Freethought & Rationalism Archive

proudfootz · 10-11-2012, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

What would that be? Let's make a start on this issue, shall we?

OK, I'll take a shot.

The recognition of Paul of the limits of the law, that the law provides a incomplete picture of the divine, that ultimate meaning comes from a higher, transcendent, non-verbal reality is similar to the dual nature of reality as explained by Plato.

Here's an article of interest where there is some discussion of hellenistic contributions to the development of what we know as 'christianity':

Quote:

PAULINE CHRISTOLOGY

Barry D Smith

...

5. The Identification of Jesus Christ with God

In spite of his use of different and even unsystematic terminology, the undeniable conclusion is that Paul identifies Jesus Christ with God. This is a remarkable position for a second-Temple Jew to hold, so much so that scholars sometimes cannot believe that Paul has such a high Christology. It should be noted that in his letters, Paul quotes from two early Christian hymns that bear a greater Hellenistic influence than what one would normally find in Paul's writings. He probably believed that borrowing from Hellenistic sources was desirable because there were not the conceptual tools available to him from Palestinian Jewish sources, written in Hebrew and Aramaic, in order to express his understanding of Jesus Christ.

...

5.1.1. “In the morphê of God” (2:6)

Before his coming in the likeness of a human being (en homoiomati anthrôpôn), Christ Jesus is said to have been in the form of God (en morphê theou). The meaning of morphê is varied in Greek literature and in Jewish texts written in or translated into Greek. In Greek and Jewish texts written in Greek meaning, most commonly the term morphê means outward appearance or shape. There is, however, a less common and philosophical meaning for morphê of "essential being" or "nature." This is found in Plato's writings and and especially in those of Aristotle. (It should be noted that the scholarly discussion on this topic has been immense, far too much to consider exhaustively.)

...

Not only were all things were created in Christ but it is further said that "All things continue to exist in him" (ta panta en autô sunestêken) (1:17). The verb sunestêkenai is used in the sense of "to continue to exist or endure." There are parellels to this use of the verb in ancient Greek sources. In Ep. Arist. 154 it is said, "Life continues to exist through nourishment" [to zên dia tês trophês sunestanai]). Likewise, Philo refers to how the body, consisting of clay and blood, continues to exist (sunestêke) and is made alive by the providence of God (Rer. Div. Her. 58). In Plato's cosmology the verb sunestêkenai is used to refer to how the artisan of the heavens put the heavens together and all that is in them and causes them to continue to exist (houtô sunestanai tôi tou ouranou dêmiourgôi auton te kai ta en autôi) (Rep. 530a; see the use of the verb in Tim. 61a). Likewise, in the Greek magical papyri the following statement occurs: "I call upon you, author of all creation, who spread your own wings over the whole world...who fitted all things together by your power (ta panta sunestêken) (PGM 4, 1769). The point is that all things are fitted together and continue to be fitted together by the supreme God. Finally, the closest religious-historical parallel to Col 1:17b is found in a Stoic text by Pseudo-Aristotle: it is said that the cosmos is a unity because, "All things are from God and continue to exist through God" (ek theou panta kai dia theon sunestêken) (De mundo 6). What is meant is that God in an imminentalist Stoic sense holds all things together in the unity in which they are found in the cosmos. At some point, the early church transferred the idea of the sustainer of the cosmos to Christ, so that it is Christ who holds together in a unity all the diverse parts of the cosmos. What is presupposed is that Christ is not a part of "all things" (ta panta) but is that by which they remain what they are, collectively the cosmos.

<more at link below>

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/pauline/Jesus.htm

This treatment of hellenistic contributions to christian thought seems a little more specific than the vague 'it's all in Genesis (somewhere)...'

Horatio Parker · 10-11-2012, 08:47 AM

You're pointing out, among the sermonizing, the differences.

No one is claiming they're identical. This is a straw man.

Plato's higher reality is reasoned; Paul's is revealed. But it's there for both of them. That is an affinity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

The limits of law as reflected by Abraham, who died justified by faith, without law, the Bible says. Which Greek pre-dated Abram?

