GakuseiDon

By sheer coincidence, I took down my copy of "The Inspiration Works of C.S. Lewis" just now, opened the page at random and it opened near to where Lewis discusses Plato on this topic. From "Reflections on the Psalms", p. 185:

Virgil, writing not very long before the birth of Christ, begins a poem thus: "The great procession of the ages begins anew. Now the Virgin returns, the reign of Saturn returns, and the new child is sent down from high heaven." It goes on to describe the paradisal age which this nativity will usher in. And of course throughout the Middle Ages it was taken that some dim prophetic knowledge of the birth of Christ had reached Virgil, probably through the Sibylline Books. He ranked as a Pagan prophet. Modern scholars would, I suppose, laugh at the idea. They might differ as to what noble or imperial couple were being thus extravagantly complimented by a court poet on the birth of a son; but the resemblance to the birth of Christ would be regarded, once more, as an accident...

Plato in his Republic is arguing that righteousness is often praised for the rewards it brings-honour, popularity, and the like-but that to see it in its true nature we must separate it from all these, strip it naked. He asks us therefore to imagine a perfectly righteous man treated by all around him as a monster of wickedness. We must picture him, still perfect, while he is bound, scourged, and finally impaled (the Persian equivalent of crucifixion). At this passage a Christian reader starts and rubs his eyes. What is happening? Yet another of these lucky coincidences? But presently he sees that there is something here which cannot be called luck at all...

Plato is talking, and knows he is talking, about the fate of goodness in a wicked and misunderstanding world. But that is not something simply other than the Passion of Christ. It is the very same thing of which that Passion is the supreme illustration. If Plato was in some measure moved to write of it by the recent death-we may almost say the martyrdom-of his master Socrates then that again is not something simply other than the Passion of Christ. The imperfect, yet very venerable, goodness of Socrates led to the easy death of the hemlock, and the perfect goodness of Christ led to the death of the cross, not by chance but for the same reason; because goodness is what it is, and because the fallen world is what it is. If Plato, starting from one example and from his insight into the nature of goodness and the nature of the world, was led on to see the possibility of a perfect example, and thus to depict something extremely like the Passion of Christ, this happened not because he was lucky but because he was wise...

Lewis goes on to describe "Pagan Christs" and why their stories are similar to Christ's (my bold below):

The resemblance between these myths and the Christian truth is no more accidental than the resemblance between the sun and the sun's reflection in a pond, or that between a historical fact and the somewhat garbled version of it which lives in popular report... Thus all three views alike would regard the "Pagan Christs" and the true Christ as things really related and would find the resemblance significant.

... [W]hen I meditate on the Passion while reading Plato's picture of the Righteous One, or on the Resurrection while reading about Adonis or Balder, the case is altered. There is a real connection between what Plato and the myth-makers most deeply were and meant and what I believe to be the truth. I know that connection [because Lewis lived in later times] and they do not. But it is really there. It is not an arbitrary fancy of my own thrust upon the old words.

So not a coincidence according to C.S. Lewis!

Horatio Parker

Not trivial. You're projecting modern sensibility, besides being myopic. Desire is the motivation for the universe. God created the universe because he desired a creation to reflect his own perfection. For Achilles to assess his fate and desire for glory, or Odysseus his family and home, is the divine power acting within.

I answered that, but it seemed to confound you:

The message of the Passion is similar to Plato in this way: the death and resurrection of Jesus is an expression that discernment, cognition, and judgement are divine gifts that enable us to seek meaning from suffering and consequently transcend it.


Co-opt or incorporate are better terms. The plain fact is that the Greek tradition of spirituality is far more profound than Christianity can ever hope to be. Yet whenever the history is written, by Christians, it has to be expressed as a progression from Plato to Jesus. Not so.

Please. Show me one passage where Socrates talks of damnation.

I think you are playing dumb. I have reiterated multiple times the difference between dialectic and myth.

Surely you realize this is figurative language.

I'll try one more time: the point is what *Mark* was trying to do. Mark was writing in a pagan milieu. Mark had a pagan education. Mark used pagan literature and pagan characters and ideas, which have common spiritual ground with Christianity if you can for a moment wean your consciousness off All Jesus All the Time.

Elijah

Maybe if I had your special Homer glasses I could see that Jesus is really just the story of Achilles if he didn’t go to war, and Odysseus if he never married. Unfortunately I don’t see it that way.
I’m asking for the meaning of the Gospel, not just the Passion, and more importantly why you believe that is the meaning. The central message should explain:

What is the Kingdom of God that is near?
How does Jesus death play into that?
What does him serving instead of being served have to do with that?
What is the meaning behind the displays of faith and how does that play into the central message?

