I want to get knee deep in Christian theology and really want to understand its history and teachings much better...

There is the other side of this too, when you read a modern interpretation of some theologians writing you also have there interpretation according to to what bran of Christianity they fallow. Roman Catholic is not like Orthodox and Baptist is not like Lutheran, and most protestant churches are not like the Episcopal/Anglican church. And a no matter what anyone says, each theologian has there own point to push in religion, some times they even argue with the bible. And know that the history of Christianity and western history, go hand and hand.

>Theology isn't physics.

The hell are you on about? Who said it was?

The guy he was replying to made an analogy about it that was a bit stupid. Yes, you need a philosophy background to understand Aquinas because Aquinas was a philosopher writing for other philosophers (the academics of his time). CS Lewis is dumbed down yes, but it is a very good starting point because Lewis was a writer and Professor of English who wrote for the common man as well as other Academics of the modern era.

Lewis was a good writer but a crummy theologian, or more accurately, he wasn't a theologian. Talking about God doesn't make you a theologian anymore than talking about a person makes you a psychologist.

Theology isn't art, it's a science (in the original meaning of the term, not the narrow corrupted sense). Like a science there is a right and a wrong manner and order in which to study things. Notions are built up upon each other. Aquinas wrote the Summa assuming that anyone who studied it would already be familiar with Aristotelian metaphysics, because in a medieval university they studied philosophy before studying theology, because you can't understand something like God being an unmoved mover until you understand the concept of motion as the actualization of a potentiality.

Hence the physics analogy. People don't jump straight into physics, first they study things like algebra and calculus, because physics is partially derived from algebra and calculus. You can't understand a particle being in a particular eigenstate until you know what the hell an eigenvector is, which is linear algebra, not physics. Why would theology be any different?

This :^)

Seriously, read the bible. I recommend the Norton Critical KJV for the amazing quality of its notes.

You should also read the following:
-Some Platonic Dialogues, at least the Timaeus, because for a long time (ie, for most of early Christian history) it was the only dialogue of his that was widely studied. I'm talking well into the Middle Ages.
-Aristotle, the Metaphysics if nothing else.
-Plotinus, the Neoplatonist. His works of long, so I recommend The Essential Plotinus edited by Elmer O'Brian. Very representative, and deeply influential.

And then you'll be ready for the most important step: the church fathers:
-Origen, Commentary on the Book of John
-Tertullian, Apology and On the Testimony of the Soul
-AUGUSTINE, if you read nobody else. Confession and City of God
-The Desert Fathers (most didn't write, their sayings and stories are collected in...), "Apophthegmata Patrum"

And now for hard mode:
-Anselm, Prosologion (very short, introduces the ontological argument. Very comfy, and perfect to get you in the mood for..._
-THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica. Seriously. At least try to tackle it. Very grand, sweeping, comprehensive, and, for centuries, "the Glory of the Catholic faith." Fucking Joyce read it.

Good luck, pilgrim. Speaking of pilgrims, add the Canterbury Tales in there somewhere during your leisure to relax and reflect.

PS, try Hippocrates Apostle's translation of the Metaphysics. I think it's pretty crummy personally, but it adheres to traditional (ie, Latinized) translations of key Greek terms, like "Essence" and "Substance," which should make reading the other Latin Fathers (including and especially Aquinas) easier. DON'T read Joe Sachs (which I'd recommend otherwise), because he reinvents the wheel in the search for non-Latin words for his translation.

Some here have suggested the ancient and medieval church fathers, and they are interesting reads, sure enough. To them, I would add the Church History by Eusebius, which gives a critical late Roman account of church history (though it includes many inaccuracies).

Modern theology begins with Spinoza, but it is the 19th century Germans beginning with Schleiermacher that you should really look at. The Life of Jesus Critically Examined by David Strauss is one of the first truly rigorous attempts to find the historical Jesus by textual and historical analysis. I would also suggest the Essence of Christianity by Feuerbach for a more critical and humanistic approach from the same period (1830s and 1840s).

I would also behoove you to study Julius Wellhausen (1870s and onward), whose documentary hypothesis is the basis for the modern scholarly approach to how the Old Testament was constructed and edited together.

As for Bibles, the New Oxford Annotated Bible is the one I used. Its notes and appendices do a nice job of teaching the history of both the text and biblical analysis.

No Boethius?

The New Testament, Saint Irenaeus, the Cappadocian Fathers, Saint John Chrysostom.

Please read Nicolaus Cusanus and Pseudodionysius OP. Thanks.

>Modern theology begins with Spinoza
Spinoza is foundation of (modern) non-theology epistemology in the West.

> The Life of Jesus Critically Examined by David Strauss is one of the first truly rigorous attempts to find the historical Jesus by textual and historical analysis.
Yes, but recommending him to start historical study of Christ is like recommending Gibbon to start study of the fall of the Roman Empire.

In my experience with Augustine, Aquinas, etc., it was quite enriching to read some Islamic thinkers as well: Avicenna especially. The ancient commentaries on Aristotle are essential as well, from Porphyry, Boethius, etc. Abelard did some good stuff too. Also Plotinus.

