict the Hebrew Bible; for instance, he says David built the Temple of Jerusalem (Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 13, paragraph 2), even though the Hebrew Bible says Solomon did (David being forbidden due to the blood on his hands), and he does this numerous times, on basic things, sometimes even contradicting himself, AND he's a self-described Pharisee--compared to Josephus, the Gospels are in fact extremely scrupulous, especially in their being by *multiple authors*.
cont
>>1091939
Now in Josephus's account of the 6 AD census, he made a mistake which indicates an earlier census: he lists Joazar ben Boethus as high priest during the 6 AD census, whereas Joshua ben Sie, or Annas ben Seth, was high priest then, Joazar ben Boethus having been deposed in 4 BC; we know Josephus was not just referring to him as high priest emeritus, since he talks about him being deposed in the same narrative. Now this is critical, because Joazar ben Boethus is, according to Josephus, the high priest who placates the Jews enough for the census to be held...this makes it clear there was a census during his tenure with Herod the Great. Some have argued that he was reinstated and his involved with the census was in 6 AD, and then deposed of again, but this is tenuous, since he was deposed of by Herod Archelaus for sedition (according to Josephus), that's not a charge you'd normally be reinstated after. The other possibility would be that Quirinius reinstated him with his new rule, and then quickly fired him, but this is also tenuous: does it seem likely Quirinius would depose of a high priest who was facilitating the census, when people were on the verge of rebelling (indeed, a few did, led by Judas of Galilee, who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles--a work written by Luke and originally part of the same writing as his Gospels--and by Josephus)? That's something you would reward, not punish.
cont
>>1091942
Furthermore, if Quirinius was choosing a new high priest to replace the one before his rule, he would do so immediately, not wait until after the census. The most likely scenario is that Quirinius did replace the high priest immediately, but the high priest was Joshua ben Sie, not Joazar, and Quirinius replaced him directly with Annas ben Seth, and Josephus got confused with the census of Quirinius's earlier reign, probably by reading a written source about the earlier census, and associating the account with the 6 AD census (judging from his myriad of mistakes in reference to Scripture, he didn't write with his written sources handy, he recalled what he could in memory of reading them).
Q4: Concerning Matthew 5:17, and Christians not following the Law of Moses.
A4: See the Aramaic word for "fulfill", סוּף (suph): http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5487.htm It could be used to describe finishing a book or a task. By contrast, the Aramaic term for "abolish" means to erase.
>>1091931
If you want to argue against Markan priority (which has a secure scholarly consensus despite your attempt at muddying the water) how do you explain the examples of editorial fatigue in parallel accounts in the synoptics?
For example: in Mark 6, the author uses "king" to refer to Herod. Matthew 14, when incorporating Mark 6, begins by referring to Herod as the more literally accurate "tetrarch", or simply replaces "king" with the word "he". However, as Matthew continues he forgets to keep this change going, and reverts back to calling Herod "king".
Similarly: in Mark 6, the author says Jesus went to "the desert", where Luke 9 says Jesus want to "Bethsaida". But then, when Jesus' disciples tell him it was getting late in the evening, both Mark and Luke have the disciples say "this is a deserted place". Luke forgot that he changed the setting, and used the original location given by Mark. There are many examples of these sort of variations between Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
If Mark came first, then Matthew's and Luke's differences are easily explained as "editorial fatigue", where they each began by replacing a word used by Mark, but then they would forget to keep doing this and revert back to Mark's wording. Using the Herod example above, if Matthew came before Mark, there's no real explanation for why he would begin calling Herod "tetrarch" only to slip up and start calling him "king"; further, if Mark used Matthew, there's no real explanation for why he would consistently replace Matthew's instances of "tetrarch" with the less accurate title of "king"
>>1091930
>when Christ says it is not when goes in which defiles, but that which comes out, Mark 7:19 has the gloss explaining in saying this, Christ made all foods clean, something that was only universally accepted after the Council of Jerusalem; Matthew has no such gloss, indicating that it is the earliest Gospel, and predates the Council of Jerusalem.
