So far, the only perfect philosophers to have ever lived were Jesus Christ and Socrates...

So far, the only perfect philosophers to have ever lived were Jesus Christ and Socrates. All else pale in comparison as they refused to confront all aspects of being, and, more importantly, refused to die for the sake of truth.

Attached: David_-_The_Death_of_Socrates-1024x673.jpg (1024x673, 106K)

> die for the sake of truth
You can't even imagine the swarm of people who did the same.

Jesus wasn't a philosopher. He was God. The truth he died for was that he called himself God. It's really essential that you understand this--the Sanhedrin only conspired to kill him because he clearly identified himself as God, and they thought this was heresy.

Jesus was certainly a philosopher and what exactly his divine nature means is up for debate.

context clues
One does not necessarily negate the other

If he's god then why does he always refer to his father in heaven?

Because the father is not the son but they are both god

He wasn't God he gets referenced as the first born of creation for Christs sake, fucking Trinitarian shills

Philosopher is only a meaningful term to describe someone in the sense of secular moral thinker. We do not call theologians philosophers; why then would we consider the subject of theology to merely be a philosopher? Further, philosophy (especially when used in the context of Socrates), implies rational argumentation and discussion of abstract relationships--Jesus spoke almost exclusively in parables about prophecy and the morals of daily life. There is no purpose or meaning in calling Jesus a philosopher except to try and de-emphasize the necessarily religious nature of any conversation about him. I can't make you believe, but you should at least have the intellectual honesty to debate the question openly. It's very irrational and petty to try and avoid the problem with such ridiculous ideas as "well, we can at least agree he was a great thinker." Either Jesus is God, or he isn't worth talking about.

Interesting that you deny his divine nature in the same sentence that you appeal to his divine nature to save yourself from trinitarians.

Attached: FD13A596-505D-4B30-9F1B-64B59F0E0C69.png (929x1175, 133K)

The nature of the trinity cannot really be explained much more than as the relationship God has with himself, which of course impacts the way in which all creation relates to God. God the Father is distinct from God the Son, but they are both the same God, along with God the Holy Spirit. Of course, your line of questioning is deceptive. You are ignoring the many places where Jesus quite openly and obviously refers to himself in terms that are reserved for God alone, and does so in such a way that all the people around him understand what he is saying; for example, when he says he is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. The response of the High Priest to questioning Jesus is to rend his garments and cry out in a loud voice "Our God is One," meaning that he believed Jesus had just said something that would necessitate more than one God. And of course, if God is not a trinity in the manner the Catholic and Orthodox churches have maintained, than the high priest would be right.

It is really unwise to use a late English translation of a Greek word taken from a first century letter as having such a clear and limited meaning, especially when that meaning goes against the meaning expressly put forward by the writers of the letter.

We don't typically call theologians philosophers simply because theology is a more narrow kind of philosophy. In other words we don't call theologians philosophers for the same reason we don't call squares quadrilaterals, but its still a true statement and whenever someone attempts to claim that a square isn't a quadrilateral you have to remind them firmly of the true classification before you go back to calling it a square.
>Either Jesus is God, or he isn't worth talking about.
The fuck? There is so much wealth to discuss when it comes to Jesus regardless of whether or not he was "God in the flesh", and there is also much to talk about regarding what the latter statement even means.

The only reason you can believe this nonsense is because you are already committed to the irrational position of exclusive materialism.

Quit it you two. Have a nice conversation or don’t talk at all. You’re both clearly smart and I would like to observe your repartee without it degenerating in vitriol and madness.
Thanks

I wasn't being vitriolic. Exclusive materialism, especially under the pretense of rationalism, is fundamentally absurd and irrational. It's especially ludicrous at this point, with how much the West has been through, to continue trying to maintain Enlightenment era reactions to Catholicism, which really amount to nothing more than egotism. For example, what point could there possibly be in making the distinction between philosopher and theologian if they are of the same over-arching category, except to privilege philosophy by calling it the superordinant type? What basis is there for making that kind of distinction? How can theology be considered a subset of philosophy without simultaneously allowing that all philosophy is theology?

Christ means anointed one, it doesn't make him God

Attached: serveimage-51.jpg (383x500, 61K)

>lived
>Jesus Christ
user I

Why did you assume I'm a materialist, and what did I say that was nonsense? All of it is very straightforward stuff that is just laying the ground for discussion, I didn't even put any beliefs forward.
Its nonsense to consider theologians as philosophers? How l? Are theologians not also interested in knowledge and actively seeking greater understanding?
Its nonsense to say that Jesus is a deeply interesting person regardlesss of whatever dogmatic beliefs one subscribes to?
I'm very confused that either of the above is linked to materialism or is so inflammatory as to be called nonsense. Care to explain?

I agree that materialism is illogical but the rest of your post is gibberish and has the tone of a beaten dog wondering where the next blow is coming from.

That’s a really heady assumption. For instance, I find myself in agreement with the views of the person you’re responding to, and am far from an exclusive materialist. There really are people today thoughtfully grappling with and respecting Christianity (as well as other philosophers and religious systems) without calling themselves Christians. To appreciate Christ’s philosophical, psychological, and even mystical subtlety without admitting he was the unique incarnation of God is possible, and it is even possible to do this without being an exclusive materialist. There are Tibetan Buddhist views on Christ, Sufi views on Christ, Hindu views on Christ, and so on.

For instance, the stress on Jesus of Nazareth as a unique manifestation of God is arguably over-stressed in mainstream interpretations of Christianity. Why does he then view God the Father as separate from himself? Why does he famously cry out, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” on the cross (“My God, My God, why have you forsaken me”) and even pleads that this burden be taken away from him if possible?

>You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I (John 14:28).

There’s clearly some subtle doctrinal issues about regarding Jesus as exclusively and solely one with God. Thence stem all the debates about the human and divine natures of Christ, how they fit, what their nature is, etc. Some would even argue Jesus was pointing the way to the divinity within every human being, and that when he (possibly) said statements like “I am the way, the truth, and the life”, it referred to the very state of consciousness he was speaking from at that moment. Clever? Stupid? Demonically inspired? I’m open to hearing what you think, obviously I understand it’s the wrong interpretation to most Christians and that it seems to be uselessly denigrating Christ and egotistically raising all mankind to his position or something like that.

>I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

Something of an actual union with Christ’s divine nature isn’t necessarily heretical, but referenced in the New Testament itself. “...yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”

Brilliant post

The trinity is just nonsense like transubstantiation. There's nothing to understand, it's never made sense, it's not supposed to make sense. It's a shit test, really. Just believe and repeat what you are told or die. Catholics are retards who misinterpreted neoplatonist ideas and just killed anybody who didn't toe the party line.

truly based