|
CommieGIR posted:You are putting WAAYYY WAYYY too much into Pythagoras. He also created 'mystical shapes' and had a religious cult following. It's all the philosophical schools. All the heads of schools were soters and this concept was understood. In our western tradition, knowing is bound up with salvation. And not just in Christianity, this precedes Christianity. This is something one should be aware of.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's all the philosophical schools. All the heads of schools were soters and this concept was understood. In our western tradition, knowing is bound up with salvation. And not just in Christianity, this precedes Christianity. This is something one should be aware of. well yeah, it was well understood that one had to know what one should do to obey god among the israelites.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's all the philosophical schools. All the heads of schools were soters and this concept was understood. In our western tradition, knowing is bound up with salvation. And not just in Christianity, this precedes Christianity. This is something one should be aware of. Knowledge can BE salvation, but that in no way implies a religious or theological salvation. You are trying to make claims that in no way are backed by what you are citing, and considering Platon and Pythagoras treated knowledge and science as 'something for the wealthy and upper class', denying it to the middle and lower classes, while at the same time creating religious cult followings centered around what amounts to egotism and charismatic dogma, their claims are no more true today than they were then. Even the most intelligent person can say and do some really moronic stuff. This is something one should really be aware of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Salvation in the way you're using it is a meaningless concept, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's all the philosophical schools. All the heads of schools were soters and this concept was understood. In our western tradition, knowing is bound up with salvation. And not just in Christianity, this precedes Christianity. This is something one should be aware of. Are you upset you wasted your life studying something that doesn't matter, and are you projecting it in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Salvation in the way you're using it is a meaningless concept, though. He's trying to make out it as 'Knowledge = Salvation' therefore 'Knowledge of God = Eternal Salvation' Which, while Pythagoras and others made such philosophical claims, is in no way tied to his Christianity or his theology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's all the philosophical schools. All the heads of schools were soters and this concept was understood. In our western tradition, knowing is bound up with salvation. And not just in Christianity, this precedes Christianity. This is something one should be aware of. Salvation (and again, soter doesn't imply spiritual salvation like you suggest it does) can mean a ton of different things, though, depending on what you're being saved from - being saved from ignorance is different then being saved from spiritual damnation. By the definitions used here any teacher is a savior from ignorance, but that doesn't mean there's any significant spiritual link between an HVAC instructor and Gorgias. Your use of words is, again, sloppy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Thank you. Probably should have consulted wikipedia myself. I wonder if there was a cult of Newtonites at some point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:He's trying to make out it as 'Knowledge = Salvation' therefore 'Knowledge of God = Eternal Salvation' Right, and I'm saying that by defining salvation like that it has become meaningless or at best is merely useless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Right, and I'm saying that by defining salvation like that it has become meaningless or at best is merely useless. Correct. Basically, its the same issue with the earlier parts of the thread where people were just using Faith as a coverall for proof of religion. Salvation is just being used as a catch all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:For the same reason that I could be called "Son of Jeff," you fatuous twat: because Jeff is literally my dad. History of Christian Thought posted:Then Son of God is adequate because of the special relations and intimate communion between God and Jesus. But it is also inadequate because "son of God" is a very familiar pagan concept. All pagan gods have sons. They propagate sons on earth. Therefore there was a danger in this term, and one added "only begotten, " and called Him "eternal. " But it was also difficult for the Jews: they could not stand the pagan connotations. They themselves used that term, but for Israel as the "son of God," and they couldn't use it for an individual. Maybe for the reasons there, the Christian concept "Son of God", is different from the Pagan concept "son of God"? Perhaps we assert those fundamental differences when we say "only-begetton" and when we don't affirm 'There was a time when he was not' Sharkie posted:Nah you have it backwards, soter just means a person who saves you from something, the concept of a mystical "savior" isn't necessary. They are the same word. That's the word used to describe Jesus by early Christians. And I'm asserting that the heads of the philosophical schools were understood to be basically mystical saviors Sharkie posted:Salvation (and