Could Socrates be the Christ?

[Sunhawk !mRK/oMYODw No.3640900]

Hey /lit/,

I have just read Plato's Apology of Socrates (yeah, Sunhawk starting with the Greeks), and one thing really struck me... Could Socrates be the Christ? I found certain similarities unnerving.

We know that the many Scholars, who wrote both testaments, used an amalgamation of myths, legends, and actual events, so is it so far fetched to ask whether the tale of Socrates, which would have been resonating around Europe and Asia for the 300 years before the Christ, could have had a small part in making up the tale of the Christ?

Socrates, the man for which no one was wiser, developed a following of 12 youths, and 'preached' virtue, ethics and theology through parables and analogies. He challenged the status quo, and decided to martyr himself, as dying for his beliefs seemed more honest than any alternative.

Of course, there are many differences too; Socrates differed in that he claimed to know nothing, instead of a heavenly father, but do you think there is any chance that the story of Socrates, which became world famous, could have influenced the Tale of the Christ?

[Anonymous No.3640915]

Nope, saviour/resurrection myths are pretty prevalent in BCE and Plato isn't one of them.

If you want to compare religious dogma to ancient greek philosophies take a look at Aristotle next.

[Anonymous No.3640917]

let him rot

[Sunhawk !mRK/oMYODw No.3640922]

>>3640915
>Nope, saviour/resurrection myths are pretty prevalent in BCE and Plato isn't one of them.
How does the abundance of myths exclude Plato's account of Socrates from being a potentially minor influence on the story of the Christ?

>If you want to compare religious dogma to ancient greek philosophies take a look at Aristotle next.
I will do. Baby Sunhawk Steps though -- I'm trying to wrap my head around the logical prepositions in the Laches now.

[Anonymous No.3640930]

>>3640922
>I'm trying to wrap my head around the logical prepositions in the Laches now.

[Sunhawk !mRK/oMYODw No.3640955]

>>3640922
>>3640900
your retarded, suck you're mums nuts, cunt

[Sunhawk !mRK/oMYODw No.3640961]

>>3640955
Fuck you, Sunhawk. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.3640966]

>>3640900
>Could Socrates be the Christ?
> developed a following of 12 youths
>'preached' virtue, ethics and theology

This is the most profoundly idiotic thing I´ve read on /lit/ in quite a while; 8/10. But it´s still too tame to cause real butthurt. You could improve it by claiming that in fact, Christ was Socrates, or that both Socrates and Christ are Krishna, or whatnot. Use your imagination.

Also, you´re not Sunhoe and you suck at imitating him.

[Sunhawk !mRK/oMYODw No.3640970]

>>3640961
No, fuck YOU, you fucking anuslover.

[Anonymous No.3640972]

>>3640966
Whoa, looks like someone hasn't read any Plato. Here's the text OP's talking about:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1656/1656-h/1656-h.htm

[Anonymous No.3640975]

>>3640972
9/10

[Anonymous No.3640979]

Yes OP, you are most likely right.

Plato, Socrates and Aristotle seemed to be universally loved. Their influence through the Roman Empire, journey east to the Ching Dynasty, and acceptance by almost every culture since (though with a little hesitance from the Ottomans) is quite well documented. Strangely the Christians never gave up on them either. Even through the inquisition, Franciscans and Benedictines.

It's pretty logical to suppose that the Romans brought knowledge of Socrates through Turkey, Syria, Israel, and down round Egypt. The question is, would the New Testament Writers, and subsequent translators and editors - having knowledge of Socrates - incorporate elements of him? I think it's quite possible, yes. The life and death of Socrates does have a similarity to Jesus. Especially the comparison between the young Athenians that would follow him around and Jesus' disciples. Interestingly, you seem to have overlooked Socrates' youth, where he demonstrated repeated acts of courage and an almost superhuman ability; he could out-drink anyone, march barefoot in the snow for weeks, stand completely still for days in reflection, etc..

So yes, Socrates, along with a host of other people and myths, would have been known to people writing the NT, and it's conceivable that his actions could have been somewhat influential.

[lncrna !73aKCvWdZs No.3640982]

>>3640900
>W. Allen

The mystery deepens for, as this goes on, Ben Jonson stages a mock funeral for Marlowe, convincing a minor poet to take his place for the burial. Ben Jonson is not go be confused with Samuel Johnson. He was Samuel Johnson. Samuel Johnson was not. Samuel Johnson was Samuel Pepys. Pepys was actually Raleigh, who had escaped from the tower to write Paradise Lost under the name of John Milton, a poet who because of blindness accidentally escaped to the tower and was hanged under the name of Jonathan Swift. This all becomes clearer when we realize that George Eliot was a woman.

