Toto

Philo was NOT a Christian. Spinoza was also not a Christian.

We are talking about early Christians.

Some Christians later "adopted" Philo as a precurser, but that does not mean that they actually thought the same way.

Elijah

What we were talking about then was specifically the direction of influence. Whether they were interpreting the greek philosophy superstitiously or there own religion philosophically. The early Christians weren't christian either... they were Jews.

Spinoza is an idealist that is why he is being discussed.

Toto

If early Christians weren't Christians, anything is possible. :banghead:

Why don't you pick an early Christian and we will talk about him (or her.)

Elijah

Who do you wish to speak about? I've asked who you don't think was influenced by platonic thought in the early Christians. Justin, Theophilus, Eusebius, Origen, Clement, Augustine and Tertullian all seem to be off hand. I think saying Philos understanding of scripture is somehow going to be completely contradictory of the early Christians who were Jews just like him is unsupported.

Toto

Everyone agrees that there was "influence." That is not the issue.

Early Christians were not Jews just like Philo, or they would not have been Christians.

Elijah

The difference is their belief in Christ personifying wisdom/reason not in their ideologies. If you admit there is influence what do you think the influence was if not their world view.

Amaleq13

That appears to describe the Jerusalem group lead by the "pillars" fairly well, IMO, but not Paul's congregations. His Christians appear to have been primarily gentiles interested in Judaism (god-fearers). Hybridization is an obvious possibility with that group, I would think.

Elijah's efforts, however, involve over-generalization of specific, apparently platonic comments in passages wholly unrelated to the prima facie indications of belief in the supernatural.

No Robots

Excellent question.

Goethe certainly considered him so, calling him "Christianissimus."

Why would early Christians adopt Philo as a precursor, yet not think like him?

Early Christianity was a Jewish sect.

Early Christians were indeed Jews. Perhaps they were not exactly like Philo, but some of them were, as we can see in the Gospel of John, which has many correspondences with Philo's thought.

Some early Christians certainly did pick up on Greek thought, as we can see clearly in the Gospel of John, and, to some extent, in Paul. However, the very earliest Christians, ie Christ and his disciples, show no Greek influence.

The fact is that the Greco-Roman world saw in Christ the apotheosis of its own philosophy, and were quick to identify Christ with their own highest principle, the Logos. And some early Christians, Jews like Paul and the writer of the Gospel of John, also encouraged this union of Greek philosophy with Jewish mysticism. But this is after the fact, after Christ had lived and died.

bacht

There does seem to have been some variety in early Christian thought, as you point out.

But my original question was: If they were all supernaturalists (not philosophers) then why should we use a naturalistic explanation for their experiences? If they're moving in a world of spirits and unearthly forces, why should we accept a story that is supposed to be earthly history (the gospels)? Why not ascribe the whole thing to visions and such, instead of seeking a real Jesus?

No Robots

Mysticism is not supernaturalist, it is anti-supernaturalist, as is philosophy. This is the root of the inner unity of mysticism and philosophy. Of course, dabblers in mysticism and philosophy like to add supernaturalist elements, but when this happens, mysticism and philosophy are degraded. Elijah is correct to say that Plato was a naturalist, but he doesn't see that neo-Platonism is a degradation of Platonism into supernaturalist metaphysics. Likewise, the mysticism of Christ is degraded into supernaturalist moralism. This, in my view, is the best proof of Christ's historicity: in order for there to exist a degraded version of a thought-realm, there must necessarily first have existed a pure version of that thought-realm, and that pure version must have originated with some great genius on the order of a Plato or a Christ.