again, soter doesn't imply spiritual salvation like you suggest it does) can mean a ton of different things, though, depending on what you're being saved from - being saved from ignorance is different then being saved from spiritual damnation. By the definitions used here any teacher is a savior from ignorance, but that doesn't mean there's any significant spiritual link between an HVAC instructor and Gorgias. Your use of words is, again, sloppy. No, I'm not being sloppy. You are understanding most of what I am attempting to communicate. I'm not talking about HVAC instructors, I'm talking about the people who give us knowledge that liberates us from fear. I'm using it in this sense: History of Christian Thought posted:A man like Epicurus - this is very interesting - who later was so much attacked by the Christians, that we have only fragments about him, was called soter by his pupils, the Greek word used in the New Testament which we translate by "savior.." Epicurus the philosopher was called a savior. What does this mean? We regard him as a man who had a good life all the time in his beautiful gardens, and had a very bad anti-Christian hedonistic philosophy - and other name-calling words. The ancient world thought quite differently about Epicurus. They called him soter because he did something for them which was the greatest thing he could do for them, a thing which also is praised by Paul when he speaks of the transformation of the pagans into Christians, namely, liberation from anxiety. Epicurus, with his system of atoms - we call it a materialistic system - liberated them from the fear of demons which permeated the whole life of the ancient world and especially of the later ancient world. Men like Epicurus were called soters, saviors, because they liberated people from fear by their philosophy. All this shows what a serious thing philosophy was at that time. . . Sharkie posted:The transmigration of souls doesn't necessarily imply any sort of spiritual change or spiritual rebirth that "born again" in the Christian sense does...it just means that your soul inhabits another body. This is some sloppy philology here. I was under the impression that it's synonym of palingenesis and thus does imply that. But I'm an amateur to has to look every goddamn word up in a concordance when I do this...
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Correct. Basically, its the same issue with the earlier parts of the thread where people were just using Faith as a coverall for proof of religion. Salvation is just being used as a catch all. I have faith therefore i am right? It is flawed in that billions of people have faith of different religions and there should be some other thing that should define why one believes in one thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Maybe for the reasons there, the Christian concept "Son of God", is different from the Pagan concept "son of God"? Perhaps we assert those fundamental differences when we say "only-begetton" and when we don't affirm 'There was a time when he was not' This isnt really an argument because Adam was recognized as Son of God, legitimately. And the bible definition of only begotten is that Jesus is the first and only thing created directly by God as the beginning of everything that is created. This is bible 101.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Michael Jackson posted:I have faith therefore i am right? It is flawed in that billions of people have faith of different religions and there should be some other thing that should define why one believes in one thing. More mistaking 'Faith' as in trust versus 'Faith' as in 'belief without evidence'
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Michael Jackson posted:This isnt really an argument because Adam was recognized as Son of God, legitimately. The Creed says he is "begotten, not made". Jesus was not created. Jesus is God.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The Creed says he is "begotten, not made". Jesus was not created. Jesus is God. This is lol because "The Creed" is not the bible. edit: just noticed it was Kyrie eleison so that explains it Big Mackson fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The Creed says he is "begotten, not made". Jesus was not created. Jesus is God. Begotten is making. Its procreation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Michael Jackson posted:And the bible definition of only begotten is that Jesus is the first and only thing created directly by God as the beginning of everything that is created. This is bible 101. I'm taking that argument from directly transcribed class notes of "The History of Christian Thought: Lectures in Church History (108)" taught in 53 by Tillich. It's the same place the usage of soter is coming from. Edit: Which is not to say I don't reference "Understanding the Bible" (Harris). That's just more of a pain in the rear end because I have physically have to have the drat thing on me, when I want to argue from it. Edit 2: And I've told people exactly where I've been taking these arguments from previously. Y'all could look up what I'm going to respond with before I do if you wanted. