/lit/ - Literature

>>16199379
How much did you paid for this cover?
It doesn't look that good

>>16199379
2.0

>>16199396
166 quarters from my change jar
>>16199409
I've never read that nor even know what it's about

>>16199379
Horia Belcea's first book failed so hard that he had to write his second one under a pseudonym, lmao.

>>16199460
who?

>>16199409
>>16199460
You guys literally prove my point, by the way. "Can't criticize original work", all you can do is be like LOL this is like another modern philosopher!!! probably the same person ahahahah!!!!! im never wrong only correct in thought!!!!!!!!!!!

>>16199379
dont open it'll download a virus that links to sissu hypno porn

>>16199379
Oh, I remember this one. If you're writing serious philosophy, you don't have to spend a paragraph explaining Apology. Every serious philosopher already knows it. And, if you're trying something pop, shouldn't you write the theoretical foundations before you sell it rhetorically?

>>16199568
I have every paragraph to the end planned out already, mystic writing takes time and cannot be forced out
>>16199554
you've already been hypnotized by cock, and i'm sure you'd suck mine if you had the chance

I just read the chapter on Plato's allegory. I think this is a really, really disorganized book. Each paragraph doesn't have a clear connection to those around it, there's no explanation of what you're trying to prove, and I'm not sure where the argument fits into a greater one. I don't understand (as a reader) why I should care or continue reading. If it's an actual, full book, then I should not feel that way after a short chapter that is at most a few pages. Please add context to your argument and clear understanding of what you are trying to prove (both for your arguments in particular and your arguments globally).

>>16199379
Stop posting this trash. Learn to actually write, this reads like it was written by a 16 year old.

>>16199625
>the argument
Tell me what you think the argument is friend.
>why I should care
If you aren't initiated enough to see the words between the lines then the book may not be for you if you aren't willing to look for them

>>16199379
Shut up faggot

>>16199660
>Literally no one here is capable of producing an intellectual thought when discerning original work
thanks for proving me right again, like the fourth time so far already

>>16199379
Lol got bored

>>16199664
>tell me what you think the argument is friend
I don't really know. I believe you're arguing that the Greeks (in particular Plato and Socrates) are examples of Christian mysticism prior to Christianity. I really don't know if that's your argument, though. You don't make it clear in the book what the purpose is behind your arguments/statements.
>If you aren't initiated enough then you shouldn't read this book
See, that's a really bad way to write. To say, "Everyone should simply understand my argument when I give them a few clues and peripheral glimpses of my point and if they don't, they aren't initiated enough," seems like a good way to make your book (no matter how good) impossible to read. The most important parts of a book are the writer's thoughts and the reader's understanding those thoughts. I'm not sure anyone is capable of the latter with as little explanation you have here.
There's a fine line between Wittgenstein and nonsense. I'm afraid this chapter feels more like the latter, and it will continue to feel that way if you don't take your readers seriously.

Self-described serious, genius writer:
https://seanald.ca/i-hate-gina-linetti/
https://seanald.ca/love-this-cat/
https://seanald.ca/jake-peralta-king-of-the-99/
This is the best gold I've seen on this website in a while.

>>16199766
>examples of Christian mysticism prior to Christianity
That's not an argument, that's the statement. The argument, therefore, is that the Holy Spirit worked through the oracles in Greece. What it is has set up is the belief that the Wanderer's that date back to Gilgamesh are those of Cain, and are God's children.
>then you shouldn't read this book
no, I said that "it may not be for you if you are unwilling to look for them". If you can't see the difference you are being intentionally short minded. Again, you compare to some random philosopher (that I've never heard of by the way) in an attempt to categorize me, because you can't describe it for yourself. My main thoughts are traced inside every chapter so that you can find full actualization from discerning the reading.

More so, nearly every Lasting writing piece needs initiation, the Bible for example. Not only this that the idea is to condense this into the argument against Crowley's book of the law. "the most skeptical intelligence is compelled to admit it's truth".