Proceeding from this then, King Lear is not a play by Shakespeare but a satirical revue by Chaucer, originally titled "Nobody's Parfit," which contains in it a clue to the man who killed Marlowe, a man known around Elizabethan times (Elizabeth Barret Browning) as Old vic. Old Vic became more familiar to us later as Victor Hugo, who wrote The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which most students of literature feel is merely Coriolanus with a few obvious changes. (Say them both fast.)

We wonder then, was not Lewis Carroll caricaturing the whole situation when he wrote Alice in Wonderland? The March Hare was Shakespeare, the Mad Hatter, Marlowe, and the Dormouse, Bacon -- or the Mad Hatter, Bacon, and the March Hare, Marlowe - or Carroll, Bacon, and the Dormouse, Marlowe - or Alice was Shakespeare - or Bacon - or Carroll was the Mad Hatter. A pity Carroll is not alive today to settle it. Or Bacon. Or Marlowe. Or Shakespeare. The point is, if you're going to move, notify your post office. Unless you don't give a hoot about posterity.

[Essex de Vere !!lmSgGrvazOe No.3640994]

>>3640970

After are err long discussion on Venus, you remember don't you; ah the amnesia you must have of our drink: I guess you have to fill in the blanks . . .

I'm the intoxication to your Glass; you're the lover to my being the beloved; as the moon is round and the sun is round and the earth is round, we were cut off from each other; now you have found me; and I found you.

But it's too late because we realized we both have ceased to exist; the earth is no longer round; nor is the sun of it's other half - fusions out of the way; and our night - no more music of our preferred hours!

Btw your metaphysical connection between the mystique of Socrates and our Lord and savior of the Universe is so ridiculous; that I must reply to the indiscretion of our Lord and Savior mentioning the ironic one or how to best utilize it.

But my Ignorance of the Lord is shallow indeed, I ought to look further for those references he did his best to conceal most diligently; only the best have that skill, so I will listen to the Mass in B minor again - that which the lord hath given us is the best for praise of him - who's always the best, whilst I read his holy book to my fellows - and they to me, will read.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5dhyiqhR7Y

[Anonymous No.3641019]

Damn, Sunhawk, I know we said start with he Greeks, but you can't just jump straight into Socrates. This is your reading list before you can start Socrates:

Hesiod
Thales
Anaximander
Anaximines
Xenophanes
Pythagoras
Heraclitus
Parmenides
Zeno of Elea
Melissus of Samos
Anaxagoras
Leucippus
Empedocles
Democritus
Philolaus of Croton
Diogenes of Apollonia
Protagoras
Archytas

[Anonymous No.3641100]

No Socrates is not the Christ. He is coming from a different philosophical tradition, and any attempts at trying to say this OP is a little unwarranted. Although Platonism is influential on the later Christian thought his metaphysics is completely different. Having read most of Plato his metaphysics is completely atrocious, and there have been far better advancements in metaphysics in the 2000 some years since he has been around, and reading one or two things by Socrates does not warrant such wild claims. From the sound of it no one here has probably read Plotinus who was a Neo-Platonist (and was not in anyway associated with christianity). Plotinus, metaphysically speaking, was far more influential on the metaphysics on Christianity and Islam. Check the picture for his metaphysical structure of the universe. You have to understand that Plotinus' triad is a hierarchical structure in which immaterial substance is the purist (least corrupted form of) substance. All substance emanates out of "The One" like rays of sunshine (so it has been described), in which the purist, most intense substance is closest to The One, and the further you get away from The One (or the closest you are to material mater) the more corrupted the substance. It is like the rays emanating from a light source, the closer you are to the light source the more intense the luminosity of the light, the further you get away from a light source the less intense the luminosity. Remember that Plotinus was NOT a christian, more of a Neo-Platonic pagan, but his metaphysical system was far more influential on Christian, Islamic, and religious especially moving into the Medieval period.

[Anonymous No.3641102]

>>3641100
And to add another thing besides what I said above

>Socrates, the man for which no one was wiser, developed a following of 12 youths, and 'preached' virtue, ethics and theology through parables and analogies. He challenged the status quo, and decided to martyr himself, as dying for his beliefs seemed more honest than any alternative.<

-As far as this being your only claim to make the connection between the two, this then could be said for a lot of people who in no way are connected with Christianity, and in fact had no connection to Christianity. So it seems a little off to try and suggest that Socrates is Christ.

[Anonymous No.3641103]

lol! toasting in another epic sunhock bread! archive quick!

[Anonymous No.3641105]

>>3641100
I don't think he was talking about Socrates' ideas, but more the image of him influencing the image given to Jesus. It's comparative mythology, though it's usually Dionysus who is attributed to Jesus.