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I'm taking that argument from directly transcribed class notes of "The History of Christian Thought: Lectures in Church History (108)" taught in 53 by Tillich. It's the same place the usage of soter is coming from. oh, i misunderstood. I thought you thought that this was what it meant in the bible, instead it was what christians thought they thought about how they could square philosophy with what was written in the bible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Really, there is a lot that could be said about the various sects and groups (gnosticism) etc. that all used various philosophies and beliefs to understand the bible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Michael Jackson posted:oh, i misunderstood. I thought you thought that this was what it meant in the bible, instead it was what christians thought they thought about how they could square philosophy with what was written in the bible. Soter is the word in the bible that is translated to savior?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:They are the same word. That's the word used to describe Jesus by early Christians. And I'm asserting that the heads of the philosophical schools were understood to be basically mystical saviors Right, but you're using the Christian meaning and carrying it backwards to interpret the meaning of other uses. My point is that "savior" is not an inherently mystical, much less Christian, word. Again, plenty of people were called soter for defeating a siege, yet you and the History of Christian Thought seem to ignore this use of the term. BrandorKP posted:No, I'm not being sloppy. You are understanding most of what I am attempting to communicate. I'm not talking about HVAC instructors, I'm talking about the people who give us knowledge that liberates us from fear. Okay, so replace HVAC instructors with "Math Tutors," because they eliminate the fear of failing math. And yes, you are being sloppy because you're implying meaning to words and connections to topics that aren't there. Saving someone from ignorance or fear doesn't necessarily place them in spiritual thought that is inextricably tied up with Christianity. Look, it's more obvious that Greek-speakers used common Greek epithets for Jesus, not that those epithets somehow pre-conceived of, or hinted toward, a Christian spiritual tradition. quote:History of Christian Thought posted: Epicurus "edit: that was a retarded mistake! but my point stands" is one of the worst people you can use to suggest "soter" has a mystical meaning as is used, unless you're using mystical to mean "any sort of knowledge about the world." This summation of Epicurus is also very bad and wrong, so maybe this isn't the best source to be getting your info from. BrandorKP posted:I was under the impression that it's synonym of palingenesis and thus does imply that. But I'm an amateur to has to look every goddamn word up in a concordance when I do this... It doesn't. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The Creed says he is "begotten, not made". Jesus was not created. Jesus is God. This really makes sense when he [Jesus] questions why he would forsake himself on the cross. You are basically the fake Jesus guy on Religulous who says God/Jesus/The Spirit are like liquid/gas/solid water. All of the old ladies agree this is a perfect way to describe it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Soter is the word in the bible that is translated to savior? No argument here. I dont know what you think i argued and i am not sure either anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Soter is the word in the bible that is translated to savior? Schindler was a savior Isaac Newton was a savior Hell, Carl Sagan is a savior. Just because the word implies something does not give it theological or religious context.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
I think the discussion is that people have a different view of what kind of savior jesus was. Some thinks politically or socially or religiously. It is an opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
The op read literally the entire bible (as i also have) and his first argument with me and his proof is quoting The Creed. This thread IS AMAZING.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Schindler was a savior quote:Demetrius I is infamous in Jewish history for his victory over the Maccabees, killing Judas Maccabaeus in Nisan, 160 BC.[6] Demetrius acquired his surname of Soter, or Savior, from the Babylonians, whom he delivered from the tyranny of the Median satrap, Timarchus. quote:In 278 BC the Gauls broke into Anatolia, and a victory that Antiochus won over these Gauls by using Indian war elephants (275 BC) is said to have been the origin of his title of Soter (Gr. for "saviour"). Well obviously they're saviors so they somehow prefigure Christ I guess?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Michael Jackson posted:The op read literally the entire bible (as i also have) and his first argument with me and his proof is quoting The Creed. This thread IS AMAZING. Creed is pretty important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Creed is pretty important. Yes, the first thing one should use before the bible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Creed is pretty important. Come on, their first album wasn't all that bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Come on, their first album wasn't all that bad. The hell it wasn't. Creed sucks and has always sucked; Scott Stapp should thank his lucky stars daily that Nickleback finally came along and managed to somehow be even worse than he.