>>16199833
>self-described serious, genius writer
proof? Glad you like it though

>>16199766
More over on this, there are entire sections that are relevant that I don't speak on because they aren't in the reasoning of necessary information. I could write another entire chapter about Alexander and his horse and how this is a clear representation of his Enkidu on Earth but it wouldn't do anything but distract away from the purpose of the writing. Although, I may write a book after this explaining more about each person that I mention and the continued connections that they have to theology and history that make the claim undeniable

>>16199867
>my argument is that the Holy Spirit worked through the oracles in Greece
It seems like this isn't really said, though. There are no arguments directly for it, and you never say that. It is generally good to be obvious about your arguments so that the reader knows what's going on.
>there is a clear difference between "you shouldn't read if you're not willing to look for my point and you shouldn't read it"
Why is it my job to look around for what your argument is? Say it clearly for your reader. Nobody cares enough to find what you're arguing. Be clear with your reader.

Also, unrelated and unseriously, it's a little embarrassing to admit you've never heard of Wittgenstein.

Achilles given a choice in how to live: both eventualities superpositioned in Diogenes and Alexander
Alexander had to die to balance Evil; Julius had to die to save Rome (Parallel dualism)
Alexander uses faith to control the masses = Siddhartha Gautama atheist: false prophet for the masses who does not believe in what he sells
Socrates tried and found guilty, Jesus tried and found not guilty by Herod and Pontius Pilate: Both executed for opposite reasons
Plato's cave was not a thought experiment, it was a mystical revelation: Zeus escapes the cave he was born in, Alexander traps others inside the cave
Oracle testimony led to Socrates' death; Oracle was possessed by Satan/a demon with prescient knowledge
Alexander as the earthly (base) king, Jesus as the eternal (righteous) King
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Ephesians 2:9-10 ESV

>>16199970
You literally said to me that you think I said Socrates used Christian Mysticism but Socrates was said to have the oracle voice, and his claim to wisdom was the oracle of delphi. So you did understand that. You just didn't feel like thinking about what it could have meant, I don't need to say things like oh the holy spirit is responsible for thousands of years of Greek history because it's not relevant and doing so muddies what I am saying.
>why is it my job
It's not. You picked up the base statements from this chapter, have you read on the continued argument about wanderers is made in the next chapter. You didn't miss anything as a reader, you just decided that it wasn't much of importance without going on in the reading.
>little embarassing to admit
I don't lie

>>16199983
1) Essentially, given from how Achilles was his choice of hero to be like (personal claim)
2) In idea, yes. The next chapter begins with a short talk on Julius dying a similar fate and how he jerked off to Alexander
3) Sure, but you cannot prove "does not believe". This idea is linked to the idea of Freemasonry and that you become a god through your human actions. The chapter on "Caesar's messiah" discusses this.
4) And both decided on their own that this was best for the world
5) Not quite, but close. If you know Alexander's history I think you would claim, "Alexander visits caves, leaves them inside"
6) Oracles are all prophets, so yes. Remember "satan always asks permission" and how Socrates chose to face trial
7) Sure.
My favorite; “This grace of God working in the very interior of our will is irresistible. But, Augustine argued, it does not take away our freedom, for the acts it elicits from our will are elicited with our consent. Only those who receive this grace are saved; those who do not are damned. Why some receive it and others do not is a mystery hidden in the inscrutable justice of God–the mystery of predestination.”

Thanks for review

>>16200048
I'll say continued onto this, that I see Alexander discussing with the Oracle in the ways Socrates also did but didn't add it to the chapter out of relevance of the story telling. "Should I pick you up and place you upright for your nobleness or should I walk by and leave you on the ground for your expeditions against Greece" - Alexander to a statue of Xerxes as he stood there for 2 minutes while his guards were confused as fuck. Not an exact quote I cba finding the page

>>16200048
>freemasonry etc
Back to Ephesians 2
>quote
Who said that? I agree with it, but it's not that deep, even Forrest Gump understood that free will and predestination "paradoxically" exist in the same plane

>>16200143
Are you saying that Alexander communed with demons?
>satan always asks permission
Not true, this is not a good marker to differentiate between the Holy Spirit and a demon
>Satan is called the ruler of this world (John 12:31;14:30). He has already been given authority to operate in this world, tempting people to sin. He even tempted Jesus in the wilderness, being resisted by Him (Matthew 4:1-11). Satan was able to work through Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus without any mention of obtaining specific permission from God.

>>16200145
>But Augustine argued
It's from "a Concise history of the Catholic Church" from Thomas Bokenkotter. >even Forrest Gump, brother this was written by someone else. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say with that sentence.

What this quote is suggesting that conscious evil deeds are done in the virtue of God.

>>16200190
Depends on what you define as demons.

>been given authority
So he has permission. Judas was predicted by Christ to disobey him, he knew. Wicked ones can predict the actions of any non wicked humans.

