If you read Plato's "Republic" he states all of the modern christian views as good ways of teaching children to behave in society. The thought that children should have a completely good hero or god to look up too and emulate was the driving force behind the changing of pantheons to monotheism in the A.D.s. Children should not be exposed to stories about gods acting in ways that were thought to be "wrong" (such as Chronos killing his father Ouranos for the cruelties aouranos did to mankind and his offspring) because children would emulate what the gods or heroes did.

Plato wrote "The Republic" by around 380 BC. His theories of how to teach children to behave in society included a perfect single deity that was the source of all Good for children to model themselves after. Because society needs soldiers, and soldiers need moral he proposed that poets stop describing the afterlife as harsh and gloomy, but instead as a gift (so soldiers would no longer fear dying for the society). Plato also stated that this God would only punish the wicked, to benefit the wicked so their ways would change (because this God could cause no evil- so the punishment must be said to be just).

There are many other parts of christianity, or muslim, or whatever religion, that draw upon the same basics that plato said would be ideal as an image of god. Plato created the modern view of God in "The Republic". God is a work of fiction designed to teach children the values of society (another statement of Plato's- that fiction is used to teach children first, and then give them the facts is carried out by christianity). Some people do not grow out of their childhood, so they believe in god, and are used by preachers and televangelists. The bible is a work of fiction intended to teach children the proper way of life.

I like your info. It's very true that many elements of Plato's work (and other famous Greeks) are supported in the Bible. One professor at Gordon Conwell has said that of all the prophecies that Jesus walked into about 80% are from the OT and about 20% are pagan. Meaning that as the gospel advances, the elements it finds in a culture that are in agreement with its values, it utilizes for the advancement of the gospel message. This professor described this process as a purifying of the pagans' language, lifting it from its normal associations and applying it to Jesus.

Take for example this idea of Plato's. Men are shackled in a cave watching the back wall of the cave. There is a sort of fire (divine projector) behind him. Outside the cave in the heavens are the most lofty realities--ideas. These ideas shine down through the fire and we see a shadow of the realities on the wall. Hence we do not see a tree. We see "treeness". What is a true tree? It has an ideal in the heavens. Plato then postulates what would happen if someone were freed. and went outside the cave. First they would be blinded by the steep increase in light. He then would proceed to climb a sort of ladder into the heavenlies, the place of ideas and realities. What if this man would travel back down the ladder and go into the cave and try to tell others what he saw. Plato says they would kill that man.

Those who are familiar with the NT will immediately see the similarities with Jesus and Paul's writings.

I propose that the Bible uses the language that the Greeks have and are not directly derived from their theories (Acts 17:16-23). Also shared language and symbols does not mean shared core beliefs. The NT uses language from the Zoroastrians to describe the battles between light and darkness while differing greatly with them about core beliefs of dualities.

I don't think Plato and Christianity mesh as well as you say. Plato: Reason to know the good. Christianity: feeling to know "God." Seems to be a very basic conflict. Read "Against the Gallileans by Julian the apostate to get an idea of how a neo-platonist regarded Christianity.


http://www.iit.edu/~zehnaar

Plato's work was created outside of the bible. The new testament was created 400 years after much of Plato's work. Plato's ideas on the education of children in a society were carried out by the bible, and especially the NT.

Plato devised a system for educating children. You begin teaching the children with PSEUDOS (lies or fiction) and give them facts later. This fiction should be regulated so that children do not have heroes that kill each other over fits of rage. The ideal that children should have to aim for is a PERFECT GOD. This God is described as always being good, and this work of fiction is used to give the children something to emulate that will benefit society. Plato described this modern God as an ideal for children to shoot for.

You also stated:

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Meaning that as the gospel advances, the elements it finds in a culture that are in agreement with its values, it utilizes for the advancement of the gospel message. This professor described this process as a purifying of the pagans' language, lifting it from its normal associations and applying it to Jesus.

The message is there to give children an ideal to look up too, it is still a work of fiction. This gospel you speak of always adds to its message, borrowing from other cultures when it sees a new value or ideal to add to its CREATED image of God. This does not make the image they portray any more true, except to their own view of how God should be. The concept of purification is a nice dash of hate too through in the pie- but don't you think this goes against this ideal that you are creating?

Religions create a God in the image they most desire, and work throughout history to force other people's desires to accord with their own. The bible is a book that a group of people use to describe their ideal GOD, as the Koran is another description of an ideal God (just a slightly different view) and other religions all want their view to be deemed superior. The whole point is: these books are fiction, historical fiction, but fiction nonetheless.

