[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 160 KB, 747x982, savior-in-the-crown-of-thorns-1906.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17671178 No.17671178 [Reply] [Original]

why are there platonist christians? to be a platonist you have to ignore the bible which is the foundation text of christianity so what's the point?

>> No.17671198

>>17671178
Catholicism opened the door for universal Christianity and Protestants rendered it totally subjective, individual. Anyone call themselves an X Christian now. It doesn’t mean they keep the authentic Christian faith.

>> No.17671212

the whole point of Christianity is
>dude, what if the God posited by Plato was Yahweh of the Jews.
and there we go.

>> No.17671218

>>17671212
Christianity is not platonist to my understanding

>> No.17671225

>>17671218
Correct but Platonism and Neoplatonism is relevant to Christianity, even if the poster you’re replying to is just a baiting idiot.

>> No.17671329

>>17671225
yeah of course, I'm talking about contemporary christian platonists

>> No.17671354

>>17671329
Yeah, they’re mistaken like I said. Anyone can call themselves an X Christian and say they believe in X but are still Christians. That’s the result of our hyper-tolerant society that prefers atheism or religious relativism over everything else. The authentic Christian view would be that they can still be saved but it doesn’t mean they’re authentic Christians by any means. They just call themselves as such.

>> No.17671385

>>17671225
It is relevant to an aspect of Christianity, that is, its rational aspect. Christianity vouches for a combination of both Faith and Reason. Platonism is employed by christian theologians as hermeneutical tool of its own theosophy. This is why Philo was of so great importance to Christianity. And Platonism is not rationalistic completely, it directs reason to the Good/One which is above reason itself, thus having a similar combination of Reason and Faith (that is why Faith is not merely a belief, opinion, but true gnosis, since it ends up in apophatic knowledge).

>> No.17671422

>>17671178
Postmodern commodified spirituality, anything goes as long as it looks cool on your Twitter bio

>> No.17671443

>>17671212
This was never believed by any Christian thinker, at least the Scholastics never believed this. I'm not sure about Origen. Christian thinkers merely used platonic points and arguments but with Christian revelation being involved it took on a completely different meaning. i.e Ego sum qui sum and exodus theology

>> No.17671797

>>17671178
all christians are platonists you braindead desert demon worshipping faggot

>> No.17671993

>>17671797
Christianity is not platonist to my understanding

>> No.17672028

>>17671993
its literally neoplatonism for idiots kys

>> No.17672041

>>17671178
Because the Bible isn't believable but they also want to larp as trads.

>> No.17672060

>>17672028
Christianity is not platonist to my understanding

>> No.17672243
File: 116 KB, 455x395, 07c6af190e0f7e1a58304db77434238b.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17672243

>>17672028
>its literally neoplatonism for idiots
Your simplistic and naive view on philosophy is what causes you to have false assumptions, leaving nothing capable of nuance or differentiation.

>> No.17672596

>>17671443
ego sum qui sum is a pretty good reason to take some platonist influence

>> No.17672694

>>17671178
Christianity grew out of the hellenic cultural zone, it's essentially greek. Judaic influence is obviously large, but was over-emphasized by the early church for mostly political reasons. In regards to metaphysics, they are essentially identical.

One could, and I do, argue that the ancestry of platonism runs down the church and not the academy. For info on this you may study the debate between Porphyry and Origen – in which Porphyry rejects central platonic dotrine, while Origen in effect defends it.

>> No.17672735

>>17672596
Plato didn't believe in divine simplicity though

>> No.17672743

>>17672028
It's in a direct confrontation with many neoplatonic ideas.
There were people who tried to reconcile the two (like Origen) but ultimately lead themselves into heresy.

>> No.17672750

>>17671212
the God posited by Plato would not become a part of the debased illusion that is the world and its history. Plato separated the two very clearly and consistently, always, necessarily

>> No.17672969

>>17671178
The Greek tragedians and Plato were influenced by the OT.

>> No.17672983

>>17671178
So Plato was anti-Christian?

>> No.17673004

>>17672983
He is critical of religion and divine command theory in Euthyphro.

>> No.17673018

>>17672969
Plain bullshit. No one bothered with the OT, supposing the canon was even fixed by then.

>> No.17673038

>>17673004
He is not critical of religion generally (religion is such a modern concept it doesn't make much sense in this context). He is more so critical of the established priesthoods of the ancient world.

