/lit/ - Literature

>>16371252
Ephrem.
Evagrius, but he's a "heretic".
Synesius, although he's practically not a christian.
Palamas, for Orthodox and Eastern Catholics.
The other Cappadocian fathers were also well versed in Rhetoric (which is the starting point for logic and platonic studies, since you learn how to reason).

Learned and corrupted neoplatonism, especially post-exile in the 6th century when all the Athenian Neoplatonists moved to south-western Syria, and set up underground schools.There were also a few Jews and Samaritans in the late Academy, who likely returned to Judea where their teachings eventually became Kabbalah.
So in the sense that it's medieval pseudepigrapha and in the sense that the true Tradition is incompatible with the Bible, then yes it is a scam.

Plato and Forms. Thread got archived, luckily a spirit made me copy the text before posting and losing it.
>>15825536
no, that's like calling the fire in the cave (our sun, Solar Apollo) as literally Helios in full, like Akhenaten making Aten (apollo) into Ra in entirety.

A Little Comment on Plato'sForms
Correcting a misconception about Plato's Ideas.
Of course, you can use generalized language and say that the One/the Good, and the Dyad and the Mixed/One-Being, are "Forms"; then that Justice, Beauty, Truth and Proportion are "Forms"; then that the five greatest kinds are "Forms"; then that the Paradigmatic Forms, what the philosophers mean by form, the patterns of possibility; then that every thought of every subjective Soul's Dianoia are all "Forms"; and then even as far down as the Doxastic Hylomorph of phenomenology and representation in the sensible world as all also being "Forms". But also that every soul is a form, that Being as a whole and every Intellect is a form, and you'd even have to talk about the form of Body itself, like our nails, or the EXACT specific shape of 'this apple' at this current time-which means you have to call both my whole soul-body a form then every part a form, then every part of every part as also each being unique forms.
All of this (except barely the last one) is only true in a generic way where Form = Intelligible; but it is in actuality absurd to talk about them in this way. And it is ironic that the main aversion towards Plato is this misinterpretation of Plato, an idea he didn't even believe in, the only one who did is the young Socrates in the dialogue Parmenides (that form = spatial shape: like cups, or a form for every unique table, or Socrates' nose).
The actual Forms are Paradigms-and the 'generic idea forms' exist in the various layers of being as explicated in Republic with the Divided Line and Cave (or more esoterically in each hypothesis of Parmenides as a distinct reality of at least Nine spheres).
What Paradigm means is that we have at least the Five Kinds: 'change, rest, being, sameness and difference'; these are THE Paradigms of Being (there are more than five but these are the prime archetypes). Then we have abstract concepts, which are the actual forms, the things we mean when philosophers talk about 'the forms', that being the various "combinations" (or MIXING) of these, at least five, Kinds/Genera. But also more specifically the idea of commonality in each and all things, but not the classical idea of "universals", it's rather as causes.