What is there in the rest of the Bible, conceptually speaking, that is not already in Genesis? In the beginning is the ending.

Quote:

that the law provides a incomplete picture of the divine

But don't fret, says, Paul, we already know from birth more than we want to:

'Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.'

Now let's try not to behave like under-tens and argue about the truth of that, let's just try to discover which Greek, Egyptian or whoever Paul got this from.

But note again that, in the Pauline view, mankind did not need law in order to know right from wrong, to know guilt. Even if this is found to be derived, there is this, of Jesus, to the Areopagus in Athens:

'What you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.'
Ac 17:23 NIV

So after Plato, Paul tells the philosophers what Plato did not even try to do. Paul obviously did not pretend that Jesus was the supernal deity. But he did indicate that, though mankind knew from his own existence that he was guilty of sin with respect to the creator, now his knowledge of God was completed, as far as he needed to know it, by Jesus, who had atoned for all human evil. So now mankind knew all that he needed to.

Having said that, the author of Hebrews went further:

'He is the radiance of His [God's] glory and the exact representation of His nature' Heb 1:3 NASB

So here is the higher reality, immanent, revealed to mankind, as Paul told the Areopagus. Not a Platonic concept at all. Of course Plato could not have identified Jesus as the manifestation of higher reality, but not one philosopher can guarantee that he would not have done, had he lived as a contemporary, or later. Nobody can claim Plato.

'... and upholds all things by the word of His power.' Heb 1:3 NASB

By the word, the utterance, of the manifestation of deity. Not a Platonic idea. If that was not Paul, then Paul had the very same idea:

'Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word.' Eph 5:25-26 NIV

In the view of Paul, the essence of deity was utterance, expressed rationality, or logos, as the third sentence of Genesis showed him.

sotto voce · 10-11-2012, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

You're pointing out, among the sermonizing, the differences.

Paul is pointing out the differences. All I'm doing is quoting him, and explaining his contexts to facilitate comprehension of his view. As I wrote earlier, the main difference is that between working for salvation, however that may be envisaged, and having salvation fait accomplit. Now that is indeed felt as 'sermonising' because, for those who take the gospel message as having some validity, it immediately makes them feel in debt to the agent of salvation.

Quote:

No one is claiming they're identical.

No one is arguing that they are claiming that. One needs to see where Paul borrowed from Plato where Plato could not have borrowed from the OT.

And there is not a sliver of it, despite the current fashion that 'scholars' have discovered such things. People cite mere similarities of expression as similarities of meaning, but this is either very amateur indeed, stuff that even schoolchildren can see through, or deliberate misrepresentation. One may decide for oneself whether incompetence or the discomfort of 'sermonising' is responsible.

Quote:

Plato's higher reality is reasoned

Plato's hypothesis, as he reminded people, was conjecture. There is no argument from first principles.

Quote:

Paul's is revealed. But it's there for both of them. That is an affinity.

Like Marx and Adam Smith had an affinity! The only real similarities are that Plato had a sort of monotheism, and a moral sense of the common good. The latter was common; the former was not, though both may have been the result of Jewish influence, as indeed some have taught.

aa5874 · 10-12-2012, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

You're pointing out, among the sermonizing, the differences.

No one is claiming they're identical. This is a straw man.

Plato's higher reality is reasoned; Paul's is revealed. But it's there for both of them. That is an affinity.

Please, nothing could have been revealed to Paul from a non-existing resurrected Jesus or non-existing God of Moses.

The Pauline theology was derived either from written or oral sources or was fabricated.

One does NOT need revelations to make false claims.

It is imperative that the Pauline letters to properly dated in order to understand whether or not they had any influence at all on supposed early Christians.

Jyustin Martyr made references to Platonism in the 2nd century writings attributed to him and did NOT any time claim he had revelations for the resurrected Jesus.

It is most fascinating that ONLY the Pauline writer claimed that his Gospel was from Revelation of Jesus yet used Hebrew Scripture to develop his theology.

A close examination of the Pauline writings shows that the author used the books called Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. 1 Chronicles, 1 & 2 Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Malachi and Habakuk.

It is just NOT credible that the Pauline writer developed his theology by revelation of a resurrected non-existing character.