" After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” 22 The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. "

>>16200190
Additionally, there were multiple oracles in Greece, Delphi being the most respected, but Dodona, Trophonius, and Menestheus were also around. Tradition of the Oracle was brought from Egypt. The Holy Spirit lived in up to one person at a time before the Pentacost. (Nothing in scripture suggests that the Holy Spirit always resided on Earth). Multiple Oracles coming from Egypt tells me that these women were possessed by different demons with prescient knowledge, and were not visited by the Holy Spirit.

>>16200238
>Tradition of the Oracle was brought from Egypt.
From Apollo, this is Greek history. The Oracle of Delphi belongs to him.
>nothing in the scripture suggests
nothing suggests that the Holy Spirit goes back and forth between worlds either, but the Spirit is on Earth, we know that. The Spirit, works through more than one person after Christ, this was his gift to the world.

>>16199674
Seriously, stop posting any time. You are a garbage writer and your ideas are not interesting

>>16200219
>define as demons
This is hard for modern day westerners to truly appreciate as Satan hides his existence to us. A knowledge of spiritual matters in today's world will point many towards Christ, and Satan's best tool is to convince us demons do not exist.
This is not the case in underdeveloped countries. Many cases of demon possessions even today, I have many second had stories about possessions.
From the front of my mouth I would define a demon as a created spiritual being that resides on Earth, and does not share in the glory of God.
>been given authority
So he does not need to "ask first," he already has authority over the Earth, and doesn't need any further approval from God or humans

>>16200261
Yes, the Spirit now lives is as many people. This started at the Pentacost as I already said, but the Hellenistic Age was before Christ came to Earth.
>Apollo
There is significant evidence to show that Apollo is the same god (demon) as Horus

>>16200302
>does not share the glory of God
then no, Alexander was proved to share in his glory. If you want to define the oracle as a demon the answer would simply be yes.
>>16200190
First, you can't misquote scripture and have a point proven.

If you want to actually look at the process of events, the High Priest then took Jesus to the Roman and asked him to execute him, then to some weird dude I forget the name of, then back to Pilate where Jesus told him it was Good. "Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”
>>16200334
Right, so. Socrates dies, it goes to Plato, he dies, it goes to Alexander. This is why Plato's first student failed, the Spirit was still inside him, he had to die first.
>Apollo
Irrelevant anyways, we know who Apollo is

>>16200355
>Socrates, Plato, Alexander
First of all, IF the Holy Spirit lived in these people, it could have left Plato and entered the earlier students
Secondly, I don't see how you can justify this claim
Thirdly, I thought you were arguing that the Holy Spirit was in the Oracle

>Pilate
Jesus was calming Pilate here. Pilate knew Jesus was innocent of the crimes he was charged with, and some believe that Pilate believed in Jesus as well. Either way, Pilate found no fault in Jesus but had to execute him to keep the kikes from rioting. There Jesus is telling Pilate that the High Priest is guilty, not Pilate. I don't see how that passage has anything to do with Satan having to ask first. Besides, Jesus dying was not Satan's plan, but God's plan. You may point back to Judas here, but the big difference is that we know Jesus prayed in the garden not wanting to have to die, and he could stop the execution from happening if he wanted to, but he knew it was God's plan, which is why he sweat blood. Socrates defended himself in court - he did not want to die, just like Jesus, but Jesus accepted and allowed it to happen, while Socrates fought against death but it was outside of his power. There don't appear to be as many parallels between Socrates and Jesus as you think there are
Judas exercised free will in betraying Jesus, but Jesus would have been crucified regardless. The last supper was not a prophecy per se, because Judas had already set the betrayal in place, and had already gone to the priests and told him he would betray Jesus. At the last supper Jesus simply let Judas know that he already knew.

>>16200453
>could have entered the earlier students
but it didn't
>>16200453
>Socrates defended himself
Not really, he encouraged them to execute him. Have you read Plato's writings about the trial?

High Priest had Jesus executed at the will of the Jews, he had full permission from the people of "God"

>>16199379
>No Losers Allowed in This Thread
you can't tell me what to do

>>16200509
Pharisees were Edomites, not descendants of Israel. Talmud is blasphemous and pagan. Either way, Jesus' purpose in coming to Earth was to die, the will of God brought him to the cross
>permission
I don't understand what point you are trying to make about getting permission

>>16200578
>not descendants of Israel
nobody said this, stop **correcting** to feel smart.
>getting permission
you are the one who denied that this is true. I don't speak upon it in my writing (yet)

>>16200687
You said people of God, I was pointing out that the Pharisees actually weren't.
You brought it up first with
>Oracles are all prophets, so yes. Remember "satan always asks permission"

>>16200716
Yes the Jewish people they looked after you dunce.
As for the second line about "satan asks permission". You clearly do not know about the story of Oedipus and the framework of how oracles work.

