Amaleq13

I have nothing to prove because, once again, you have no basis for your claim.

From a rational viewpoint, that's a bad habit you've got, amigo.

The only thing that will move this conversation forward is you providing evidence to support your assertion. Empty claims that I lack sufficient understanding of metaphysics do nothing to lend credibility to your position.

How? If I had a greater understanding of metaphysics, would I suddenly agree that Paul only seems to believe in supernatural powers when he unapologetically refers to members of his congregation having them? Please explain exactly how this seemingly magical transformation takes place.

And, given your admission that you lack any scholarly support, are you are the only person to have this level understanding as far as you know?

Then you have wasted your effort because I am well aware that one can choose to interpret texts in a variety of ways that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how or why they were originally written.

What you need to do is show that this isn't true of your position is demonstrate through the texts that Paul understood what he wrote the way you claim. And, as has been pointed out already by more than one person, noting possible evidence of Platonic influence elsewhere simply is not sufficient.

Have you found an example of a Platonic author writing about angels and devils or spiritual gifts so an explicit comparison can be made? Actual evidence to consider would be a refreshing change.

Elijah

Do you think he is referring to a ghost when he is referring to spirt as in a ghost or as in the spirit of wisdom in the world? What evidence do you have for him believing in a supernatural ghost here?
Are these spirits ghosts or reification of wisdom and memes?

Now is the holy spirit here the meme that Jesus is messiah or a ghost who goes around possessing people? Are the gifts anything more than human abilities that we know of now without supernatural groundings.

Logos is called reason here. Is reason a ghost… or reason? Are the deamons faulty memes corrupting their reason or ghosts?
Here the holy spirit is being compared to the art of medicine and is called an intellectual existence. Or is it a ghost again?

bacht

Elijah, what about the resurrection of Jesus? When Paul and the other early writers speak of the Son who was slain and rose again to sit at the right hand of God, who or what were they referring to?

Also, did the early believers anticipate an apocalypse, the Day of the Lord when evildoers would be punished? Was this just rhetorical, or were they really preparing for the coming of the Christ messiah into this world?

GakuseiDon

Like Andrew, I also wonder if you aren't using a different definition of "supernatural". But beliefs in demons was widespread in early Christianity, and it didn't appear to conflict with the natural philosophy of the time. Here is Tertullian, in his Apology:

And we affirm indeed the existence of certain spiritual essences; nor is their name unfamiliar. The philosophers acknowledge there are demons; Socrates himself waiting on a demon's will. Why not? since it is said an evil spirit attached itself specially to him even from his childhood— turning his mind no doubt from what was good. The poets are all acquainted with demons too; even the ignorant common people make frequent use of them in cursing. In fact, they call upon Satan, the demon-chief, in their execrations, as though from some instinctive soul-knowledge of him. Plato also admits the existence of angels. The dealers in magic, no less, come forward as witnesses to the existence of both kinds of spirits. We are instructed, moreover, by our sacred books how from certain angels, who fell of their own free-will, there sprang a more wicked demon-brood, condemned of God along with the authors of their race, and that chief we have referred to. It will for the present be enough, however, that some account is given of their work. Their great business is the ruin of mankind. So, from the very first, spiritual wickedness sought our destruction. They inflict, accordingly, upon our bodies diseases and other grievous calamities, while by violent assaults they hurry the soul into sudden and extraordinary excesses. Their marvellous subtleness and tenuity give them access to both parts of our nature. As spiritual, they can do no harm; for, invisible and intangible, we are not cognizant of their action save by its effects, as when some inexplicable, unseen poison in the breeze blights the apples and the grain while in the flower, or kills them in the bud, or destroys them when they have reached maturity; as though by the tainted atmosphere in some unknown way spreading abroad its pestilential exhalations.

No, I'm saying that Christianity had gone "Philosophy 101 mainstream" by the Second Century, but that in no way removed a belief in supernatural beings like demons, or in things like magic.

Elijah

I’m sure different people had semi-logical rationalizations of it and supernatural understandings of it, some didn’t believe at all, just like today I’m sure. But then, just like today, it was the only explanation for the faith in Jesus as the Christ that was spreading from his sacrifice. They didn’t understand the whole conviction is contagious (sign of jonah) phenomenon that well I don’t think.

The sitting at the right hand of God is about what I mentioned earlier with Jesus as a particular for an unknown god. Mosses said to worship god alone with no idols but in the more modern platonic thinking that became an impossibility because you couldn’t think on god without throwing up a mental idol because the true god isn’t conceivable so Jesus is presenting himself up as a intermediary (physically and spiritually) probably realizing that only people who understood god properly (his way) would understand why.

The early Christian’s were part of a covert seditious political movement and most probably believed that the authority wasn’t going to give up his seat without a fight. Beyond that they also believed in a physical resurrection of the dead where if you believed everyone was going to be resurrected then the people wronged in this life were going to be waiting on the other side to call out those who wronged em. They were really preparing for the return of the messiah by trying to end the rule of earthy authorities by getting the people to worship a spiritual authority.

No Robots

I like this bit.

I think you have to recognize that, while some early Christians may have believed in a physical resurrection, others, like Paul, were more nuanced. His attempt to enlighten his congregants is found in 1Cor 15:35-44, where he concludes:

It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body.

bacht

Okay, so we should read the early material as a kind of code, rather than simply accept the surface meaning of the texts?

Elijah

I don't see what there proves a supernatural understanding demons but I'm reading the rest now.

IMO The basic premise of metaphysics contradicts the basic premise of supernaturalism. The spiritual side is constant in metaphysics and in the supernatural side it is a place where anthropomorphic entities can live and do stuff; an impossibility from a metaphysical standpoint.

Elijah

No you should read the scripture in the context of reality. Know what's going on out your window and you'll know what was going on then. Know the problems today and you'll see the same one's then. Know the struggle we face today and you should understand the struggle then. Go in reading scripture with supernatural glasses on and your just going to come out with a dumb interpretation.

GakuseiDon

Well... IMO philosophy back then held the same kind of esteem that modern science holds today. Thus every group was eager to claim that their beliefs conformed to philosophical ideals. But just as scientists today can be both science advocates as well as advocates for the supernatural, so philosophers back then could advocate a rational platonic philosophy as well as a supernatural world. There wasn't really much of an overlap AFAICS. That is, Platonism (which dealt with a higher ideal world) didn't conflict with belief in the supernatural (which existed in our fleshly world). Anyway, I'd be interested in your comments on Tertullian's Apology in this regard.