Who is the greatest theologian of all time? If all the great theologians had a debate, who would win...

>verge on the thin line
The guy was an absolute heretic, there are no two ways about it.

That said, also a genius and tremendous contributor to Biblical scholarship, and we can't get around being indebted to him for that.

'sup?

Between just the Abrahamic religions a Jew would be the most likely to win. The Christians are trying to reconcile differences and disputes between two different books. The Muslims three.

The Jews have the easiest task. Also the other guy's books are dependent on the Jews book for the foundation and its' the one the Jews are most familiar with.

I think a more intellectual religion like Taoism, Buddhism or Confucianism would be able to beat a Jew because it can take the high ground and deal in strict ethics/metaphysics while beating down the Jews for their superstition.

JIDF detected.

St. Augustine

Thomas Aquinas gets an honorable mention for being the only decent one in the West. Most of the good stuff in terms of religion comes from the East, so I'll have to go with Laozi overall.

muslims can simply say jews and christians corrupted the holy books. christians cant really say that to jews.

>laozi
Eh.

I'm more down with abhinavagupta.

He pretty much took that from the Neoplatonists
Hence he didn't invent shit

"Whatever is good about Christianity is not new, and what is new is not good." Alain de Benoist.

how do you 'win' a theological debate?

This.

Attack their epistemology.

By killing the opposition and burning their books

The same way you win any other debate.

Beat them with a stick.

Shouldn't a debate be about self-reflexion and broadening your horizons, instead of 'winning'?

buy burning them because you're a fucking idoit that believes in a sky fairy..

>said the atheist who would of gotten burned on the stake

>Between just the Abrahamic religions a Jew would be the most likely to win
this is wrong
Completely wrong. Rabbis always get rekt. Video related:
youtube.com/watch?v=5xVkKkpo-lk

You can cherry pick out examples but historically Jews have been the better Old Testament scholars (makes sense since it's their book and they are the only ones that speak the origenal language). Historically the top Jewish theologians have beat the top Christian theologians in debates.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputation_of_Barcelona

The Jew won the debate so hard that they tried to censor the results. What an asskicking!

I think if you were to dig up a Neo-Platonic they would have a good shot at winning the whole thing. Since what are generally considered the top Christian, Jewish, and Islamic philosophers borrow heavily from his tradition, he could focus on the incompability of their book and Neo-Platonism (ie a supreme God would not get angry, nor directly do much of his own work he'd create servents)

>hey are the only ones that speak the origenal language

Is this a meme? Are you implying Jerome, Augustine etc didn't understand Hebrew?

>I think a more intellectual religion like Taoism, Buddhism or Confucianism
>a more intellectual religion

Oh boy..

Not him, but there's no indication that Paul understood Hebrew, let alone later Christian scholars.

I mean hell, you never see things like noting how 1 Corinthians 15:54 doesn't match the Hebrew of Isaiah 25:8, despite clearly quoting from it.

>how do you 'win' a theological debate?
The Jewish residents of Barcelona, fearing the resentment of the Dominicans, entreated him to discontinue; but the king, whom Nahmanides had acquainted with the apprehensions of the Jews, desired him to proceed. At the end of the disputation, king James awarded Nahmanides a prize of 300 gold coins and declared that never before had he heard "an unjust cause so nobly defended." On the Shabbat after the debate, the king also attended the Sinagoga Major de Barcelona, arguably one of the oldest synagogues in Europe, and addressed the Jewish congregants there, "a thing unheard of during the Middle Ages".

But Michael Brown is a Jew, too.

>You can cherry pick out examples

Not him, but you haven't done anything else yourself.

The Jews frankly have a better background in Hebrew. They are only the race in the world that would speak it in normal conversations they would be the masters of the language. Old Testament is Hebrew home turf. The Christians are forced to wade through this and search for texts and make Jesus fufill a Messiah prophecy: something that historically they have been completly BTFO by the Jews in debates. Take the Disruption of Barcelona where the Jew shows on of the appearances of "Jesus" is actually refering to the collective Jewish people and the Christians have been taking it out of context for centuries.

Islamic likewise have to go into the Hebrew home turf and try to find evidence of Islamic theology.

Both the Christians and Muslim have an enormously difficult task, not only by having to constantly play in the Jewish home turf but a direct reading of the text tends to make them lose, their search for Jesus and Allah always involves more liberal readings of the text (metaphors etc). These are hardest types of readings to justify and the easiest to defeat since they often do not make sense in the context of the entire chapter.

I like how you completely ignored the point about why they would have an easier time winning and focused on your trigger.

No Karl Barth yet?

Arius

In the Buddhist world it's gotta be Nagarjuna.

He reframed the faith into a logical system based on philosophical arguments and proofs, in order to counter all the Hindu schools around him who relentlessly attacked Buddhism for being too experiential.

His work would go on to have massive impact on every form of Buddhism one way or another, especially Mahayana, Vajrayana and Zen. If you have to sum him up in one way, think of him as the guy who formulated the "emptiness" doctrine.

But i don't really care about his point, i'm not arguing against him.

Just noticed his bs statement.

>Also the other guy's books are dependent on the Jews book for the foundation and its' the one the Jews are most familiar with.
The Christian would just argue that the old book need to be viewed with a Christian lens and that all along there were hidden Christian prophecies the Jews simply don't understand (posters on Veeky Forums do this constantly by the way).
The Muslim would simply argue that the prior texts have been skewed over the centuries and only their book has truly flawless divine origin.

Nahmanides is pretty goddamn impressive when you realize that "debates" back then were akin to passion plays in that they were just supposed to drum up jew hate.

this

So every other scholastic theologian from the 12th century to the 17th century were bad according to you? Why ?

says more about King James being a real man than Nahmanides's skill at debate. I imagine a much lesser king just torturing the poor guy to death no matter how impressive the speech

The Dominicans had legitimate debates with the Cathars as well for a while before the church decided that it would just be easier to crusade them. The utilization of Aristotle in part came from that since Cathars liked Aristotle and the missionaries wanted to be able to debate and convince the Cathars on neutral ground, since appealing to dogma that they didn't believe in was'nt going to get them anywhere.

That guy should have won. His arguments were scriptural and logical.

The only reason he lost is because a bunch of pissbaby bishops used what boils down to "muh feelings".

In theory. In practice it's about beating down anyone who would dare step up to your opinions backed by fact and your semantic talents. The latter is much more fun and honestly, some people need their ideas to be shit on because they're wrong.

...

seconded

Al Ghazali curbs stomps everyone with the TRUTH of Allah.

Are you retarded?
Jews spoke aramaic in normal conversations
Hebrew was reserved for the synagogues

>m-muh feels
>w-why didn't the scripture agree with me
>ow my face ;_;
t. Arius

>>m-muh feels
Literally the argument used against Arius.
Try again, St. Prickolas.

Up till like the 9th century; then Aramaic fell into disuse. And as a scholarly/theological language, it hung around for a long, long time.

Paul

1st theologian.

youtube.com/watch?v=WkcjFHYIugY

i like this post