Orthodox thread

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.

Other urls found in this thread:

oodegr.co/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=SFcxSArewjo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

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?

>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

Please actually cite primary sources.

>if you disagree with Nietzsche or point out a flaw in his ideas, you're resentful of him
Eh?

>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.

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.

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.

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?

OP please respond and tell us more about Orthodoxy. Sincerely Prottie

This guy gets it
It would be a lot cooler if you actually made an orthodoxy thread about orthodoxy (say their mystical tradition for instance) rather than pulling up name of a philosopher that you dislike and showing us how much you suck at reading.

Can you stop derailing the thread and being an asshole please?

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

Yeah, but now you've scared him away with your autistic fact-checking and I just wanted to hear about Orthodoxy for once.

Then stay tuned because they start one of those about once an hour for the rest of the day

Really?
Hey OP, do your homework and get back to us okay?

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.

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.

>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.

>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

*KGBodox
fixed you

>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.

OuterLimits is that you?

>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.

>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: 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.

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.

youtube.com/watch?v=SFcxSArewjo

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.

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

did you take that photo yourself Constantine?

What you call second temple beliefs were penned in captivity in Babylon/Persia.

So yes, they were very much current.

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.

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.

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*

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.

>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.

I wouldn't post any of the photos I took myself, if you know what I mean. Too risky.

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.

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

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.

I'm not that guy (I'm ) 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

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.

Tertullian is considered heretical by both Catholics and Orthodox

Zoroaster was never portrayed as born from a virgin before Christ

Sorry, was meant for

>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.

Zoroastrianism doesn't hold that he was born of a virgin, they believe that the 'savior' at the end of time will be.

Yeah that was my bad, see

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

Whatever, I mean there is no source of that prior to Christ.

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.

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

...

Early Golden Dawn volunteer battalions in Srebrenica,they were the one that liberated Orthodox church in the city.

>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

...

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.

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.

You can't even be considered a Church Father in Orthodoxy without being a saint.

Zoroaster was dead a thousand years before the Persians meet the Jews.

I thought the Golden Dawn were neopagan

Pic taken in Russian church of Holy Trinity in Belgrade. This dude lookes like wax figure of Frank Underwood to me.

Hell no,as far as i know most of them are ultra orthodox, like Codreanu or Ljotic were.

...

I'm a bit puzzled by this. This suggests the influence flowed from Zoroastrians > Jews more than anything else.

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

...

>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).

>that didn't exist in Judaism

They're all in Job and the Psalms, at minimum. Job is likely 3500 to 4000 years old.

...

John was an amazing figure. The insights in what he wrote really are other-worldly

Used to be but that repulsed people so they changed.

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.

>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.

...

Churches don't vote on who saints are.

The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit determines who the saints are.

Nope.

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

>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.

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.

>Revelations are prophecy

Southern Baptist spotted

>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

Armenian fedayii

...

now i need some help here.Pic related is Cezare Mori,italian fascist politician.Why is there Orthodox priest behind him?

>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.

...

Saint Jerome is a Southern Baptist?

Presumably because there are Orthodox people there.

Are you one of those idiots who believes a certain retard's theory that Zoroaster was alive around Cyrus' time?

>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

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)

Satan is not opposed to God in Job. I don't see any mention of a final judgment in there either.

I get that but Mori wasstationed in Sicily, how many orthodox people are in Sicily.

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!"

It's just a lie. They date back to the 9th and 10th century CE.

You're easily confused.

>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.

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.

>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.

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.

He might have been meeting with an ambassador from an Orthodox country.

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.

>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.

Zoroaster wasn't alive when the Persians met the Jews.

I wasn't being serious. I've already pointed out to that idiot that age of a manuscript = age of its contents and that the antiquity and continuity of Zoroastrian beliefs is well corroborated

But he keeps shilling his retarded fringe theories