>>16200734
Everyone knows the story about Oedipus but if you are going to be purposely vague to appear smart then I'm starting to agree with the first anon you argued with. Just say what you mean and explain what you're saying

>>16200522
true as
>>16200783
>everyone knows the story of Oedipus
so what is your confusion? And would you mind sharing me the final quote of the story of Oedipus about the oracle to prove you know the story?

>>16200578
>Pharisees were Edomites
Where does the Bible ever say this bro

>>16200873
it doesn't

If you cannot make the very first sentence of your work sound coherent or at the very least not retarded, I am going to assume that everything else you have to say is dumb shit too. This rule has never steered me wrong.

>>16201057
>can't describe how it's incoherent
>states im right everyone else wrong
>never offers up a true thought so can't be disproven
magical answer bub, why do you live?

>>16201118
To tell you that your writing is awful.

>>16201242
Thanks.
>>16200783
Where'd you go? I thought you knew the story of Oedipus!

>>16201118
Read more, if you can't see why your first sentence is incoherent then you lack in the skill of writting.
Also your OP is rather arrogant, the book cover with the giant star of david seems like you're just another /pol/ schizo. Maybe read Marx if you want to understand the world better.

>>16201361
>Maybe read Marx if you want to understand the world better.
LOL

>>16201399
>LOL

>>16201361
So I clicked on your image and the entire thing is for "/leftypol/" in the same breath you say "just another /pol/ schizo" as you fucking lament yourself in the ideology of another board!
>>16201411
And with this response I'll explain to you something, Karl Marx knew NOTHING of the world. He knew what Engels exposed to him and nothing else. Karl Marx is literally the type of schizophrenic you would call /pol/.

If you want to feel like you are intelligent in these moments, define for me Marx's "Good-Guy proletariat" and who that would be in today's society.

>>16201418
>Karl Marx knew nothing
You know nothing about Marx
A proletariat is a wageslave, working for the bourgeoisie who own the means of production.

>>16201453
... of the world." Tell me where Karl Marx got all of his information and world experience.
>A proletariat is a....
I asked you to define the "Good-Guy Proletariat"

>>16201484
I know what good-guy means, I don't know what you pointing at. Tell me what's a "Good-Guy Proletariat"?

>>16199379
Schizo here. Post excerpts and I'll evaluate.

>>16201516
>no you
Good-guy proletariat are the ones helping Bourgeois become proletariat themselves
>>16201533
It's short writing you need to read it all

>>16201516
>>16201623
I'd be surprised if you could evaluate who these people are today.

>>16201630
and he's gone... wtf?? no original thinking here allowed

>>16200873
It's not mentioned in the bible but it is a historical fact, besides Jesus calling the pharisees a brood of adders (same type of snake as the serpent in the garden) should be all you need to know
>>16201305
Idk the last line of Oedipus but I know the gist of the story, sorry I have a life outside of 4chan believe it or not
>oracle predicts kill dad fuck mom
>parents try to avoid it
>happens anyway

>>16199379
>Currently in the modern era for some reason despite how religion has the distinct overall purpose of bringing people to the stage of life called ‘enlightenment’ the modern day Atheist movement lives on claiming themselves as enlightened.1 The most famous man in history known for this state of mind must be of Buddha. Buddhism has him as a central figure of their religion making this based around not a God of sorts but rather simply a man who achieved the state called enlightened.
acktually, the god of buddhism is atman, or all-man/every-man

>>16202218
>Hinduism
>>16202181
>parents try to avoid it
yeah you don't know what you are talking about

>>16199379
gj securing yr site, OP. locked up nice and tight heheh

>>16202241
>securing your site
nothing of value is hosted on it

>>16199379
Fuck you pay me

>>16202236
>dad leaves son for dead
>adopted
>eventually kills dad and fucks mom
Satisfied? I'm not saying I know the ins and outs but I understand the gist of Oedipus as most people do. Either way you still haven't explained what you are talking about which makes you look like a pretentious hack whether you are one or not

>>16202247
how much and for what

>>16202258
Schizo-checking, 10$/hour

>>16202256
>but I understand the gist of Oedipus as most people do.
First, you KNOW the gist, you don't understand it.