Matthew is a Judaizing work. Matthew is thematically concerned with saying Jewish law is still in effect and that Jesus came only for Jews, not Gentiles. Removing a line like this is thematically right in line with - and expected by - Matthew's polemic elsewhere.
That's to say nothing of the fact that our only source for the Jerusalem Council ruling, if I'm not mistaken, is Acts. I hope you understand why that's not a reliable source in this case
>>1091961
The Greek word is "basileus", and the Hebrew equivalents to this term are myriad, but most just mean leader or chieftain. "Tetrarch" is, however, a solely Greek term, and probably not used commonly in Hebrew, so Matthew would not use it as much.
"Desert" and "deserted place" the same thing, as least in Jewish parlance. It just means a place where there aren't people.
>>1091928
>alternative to believing this happened, would be to suggest the Gospel is not written by John, but by someone simply lying and claiming his name
Actually John's Gospel never said who wrote it. It was some church officials that decided John wrote it. It also wouldn't be "lie" either, it would be a myth, which is popular to write about back than. People would make up stories for various reasons (enternetment, politics, to convey a point). Later on the favorites are chosen and declared "cannon".
And the best part is these stories are at time when most people who knew Jesus would be dead...and in a Greek speaking part of the world where the last old men that knew Jesus wouldn't even be in. People like the annonymous writer of John or 'lyin Paul can come up with all sorts of tall tales and no one will fact check them.
Crap like this is why no cares what you write. I'm not going to trust your historical sources either because you've been caught lying before...and than continue saying the same bullshit after being corrected. You're a weasel.
Now off topic: Have you had an abortion and regretted it?
>>1091805
Ive read Constantine's rebuttal, she sees what she wants to see and posts christian scholars who agree with her
>>1091377
Catholic from /tv/ here, have this one I made.
>>1091966
I'm pretty sure a work written in Hebrew directed as Jews would come before the Greek one.
Can you give me a good reason why we should reject the account in Acts of the Council of Jerusalem? Considering the proximity of the source to the even chronologically, there has to be a sound reason. And don't tell me, "It's propaganda," because all ancient history is,that doesn't mean it is rejected wholesale.
>>1091982
John 21:24
>>1091536
>CE
kys
>>1091930
>>1091931
I don't think the evidence you offered is anywhere close enough to the smoking gun you'd need in order to make the claims you're making.
>If Matthew were written after the Council of Jerusalem, and was using Mark as a source for this saying, surely it would have included this gloss.
Perhaps you're right. But I don't see the conclusion you're coming to ("surely it would have included this gloss.") as a logical necessity, given the premises. Perhaps it would have included the gloss, but not necessarily.
The anacoluthon in Mark 7:19 is, I understand, syntactically problematic and difficult to interpret for several reasons. It is not at all surprising that Matthew left it out.
Since all the Gospels presuppose the destruction of the temple at the end of the Jewish War, the astonishingly early date of authorship your hypothesis requires (early 40s) can be ruled out pretty confidently. A single omission of an ungrammatical phrase from Mark is very weak evidence to hang the dating of Matthew on.
Mark 10:30 is similarly problematic and probably corrupt. Both Matthew and Luke have “fixed” the text. Anyway, it is Matthew who mentions persecution the most in general (more often than Mark and Luke).
As for the Hebrew version of Matthew, again, no smoking gun. We have no archaeological evidence that a hebrew version was the original version.
As far as the actual linguistic evidence goes, I can't comment much (my hebrew is no good), but to say that the hebraic sentence structure (assuming you're right that it is hebraic) could be explained by other means, and even if it could not, does not seem like a smoking gun to me. I'm not aware of any expert who thinks Matthew was "clearly" written in Hebrew. As for the Simon of Cyrene passage, Goodacre (The Synoptic Problem, pp. 70-71) notes the dropping of the reference to Alexander and Rufus by both Luke and Matthew as evidence of Markan Priority.
>>1091985
Of Gods and Men is great.