Assuming you are correct and the Passion is supposed to show that we can learn from suffering, what is the reader supposed to learn from the suffering of Jesus in the story? Or Socrates if that is the intended message of his death?
If you could explain what the difference is between Plato’s philosophy and the Christian philosophy, that makes it so more “profound” then maybe I could have some idea of why you think the story should be compared to Homer.

What do you think the Myth of Er is about?

“the tale has been saved and has not perished, and will save us if we are obedient to the word spoken”

And of course salvation is from the study of philosophy in case you were wondering.

“For if a man had always on his arrival in this world dedicated himself from the first to sound philosophy, and had been moderately fortunate in the number of the lot, he might, as the messenger reported, be happy here, and also his journey to another life and return to this, instead of being rough and underground, would be smooth and heavenly.”Repub

Non literal warnings about the fate of the soul is exactly what Jesus is doing.

“Such is the name of the other world; and when the dead arrive at the place to which the genius of each severally conveys them, first of all they have sentence passed upon them, as they have lived well and piously or not. And those who appear to have lived neither well nor ill, go to the river Acheron, and mount such conveyances as they can get, and are carried in them to the lake, and there they dwell and are purified of their evil deeds, and suffer the penalty of the wrongs which they have done to others, and are absolved, and receive the rewards of their good deeds according to their deserts. But those who appear to be incurable by reason of the greatness of their crimes-who have committed many and terrible deeds of sacrilege, murders foul and violent, or the like-such are hurled into Tartarus, which is their suitable destiny, and they never come out.” Phaedo

“I do not mean to affirm that the description which I have given of the soul and her mansions is exactly true-a man of sense ought hardly to say that. But I do say that, inasmuch as the soul is shown to be immortal, he may venture to think, not improperly or unworthily, that something of the kind is true.”

Do you know of any quotes where Plato is talking about universal salvation of the soul?
Sorry, I don’t have the faintest clue how you think the ideas from Plato’s texts couldn’t have found their way into the mind of Mark’s author. You may want to use smaller words with me.
What reason would I have to assume they are speaking figuratively about the Kingdom or the Resurrection?

You just need to explain how he received a pagan education and didn’t get any of the philosophical teachings from the past several centuries, and was limited to an understanding of God that was prior to Plato. Was he from a cave community that was cut off from civilization for centuries?

And not to be a jerk but could you answer the question about what excludes Jesus from being understood as the story of a philosopher king, if you think he should be understood like a cynic sage? What makes it either/or?

Horatio Parker

It has to do with a higher vision.

You could construct stories of pacifist Achilles and bachelor Odysseus if you wanted to, knock yourself out. But what would they teach? The Homeric stories convey ideas that are larger than life. Doesn't that sound familiar? Or does it have to have "Jesus" stapled to it?

The invisible intelligible realm. In the Republic, the analogies of the Sun and the Divided Line.
By showing that spiritual death is only apparent. It also conveys the idea that by endowing humans with a portion of divinity, God has sacrificed some his own power, the divine being entombed in the body.

As above. That the divine power is a gift.
Once truth is realized, anything seems possible.

Once again, one is dialectic and the other is myth, altho Socrates death does takes on mythic power. Jesus I've already discussed. Socrates is an illustration of how to stand up for yourself and your beliefs, based on reasoned argument(dialectic), tho there's rhetoric as well. The myth of the crucifixion OTOH is meant to be contemplated as a drama, as action.

That's a big question, really beyond the scope of a forum, but here's a few points.

1. Truth based on reason, on the power of the mind alone. No claims to divine authority.
2. The tradition, 900 years from Pythagoras to Proclus was free from political interference. No temple state, clergy or other interference.


Glad to see you agree with that. IMO more emphasis should be placed on the non literal aspect of those passages.

The Myth of Er is a myth, not a reasoned argument.
My point was that in the dialogues, there is no us versus them mentality that is so common in scripture. That there is no condemnation of others implicit in salvation(since you like that word). Justice is integral to salvation in Plato; hence the city/individual analogy.

I'll concede the point that Plato likely considered some people irredeemable.

Quotes? That's the subject of the Republic. That justice, or virtue of the soul is it's own reward to the point of ostracism, torture and death.

Because spectral or otherwise bodies don't rise from tombs of the dead.

What other type of education could he have received?

The philosopher king is a human. Jesus is God incarnated, a supernatural being.

Mark could've conceived Jesus as the PK, but as I've said I consider it unlikely. The case for Jesus as a cynic sage is well known.

Vorkosigan

Thanks, that's a fascinating glimpse into the mind of Lewis.

