sotto voce

The limits of law as reflected by Abraham, who died justified by faith, without law, the Bible says. Which Greek pre-dated Abram?

What is there in the rest of the Bible, conceptually speaking, that is not already in Genesis? In the beginning is the ending.

But don't fret, says, Paul, we already know from birth more than we want to:

'Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.'

Now let's try not to behave like under-tens and argue about the truth of that, let's just try to discover which Greek, Egyptian or whoever Paul got this from.

But note again that, in the Pauline view, mankind did not need law in order to know right from wrong, to know guilt. Even if this is found to be derived, there is this, of Jesus, to the Areopagus in Athens:

'What you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.'
Ac 17:23 NIV

So after Plato, Paul tells the philosophers what Plato did not even try to do. Paul obviously did not pretend that Jesus was the supernal deity. But he did indicate that, though mankind knew from his own existence that he was guilty of sin with respect to the creator, now his knowledge of God was completed, as far as he needed to know it, by Jesus, who had atoned for all human evil. So now mankind knew all that he needed to.

Having said that, the author of Hebrews went further:

'He is the radiance of His [God's] glory and the exact representation of His nature' Heb 1:3 NASB

So here is the higher reality, immanent, revealed to mankind, as Paul told the Areopagus. Not a Platonic concept at all. Of course Plato could not have identified Jesus as the manifestation of higher reality, but not one philosopher can guarantee that he would not have done, had he lived as a contemporary, or later. Nobody can claim Plato.

'... and upholds all things by the word of His power.' Heb 1:3 NASB

By the word, the utterance, of the manifestation of deity. Not a Platonic idea. If that was not Paul, then Paul had the very same idea:

'Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word.' Eph 5:25-26 NIV

In the view of Paul, the essence of deity was utterance, expressed rationality, or logos, as the third sentence of Genesis showed him.

proudfootz

Not sure why you persist in this absurd hijacking of the thread.

What is 'flawed' about the contention admitted by all that what we now have as 'Paul' has been influenced by Platonic philosophy?

Whether 'Paul' was written in 50 AD or 150 AD it makes little difference. Either way Plato is hundreds of years before this stuff was written. Whether it was 400 years earlier or 500 years earlier is of little consequence.

On your theory were the so-called letters of Paul written before or after Plato?

If it was after Plato, then my argument retains its force. QED.

proudfootz

Given that the argument that the 'source' for Plato and Paul was the OT has fallen short on specifics, we could on equal evidence assume it was Egypt, Sumer, or Gondwanaland.

But in any case - the apparent quotes by 'Paul' of Plato would seem to indicate an immediate literary source for some of 'Paul's' notions.

aa5874

No, No!!! DON'T try that. You were the one who introduced Platonism with the Pauline writings 400 YEARS AFTER Plato.

I am CORRECTING your error.

Don't you even realize that your posts are recorded?? You actually did place Paul in the 1st century or 400 years AFTER Plato.

Examine an excerpt from one of your earlier post in this very thread.

This is PRECISELY what I find extremely disturbing with poster after poster. People here cannot accept any challenge to their FLAWED unsubstantiated claim that the Pauline writings were early.

How many times must it be pointed out that No author of the NT Canon, Not even the Pauline writers claimed they wrote a letter to a Church 400 years After Plato or in the 1st century???

I am really tired of the massive propagation of Chinese whispers on these forums.

Please, this is BC&H. Please, no more Chinese Whispers about the Pauline letters.

There is ZERO evidence and Zero corroboration from the NT that Saul/Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews, the Pharisee wrote any letters to Churches in the 1st century.

Clivedurdle

http://www.realitysandwich.com/gnost..._elaine_pagels

sotto voce

the thread is over.

Net2004

what did krist give up for you? his flesh? to whom did he give it to? to satan or to god? did god give up his flesh to god? or did god give up his flesh to satan? what did satan do with krists flesh? god wore flesh and then had the romans strip him of his flesh? this is righteous works of your god ? he watched himself get his flesh stripped by the romans so he could cool down and save you from himself? this is found in hebrew scripture? animal sacrifices blinded your god so much that he had to experience animal sacrifice in flesh and then had to interpret his murder on the cross in light of greek philosophy to make it more sellable?


the suffering servant is not jesus

here is proof

http://religionatthemargins.com/2012...essiah-part-2/

sotto voce

Off topic, again?

Clivedurdle

Actually not

More than enough space for some christing. Why do we even bother with a historic Jesus when there is so much evidence of misunderstanding and muddle between different peoples!

And why are we arguing that yes such and such might have been discussing a people not an individual? Is that not the point? That the misunderstanding happened and from that a whole new world expands?

sotto voce

Very curious, that. But people keep coming here.