[Anonymous No.3641116]

>>3641105
I understand that, but to take the "image" of Socrates, you must also take the ideas that Socrates was teaching about, to not do that is to suggest an incomplete "image" (I don't really like that word in context), and to not take both is bad intellectualizing and suggesting an incomplete analysis. The ideas that the Christ was teaching is part of his "image," as the ideas the Socrates was teaching is as much a part of Socrates "image."

[Anonymous No.3641117]

>>3641100
>Having read most of Plato his metaphysics is completely atrocious
Plotinus' metaphysics surely are wonderful, but fuck you for having a superficial grasp of Plato.

[Anonymous No.3641124]

>>3641116
> to take the "image" of Socrates, you must also take the ideas
>to not take both is bad intellectualizing
Sure, but that would only apply if the figure being created was intended to be a direct 'clone'.

Suppose we are creating a figure, or embellishing the characteristics of a figure, from a wealth of sources. In that instance, you could take a minor aspect from your stock of sources and incorporate that small element into the new figure.

The use of Dionysus only incorporates part of the story[1], so why couldn't Socrates be only partially used too? After all, both his image and his ideas were probably known to the Gospel writers.
----
[1]"Dionysus (called Bacchus by the Romans), is the son of Zeus and is the god of grape harvest, winemaking, theater and ritual madness. Dionysus was a horned child who was torn to pieces by Titans, then boiled, but his grandmother Rhea put his pieces back together and brought him back to life. Dionysus was then sent to hide on a mountain, where he invented wine.

Modern scholars such as Martin Hengel, Barry Powell, and Peter Wick, among others, argue that Dionysian religion and Christianity have notable parallels. They point to the symbolism of wine and the importance it held in the mythology surrounding both Dionysus and Jesus Christ; although, Wick argues that the use of wine symbolism in the Gospel of John, including the story of the Marriage at Cana at which Jesus turns water into wine, was intended to show Jesus as superior to Dionysus..."

[Anonymous No.3641131]

>>3641124
Ugh, I meant to include this, not the wine bit.

"Additionally, both Dionysus and Jesus represent the "dying-and-returning god" mythological archetype. Other parallels, such as the celebration by a ritual meal of bread and wine, have also been suggested and Powell, in particular, argues that precursors to the Christian notion of transubstantiation can be found in the Dionysian religion..."

[Anonymous No.3641145]

Have any of you guys read The Jesus Seminar (or whatever it's called)?

Basically a group of historians and archaeologists start from scratch and try to contemplate the most plausible Jesus biography. Of course they themselves state that their results aren't necessarily what actually happened but at any rate they can't be less likely than what a Chruch council might end up with especially since they use almost the same methodology. They end up with some interesting results.

[Anonymous No.3641176]

>>3641131
Ok, fair enough, and as far as symbolism in a story goes, sure. I think the Dionysian symbolism is far more reasonable than the Socrates symbolism though. But I think the discussion here is diverging in two different directions. You are coming from a more symbolic story aspect, and I am looking at this from a philosophical teachings aspect. I think we could agree that for many people "the life of Christ" is as much a symbolic story as it is a metaphysical philosophy to understand the universe by. The beauty of the hermeneutics of stories. To try and bring those two together then, as I tried to do above, I still feel that the complete concept of Socrates (although I acknowledge that it does have some influence in my post about Plotinus) does not have as much philosophical and symbolic influence on the story of Christ, as other Mythologies and Philosophies. By bad intellectualizing I meant that it does not hold both the symbolism and the philosophy to the same rigor of analysis, and by not looking at both, and possibly more contextual modes of analysis, it is therefore, an incomplete analysis.

[Anonymous No.3641348]

>>3641176
Literally shut up and re-read Plato

[Anonymous No.3641368]

>>3641176
you're the type of shit bag that gives people who seriously care about philosophy a bad name. attempting (and note, attempting, because you fucking fail) needlessly complex ways of discussing very simple topics. you are the bad intellectual. you aren't even an intellectual. you give it away in trying to mask whatever the fuck it is you're thinking behind those stupid fucked up sentences. goddamn. just reading that last sentence pisses me the fuck off.

fuck you. i fucking hate you. you hipster piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.3641860]

>>3640900
>Could Socrates be the Christ?

The story of Chirst isn't unique. There are dozens of myths, legends, songs etc. etc. that play out similar.

Also you have to remember, most of our knowledge of the classic big 3 come from the religious scholars of the medieval period. They found fragments, and added to that. Much of the dialogue we read are copies of copies of copies. So its difficult to say what part of Socrates's story is real and what was added to fill in the missing pieces. And it could be that whatever was added was inspired by religious beliefs.