I would add "Meteora" (Greek film) to that list
>>1092007
>Perhaps it would have included the gloss, but not necessarily.
Since the entire teleos of the Gospels is to teach dogma, I think it would have
>Since all the Gospels presuppose the destruction of the temple at the end of the Jewish War, the astonishingly early date of authorship your hypothesis requires (early 40s) can be ruled out pretty confidently.
You mean based on begging the question that Christ couldn't have prophecized it. That is, if you a priori reject the truth of Christianity before even examining the evidence. Then the prophecies are used against the works instead of for them
>could be explained by other means
But if you're going to take the simplest explanation for other things (the Gospels were written after the Destruction of the Temple because they predict it), you ought to here as well. And the simplest explanation, taking into account Papias attesting such, is that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and then translated to Greek
>>1092007
So wise that you have become a fool.
They presuppose nothing.
Jesus prophesied that trouble was coming; to escape when they saw the city surrounded; and that the Temple would be demolished so that one stone was not left upon another.
You are the quintessential "liberal scholar", and everyone should ignore you in this field, where you are nothing more than a babbling moron.
>>1092007
>Matthew was "clearly" written in Hebrew
My go-to Joo has a copy of the original Matthew in Hebrew, and knows why Papias said it was difficult to translate. Matthew, being an outsider, and tax collector, didn't have much use for Hebrew prior to the resurrection. He obviously taught himself Hebrew so that he could tell the Hebrews that the Hebrew Jesus is the Hebrew Messiah, the Hebrew King, in Hebrew.
>>1092043
I'm really sick of Christians being insulting toward people, to be honest. I hope you aren't Orthodox, because you are very disrespectful and should examine how wise you are in God's eyes.
>>1091985
Yours are all pedo flicks.
>>1092049
Tax collectors weren't foreigners, they were collaborating Jews.
>>1091805
>Scholars understand the Word of God better than uneducated Christians.
kek
Never ceases to amaze me. Reject the authority of the bible, grant authority to the "experts".
>>1092053
And you are a fool. I mean that in the biblical sense, of course.
>>1092059
Also, Matthew was not written by Matthew except for the most part. By that I mean he penned it, but according to Papias, it almost entirely dictated by Peter (who couldn't write).
>>1092059
And therefore traitors, outcasts, and hated. Couldn't enter the Temple. Any other ignorance you want to display?
>>1092065
You're confusing Matthew with Mark.
>>1092063
As in Matthew 5:22?
>>1092061
Being as those experts can read greek and hebrew, and have a college level education on the history of the periods the books were written, then yes they know more than an uneducated Christian.
Any Christian who desires to be an expert on the bible learns Greek and Hebrew.
>>1092069
No, as in Psalms 14:1.
>>1092071
No, no they do not. They just think they do. And you think they do.
See, as it turns out, other people can translate things from one language into another.
But godless people have no spiritual discernment whatsoever; everything of God is foolishness to them.
Romans 1
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
>>1092073
Matthew was. His Hebrew sucked.
>>1092074
eh, I prefer Psalm 22:1, which by the way is Jesus's last words in Matthew. Gotta love it when the gospels steal from Psalms
>>1092082
Why dont you post that in Greek for us? are you sure your translation is reliable? You cant know because you dont speak ancient greek. If you really want to be a preacher you should learn it.
>>1092023
>You mean based on begging the question that Christ couldn't have prophecized it. That is, if you a priori reject the truth of Christianity before even examining the evidence. Then the prophecies are used against the works instead of for them
Scholarship rules out Divine intervention at a disciplinary level until it is helpful or encessary to assume otherwise. Please demonstrate why we shouldn't also presuppose that God didn't speak to Muhammad in a cave
>But if you're going to take the simplest explanation for other things (the Gospels were written after the Destruction of the Temple because they predict it), you ought to here as well. And the simplest explanation, taking into account Papias attesting such, is that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and then translated to Greek
We don't even know Papias was talking about the same Gospel. If muh church tradition is your only proof then you are going to get laughed out the door if you ever discuss this stuff with people who speak Greek and Hebrew and PhDs in textual criticism.
