bacht

The question is not whether Platonism was a current philosophy in the 1st century, the question is whether the first Christian Jews were influenced by it. The majority here say no, I assume this reflects the current academic consensus.

It still seems to me that the simplest reading of the early epistles is as the product of supernatural apocalyptic messianists locatable in the Jewish religious tradition. Do you reject this as impossible? Do you see philosophy reflected throughout the Old Testament as well?

Toto

The first Jewish Christians were influenced by Platonism among other schools of thought, but that does not make them strict rationalists who rejected the supernatural.

You can say that Benny Hinn has been influenced by modern scientific thought, because he uses some medical terminology and flies around in planes. But he is still a supernaturalist.

Amaleq13

Given that you've already been repeatedly told that it comes from a plain reading of the texts, your complaint rings quite hollow. Descriptions of magical powers from God should be understood as descriptions of magical powers from God unless the author tells us otherwise.

When an author offers nothing to counter the plain meaning of the text and the context supports a plain reading of the text, there is no good reason (certainly including personal preference) to impose any other interpretation upon the text. That other, unrelated, passages show signs of platonic influence has no logical connection to the "passages in question".

If an author offers no disclaimers or additional explanations indicating that he doesn't literally mean a messenger from God when he talks about angels or doesn't literally mean that believers were given supernatural powers because of their faith, he isn't speaking metaphysically.

Have you found a known platonic author who talks about angels or divinely bestowed powers the way Paul does (ie without disclaimer or explanation)?

Amaleq13

I don't want to speak for the "majority" but this does not describe my own position. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that they were influenced but it is another thing entirely to claim that this requires or even allows us to reinterpret prima facie indications of supernatural beliefs to be something else.

Yes and you've seen nothing to suggest otherwise in this thread except a firmly asserted personal preference.

Elijah

Yes modern enlightenment that was necessary because of the dark ages brought on by Rome becoming Christian and Christianity becoming pagan and ending the philosophical movements. But before that Christianity was a philosophical political movement not a supernatural religious movement. Evidence being the terminology they use and the world view they present in their literature.

That we can find people who believe in supernatural forces now is no evidence that the early Christians initiating the religion did. People are divided by those who think rationally and those who believe what they are told by others; the same thing was going on back then. There is no reason to believe that everyone held a supernatural view back then and if you don’t believe everyone did then you need to be able to distinguish between the two.

I put what I considered the most obvious clues of platonic thought in the NT in post #33. The impossible events have nothing to do with the world outlook at the time. People can justify faith/powers with a natural world view.

You’re not reading it at face value. You are interpreting it under a supernatural light without justification other then that’s what is commonly thought of our ancestors. Demons and angels and gods can all be understood metaphysically. I thought that point was already conceded.

Is platonic thought 21st century? Who are the modern idealists these days?
I think we need to bring one person here for the other side that can actually claim to understand the idealism of the time (or any idealism) and argue that it is supernatural. So far no one here is in the position to argue it because I seem to be the only one remotely familiar with platonic idealism.

All interpretation of Plato is strictly rational if it is a correct understanding. The philosophers were about reason and skeptical of everything even their own senses.

Toto

Where do you get this? It was (a few of) the pagans who were the rationalists in the first few centuries. Our best evidence is that Christianity was a social group that appealed to the gullible and the superstitious. Where do you find any evidence that early Christianity was a rationalist philosophical movement? A few phrases in Paul that sound like Platonism have to be lined up against the overwhelming supernatural character of the gospels and the rest of Paul's letters.

Besides which, Paul was more of a Middle Platonist.

Paul, Platonism & Neo-Platonism

(emphasis added)

bacht

Point taken. I was a little sloppy there.

Should we think of early Jewish Christians as being of a reactionary mindset, resisting Hellenism rather than welcoming it? Or was this movement an attempt at a hybrid belief system? (I don't see it, but maybe I missed something)

Elijah

Pagans were rational if you include the Greek philosophers into the group. That’s the point I was making earlier. There is a HUGE difference between the supernatural Greek religion and the metaphysical Greek philosophy of the time. There is a problem of mixing the two into an amalgam when in actuality they contradict each other.
What does that have to do with anything? What changed in the thinking? I don’t know the point of the quote. Are you saying they were trying to understand the Greek philosophy under a supernatural light instead of their own religion under a metaphysical light?

Toto

That would be one way of putting it.

Elijah

I don't think you really believe Philo was trying to take a supernatural stab at Greek metaphysics instead of a Greek metaphysical take on his religion.

I hold you in too much esteem to even entertain the thought that you really believe that.