Do not try to force ideals on other people by lying about the bible or the church OR Christianity as the source of all truth. They have been proven wrong to many times to hold that claim any longer.

Science: that which through proving portions of its thought wrong, refines itself and grows stronger: LIFE/GROWTH/EVOLUTION

Religion: that which is weakened by falsehoods in itself because of a claim to absolute knowledge and truth: STAGNATION

Sorry, this is argument from sign. It basically assumes that if two things have similarities than one caused the other. There is no historical link that would connect Plato to an understanding of the OT.

Moreover, it's based upon a Naive assumption about the nature of Biblical teaching. You are assuming that the only reason for the OT is to teach children to behave in society, that assumption seems to be read in from the argument for sign. The reason for religious views overall is the basic sense of the numenous. Histoirans of religion, psychologists who study religion, theologians and other shcolars all recognize (as a common place now days) that religious belief did not evolve out of mere pragmatic need to explian things or run socieity but exists because people have a strong sense of a neumenal quality in life. In other words, reigion is not reduceable to other fields, it is not merely failed primative science, not merely soical pragmatism. This is merely an example of fallacious reasoning taking itself too seriously.

That's why Justin Martyr said that Socrates was a previent sait, the logos of Heraclitus was Christ! God works in all cultures. That in no way indicates that Plato had any actual influence upon the Hewbrew faith.

There are many differences but even St. Paul recognizes that God is working in all cultures. In Romans 2 he says (v6) that to anyone who is follwoing the Good will grant glory, honor and eternal life. He goes on to say that the moral law on the heart becomes a law for the gentiles who dont'have that law and that if they follow this their hearts may excuse them. In Acts 17 he says that the Greeks who worship the "Unknown God" are worshiping God, they just don't know him. He also says "we are all his offsrping" and he says that people were put on the earth in the places where they live so that they might seek God and come to know him. To me this means that God is working in all clutures. It does not preclude Jesus as the perfect revelation of God to humanity, it means that if we live up to the light we have we are tacitly following Jesus even though we may not know that.

So we should not be surprized that Plato found some principles which were in sinck with God.

Bold Faced assumptions and infrmal fallacies: that which by arogance and sheer ignorance and will to power over others seeks to subvert truth with undounded assertions and bad understanding of history.


Here is a link to my Magical Jesus Mystery Tour baord upon which I discuss such theories, please come and contribute your theory there! I'd love to discuss it further.
Magical Mystery Jesus History Tour


Here are some quotes:

1) All of these following historians mention Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure who existed in the first century CE, or they mention Christ.
* Thallus (c. 50-75AD)
*Phlegon (First century)
* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)
* Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110)
* Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)
* Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)
* Galen (various writings, c.150)
* Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).
* Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)
* Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)
*Lucian (Second century)
*Numenius (Second cent.)
*Galerius (Second Cent.)
 
 
 
 

Before moving on let's compare these with first century sources that don't mention Jesus in order to see if there is a vast flood of info about the ancient world that doesn't speak of him.
 
 
2) First century Sources that don't mention Jesus

 
 
 [form JP Holding--Teckton Apologetics]
 
 
"A final consideration is that we have very little information from first-century sources to begin with. Not much has survived the test of time from A.D. 1 to today. Blaiklock has cataloged the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire (other than those of Philo) which have survived from the first century and do not mention Jesus. These items are":
 
 
* An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.
* An inscription that mentions Pilate.
* Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
* From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.
Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.
 
 
* From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.
* From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [Blaik.MM, 13-16]
 
 
"To this Meier adds [ibid., 23] that in general, knowledge of the vast majority of ancient peoples is "simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be." It is just as was said in his earlier comment on Alexander the Great: What we know of most ancient people as individuals could fit on just a few pieces of paper. Thus it is misguided for the skeptic to complain that we know so little about the historical Jesus, and have so little recorded about Him in ancient pagan sources. Compared to most ancient people, we know quite a lot about Jesus, and have quite a lot recorded about Him!"
 
 
 So there just aren't that many overall sources to go by in the first palce. But why wouldn't more of Jesus' contempoaries write about him?
 
 
3) Why Jesus wouldn't be mentioned more than he is.
 
 
 
 
 Jp Holding:
 
 
http://www.integrityonline15.com/jph..._01_01_01.html
 
 
We turn to John P. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 7-9] and Murray Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 24-27] for several reasons on this point:
a. Roman Historians were only concerned with issues that directly effected them where they lived, or pertained to the fortunes of the empire.
He didn't address the Roman Senate, worte no treatesies, histories, poems or palys, never travaled outside of Palestine, and did not change the socio-economic situation in Paltestine. He was a strictly local affair, of regional importance only, in his own lifetime.
Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?"
 
