Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

It's hard to say if it was a misappropriation or not. They used the language and concepts available to them via their Greek educations. That it was a major influence is undeniable, but their intent isn't so clear. I don't see why an educated person of that time couldn't prefer Xtianity yet retain the language of Greek philosophy. How many of their hugely illiterate congregants could understand Plato?

Originally Posted by Chili

All ousia's are divine in that the primary premise is always ours by intuition.
Ousia's are insights that require our participation to fill in the missing premiss by way of first hand insight into the minor or the conclusion. They so are called second or third order enthymemes, and they are enthymematic because they require our cooperation (engagement) to fill in the missing premiss to complete the argument (as if there is nothing else in life except the real life experiment).

Enthymemes are 'outside talk' (paralogism) that are a likeness such as 'like god' in Gen. 3 that is iconic and probe-able as probability. It so is not a phantasm that would send us on a 'wild goose chase' with no results and so therein is the invitation for us to probe. So if then, 'like god' is iconic it already contains the promise that we can become God, now with capital G . . . except that here now 'we' are probable to require this same insight.

In the 'ousia' we gain insight and see the essence itself, hint hint, that has an 'it-ness' about it that exists prior to the exterior that we first saw when we began our probing so that we now see the horseness of a horse, as if for the first time, the good shepherd would say. It so is now easy to see that the horseness of a horse is what made the horse 'the particular' we see, wherefore then the word einai, or soul, has no plural in the Greek language, and so there is nobody like you, or me. All easy to follow, I am sure.

The 'divine ousia' you may have in mind is the final Form or parousia wherein we are the subject of our probing that so is called a 1st Order Enthymeme because here the major as missing and the middle and conclusion are already in place.

So now we know 'what we have' and 'who we are' (or pretend to be), but with the major missing we ask ourselves 'how we came to be' since we 'do' recognize the divine component of our inspired second or third premiss that were always supplied and actually prompted our inquiry to gain these prior ousia's (insights). This here then is how the son co-exists with the father in Stephen OP, which in the end is very simple put as 'monoploid seed' of the father wherein the son has lineage with the father (with no doubt about it).

So in this final first, 'like god' is a missing major and so that we find the major now and become the God that was promised in the icon that was called: 'like god.'

Parousia then was the final Form of Plato and his Forms were simple ousia's and the final here then is where sonship with the father is made manifest.

Originally Posted by Chili

Well of Plato stands for truth and truth is real, Plato emerges by illumination in the same was a s Paul was eye witness to Jesus.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Are you and I both reasonable people?

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

I don't see why an educated person of that time couldn't prefer Xtianity yet retain the language of Greek philosophy.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The word dialectic originated in Ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues. The dialectical method is dialogue between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by dialogue, with reasoned arguments.
...
Socrates favoured truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic. Socrates valued rationality (appealing to logic, not emotion) as the proper means for persuasion, the discovery of truth, and the determinant for one's actions.

Originally Posted by tanya

Christianity, following its progenitor, Judaism, strives for OBEDIENCE, and FAITH, not reason.

Originally Posted by Chili

No they were not that deep, but deep enough to write book that we have been fighting over now for 2000 years, because we just do not understand much of it at all.

Originally Posted by tanya

Christianity, following its progenitor, Judaism, strives for OBEDIENCE, and FAITH, not reason.

The two: Greek Socratic method, and Christian dogma, are antithetical, and immiscible. Thomas Aquinas, notwithstanding, there is no way to reconcile the two.

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Perhaps reason leads to faith, and thence to obedience.

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

This sounds too temporal; to my mind these ideas all exist in the eternal Now.