Clivedurdle · 10-12-2012, 02:53 AM

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...saul-of-tarsus

Quote:

Saul (whose Roman cognomen was Paul; see Acts xiii. 9) was born of Jewish parents in the first decade of the common era at Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts ix. 11, xxi. 39, xxii. 3). The claim in Rom. xi. 1 and Phil. iii. 5 that he was of the tribe of Benjamin, suggested by the similarity of his name with that of the first Israelitish king, is, if the passages are genuine, a false one, no tribal lists or pedigrees of this kind having been in existence at that time (see Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." i. 7, 5; Pes. 62b; M. Sachs, "Beiträge zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung," 1852, ii. 157). Nor is there any indication in Paul's writings or arguments that he had received the rabbinical training ascribed to him by Christian writers, ancient and modern; least of all could he have acted or written as he did had he been, as is alleged (Acts xxii. 3), the disciple of Gamaliel I., the mild Hillelite. His quotations from Scripture, which are all taken, directly or from memory, from the Greek version, betray no familiarity with the original Hebrew text. The Hellenistic literature, such as the Book of Wisdom and other Apocrypha, as well as Philo (see Hausrath, "Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte," ii. 18-27; Siegfried, "Philo von Alexandria," 1875, pp. 304-310; Jowett, "Commentary on the Thessalonians and Galatians," i. 363-417), was the sole source for his eschatological and theological system. Notwithstanding the emphatic statement, in Phil. iii. 5, that he was "a Hebrew of the Hebrews"—a rather unusual term, which seems to refer to his nationalistic training and conduct (comp. Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2), since his Jewish birth is stated in the preceding words "of the stock of Israel"—he was, if any of the Epistles that bear his name are really his, entirely a Hellenist in thought and sentiment. As such he was imbued with the notion that "the whole creation groaneth" for liberation from "the prison-house of the body," from this earthly existence, which, because of its pollution by sin and death, is intrinsically evil (Gal. i. 4; Rom. v. 12, vii. 23-24, viii. 22; I Cor. vii. 31; II Cor. v. 2, 4; comp. Philo, "De Allegoriis Legum," iii. 75; idem, "De Vita Mosis," iii. 17; idem, "De Ebrietate," § 26; and Wisdom ii.24). As a Hellenist, also, he distinguished between an earthly and a heavenly Adam (I Cor. xv. 45-49; comp. Philo, "De Allegoriis Legum," i. 12), and, accordingly, between the lower psychic. life and the higher spiritual life attained only by asceticism (Rom. xii. 1; I Cor. vii. 1-31, ix. 27, xv. 50; comp. Philo, "De Profugis," § 17; and elsewhere). His whole state of mind shows the influence of the theosophic or Gnostic lore of Alexandria, especially the Hermes literature recently brought to light by Reizenstein in his important work "Poimandres," 1904 (see Index, s. v. "Paulus," "Briefe des Paulus," and "Philo"); hence his strange belief in supernatural powers (Reizenstein, l.c. pp. 77, 287), in fatalism, in "speaking in tongues" (I Cor. xii.-xiv.; comp. Reizenstein, l.c. p. 58; Dieterich, "Abraxas," pp. 5 et seq.; Weinel, "Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister," 1899, pp. 72 et seq.; I Cor. xv. 8; II Cor. xii. 1-6; Eph. iii. 3), and in mysteries or sacraments (Rom. xvi. 25; Col. i. 26, ii. 2, iv. 3; Eph. i. 9, iii. 4, vi. 19)—a term borrowed solely from heathen rites.

sotto voce · 10-12-2012, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...saul-of-tarsus

An objective view, then.

Horatio Parker · 10-12-2012, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Paul is pointing out the differences. All I'm doing is quoting him, and explaining his contexts to facilitate comprehension of his view. As I wrote earlier, the main difference is that between working for salvation, however that may be envisaged, and having salvation fait accomplit.

So Christians do not work for salvation? Because you can't mean philosophers.