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Scott Stapp died for your sins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Scott Stapp died for your sins. At least then he'd have to stop singing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:At least then he'd have to stop singing. If his latest youtube rant is any indicator, he'll not be on stage again. Ever. Dude looks like a posterchild for meth abuse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:This really makes sense when he [Jesus] questions why he would forsake himself on the cross. Jesus was quoting the first verse of Psalm 22, which is prophetic of his sufferings. No idea what this has to do with your second comparison, I'm giving you official widely held teachings. Michael Jackson posted:The op read literally the entire bible (as i also have) and his first argument with me and his proof is quoting The Creed. This thread IS AMAZING. The Creed is authoritative... If you really want a Biblical quote though, the Bible says the world was made through him and that he was responsible for "all creation", see John 1:10 and Colossians 1:15.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Look, it's more obvious that Greek-speakers used common Greek epithets for Jesus, not that those epithets somehow pre-conceived of, or hinted toward, a Christian spiritual tradition. That's not far off the argument actually. I would not argue that these things prepared for the Christian spiritual tradition. But I would argue that these things prepared for the event of Jesus as the Christ. And the early church used the word kairos to talk about Jesus to communicate this. At the very least it's not incorrect to say that the early Christians believed and argued that these concepts prepared the way for Jesus. Sharkie posted:Epicurus "edit: that was a retarded mistake! but my point stands" is one of the worst people you can use to suggest "soter" has a mystical meaning as is used, unless you're using mystical to mean "any sort of knowledge about the world." This summation of Epicurus is also very bad and wrong, so maybe this isn't the best source to be getting your info from. I'm pretty sure Epicurian communities referred to Epicurus as soter. I think I've got at least two sources and wiki linking another source saying that. And I'm pretty sure that soter carries the connotations I'm suggesting it does, and at the very least I'm certain it does in a Christian context. I'd like to know more to figure out the discrepancy, can you expand on your argument. I'm thinking it's rooted in widely differing interpretation of Epicurus, more specifically how atheistic humanists interpret Epicurus. Michael Jackson posted:No argument here. I dont know what you think i argued and i am not sure either anymore. Sometimes the thread gets hard to follow when it moves fast, I think I mixed you up with someone else accidentally. Sorry
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Jolly Jumbuck posted:Kyrie: You never answered my question. It may have gotten lost amongst some of the others. I overlooked it because it's been addressed before in the thread. I know it's a big thread, but I'm not inclined to repeat myself. Basically, we don't know who God saves, we only know the method he prescribed for being saved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:We can get Truth from other sources besides a God, though. Truth can be a source in and of itself too, and some religions believe that Truth is fundamental and even beyond the scope of a God to change. Not to mention any number of other philosophies that offer a form of objective Truth without a God. Can we get Truth from other sources besides God? If we define the concept of God as including Truth (as well as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) the answer is no. If we reduce the concept of God to less than Truth, the Way, the Light, then God is no longer God. I understand the tautologous nature of what I'm saying and it can be perceived as a cop-out. That's simply how it goes, because faith is always required. I realize there is other philosophical baggage that comes with asserting the nature of God as such. But for I now I think it's worth appreciating the difficulties and nuances of this issue. Answering these questions for yourself carries a risk - that you become your own God. Like Plato, in response to the presocratics, you agree there is a Truth, and like him, through dialectic you arrive at the "Truth". But it is the Truth, or is it Plato's truth? You still haven't achieved the absolute, unshakable foundation that a being like God would provide, defined as he is traditionally conceived. The question is whether there ever existed a man who spoke the Truth, and the Word. Either you believe, or you don't. There is no way to be certain, except to be convinced yourself by carefully studying the Word. In the meantime, be cautious with your answers and the truth you have constructed for yourself. Even if your truth is virtuous and Christ-like in its conception, as a rhetorical being your truth has influence on the world around you and you are in an act of never-ending persuasion with others that your truth will overturn theirs, even if you are living a good life and only occasionally defending your views.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:Answering these questions for yourself carries a risk - that you become your own God. Like Plato, in response to the presocratics, you agree there is a Truth, and like him, through dialectic you arrive at the "Truth". But it is the Truth, or is it Plato's truth? You still haven't achieved the absolute, unshakable foundation that a being like God would provide, defined as he is traditionally conceived. Unshakable truth, but you gotta have faith without evidence. I think you and I have different definitions of what 'Truth' is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:00
|
|