Elijah

Maybe if we saw A&O in the Jesus situation we could understand why you see their story as an influence, since you can’t seem to put your finger on what the specific influence actually is. As of now you haven’t put any descent evidence to assume the Gospel should be interpreted like Homer.
Ok what is the Good News about it? What’s changed? What’s going to happen when we see it coming? And why is Mark talking about an idea from the Republic if your premise is that the writer was oblivious of those teachings and limited to Homer?
Do you mean physical death is apparent, as an attempt to illustrate the immorality of the spirit? God sacrificing his power and power being entombed in the body sounds like pure nonsense. You would need to explain what you think the author is saying a little more clearer and more importantly cite some text to support what you are saying because it just sounds like a cartoon without the necessary context.
What divine power? That we learn from suffering?
So the story has been misunderstood to be about faith but the truth is actually where the power comes from? What truth is learned for the miracles to occur in the Gospel?
Ok so we are learning how to behave from Socrates but we are not learning to follow an example from Jesus, simply because there is too much action in the story and not enough talk? I agree that the writing style is different and the purpose of the text is different because the Gospel’s focus is on how the faith started, while Plato is how the ideas were generated.
You took the time to throw two red herrings so there is no point pretending that you don’t have the time to explain the differences. This is just like the difference between the philosopher and the poet, you don’t know it. Just too proud to admit it.

I agree that the us vs them is repulsive but he is illustrating Aristotle’s law of the excluded middle and is telling the truth. When the solution is to unify the people and you choose to not participate with that then you are a part of the problem.

Plato is just talking about the kingdom and the ideal king. Jesus is actually trying to implement the kingdom by getting the people to recognize him as the ideal king, which would hopefully establish a new ideal of authority. One that serves the people and dies for them, instead of the other way around.
If he believes some souls are irredeemable then he doesn’t believe in universal salvation.
While generally a good rule of thumb, to take what can’t be possible as non literal, people did believe in a literal resurrection and people do have visions and think they see the dead after they die. The writer may be writing about a symbolic resurrection but that belief can’t be based on the resurrection not being possible.

And why shouldn’t I take the kingdom he is talking about as literal?
I’m not arguing against him receiving a pagan education, I’m arguing he missed the past 300 years of discussion on a subject you suggest he is writing about. What you are suggesting is another example of pride getting in the way of reason.
What makes him supernatural? I thought it was the power of the truth where the miracles came from?

A human(philosopher) can’t personify Reason (Logos) like Jesus is claimed to be doing?

Assuming your Homer interpretation, why can’t that figure also be personify the philosopher king in a story? Why is that either/or if the person is writing fiction?

Horatio Parker

The good news is to understand the nature of reality. Nothing has changed. It doesn't "come" it's always been here and always will.

This is my interpretation and I said as much. Please pay attention.

It is like a cartoon, that's a good comparison.

I don't think the story addresses physical death at all. It does show the eternal not immortal aspect of the spirit.

That the spirit is entombed in the body is a central tenet of Gnosticism.

I've answered this.

The story is about faith in the power. That truth enables the miracles ie those who recognize the power gain from it.

They are both models, but in different ways. I'm giving up on explaining the difference to you. You're not getting it.

It's not a pretense, but it was an impulsive thing to say. I do believe it utterly.

It is similar to the difference between the philosopher and the poet, that's a good observation.

When you're unifying people in order to oppose others, you're not unifying them. It might be good politics, but it's bad spirituality.

The Kallipolis is not ruled by a king. It's not THE PK, it's A PK, there's an entire class of them who rule the Kallipolis. You obviously don't know the Republic.

I have no idea. I usually don't take the myths very seriously, except Timaeus. Salvation isn't the subject of any of the dialogues AKAIK. Anyway, you're being hypocritical. When Jesus talks of eternal damnation he's using non-literal language as a warning but when Plato says it, he's abandoning universal salvation. Baloney.

Make up your mind - is it literal or not. I know for me it's absurd to take it literally no matter how many have in the past or present.

What you are doing is confusing my views with Marks. I doubt Mark knew Plato but concede he could have. I don't see any evidence for Plato in Mark. What is certain, tho, is that he knew and used Homer.

I don't know what you're asking. I did not create a supernatural Jesus, Mark did. The PKs don't raise the dead or heal lepers.

I said the miracles are a result of people recognizing the power, but that's symbolic. The miracles didn't happen; they're illustrations.

They can in a myth. But the Republic is about the real world. BTW I agree that Jesus is a mythological representation of the Form of the God or the Logos.

He could. That could've been Mark's intention. But if he did, then he misunderstood the PK as you do. But he can write what he likes.