"the true lover of knowledge is always striving after being—that is his nature; he will not rest in the multiplicity of individuals which is an appearance only, but will go on—the keen edge will not be blunted, nor the force of his desire abate until he have attained the knowledge of the true nature of every essence by a sympathetic and kindred power in the soul, and by that power drawing near and mingling and becoming incorporate with very being, having begotten mind and truth, he will have knowledge and will live and grow truly, and then, and not till then, will he cease from his travail."

Quote:

No one is arguing that they are claiming that. One needs to see where Paul borrowed from Plato where Plato could not have borrowed from the OT.

And there is not a sliver of it, despite the current fashion that 'scholars' have discovered such things. People cite mere similarities of expression as similarities of meaning, but this is either very amateur indeed, stuff that even schoolchildren can see through, or deliberate misrepresentation. One may decide for oneself whether incompetence or the discomfort of 'sermonising' is responsible.

The dual tradition has been discredited for centuries. You might as well claim the lunar landings were faked, or the earth flat.

Quote:

Plato's hypothesis, as he reminded people, was conjecture. There is no argument from first principles.

There is indeed an argument, but no proof as demonstrated in the Parmenides. Doubt and questioning are not sins. All conclusions are by necessity conditional.

Quote:

Like Marx and Adam Smith had an affinity! The only real similarities are that Plato had a sort of monotheism, and a moral sense of the common good. The latter was common; the former was not, though both may have been the result of Jewish influence, as indeed some have taught.

I've never studied economics, but I'm sure there are affinities between Marx and Smith.

"Now, that which imparts truth to the known and the power of knowing to the knower is what I would have you term the idea of good, and this you will deem to be the cause of science, and of truth in so far as the latter becomes the subject of knowledge; beautiful too, as are both truth and knowledge, you will be right in esteeming this other nature as more beautiful than either; and, as in the previous instance, light and sight may be truly said to be like the sun, and yet not to be the sun, so in this other sphere, science and truth may be deemed to be like the good, but not the good; the good has a place of honour yet higher."
[...]
"the good may be said to be not only the author of knowledge to all things known, but of their being and essence, and yet the good is not essence, but far exceeds essence in dignity and power."

"in reality justice was such as we were describing, being concerned however, not with the outward man, but with the inward, which is the true self and concernment of man: for the just man does not permit the several elements within him to interfere with one another, or any of them to do the work of others,—he sets in order his own inner life, and is his own master and his own law, and at peace with himself; and when he has bound together the three principles within him, which may be compared to the higher, lower, and middle notes of the scale, and the intermediate intervals—when he has bound all these together, and is no longer many, but has become one entirely temperate and perfectly adjusted nature, then he proceeds to act, if he has to act, whether in a matter of property, or in the treatment of the body, or in some affair of politics or private business; always thinking and calling that which preserves and co-operates with this harmonious condition, just and good action, and the knowledge which presides over it, wisdom, and that which at any time impairs this condition, he will call unjust action, and the opinion which presides over it ignorance."

Horatio Parker · 10-12-2012, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please, nothing could have been revealed to Paul from a non-existing resurrected Jesus or non-existing God of Moses.

Just because there was no historical Jesus does not mean that Jesus has no existence.

sotto voce · 10-12-2012, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Paul is pointing out the differences. All I'm doing is quoting him, and explaining his contexts to facilitate comprehension of his view. As I wrote earlier, the main difference is that between working for salvation, however that may be envisaged, and having salvation fait accomplit.

So Christians do not work for salvation?

How can a christian work for salvation? People don't know what the word means.

Quote:

Because you can't mean philosophers.

You could try looking up the meaning of that word, too.

Quote:

Plato's hypothesis, as he reminded people, was conjecture. There is no argument from first principles.

Quote:

There is indeed an argument, but no proof as demonstrated in the Parmenides.

Well done.

Quote:

Doubt and questioning are not sins.

Oh, dear.

proudfootz · 10-12-2012, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please, nothing could have been revealed to Paul from a non-existing resurrected Jesus or non-existing God of Moses.

Just because there was no historical Jesus does not mean that Jesus has no existence.

Exactly - Jesus could have an existence like Job or Jonah: as a character used in literature to express some set of ideas.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.