>>17673018
Several neoplatonists (Porphyry, Iamlichus most prominently) oplenly state that Plato leared all he knew from the hebrews and the egyptians.

>> No.17673047
File: 47 KB, 470x652, smiling wagner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17673047

>Mfw retarded Op doesn't know the intimate connection between art and religion

>> No.17673050

>>17671212
This. Christianity was Jews trying to marry Judaism to the Hellenized world they lived in at the time

>> No.17673066

>>17673038
>Several neoplatonists (Porphyry, Iamlichus most prominently) oplenly state that Plato leared all he knew from the hebrews and the egyptians.
Yeah and that's even worse bullshit given the fact Porphyry and Iamblichus were antichristians.
You must have got your knowledge from rabbinic bullshit, only them are stupid enough to claim Plato (and Aristotle) were influenced by hebraic mythological crap.

>> No.17673104

>>17673066
I don't follow. Porphyry and Iamblichus had a bias against christianity (or given the period we rather should be talking about revelatory sects). Wouldn't them placing Plato adjacent to the mosaic tradition be even more telling, considering they have an incentive to claim the opposite?

I don't get my knowledge from "rabbinic bullshit", I got iftfrom the neoplatonists directly. Your post doesn't make sense.

The hebrews had an intellectual precence in Greece since before Plato. By any reasonable account they also had a particular influence on him as a philosopher.

>> No.17673114

>>17673066
cope, the post

>> No.17673134

>>17673104
Neither of them does that, they're fully on line with emperor Julian roasting of hebraic mythology in Contra Galileos.
And Hebrews never had any influence whatsoever on classical Greece, they were isolated goat herders no one cared about . All claims they did matter somehow are fabrications to reduce greek philosophy to some offspring of the hebraic mythology, for purely childish reasons.

>> No.17673514

>>17673134
Not him but, Herodotus says that Greek religion was influenced by Egyptians. The fact that you have multiple sources claiming this may give credence to the Hebrew influence historical hypothesis put forth by the other anon and Porphyry and Iamblichus.

>> No.17673579

>>17673134
Can't find the Iamblichus quote but whatever.

"Pythagoras drew his knowledge when he visited the Egyptians, the Arabs, the Chaldeans, and the Hebrews, from whom he obtained accurate knowledge about dreams.
– Porphyry Vita Pythagorae
(consider that Porphyry considered Plato wholly in the pythagorean tradition)
"Pythagoras and Anaxagoras received the sacred seeds of truth from the Egyptians and the Hebrews; on the travels of Greeks to Egypt. Anaxagoras and Pythagoras first, and then Plato, received lessons from the Egyptian sages"
– Gennadius Scholarius (citing lost work of Xenophon)

Origen says similar things. Psuedo-justin claims "Plato drew on Egyptian lore, as well as the Jewish writings". Theodoret says Plato, Anaxagoras, and Pythagoras "Picked up certain doctrines about Being from the Egyptians and the Jews". There are many more sources (mostly byzantine) claiming similar things.

We can also find textual evidence in Plato. The myth of Er is undoubtebly hebrew; and the myth in the symposium told by Aristofanes is quite obviously a retelling of the biblical creation story (in extant gnostic texts the myth even appears in very similar form, as what is told in the Symposium).

>> No.17673619

>>17673514
Yeah Egyptians but Egyptians were way more relevant than Hebrews to begin with, and that's nevertheless bullshit to inflate their credentials, though bullshit claimed by the Greeks themselves. While no one bothered to claim heritage of hebraic mythology for the good reason no one knew about it. "Judaism" was an irrelevant sect.
>>17673579
You can't find it because it doesn't exist and your Porphyry quote relates not to Plato but Pythagoreas and to interpretation of dreams. Needless to say it's as serious as gymnosophists.
>He sent the boy to a lute-player, a wrestler and a painter. Later he sent him to Anaximander at Miletus, to learn geometry and astronomy. Then Pythagoras visited the Egyptians, the Arabians, the Chaldeans and the Hebrews, from whom he acquired expertery in the interpretation of dreams, and he was the first to use frankincense in the worship of divinities.
The rest is late christian cope to pretend people cared about hebraic BS in Plato's time.
And Er myth is as opposed to hebraic soteriology as you can get, it's a reincarnation myth.