Let's just go back to where you are originally asking from. You are attempting to go back to Oracles are all prophets, so yes.
>Remember "satan always asks permission" and how Socrates chose to face trial
You replied to that comment with some question about if I am saying Alexander communed with demons. I said if you consider the oracle so. This led to you going wtf bro we are talking about oracle not Oedipus how is this relevant? The final lines of the story are Oedipus admitting that it was his direct actions and fault that caused him to lose. "The Will of the Gods"- they fashion how it goes, and you make the final decision. If you want to theorize the meaning of "remember satan always asks permission", you need to resolve that enabling means "to make someone able to do something". Satan doesn't work without god's permission. Did Socrates have to die? No, he was like sure I'll die.
>>16202271
what currency

>>16202339
Thank you for filling me in.
So the story of Oedipus aligns with Judas's betrayal imo, but it is different from Jesus being crucified because the crucifixion is the end state purpose of his incarnation on Earth, and no amount of free will (other than Jesus' own, as previously mentioned) could stop the execution from happening. Judas chose to betray Jesus of his own free will, but had he chose differently the priests would have arrested him anyway, as I said before. There is no "satan asking permission" anywhere. Satan is the prince of this world, he has power on Earth, a demon does not need permission from the host in order to take possession
For the Socrates part, you are operating on the very large assumption that Plato's portrayal of Socrates is accurate - something scholars don't agree on - but furthermore, I don't think Socrates would have tried to use logic and the Socratic method to clear his name if he was resigned to being executed. I'm sorry I just don't see the parallels between Socrates and Jesus as I said in my original response, I see these two stories as opposites

>>16202384
>There is no "satan asking permission"
Except all over the Bible of course.
>Judas chose to betray
He was paid. 'the Priests would have arrested him anyway', yes Jesus evades punishment a few times in the Bible.

>very large assumption that Plato's portrayal of Socrates is accurate
There were only 2 written accounts, if neither were accurate why wasn't another one written? I'd say rejecting Plato's story to lies is a 'very large assumption'.
>resigned to being executed
he decided to face trial, I thought you said every philosopher knows of the apology but you don't seem to know much of what was said in the dialogue. Socrates references the oracle in his speech 'and even now I haven't been interrupted as I was before, and I will take this as a sign that I am correct' (something like this once or twice)

The parallels are extremely easy to see. Socrates spoke to the authorities pure truth of God and they rejected it, and killed him, Socrates allowed this.

Jesus often spoke to the authorities with criticism and this led to his Crucifixion, which like Socrates- he enabled fully.

If you want to think about other parallels between the two it's not hard to find. They taught people their whole lives, whomever they came to interact with and doing so planted the seeds to force a negative reaction of the authoritative powers putting them to death for what they said.

>>16202429
>every philosopher knows of the apology
I have no clue what you are talking about
>Judas got paid
Still free will, but I think we are in agreement on this point
>only 2 accounts
You have not mentioned Xenophon once in the 2 chapters I read so I assumed you were going off of Plato only. I haven't read the dialogue of the trial according to either of them, do they each quote the exact same words?
>Socrates spoke pure truth of God
Jesus was not killed because he spoke the truth. The priests had their own free will to open their hearts to the truth and see that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah's prophesies (in fact, Nicodemus, a Pharisee member of the Sanhedrin used his power to some extent to protect Jesus, and is widely thought to have believed his teachings, see John 3 and John 7) . Jesus was sent to Earth for the sole purpose of being the perfect sacrifice that allows sinful man to become righteous. Jesus did not get killed because the priests disagreed with his teachings, he was killed because he must be killed in order to allow God's creation to spend eternal life with Him

>>16201623
>It's short writing you need to read it all
Anon even as a schizo I have to admit you really need to work on your prose. I stopped reading after that retarded statement about the Buddha being similar to the Western new atheists.

>>16202517
>explaining Apology. Every serious philosopher already knows it
pretty sure that was your first statement. If not, doesn't matter.
>Judas
yes but the allure of money is one of the tools of seduction used by satan
>xenophon
I don't need to mention someone who has no importance in the story line. Socrates as we know is basically a creation in Plato's writing regardless.
>Jesus was not killed because he spoke the truth
Again you're quoting something else. Jesus literally quoted prophecy when forced to speak to the High Priest, words of God.