Elijah

“Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”

So we are to understand that Kingdom as happening in the mind of the individual, when they gain awareness of it, and not something they see coming in the world? And all the prophecy of destruction and war to come is just a metaphor for the suffering within the individual before they learn the truth of the kingdom, or the truth of the power of truth?
What do you mean “eternal not immortal aspect of the spirit”?
How does him acting in a serving role an illustration of divine power, whatever that is?
So the “truth” is that the “truth” gives you power. And when someone asks what the “truth” is, you will say that, “the ‘truth’ gives power”? Either that is completely circular or insanely profound.
If you can’t explain the pertinent differences that you alone see then I certainly won’t.
But we are back at the initial problem of you don’t understand the difference between the poet and the philosopher. You don’t even know the answer that people give when they get it wrong.
The goal isn’t to oppose others, obviously. The goal is to unify people because a divided people will always be in conflict. Those who oppose the attempt at unity by not unifying are going to be working against your attempt with their rejection of the group. It may not be good spirituality but that is only because it is impractical to think that the people will unify about anything, but the goal is a noble idea.
The text in discussion is the Statesman that really goes into the discussion of the nature of the divine herdsman, not the Republic. If the quotes I provided wasn’t enough then you really need to read the text, and instead of looking for differences, see if that discussion about the ideal leader is what would lead someone to put up a figure like Jesus as the king of kings.
I’m not suggesting Jesus was for universal salvation, just arguing your claim that what Plato taught was drastically different in regards to punishment and salvation. I think most of his dialogues have the purpose of salvation, if not for the individual, the society. Salvation isn’t just found in ethical behavior for Plato but in the recollection of the forms which leads to the Gnostics and if you’re a materialism means you’re screwed.
You think it is absurd to take the text literally, even if the writer took it literally in the past? You think the text should be interpreted allegorically even if it was written for an audience who would take the resurrection and the kingdom literally?
I think you provided excellent evidence if you think the kingdom should be interpreted like Plato’s intellectual realm and Jesus as representing the Logos. You may think it is a coincidence for that much ideological sharing to occur without an influence on one or the other but I think you would be in the minority. I really think you should reprocess the story under the impression that he was writing for people from that time period and not from 3 to 4 centuries prior.
As you said, Jesus isn’t supernatural in the story, the miracles happen because of the truth, so why do you call him that? What does he do that makes him supernatural?
So a philosopher can’t be moved by Reason in real life, or does the Logos not come into play here?

Do you mean Form of the Good?

Like when Jesus goes “"Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” To the uneducated person that would sound just like a general compliment but to the Greek educated reader, that would look like someone giving a shout-out to Plato.
If you could point out how Mark or I misunderstood the PK you would be beating me over the head with it and this conversation would have been over long ago.

Horatio Parker

It's an anachronism put in by Mark to show Jesus predicting the fall of the temple. It has no theological significance IMO.

Eternal things don't change. There is no immortality.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

The end justifies the means, in other words. Politics trumps spirituality.

Then please be consistent in your references. There is no PK in Statesman.

Yes. Religion, spirituality, magic, miracles may or may not have been all one to Mark or his readers but we know better.

It's not so much evidence for Mark's meaning as it is for the profundity of Plato. When you learn through Plato that the problem of God vs scripture is Transcendence vs Intelligibility, all religions become fundamentally the same.

Because Jesus is the manifestation of the divine that certain people eg the possessed man, recognize. He represents the truth.

I have no idea what you're asking.

No. It's more complicated than that. Just because both contain the word "good" doesn't make them related.

Elijah

But you do actually, you just said it. Eternal things don’t change is the big change that Socrates/Plato brings to western civilization. That is the big difference between the poets and the philosophers understanding that causes such a shift in how we thought about the gods back then.
?
Yeah there is the ideal king, they are just called the true statesman.
You should let people know you are interpreting the text by your standards and aren’t discussing what you think Mark meant by the text. Projecting your own modern standards isn’t going to get you anywhere into what the text is about, and if you are going to do that maybe make Jesus a time traveler or something more creative.
?
from wiki son of god:

Both the terms sons of God and "son of God" appear in Jewish literature predating the New Testament. In Jewish literature, the leaders of the people, kings and princes were called "sons of God" based on the view of the king as the lieutenant of God.[3] However, the Messiah, the Anointed One, was uniquely called the Son of God, as in Psalm 2:7: The "Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee".[3] This psalm can obviously be seen as referring to a particular king of Judah, but has also been understood of the awaited Messiah.[13]

We could interpret it like Homer’s poem depicting a son of god or we could interpret it like a Jewish title for king.
What is your understanding of the Logos? And how does it relate to the human intellect?
It could just be another coincidence but it's not complicated.