>>1092095
Once again revealing your normalcy bias against prophecy.
Jesus was not quoting the Psalms.
The Psalms prophesied what the Messiah would say as He was being crucified to death.
>>1092097
You think the original language changes the meaning of the Word of God, because you are ill advised.
The original languages provide more depth and more flavor. They do not have different meanings.
Something as plain as that should be easily understood, even by you.
>>1092098
>Scholarship rules out Divine intervention at a disciplinary level until it is helpful or encessary to assume otherwise.
It's always necessary to assume biblical prophecy is true. Save your skepticism for literally any other body of work.
>>1092103
I would agree to that if you assume its translated appropriately, but if you have every translated anything you know there is some play to it, and the translator has leeway, you would also know that mistakes and different interpretations are very common in translation.
So if you're an expert, you know Greek and Hebrew.
>>1092098
that God did speak to Muhammad in a cave*
>>1092085
That's more of an inference based on Koine Greek lacking a proper word for "translate" so when Papias is describing that it sounds funny.
>>1092099
there is nothing in Psalms that states it is prophecy. hell, there's stuff in Psalm 22 which doesn't happen to Jesus. You are justifying it as prophecy because the gospels used it as prophecy, which was itself retarded. and Matthew doesn't even call, in this example, Jesus saying Psalm 22:1 prophecy; it's simply plagiarism
>>1092098
>Please demonstrate why we shouldn't also presuppose that God didn't speak to Muhammad in a cave
You don't have to presuppose he didn't.
>We don't even know Papias was talking about the same Gospel.
Again, simplest explanation.
>>1092104
>It's always necessary to assume biblical prophecy is true.
yep, there's that circular logic again
>>1092133
See? A godless "scholar" can look directly at a messianic prophecy and not see it, because he lacks spiritual discernment.
>>1092116
Nope.
If you're an expert, the Holy Spirit knows you.
>>1092176
this
>The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
1 Corinthians 2:14
>>1092176
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t_bqqvJdik
Magic thinking does not give you insight that logic and knowledge do not
>>1092185
Thinking with your heart is very Biblical, interestingly enough. The used "heart" in the same way we use "mind".
>>1092176
>godless "scholar"
I never claimed to be a scholar. You are only proving how brainwashed you are when you can't argue back with logic and assume that you are right and the other person is blind
>>1092190
>triggered by a wise biblical passage
top αθεος
>>1092126
No, it's based on my bro having a copy of the original Hebrew.
>>1092138
Just assume it's true. You'll never go wrong.
The way you are right now, assuming it's all false?
That can get you into a lake of fire forever.
>>1092184
Get your Roman bros to murder us. Like usual.
>>1092211
The original Hebrew is no longer extant. What your friend has it a Hebrew translation of the Greek.
>>1092185
No, but spiritual discernment does. And here you are, not being able to tell the difference between the two.
>>1092190
All I post is the truth.
I am getting you to recognize the truth.
You are quite welcome.
>>1092220
Protestants murdered a lot more people than the Orthodox Church did. You even beheaded a king.
>>1092198
>Thinking with your heart is very Biblical
And that's what there making fun of
>>1092199
I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm just posting the truth. If it's contrary to what you believe, abandon what you believe and cling to the truth.
>>1092224
That's contrary to his assertion. I'll go with his.
>>1092224
>The original Hebrew is no longer extant.
kek
missed this
Your admission it was originally written in Hebrew.
>>1092228
As I said, get the right leg to murder us. It's murdered, what, 68,000,000 so far?
>>1092231
No, ya dingus. I mean the expression of "heart" is used in Hebrew for "mind". What they're making fun of is anti-intellectualism, which that expression has zero to do with.
>>1092237
Where did he get it from
Has he had it verified by anyone
Has he considered selling it
>>1092261
I'm not, actually. I am heir to the people who never bent the knee to Rome, and were never murdered by Rome.
I am part of the few, the proud.
