sotto voce

So what's the idea? To desperately make out sv to be incompetent? Or to engage in an adult discussion? Even if this is accurate and apposite, the significance of Genesis alone was more than sufficient to alter basic conceptions, as already mentioned, and of course the Jewish diaspora made that, Mosaic Law and the major prophecies of the messiah and his character known. Translation did not matter. Concepts spread irrespective of language, and educated people could read about ideas from far away in their own languages, then, as now. So there was certainly opportunity for Plato to comprehend the nature of Christianity directly, just as there was that opportunity for Jews; and imv, the unique nature of that lore would have been of particular interest to philosophers. But even if this was not true in his case, that lore must have influenced others of his acquaintance, even if they did not realise it. People frequently fail to recall where they got an idea, and it then becomes 'naturalised' in another culture, even thought of as being native.

There is anyway not the smallest trace of Platonic thought in Paul. Paul and Plato are inimical, and some very evil, guilt-ridden person must have started this internet poison.

Sheshbazzar

No desperation involved, just questioning the logic and origins of your weird speculations and assertions.
And asking you to provide evidence that what you are writing here has any basis in historical fact.
If you cannot frame a sensible reply, or provide that evidence, it is no one else that is making you appear to be incompetent.
Either drop your crap, or back up your crap with some evidence and you won't appear quite so incompetent.

Just what is it that you think Plato could have comprehended about the nature of 'Christianity' -in 400 BCE?

Catholic 'Pauline' Christianity ripped Plato off, plagiarized and adapted his writings, and then attempted to posthumously turn him into a Christian 'saint'.
You really ought to study the actual word for word content Plato's works and Philosophy before positing that he was parroting or building on a foundation drawn from Jewish Scripture.

:hysterical: :realitycheck:
Scholars familiar with the material don't see it that way.
Your 'Paul' was steeped in a Hellenic contemporary society permeated with Platonic and Stotic Philosophy, (which he often quotes verbatim) He could not have escaped its philosophical influences if he tried.


As for the rest, think this song and dance number will play in Peoria?



.

Clivedurdle

Do they? Or do they get changed, possibly very slightly? Aunty Beeb had a fascinating programme a few weeks ago about professional interpreters, and what they do about speakers who use concepts like "sticky wickets".

And on Plato and Paul and scholars, what of Elaine Pagels?

I am proposing that syncretism did happen and there are two clear junctions - the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and the destruction of the Temple. Christ, maybe it is easy!

sotto voce

Japanese read Darwin. But they heard about him in Japanese first.

What amateurs consistently forget is that, before cheap printing, culture was largely oral. Grapevines used to be enormous.

Sometimes, they do. But the educated scrutinise, and discriminate, to reach the original.

Scholarship does not deal in names. Scholarship deals in ideas. And nobody has ever demonstrated a Gentile, humanist concept in the New Testament. It's self-regulating. If Christians find a milligram of humanism in a book, they throw it out, upon the instant, as indeed they do with Jewish apocrypha.

What is humanism? It is the view that humanity can achieve contentment or success by its own efforts. It says, "I have done nothing wrong, or if I have, I am not responsible to any higher authority for my misdeeds, other that legal authority." Which is a reasonable pov, though not one shared by all, of course.

The converse of it is the notion that humanity is in need of assistance, that can come only from supernal agency. It is a very old concept, mistaken or not, that led ancient civilisations, including that of Greece, into humans offering sacrifices to deities in order to gain favour. That agency was identified in the records of Israel as one who did not recognise such offerings, because they could never appease, so could never achieve salved conscience, human contentment and peace of mind. Rather, a state of gratitude for salvation already achieved by deity would justify, to actually achieve friendship with deity.

It's precisely because Paul insisted on nothing but this message that he was and is so controversial, so vilified, so misrepresented, today, as he has been continually since 'Clement'. He was extraordinarily single-minded, determined to know 'nothing but Christ, and him crucified'. He wrote that he was unpopular because of 'the offence of the cross'. People do not like the idea that deity has forgiven them, because it implies that they are less than perfect. Much less. But Paul's message was that this is nothing but the truth, that one must humbly accept. So it is absurd to suppose that Paul took a blind bit of notice of Greek or Jewish humanism (circumcision, etc.); yet also rather predictable.

So Plato, like many others, from India to Egypt to Spain, was influenced by Christian ideas in the Hebrew Scripture. Even if he didn't necessarily like them.

Saul, otoh, that circumcised Hebrew of Hebrews, that proud Benjaminite, that perfectly righteous Pharisee, that persecutor of heretics, had no truck whatever with that confounded humanist Plato, or any other contemptible Gentile 'dog', even though in his native Cilicia he was aware of them. No Pharisee, no member of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, would have readily admitted to such treachery.

But naturally, humanists would like to think that he did have truck. A fleet of trucks!

If you say so.

So why make it difficult?

Clivedurdle

Because words like Christ are very powerful. A similar issue occurs with the word often translated servant, when it actually means slave. These terms are not interchangeable.

Abdullah, for example, is generally translated servant of Allah, when it means slave of Allah.

Mix a few languages with different thought patterns..

Clivedurdle

And I think you may be interpreting Pharisee through xian spectacles. The Pharisees were the spirit of the law, humanist minded lot who would possibly find stuff in Greek thinking they liked!

And why do you think Acts gives us correct information about Paul?

proudfootz

It looks as though you are making a self-refuting argument.

On the one hand you claim Plato may have gotten his ideas about christianity from reading the book of Genesis.

So there is a connection.

On the other hand you say Plato's ideas are inimical to Paul's.

So there isn't a connection? Or Plato's christianity is just a different - if earlier - understanding of christ and his role?

If Plato read the Hebrew bible - in whole or in part - how do we know his interpretation of these verses you point out (you did point some out as demonstration, right?) is any worse than Paul's if (as you sometimes seem to claim) they disagree?

sotto voce

Not according to that powerful Christ. The spirit of the law was do as you would be done by. The spirit of the Pharisees was rip off as many suckers as you can find.

Greek thinking was a bit intellectual for the typical Pharisee, Sadducee or Herodian. Sturdy Roman thinking was more their level.

You need to be more specific than this.

Clivedurdle

There have been several discussions about irony. Is it possible that how the pharisees are described in the Gospels have comedic elements?

And I am puzzled about the comments about Plato. Have I missed a discussion that the Greeks did not influence Judaism, or Plato is later than Paul?

Clivedurdle

http://voices.yahoo.com/plato-philo-...t-3471455.html