 
Jesus and History
On Line Electronic books
Edward C. Wharton http://www.scripturessay.com/cev1.html
From Pagan Sources
"Palestine of the first century has been referred to as an unimportant frontier province in the Roman Empire. Those provincial governors assigned to that region of the world were often thought to have received hardship posts. Too, those who wrote the history of Rome were in the upper strata of Roman society and usually had a personal dislike of Orientals, disapproved of their religions and looked upon their superstitions as very un-Roman. [Micahel Green , Runaway World, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 12.] This partially accounts for the little trickles of information that comes from their pens about the Christian religion. They wrote about it only as it forced its way into the mainstream of their view. Yet what they did write is proof positive that Jesus Christ was both a real person and that he had made such an impact upon society that the Roman world found it increasingly difficult to disregard him."
 
 
 
 
b. Jesus was not a big enough threat to the Romans
He was enough of a threat to warrent his exicution, but there had been many other Messianich "pretenders" who warrented harher treatment. The Romans never had to call out troops to quell a revolt led by Jesus or his followers.
 
 
c. His death as a criminal made him even more marginal, and as one of many criminals exicuted by Rome during their stay in Palestine he was unremarkable.

 
 
d. He was itinerant
J.P. Holding:
"Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?"
 
 
e. He was a nerdowell
Holding agin: "Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples."
f. He was unimportant, poor, migrant, in an empire the captial of which was very far away, ran by rich tyrannts and he could do nothing to imporve their power. Why should they have an interest in him?
 
 
 g. Not concerned with Roman gods
Jesus' bore a message of eschatological and spiritual significance about an obscure foreign God most Romans knew little about. They had no particular reason to see him as anything other than a strictly regional private matter concerning a religion that seemed barbaric and about which they had no interest.
 h. No evening News.
News travaled slowly, the distances were great. They had no mass communications. It took months for Rome to learn of events in Palestine, and most of the events there were of little interest to them. Moreover, his work only lasted three years. By the time he was begining to reach the height of his fame in Jerusalem word of his very existence might just be reaching Rome, where it would have been gretaed coldly with no real interest anyway. Than suddenly he was gone, exicuted as a torulbe maker and good ridence! Reports of his resurrection would not flood Rome as great astounding news, other supernatural claims were made all the time from all parts of the world, including Rome itself, so who would believe or care about this one?
 
 i. One of many wonder workers
 
  There were actually quite a few "wonder workers" and Messianic claimants in Jesus' time. In fact he may have seen one himself, a man called "The Egyptian" who led a revolt in Jesus' childhood, in The Galillee, but his followered were slaughtered and the Egyptian disappeared. Why should the Romans Take notice of just one more. (Now many will argue well see Jesus was just one more of these guys, but for an answer on that see "How do I know that Jesus is the Son of God?")
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 B. How Historians Look at Historicity
 
 
Histirans do not dismiss the historicity of a figure just because supernatural claims are invovled. They dismiss the cliams of the supernatual as a matter of ideological bias (ideological in the non-pajorative sense). But, they do not dismiss out of hand the existence of any particular individual just because he is bound up with superntural claims. Most ancient world figures in early history were bound up with such claims. Gilgamesh is the star of an ancient flood narrative which history takes to be mythical, but historians see Gilgamesh himself as an historical figure, probably king of ancient Sumer. Now in all fairness, most histoirans do not place much stock in Pliny the younger's account as proof of Jesus' historicity, most of them do not accept Thallas account at all, or Sarapion, but they accept without question that Jesus existed based upon the Gospels, and the accounts of Josephus and Tacitus.
 
 
 
 
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus, San Francisco: Harper, 1996,p.121
 
 
"...Non narrative New Testament writtings datable with some degree of probability before the year 70 testify to traditions circulating within the Chrsitian movement concerning Jesus that corrospond to important points within the Gospel narratives. Such traditions do not, by themselves, demonstrate historicity. But they demonstrate that memoires about Jesus were in fairly wide circulation. This makes it less likely that the corrosponding points within the Gospels were the invention of a single author. If that were the case than such invention would have to be early enough and authoritative enough to have been distributed and unchallenged across the diverse communities with which Paul delt. Such an hypothosis of course would work agaisnt the premise that Paul's form of christiantiy had little to do with those shaping the memory of Jesus."
 
