Amaleq13

You have offered no evidence to support this claim and the texts of Paul, the Gospels, and Acts appear to directly contradict you.

Prove it. The texts of Paul, the Gospels, and Acts appear to contradict you.

Try to focus on the most relevant texts (ie Paul, Gospels, Acts) and show where you find them to be "heavily platonic influenced" in the "area of discussion" (ie belief in supernatural phenomena).

No, we are talking about early Christian beliefs like Paul's and I'm waiting for you to show why we should think Paul did not actually believe in the magical "gifts" or angels or devils he describes.

The two groups being compared (ie Paul's Corinthians and modern Pentecostals) and the specific supernatural beliefs being compared.

Both groups apparently share belief in "spiritual gifts" including prophecy, miraculous healing, and tongues. Do you have any evidence suggesting that the explicitly described beliefs in Paul's letters are in any significant way different from those of the Pentecostals you criticize?

Or is your entire position founded on a personal argument from incredulity? IOW, I'm starting to get the impression your assertion is not based on any actual evidence but on your inability to believe that early Christians were just as immersed in the supernatural as modern Pentecostals.

Where is your evidence that Paul (or any other of the earliest Christian authors) was one of the people trying to "keep things rational"?

So far, all we've seen is your repeated insistence that this must be so.

That would appear to contradict your earlier statement about educated authors:Why, in your view, does he describe himself as though he is just as immersed in the supernatural as a modern-day Pentecostal?

That's great but you seem to have, again, lost sight of the claim you are defending. The evidence of the texts indicates that the authors of Christian scripture (ie early Christians) were immersed in supernatural beliefs. Where is the evidence supporting your assertion that this was not true of the early Christians and, specifically, the "thinking" and "writing" early Christians?

I see no connection between your assertions and the actual evidence of what early "thinking" and "writing" Christians believed.

Elijah

Yea I don’t see that as a correct understanding of the time and just a misunderstanding by modern interpreters.

From Wiki “Tertullian, the prince of realists and practical theologian, carried his realism to the verge of materialism.

Justin was arguing against charges of atheism and Tatian’s argument against the philosophers doesn’t appear to be for or against a supernatural position.
I think all we are disagreeing on is when the platonic influence arrived?

Elijah

Appear is the key word because everything appears supernatural from your perspective it seems. How can we have a conversation about if they are speaking supernaturally or metaphysically if you don’t have an understanding of the metaphysical thinking now or then?

If Paul summarizing platonic dualism in the middle of 2 Cor isn’t enough I’m not sure what will be. GJohn identifies Jesus as logos which is a platonic concept. They whole premise of Christ is presented as fulfilling a platonic need for god. That of an earthy particular for an unknowable creator. Colossians 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” An invisible god that isn’t like the pagan gods in Athens like Paul pointed out in Acts 17:22 but like their unknown god. An unknown god that Jesus said your voice you’ve never heard or form seen because he was preaching a unperceivable transcendent god that he was residing in and was residing in him. John 5:37 10:38 respectively.

Most of the letters deal more with Christ being the messiah and conduct of the early church then the nature of the world and creator but whoever wrote Hebrews has platonic references in Hebrews 6:9 8:5 9:24 10:20 and 11:1
It can all be understood rationally. They aren’t “magical” gifts they are god given abilities… and no I’m not talking about a supernatural god.
Again the word is apparently. You are just making assumptions on superstitious biases you’ve had since you were a child. Not to sound rude.

I can’t comment on beliefs of a group because I don’t believe groups have shared beliefs. Nobody can seem to agree on anything it seems. And like I said a person’s ability to use reason and be rational is on a case by case basis. Paul doesn’t sound supernatural to me though.

I think your impression is based on your inability to evaluate it as metaphysical versus supernatural.

???
I think that’s just an interpretation. I think everything can be read as rational fully aware that I may be wrong and give credit where credit isn’t due but I would rather do that then look a fool for looking down on someone I shouldn’t be.

John 18:37 “Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."

If you think Jesus is talking nonsense all you’re going to hear is nonsense if you give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn’t (or the writer of him) an idiot you may actually figure out why he sacrificed himself like that.

As I’ve said IMHO that’s an interpretation of someone who I believe isn’t able to properly evaluate if the writers are speaking of spirits as supernatural entities like Casper or metaphysical entities like wisdom. I think it’s just a simple case of superimposing/assuming pathetic fallacies over their reification fallacies of the time.

andrewcriddle

It depends what you mean by supernaturalist. IMO Aristotle's Unmoved Mover is clearly supernatural. It is not the sort of supernatural that is remotely likely to work miracles, but that is another matter.

bacht

So you don't see anything supernatural in the Gospels, like miracles, exorcisms, raising the dead (Lazarus)? What about Jesus ascending to Heaven in Acts, or Peter's miraculous escape from prison?

Ghosts are not natural, they are supernatural. Miracles are not natural, they are supernatural. Resurrection is not natural, it is supernatural.

Supernatural means breaking the known laws of physics, biology etc.

I don't know if your definition of metaphysics is the same as supernatural, or some kind of philosophical concept.

andrewcriddle

One problem with this thread is that people seem to mean different things by the supernatural.