Either way though you are wrong in essence. Jesus' Crucifixion was decided by the Romans, how did he get them to crucify him? Speaking.

>>16199379
Gay

>>16202565
Even if Jesus' crucifixion was decided by the Romans, your quote from before shows how it isn't Pilate's fault

>>16204256
thank you
>>16204276
why are you being obtuse on purpose?

>>16199379
> "The Catholics strictly teach the trinity as separate beings"
stopped reading there. No they don't.

>>16204433
yes they do retard

>>16204407
>obtuse
>“You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”
how does this quote say anything other than, "it is not Pilate's fault"

>>16204541
It wasn't what we were discussing, we were discussing how not who's fault it was. It's pointless to try and correct every statement with a pov from somewhere else trying to say something different

>>16204433
Jesus, Spirit and Holy Ghost (Mary Mother) are separate but are all God

>>16199833
>One of Gina’s destructive behaviors is casually hooking up, there’s an episode where her psychic friend predicts her to have a romantic encounter with a man named john?
>The worst part is how her sexual harassment is even on the show at all. To a point where it makes me so bothered I just skip episodes where she has a lot of lines.
This is what happens when you say 4chan isn't your blog

>>16204552
Ok then how Jesus got crucified:
If you only look at the physical cause and effect then yes it is easy to say that Jesus was killed by the Romans at the behest of the High Priest because the Sanhedrin were worried about how many followers Jesus was getting. In essence you could argue "They killed him for speaking the truth, upsetting the status quo yada yada just like Plato," but only when looking at the cause and effect of Jesus' actions on Earth that took place through his free will. The exact way that Jesus' life looked on Earth, the way that he died, came from the free will of those living at that time, but let's take a look at the prophecies.
>“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” Isaiah 53:7
>“He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.” Isaiah 53:9
>"Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet" Psalm 22:16
These three prophesies contain all of the relevant information we need about his death in my opinion. We see that he must be silent, and not say anything about his charges (unlike Socrates)
>"When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. Then Pilate asked him, 'Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?' But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge—to the great amazement of the governor" Matthew 27:12–14
Next we see that he is to be killed as a criminal, even though he has done no wrong, and more specifically, his hands and feet will be pierced. I could not find anything with a quick search about any other methods of execution that pierce hands and feet.
Of course, Jesus alone had the power to fulfill these prophesies or no, he could have chosen to return to heaven:
>"Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?" Matthew 26:53
but no mortal could use their free will to avoid the eventuality, just like Oedipus could not avoid killing his father and fucking his mother. As far as I see it, the exact timeline, events, cause and effect could have turned out to be completely different, but the end state would be the same no matter what.
Jesus CHOSE to die, and was sent to Earth to die, while Socrates was not sent to Earth, nor did he choose of his own free will to die, he simply resigned himself to his fate.

>>16202339
>what currency
This IS America, isn't it?

>>16204674
>These three prophesies contain all of the relevant information we need about his death in my opinion. We see that he must be silent, and not say anything about his charges (unlike Socrates)
You're just arguing about semantics because you don't think they died the EXACT same way even tho there is a lot of overlap.

>Of course, Jesus alone.... Matthew 26:53
What you go on about here is that again, just semantics about the people. Not only that- your appeal of Jesus only aligns with Catholic faith.
>Jesus chose to die
>Socrates didn't even though he could have just left Athens and lived
are you okay dude? Your reasoning doesn't make sense, it's like you just want to win an argument online.
>>16204774
no

>>16205014
>semantics
I understand there there are some superficial similarities between Socrates' and Jesus' deaths, but the differences are significant, not just semantics, but I have laid out my argument for this as well as I think I am able.
>your appeal of Jesus only aligns with Catholic faith
explain what you mean here, I'm not Catholic and I have never spoken to a Catholic about this specific concept. I mostly talk to catholics about Mary's infallibility, apocrypha, praying via saints and purgatorio
>trying to win an argument online
I'm schizo analyzing here damn dude I felt like we were getting close to understanding each other, no need to resort to personal attacks

>>16205083
>superficial similarities
Yes. Main points I make
1) Accepted and Embraced their execution
2) This martyr created their legacies

There are of course part similarities that are brought up in the paper, like how Socrates gained wisdom in the way Christ told us to.
"“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” This is a line that correlates to Socrates in the Apology where he says "After this I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me - the word of God"

>Catholic faith
Only Catholic sects of Christianity are demanding in the belief that Jesus was the Son of God capable of doing supernatural things. He was simply a man to most, he couldn't have "chosen to return to heaven". In fact, we KNOW that he couldn't, while on the cross "About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?”