 
"As I have tried to show, the character of the Gospel narratives does not allow a fully satisfying reconstruction of Jesus ministry. Nevertheless certain fundamental points when taken together with confirming lines of convergence from outside testimony and non-narrative New Testament evidence, can be regarded as historical with a high degree of probability.Even the most cirtical historian can confiently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was exicuted by crucifiction under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death. These assertions are not mathematically or metaphysically certain, for certainty is not within the reach of history. But they enjoy a very high level of proability."
 
 
The level of probablity is slightly less secure wtih the resurrection, but that is one of those points of convergence which meet steming form these three different points of origin (Gospels, epistles, and secular sources). It must be remebered that the epistles were written before the Gospels, except perhaps for Mark. So they do count as independent sources.

JP Holding

Objection: [Well.WhoW, 21; Well.JesL, 55] Even if the Josephus passages are genuine, they would be "too late to be of decisive importance."

"This objection is senseless; it would cause us to have to trash a great deal of ancient history! As Harris points out [Harr.3Cruc, 26] our best references to the Emperor Tiberius (14-37 AD) come from historians who lived much later than he did (Tacitus, c. 115 AD; Suetonius, c. 120 AD; Dio Cassius, 230 AD), so this is hardly reason to dismiss Josephus' testimony concerning Jesus! "




[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited January 21, 2001).]

That is the most exact description I have heard of Christianity so far. Thank you.
Although I would have attempted to correct my spelling.

I will respond to this deliberate Troll (since most of your comments begin with (this is silly, or this idiotic assumption)).

My professor at Penn State University must not have been a serious historian. What I learned was that the myths about Jesus were myths, as there has been no proof to authenticate the claims of Christians. In historical accounts, Christians were a very barbaric bunch masquerading as innocents. I supposed those were just the people claiming to be Christians however.

Once again:

Science: That which refines and strengthens itself by proving portions of itself as false, therefore being left with a more exact truth

Religion: That which is weakened by its claim to the Truth and Absolute knowledge when its views are constantly proven wrong by science
1. Earth Flat
2. Earth the center of the universe
3. new thought is detrimental to society
4. Genetics

Nice troll post Metacrock!

Kharakov,

You are looking at two different things and grouping them together. All the ideas that you presented as being retarded by the Church are not contained within the Bible. Since the post was about the influences on the Bible, I though that you would stick there. Also your definitions of science and religion can be applied to either one at differing times. When speaking of church dogma and tradition, I and many other Christians recognize the fallacies therein, and proceed to ignore them and research the Biblical text. What we find is that the Christianity that you are arguing against is the same that we are arguing against. The Christianity of today is a far cry from its original predecessors. Therefore, I will not even concern myself with accusations against modern Christianity when it deviates from the Biblical pattern. There is nothing that can defend it in that case.

On to the issue. There are many differences and similarities between the Christian faith and Plato. An example of a difference is that Plato defined God by making Him conform to a external standard of goodness. Judeo/Christian concepts of God were very much more of a sovereign God. In other words is God good, or do I know good by what God does? Who is the definition giver. You would argue there is none and God does not exist. Plausible, but not definite.

What if Plato does talk about an ideal one true God (he was not even the first contrary to the logic of your post), and what if Christianity claimed to know and have the one true God? Wouldn't it be logical to agree on common ground? It would be, "what you taught as fiction, the same idea we now present as fact."

I do recognize elements of influence between the Greek philosophers and Christianity (the concept of logos for one). But as Metacrock pointed out, this does not by any historical means evidence a totality adoption of another's ideas.

I can see where a method of embracing the cultures they minister to could be seen as a "conforming", a sort of "change" that reduces the standard of its message. But there are enough differences between the groups on pointed controversy that shows that a standard was kept (physical resurrection for one which is alien to the Greeks).

To a skeptic there is no essential difference between religions. We fashion the image of our God and force it on others. Though I know this will not sit well with a skeptic that narrows his belief to what he knows for sure of the universe (which is a painfully small part of it for all of us), but what if the Christian religion does have the only way to a one true God? To our ears that is prideful at best, deceptive at worst. What if? Hypothetically speaking if there was a God, and He revealed Himself to a certain number, and these went around testifying to it, and others disagreed, why is that so unplausible to our present situation? This would include evaluating all religions, I know, but I am not concerned about that.

Also, to describe the NT as symbolic fable, it must prove to have similarities in writing style to that type of literature. Furthermore it must be weighed by ancient literature, not modern myth. The example you have given with Plato is a good attempt, but alone it does not suffice. I would like to see others that you may have (and I do not say that sarcastically believing that you don't have any).