[Anonymous No.3641867]

>>3640930
>that picture

[Anonymous No.3641888]

>>3641867
It's logically sound.
IF [some doctors are men] AND [some doctors are tall] THEN [some men are tall].

[Anonymous No.3641926]

>>3640915
>saviour/resurrection myths are pretty prevalent
Mind naming some? I need something to read about.

[Anonymous No.3641934]

>>3641926
Pick out anything you're interested in from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

[Anonymous No.3641939]

>>3641888
"All tall doctors are women" - St. Francis of Assisi

[Anonymous No.3641980]

>>3641934
Both articles are full or shit and conspiracy theories.

[Anonymous No.3641992]

>>3641980
Did you Look at the same wikipedia page? I thought you wanted some resurrection myths?

Akkadian mythology
Tammuz
Ishtar
Arabian mythology
Phoenix
Aztec mythology
Quetzalcoatl
Xipe Totec
Canaanite mythology
Adonis
Eshmun
Christian mythology
Jesus
Dacian mythology
Zalmoxis
Egyptian mythology
Osiris
Ouroboros
Horus
Etruscan mythology
Atunis (also known as "Adonis" in Greek)
Finnic mythology
Lemminkäinen
Greek mythology
Adonis
Dionysus
Ouroboros
Orpheus
Persephone
Hindu mythology
Chinnamasta
Iravan
Barbarika
Khoikhoi mythology
Heitsi-eibib
Norse mythology
Gullveig
Odin
Baldr
Phrygian mythology
Attis
Religion in ancient Rome
Aeneas
Bacchus
Proserpina
Slavic mythology
Jarilo
Kostroma
Marzanna
Sumerian mythology
Dumuzi
Inanna
Yoruba mythology
Obatala

[Anonymous No.3642000]

>>3641992
>Christian mythology
>Jesus

How can an active religion be a mythology?

[Anonymous No.3642024]

>>3642000
Semantics. In religion studies myth is every story considered sacred in given society.

[blackwargreymon No.3642032]

comparative mythology with christianity and primarily the resurrection misses the significance of the break with the judaic tradition
of course it's a mythological medley where people encountered people and adopted ideas but understanding where and why allows one to appreciate where something has developed originally and the significance
the narrative prior to the passion isn't altogether extraordinary and if you want to compare it to something try the other prophets in the bible you shithead
gk chesterton should be beatified if only to act as an intercessor for your stupid shit

[Anonymous No.3642033]

>>3641992
Yes, and that list is inaccurate as heck.

[Anonymous No.3642039]

>>3642000
Most Christians recognise that Genesis 1-3 is myth. They don't undermine or ignore the messages of the creation story, but do you really think any of them literally interpret humanity as a failure just because some guy accidentally ate an apple in a garden several millennia ago?

[Anonymous No.3642048]

>>3642039
>but do you really think any of them literally interpret humanity as a failure just because some guy accidentally ate an apple in a garden several millennia ago?

Yes. Biblical literalism is a fundamental part of many religions like Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Anonymous No.3642188]

>>3642039
yes. it's called original sin. and it's part of why Jesus died on the cross for us if you knew anything at all about Christianity.

[Anonymous No.3642249]

>>3642039
>but do you really think any of them literally interpret humanity as a failure just because some guy accidentally ate an apple in a garden several millennia ago?
Some certainly do. I like to think that most myths (including that one) were constructed as metaphors and allegories and fictions until eventually stupid people got all autistic and didn't realise that's what they were.

[Anonymous No.3642275]

>>3642249
It could be the other way around. People in ancient times gave some if not much credit to the myth, but at some point the mythical discoure became weaker or was challenged by other myth and people stopped reading it as a literal account of past event. The reality is probably even more mixed than that, actually.

[Anonymous No.3642299]

>>3642275
There's always been an undercurrent of biblical non-literal interpretation in intellectual culture since Aquinas- I know no philosophers actually took the Bible as a god-given historical and ethical account of the world sometime after Spinoza, but the religious authorities and those who don't read are regressive and slavish.

[Anonymous No.3642342]

>>3642299
Catholic church has always been against literal interpretation of the Bible and for removal of spirits and deities from our explanation of the natural world. One of the most prominent differences between Catholics and heretics was how heretics wanted literal interpretation. Then Catholics burned the heretics and the heretics migrated to the Americans, after USA became #1 these heretics could impose their beliefs on innocent Catholics and mislead them with all kinds of populist explanations. Conclusion: USA ruined Christianity.

[Anonymous No.3642350]

>>3642342
Though I don't quite think the Catholic church is all too good in this (while they don't interpret the Bible literally, they do interpret *authoritatively*, and I can only respect the Kierkegaard and Buber conception of Biblical analysis), I agree with this.