Aristotle said their is no thought that is not tainted by sense impressions, there is no part of our essence (soul) that is free from our senses. The two, to Aristotle, are co dependent; when the body dies, the soul perishes with it. Read De Anima and his Methaphysics, it's in there.

Aristotle was not a forerunner of Christianity.

Here's an article you might find interesting.

schillerinstitute.org/fidelio_archive/1993/fidv02n01-1993Sp/fidv02n01-1993Sp_049-why_st_thomas_aquinas_is_not_an.pdf

this is crazy talk

>Aristotle was not a forerunner of Christianity.
Yes, but he was important for the early, critical Christian thinkers, mainly in helping to bridge Neoplatonism and Christian dogma: the former helping to resolve the realism of Aristotle.

How exactly? If he was opposed to the ideas of Platonism, and therefore in some degree opposed to the ideas that made Christianity possible, how did he manage to bridge the two?

The earliest source of Aristotle's teachings accessible to early Christian thinkers mainly came from Porphyry's commentaries on The Metaphysics. Porphyry, being a student of Plotinus, reinterpreted Aristotle to fit with his master's teachings. Where Aristotle's categories were merely predicative in their capacity for revealing the already existent world of things, Porphyry reversed this and made the categories primary and ontologically existent: which made it an easy fit for taking Being as God, etc.

Could you explain to me how Platonism made Christianity possible? I certainly see how it is fundamental to Augustine's theology, but not to fundamental Christian theology.

Before getting into extra-biblical material, you're going to want to get a good grasp of the New Testament. Grab a modern literal translation, like the ESV or NASB and read through it at least twice. Try to remember to make a note or confusing/contradictory passages, and look them up when you can. I'd suggest specifically commentaries from reformed theologians and puritans, but since you're new you'll probably want to stay open minded towards it.

Once you have a decent grasp the of New Testament (how one is saved, what Jesus meant when he said X, modern Christian ethics) then you already have a solid grasp of Christian theology and will pretty much know what you want to look for.

Oh yeah, the Isagoge.

Simone Weil.

Why is the Confessions historical and not theological?

>or confusing/contradictory passages
*of* confusing/contradictory passages

I'm not sure if anyone can prove that Platonism made Christianity possible. As far as the origins of Christian thought go however, Neoplatonism was a fundamental theoretical backdrop. As far as later developments in theology, it continued to be influenced by developments throughout the history of philosophy: most notably in Kant and Schleiermacher, and systematic theology in Karl Barth influenced by Hegel.

For all you've said you mind as well posted a funny frog picture.

...

Did you not see all the devotional rather than theological texts in the images?

> Why would theology be any different?

Because it's a series of essentially literary speculations on the unknowable. Because it isn't fucking physics, you life-wasting moron.

is that a Gregory sadler pepe?

rarest of all the pepes

Transubstantiation is understood using distinctly Aristotelian notions of substance and accident. The soul is understood using distinctly Aristotelian notions of hylomorphism. Natural law ethics is understood using distinctly Aristotelian notions of essence and final causes.

The arguments that people like Aquinas use to prove the immortality of the soul are completely in line with Aristotelianism. You seem to think that if one believes in the soul they must believe in a dualist/Cartesian type of soul, i.e. a material substance joined with a spiritual substance. But Aquinas explicitly denies this. The soul in Thomistic philosophy is the formal aspect of a person. You say that there is no thought that is not "tainted" by sense impressions? Guess what, Aquinas agrees with you. Go read Aristotle yourself, he himself says that the soul must be immaterial in order to grasp forms. Oh, and HE ALSO SAYS THAT THE SOUL IS IMMORTAL.

>And this [the intellect] alone is immortal and perpetual.
-De Anima, III 5.

Well it's pretty fucking unknowable when it's being done by Protestants, I'll give you that.

It's both, but mainly autobiographical with a bit of theology at the end.

>Plato and Plotinus without Ficino
>Aristotle without Aquinas' comments
>Aquinas without the Catena Aurea

ooooooohhhh you're one of thoooooooose priiiiiiiicks

University lectures. Yale is a good one.

you don't read

john zizizoulas

st isaac the syrian

There's something wrong about this article, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

...

>I want to get knee deep in Christian theology and really want to understand its history and teachings much better

Alongside what's on the list I would strongly recommend Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman, Europe and Faith by Hilaire Belloc, Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger and Aquinas by Edward Feser.

It's true. Doubt of the cartesian type was introduced into Christianity by protestants and Catholic heretics, Kierkegaard and Pascal being some of the most guilty ones.

He's trying to say physics is much harder to understand than theology.

But medieval theology still isn't something you can read without a lot of prior knowledge.

I've never liked that list, it was made by persons who weren't familiar with half of it.

The "bread pill" reading list is better.

...

It's also pretty mediocre. There are a few crucial authors those lists miss.

Don't want to hijack the thread but could someone give some recommendations for the orthodox churches?