In one sense early Christians seem clearly to have believed in the supernatural, both in general and in the specific sense of seeing supernatural elements within the story of Christ.

On the other hand (proto)-orthodox Christians, in order to avoid Marcionite or docetic versions of Christology, could not regard the story of Christ as totally supernatural. Mainstream Christianity had to relate the revelation of God in Christ to the revelation of God in the created order. Christ could not be seen as a purely spiritual visitor from a purely spiritual realm, revealing a God other than the creator of the natural world.

Andrew Criddle

Elijah

People think they are healed all the time now and people think they see the dead, what’s the big surprise seeing it back then? The placebo affect is known to all and nobody rationally thinks magic is involved. But mind over matter is a belief they had in the past and there are still people trying to move pencils across tables today. You can believe in all kinds of abilities without turning to a supernatural understanding of the universe, not saying it’s rational or logical but not exclusive to or a product of a supernatural understanding.

Ghosts are supernatural but spirits can be understood metaphysically as non physical representations of information/memes, as well as ghosts, depending on if you think the writer was retarded or not.

Metaphysics is a philosophical concept yes. Supernatural to me is believing in magic and ghosts and other anthropomorphic entities controlling the world.

No Robots

Hi Elijah:

I like your basic point that we shouldn't assume that the people of the past were any more superstitious than people of our own time.

Many people are divided in their thinking. My dad, for example, is an uber-rationalist mathematician, but he buys lottery tickets.

It seems to me that people vary in the quality of their thought, and you have to look at each case separately. With Paul, it seems to me that we see a very fine mind indeed, but he does truckle a little bit with Greek theomorphizing.

bacht

Well that's the point, that the earliest Christians believed in the (invisible) anthropomorphic Yahweh, and the magic of exorcism, and the ghost of the resurrected Jesus.

Naturalistic means accepting that after the Big Bang our cosmos developed over billions of years according to fairly well understood scientific principles. Naturalistic means accepting that disease and death are understandable biochemical processes.

"Mind-over-matter" is an interesting phenomenon, but ultimately belongs to a psychological analysis of how our brain and cognition affect our physical tissues.

Amaleq13

I used "appear" because, despite the complete absence of any supportive evidence so far, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. It is your job to argue against that appearance with specifically relevant evidence.

With regard to the rest of that sentence, it makes no sense. I am considering beliefs in magical healing, prophecy, and tongues to qualify as "supernatural". Do you actually disagree with that?

You could start by pointing to the evidence you see in the texts that suggests Paul was speaking "metaphysically" when he refers to angels as though they are real beings and refers to the various "spiritual gifts" his congregations have obtained as real powers given by God. A plain reading of the text does not appear to support your interpretation.

You have no basis for this assumption. My rejection of your claim is entirely because it appears to have no connection to the early Christian authors it purports to describe. I understand what you are claiming. I just see no evidence to believe it is anything but anachronistic. Your failure to produce that evidence after repeated requests suggests your position has none.

My conclusions follow from the evidence. If you have any, I'm entirely willing to change my conclusion.

Even assuming you are correct in your characterization of Paul in 2Cor4:18 that observation, as Don has already noted, clearly is not sufficient since platonic dualism is not incompatible with supernatural beliefs. It does nothing to suggest that we reinterpret Paul's references to angels and "spiritual gifts" as though they were real as somehow "metaphysical" subjects. In that very same letter, Paul refers to Satan as actual entity!!

The authors also clearly embrace the supernatural as they describe the miracles performed by Jesus as proof of their belief in him. This is just more evidence that the concepts are not incompatible. When will you get to evidence that supports your position? It is not sufficient to simply point out possible evidence of platonic influence. No one here is arguing that.

You need evidence to support your claim that early Christians (specifically those who were educated and were writing) were not immersed in the supernatural.

That they can is not in dispute. You need evidence that this is what Paul had in mind when he talked about the magical powers God had given his congregation. That you prefer to read it that way is simply not sufficient.

There nothing in the text surrounding the references to support this reading. On the contrary, Paul clearly regards these gifts as magical powers bestowed as the direct result of their faith.

No, I'm just reading the early Christian texts and listening to the claims of modern Pentecostals and seeing no real difference between the two. I'm also hearing you claim that they are but with no other basis than evidence of some platonic influence.

No assumptions involved.

Forgive me if I suspect you are listening with a tin ear but I see no real difference between his Corinthian congregation's spiritual gifts and those claimed by modern Pentecostals, etc.

I don't understand your confusion. You indicated that supernatural beliefs were dependent upon the education of the individual. I pointed to Paul's expressed beliefs in the supernatural and asked if you thought he was educated. You said he was. The evidence does not agree with your claim. The only confusion should be on my part since you continue to hold the claim.

No, it is just a plain reading of the text. When an individual talks about magical powers as though they are real and never says anything to the contrary, that individual holds supernatural beliefs no matter what other views they hold that could be considered "platonic".

That's the problem with circular reasoning. One can force just about any "interpretation" upon a text regardless of what it actually states.

Such an evaluation is based on the evidence and there simply is none to suggest that Paul considered the spiritual gifts to be metaphysical rather than supernatural.