They both chose their deaths I'm not sure how you could debate this with full knowledge of the events of both

>>16205083
In fact, this paper I write about how I realized that I have the 'oracle daemon voice' that Socrates had because of a lecture from JBP where he described it, and said that he has students that have it but don't listen to it fully. Then I use this to describe who God was in Jesus' prayers.
https://seanald.ca/jesus-the-individual/

>>16205180
>This martyr created their legacies
can be said for the vast majority of Martyrs. You are probably better off relating Socrates to Joan d'Arc
>forsaken me
You are either forgetting or intentionally leaving out
>"Jesus called out with a loud voice, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.' When he had said this, he breathed his last" Luke 23:46
>Son of God
Are you asserting that Jesus was just a man? Why would he say quoted in Matthew 26:53 if that was not true?
>>16205228
>This means during his life he may have simply been a mortal human
absolutely not.
>"9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. 12“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. 13Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." John 14:9-14
This is just one example of many, of Jesus explicitly saying that he is God

>>16205265
>You are probably better off relating Socrates to Joan d'Arc
No. You are just being obtuse as I said, Joan of Arc has nothing to do with my paper while Christianity is prominent
>Are you asserting that Jesus was just a man?
Very likely during his life yes. The same reason Alexander used belief in his divinity to control others.
>Jesus says he is God
>I am in the father
>the father is in me
are you okay brother?

>>16205394
>>I am in the father
>>the father is in me
>are you ok brother?
I have no idea what this means

>>16205459
You quoted that trying to state that Jesus claims he is God but he never says that. I ask if you're okay because I don't understand why you have this incessant nag that won't allow you to accept this even though you agree

>>16205491
being in the father and saying the father is also in him goes back to John 1
>The Word was with God and the Word was God
Denying that Jesus lived on Earth before he was resurrected as 100% God and 100% man is very wrong

>>16205540
>another quote where he doesn't say he is God
oh dear oh my, this is an apostle trying to tell a story, not the words of Jesus anyways.

>>16205540
By the way, by continuing these interpretations of the Bible you are stating that you are a Catholic even if you don't prescribe to the Church. This is because you prescribe to their teachings and demands of beliefs.

>>16205652
There is no protestant doctrine that allows that Jesus' initial incarnation was solely ad human. Jesus was God and man, and scripture points to this

>>16205706
>im right you're wrong even tho I can't prove it!!
this is /lit/

>>16205652
I have given you examples from scripture and I am happy to find you more. Please show me text that indicates Jesus was not God, as you are trying to say

>>16205720
You didn't give a single line where Jesus says "I am God". It doesn't happen, he doesn't say it.

>>16205725
>For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
Colossians 2:9
>This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
John 5:18 ESV
>Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
John 8:58 ESV
>My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one."
John 10:29-30 ESV
>he never says in plain English "I am God"!
He makes it very clear here. If direct quote "I am the Father are one" is not good enough for you then I don't know what you are looking for

>>16205783
>proving you're a Catholic that states Jesus had to be God as well as man.
Did you read the paper on who God is in prayer? God is your working unconscious you goof, of course the father is in him!!

>>16205783
>>Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
the tense fuckery in this sentence works so well

>>16205797
I agree it shows that God lives outside of Time
>>16205796
Look man, I've been doing my best to back up my arguments with evidence from scripture. You have not quoted any scripture to make your arguments, you just call me a catholic or tell me I don't understand. If you don't start backing up what you're saying with some evidence I'm going to stop wasting my time

>>16205826
That's Catholic faith. To demand that Jesus is God on Earth is ONLY Catholic teaching.

This is all stemming from me explaining how Jesus could have been a non-divine man and you got whipped up into a tizzy. I already gave you full explanation and all you do is cry heretics like a Catholic bitch

>>16205826
see my old line >just trying to win an argument online
you literally can't concede ANYTHING because you're a dolt. And that's not offense it's true. You're still here trying to argue to have some concept of superiority over someone else but you keep changing how you could potentially win an argument. Jesus wasn't God. This doesn't even make sense. He calls himself the Son and God the father the entire time, just because you can't understand how the father's voice was inside of Jesus then you really need to take some courses on sociology.