Even if he claimed it was mortal, it would not be as important considering the fact that he is not a dogma.
He is an influence and the best basis for understanding things outside of faith itself. As an user before mentioned, metaphisics, soul, natural law, ethics and such are all given a rational basis. Without something akin to it (and it could be something other than Aristotle, but he is the closest to Christianity) we would dissolve into fideism like protestants and EO did.
Sayings of the Desert Fathers, Philokalia, Way of the Pilgrim, The Brothers Karamazov. It's relatively poor compared to the western church, or the orthodox shills aren't well read in it. Either way these get mentioned.

"On the Absence and Unknowability of God" by Christos Yannaras is the pinnacle of Greek Orthodox theology

>tfw you study law and can't spend half of your days reading Aristotle and Aquinas

Just checked it on Amazon. Apparently it's also about Heidegger?

Reading list here
pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x

Also see
It's not that we have a poverty of theology, it's more just that our theology hasn't developed since ancient times (which, from our perspective, is a good thing). So we generally reference ancient theologians that Catholics also approve of.

No, the pinnacle of our theology is the Gospels.

how do we improve the reading lists?

I'll make a new one in a few months, I've read a lot of good shit.

Development is different to writing new books on contemporary subjects. Feser doesn't develop metaphysics in a new way, MacIntyre doesn't invent new ethics, it's building on the same ground in a different time concerning different problems.
Of course development in general had to have happened and John Henry Newman has a magnificent book on the subject.

This is basically correct.

As to history, the best is Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition. Also Leo Donald Davis' First Seven Ecumenical Councils.

The people you're talking about are more philosophers than theologians.

>Of course development in general had to have happened
For Latins, maybe. We reject that idea, our theology is about preserving the ancient understanding, not about a changing understanding.

>There's something wrong about this article, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

No you just aren't understanding it correctly.

He claims that Aquinas must not be an Aristotelian because Aquinas wrote that we shouldn't dismiss anything pagans said, and therefore Aquinas must not be a follower of that pagan Aristotle, and only wrote all those commentaries and works of philosophy in which Aquinas explains and defends Aristotelian philosophy as a way of defending Christianity against Aristotle.

He then claims that therefore Aquinas must be a Platonist (Plato as we all know invented Christianity and was a sworn enemy of Aristotle). This he proves by extensively quoting Augustine, which of course was a pseudonym Aquinas used in his early life.

He then cites a single aspect of Aquinas's theology, that of the Divine Mind, which Aquinas took from Plato and which isn't in Aristotle (thus of course invalidating all the things that Aquinas took directly from Aristotle).

He also proves that Aquinas rejects Aristotle's logic, not, as the naive layman might expect, by referencing Aquinas's commentaries on Aristotle's logical works, but instead by referencing the format of the Summa. Aquinas, he claims, clearly rejects the syllogism, because he addresses counter-arguments to his position. Aristotle of course famously denied the existence of counter-arguments.

[1/2]

[2/2]

He then points to the discussion of infinity done in the 19th century. Most scientists of the 19th century were of course Aristotelians, as can be demonstrated from the fact that if they weren't then this argument would be ridiculous.

He goes on to cite the fact that Aquinas says that God's will moves itself “in the same sense as understanding and willing are said to be movement.” This of course is a clear rejection of the position of St. Thomas Aquinas, a known theologian, in Question 9 of the Summa Theologica where he states that “it is manifest that God cannot be moved” and that “because God understands and loves Himself, in that respect [Plato and Augustine] said that God moves Himself, not, however, as movement and change belong to a thing existing in potentiality, as we now speak of change and movement.”

Finally he points out that Aristotle was not a Catholic, as most so-called Thomists erroneously assume, and did not believe those things only known through revelation. Aristotle did not know about the Trinity, and therefore did believe in any errors concerning the Trinity later held by heretics (this might seem incorrect to those who subscribe to Aristotelian logic but, as already explained, Aquinas believed in negative logic in which one proves positives from negatives).

Finally, he shows that Aquinas believed in goodness, which is in clear conflict with Aristotle, the founder of hedonism. Aristotle, he points out, maintains that happiness is the last end of man, whereas Aquinas says “man's last end is happiness.” Aristotle foolishly believes that happiness consists in an intellectual activity which Aquinas deftly disproves by pointing out that “Therefore man's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, which is an act of the intellect.”

Thus we have proved conclusively and without any possibility of doubt that Paul McCartney was in fact the second shooter on the grassy knoll.

bump

How do you think idea of Trinity came around?
It wasn't there in the start.
Aristotle belongs in the platonic tradition and being Aristotelian doesn't mean a dogmatic follower of Aristotle.
It's accusing Aquinas of not being aristotelian because he was first and foremost a Catholic.

what av u read?

?
Not sure I understand, auto correct fucked it up for you or something, but lots of Belloc, Feser, MacIntyre, Ratzinger and such.

what have you read?*

Whoever wrote it was daring enough to trace Platonism and Aristotelianism to their logical conclusions in an effort to infer something about the motivation/worldview of their authors. This means he thought critically and analytically. He didn't just parrot the same fun facts that have become common opinion. I also doubt anyone ITThas read Aquinas at any length.

I also doubt anyone ITThas read Aquinas at any length.
At least two of us have. One other user here did and it shows.

I've read around 700 pages of him, most being political and legal philosophy, and two books on Aquinas.