>>1092265
I don't know. I only know he is convinced, and that he is meticulous as only a law following Jew can be. I doubt he'd ever sell it.
>>1092290
How do you know he isn't full of shit or mistaken if he hasn't had it verified?
/rel/igion board please
>>1092317
kek
You can doubt him if you want.
>>1092334
>This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion.....
Other posters please.
>>1092334
We're here to stay.
Put your big boy pants on and deal with it.
>>1092354
>Someone throws shit at your apartment all day
>lol grow up you big baby, where here to stay
>>1092451
>I'm a big boy
No.
>>1090715
<3
Does Constantine still reply to [email protected]?
Constantine's a trap slut
>>1093232
>tfw Constantine hasn't been doxxed yet
I want to see her qt face. ;-;
>>1093015
Yes
>>1093306
I presume it's you? May I tell you about my dillema here?
>>1093246
I want her to chastise me for all my sins
>>1093311
Yes.
>>1093449
I've been baptized Orthodox, but in a mostly non-religious family(the sort that go to church only on Easter and Christmas).
Nowadays, I'd like to become a practicing Christian, but I feel somewhat awkward with that given that I haven't been to church too often and I'd feel 'sloppy' without a friend or what not guiding me and showing me the proper conduct. How should I go about maybe finding a duhovnik(spiritual father) in such a situation?
And also, I am from the Romanian (New Calendarist) Patriarchate which is in communion with Constantinople and I was thinking of maybe joining the Old Calendarist Mitropoly from my country(which is in communion with the Old Calendarists from Bulgaria and Greece). I'm not obsessing over the calendar dispute or anything, but I feel the official church is straying from the Holy Tradition and embracing ecumenism...
Would you say that the communion with Constantinople is more important than ORTHOdoxy?
Would I be able to attend an orthodox liturgy as a non christian, greek nor slavic?
I feel that I should try to at least experience a part of the religion and the orthodox liturgy seems to be the most beautiful.
>>1093478
I have the same reservations about the Holy See that you do, but first of all, you must realize that the calendar is not dogma. Dogma is literally and only what Christ personally passed to his Apostles, he did not pass them a Julian Calendar. That said, it was extremely questionable to change it, especially without all the churches doing it together, but it also very important you know what dogma is and that obviously the calendar is not dogma, and therefore its change is not adequate grounds for a schism. Don't conflate non-dogmatic traditions with requirements of Orthodoxy. At the same time, don't take this as saying that ecumenism is not a major and serious heresy being propagated right now, which it is,and sometimes the Holy See is a bit suspect.
The Procession of the Sunday of Orthodoxy says this in the Liturgy
>To those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ’s Church is divided into so‑called “branches” which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all “branches” or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and Eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, ANATHEMA.
Now as to your question at the last part, clearing all that up: no, communion with Constantinople is not preferable to Orthodoxy. If that See started teaching heresies to parishes, you, as an Orthodox Christian, would be obligated to say no and stay true to Christ, whom the Patriarch is only a servant of. But the calendar change is not heresy, even though it had very questionable motives.
>>1093478
As for a spiritual master, attend classes if there are any and see who teaches.
>>1093483
You don't have to be a Christian to attend, just to receive communion
Your ethnicity doesn't matter. The prefixes like "Greek" mean jurisdiction of the bishop, it has nothing to do with your ethnicity. The idea that "Greek" or "Russian" Orthodox is about ethnicity rather than simply jurisdiction of bishop, is a heresy known as phyletism
>>1093515
That's why I've stated that my undecidedness comes not from the calendar change itself. I could live with the new calendar just fine, but when I see both the Romanian Patriarchate as well as the Patriarchate of Constantinople making dubious declarations and taking heterodox actions(such as joining the World Council of Churches and acknowledging the papist church as a 'sister church' whose baptism is valid and in which salvation can be found) the Old Calendarists seem like a better alternative, even if one could argue that the official churches have the authentic apostolic succession.
http://bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/BOOCC-intro-en.pdf
Do read this when you have the time and tell me what you think of it.