>>16205846
>ONLY catholic teaching
Show me doctrine that agrees with this claim. Are you calling me small c catholic or capital C Catholic?
>me explaining
What scripture backs up your explanation?
The fact that I have continued to discuss this topic should tell you that I am not crying heretic, but as I just mentioned, you have provided no evidence from scripture whatsoever to claim that Jesus was a non divine man

>>16205884
>show me doctrine
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a2.htm
454
You are a lost Catholic sheep.
>provided no evidence from scripture whatsoever to claim blah blah blah blah blah
only Catholics are SET in the belief he WAS god. YOU NEED TO PROVE HE IS. not the other way around. You literally read an entire paper about how God was just a voice in his head and you are now rejecting it because you are a little bitch

>>16205912
>I don't have to prove my baseless claims
>CATHOLIC CATHOLIC CATHOLIC CATHOLIC
Goodbye

>>16205948
>reads a 5 page paper on how God is Jesus' internal voice
>doesn't think it's evidence
>resorts to being a Catholic claiming heretic for suggesting something outside Catholic doctrine
>mad that he got called a Catholic for it

>>16205948
>>16205962
this completely embodies what /lit/ is, can't have it any better. End of Socratic method of argumentation ends how? With a loser leaving after agreeing with everything but not wanting to admit he's a stupid sheep without any of his own thoughts

>asks people to critique his work and insults everyone before they even reply
>spergs out when they do and argues with them for hours until they get so tired of his shit that they leave
>declares his work perfect and untouchable
How many times are you planning on making this same thread, Sean?

>>16205962
>5 page paper
Just skimming the front page, but holy shit, a whole 5?

>>16206123
>declares his work perfect and untouchable
source?
>>16206156
>ask for proof
>don't read it
hmmm

>>16206156
>wtf a theory needs lengthly explanation?? not possible!!!

>>16207006
this board isn't for discussion bro

>>16207954
way it be, best quote by my favorite man in history
“Let’s go out to the field.”

>>16199379
You write like a Freshman in college. That's enough to know your thoughts aren't going to be anything special.

>>16210698
>no criticism only superiority complex
classic /lit/

>>16210771
"You write like absolute shit and it distracts everyone from finishing your piece" is a perfectly legitimate criticism, and if you choose to ignore it, you can't be surprised at the consequences. Learn to write English fluently if you expect anybody to take you seriously.

>>16210882
>random person on the internet says its bad without explaining why or using a comparison

>>16210913
Every single sentence in the first paragraph of your first article has at least one jarring grammatical error. Most of them have more than one. If you could read at about a 10th grade level, you would be able to see them, and you would have corrected them before you put the article on your website and then started making these threads.
This leaves us with one of two possibilities: either A) you don't take your own ideas seriously enough to publish them properly, which in turn shows us that we have no reason to care about them either, or B) you are very stupid, in which case you don't have anything to say that a literate person would care to listen to.

>>16210956
quote them and cite how they are jarring grammatical errors

>>16210981
Type the paragraph into Word and look at what the squiggles tell you or call up whoever taught you third grade and recite it to her over the phone.
Or we can try this: pick one sentence that you think is written in proper English, and I will tell you why it isn't.

>>16211014
>still no proof
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

cringe nigger lmao get out of here

>>16211029
Post one sentence that you're confident of. I'm trying to help you, anon.

>>16211039

>>16210771
I'm sorry, that was kind of mean of me to just pop in and dump on your essay like that for kicks.
Your essay on Jesus as a person was a lot better, and I think your whole theme of control is well framed there where you emphasize that the guards and pilate find themselves a slave to their supposed roles, thereby denying their divine mind.
Seriously though, you're a bad writer. Accept it and try to be better. If you don't see that you're a bad writer then ho-lee shit I'm not sure how to point that out to you. Try pasting your stuff into a voice program and just hear how childish it can sound. And your thesis is unclear and advanced through a haphazard heap of evidence and argument. You assume the reader has special insight into your intentions. Try to read it sometime as though reading something somebody else wrote.
Your worldview and interpretive apparatus is super basic, but that's almost one of your strengths, as it allows you to communicate your feelings with the more clarity and power.
You obviously write out of a deep, passionate feeling.
Be real though, you're very young, aren't you? Like 19, 20 at the oldest? You remind of myself as a Freshman in college.

>>16211191