>Christianity came from Platonism

People think this?

>>481667
>Christianity came to Platonism

>>481688
It's a big meme

so you saw that thread on /lit/ too huh

>>481708
>>481709
Oh yeah I did hear that on /lit/
Some Anon said some nonsense about "Plato lived before Christ but knew Him in his heart". What a scrub

>>481717
i didnt understand what he meant by that

>>481722
It means he bought into the meme Saint Justin Martyr started to appeal to pagans..

>>481667
>Plotinus BTFO'd all of Gnosticism
>All Gnostics thought God was actually the Devil
>Kabbalah comes from the late 13th c.
>Kabbalah comes from Platonism
>All reconstruction's non academic or from non primary sources

Clearly didn't come from it, but extremely influence, and you can see that influence today.

>>481717
>>481722
There's a very old doctrine that says moral pagans like Socrates and Cicero (to name two) were saved by the Passion and left Hell with Jesus when He did. Later, the Catholic Church used Greek philosophy to justify some of its dogma and now we live in a world where some idiots on 4chan think Catholicism is Platonism.

>>481667
While some parts of Christianity do come from Judaism it would be down-right revisionist to not say that the Neo-platonists were a huge factor too.

>>481735
>moral pagans like Socrates and Cicero
Did they not fuck little boys?

>>481733
why do you claim the names Thoth?

>>481746
Like I said, it's an old doctrine.

>>481734
In Roman Catholicism, yeah.

>>481736
Neo-Platonism has nothing to do with Christianity

>>481746
I don't know if Socrates did, but Plato presents him as just being a tease, not actually fugging. Plato's Socrates says explicitly that he doesn't, and that the man-boy relationship should be one without sex (which is where "Platonic love" comes from)

>>481783
It's a theologoumenon

>>481821
Wouldn't Eastern Orthodox be just as influenced? The NT was written in Greek, by Hellenized-Jews, who were well versed in both Greek philosophy and Jewish religion.

Orthodox and Catholic are Platonist. Based Protestantism is Kierkegaardian.

>>482333
The NT's theology is not derived from Greek philosophy. The only Greek philosophy in it is mentioning that Paul uses it to debate Greeks.

>>482355
>The Danish Lutheran philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, widely considered the father of existentialism, expressed (pseudonymously as John Climacus) in Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments an approach to God which holds that the Father's hypostasis (existence) has logical primacy over his ousia (essence or substance). Hence the teaching that the core of existentialist philosophy can be understood as the maxim, "existence before essence." This has caused many Western observers to see Eastern Orthodox Christian theology as existentialistic (since the Essence–Energies distinction also somewhat holds the view).[35] This also accounts for other existentialistic works such as Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground. In the case of Dostoevsky, his existentialist outlook would have drawn from his Russian Orthodox faith, but there is no record of Dostoevsky (and the Eastern Orthodox church in general) being exposed to or influenced by Kierkegaard's philosophical works.

>>481667
>>Christianity came from Platonism
how is this not true ?

>>482606
How is it true? Gnosticism came from Platonism,. but the Christian idea of the the Resurrection of the Dead is completely antagonistic to Plato's idea of transcending the material.

>>482606
>>482610
As a Catholic considering Protestantism, I see a lot of parallels between Catholicism and Christianity. Platonism is basically Catholicism with the proper names replaced by descriptions, to the point that Pseudo-Dionysus uses a Platonic framework to describe the angelic hierarchies. But that's as far as it goes in Catholicism, after a certain point it's really hard to believe that Plato and most Platonists would just accept that the Forms or the One or even the classical Greek gods could become human.

>>482644
>Catholicism and Christianity
I meant Platonism, not Christianity, whoops

Christianity isn't Platonism, it's influenced by later Neo-Platonic schools of thought.

>>482687
Orthodox Christianity isn't.

Catholics at least are Aristotelian so nah

They resemble each other because Aquinas stole from Aristotle and Plato in order to fill the gaping void of native intellectualism in Christian dogma.

>>481708
4U

>>482817
Aquinas wrote in the 13th Century, friend.

>>482829
Wow it's almost like you can incorporate ideas from the past into your own framework.

>>482837
Not from an Orthodox perspective. You can use all kinds of methods of argumentation, but the idea of making something doctrine in those terms is...not advisable.

>>482846
I wasn't talking about Orthodoxy, Ivan.

>>482860
Then you should probably qualify the pronoun standing in for Christianity..

>>482885
There are Catholics in this thread, you know.
t. Ezio McCormick

File: 1447101191495.png (391KB, 458x525px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 458x525px

>Platonism came from Christianity

>>482885
Was mentioning Aquinas not specific enough about which denomination I was referring to? My claims of Thomist eclecticism are separate from my statement that Christian theology as a whole lacked intellectual breadth or depth.

File: 1403033649685.png (249KB, 406x403px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 406x403px

>>482900
>Christianity lacked breadth or depth because it wasn't Greek philosophy

>>482918
>intellectual
Important word there, considering that even the early Christians recognized the Greeks to be wise people.

>>482779
You have an idological investment in saying the two are unrelated, so you have an interest in not acknowledging the influence. That's fine, but don't expect people who don't share your investment to be as willfully blind.

>>482922
What do you mean by "intellectual"?

>>481733
I thought Kabbalah was Hermetic in origin.

>>482925
Sure, bud, if you don't accept Zeitgeist tier stuff, you're willfully blind.

Christianity = Judaism + platonism

>>482926
I mean "intellectual." It isn't the same as "spiritual." Christianity absolutely had spiritual depth to begin with, but do you really think it's something a man educated at the Athenian Academy would just buy into immediately? Do you think there was no good cause for the belief system to justify itself with philosophical concepts that are foreign to Scripture? The Trinity isn't made explicit in the Bible, for example, even though an explicit connection between Father, Son, and Spirit is made clear.

>>482930
Christianity = Judaism fulfilled.

>>482928
>Every other religion, hell, every other version of Christianity might be influenced by other prior philosophies, but the version I happen to believe in is magically untainted and pure
>Wait no, not magically, divinely. Yeah, thst sounds way better, sort of like how if I "venerate" this "icon" it sounds way better than "worshipping" this "idol."
No problem, bud.

>>482928
What's even your argument here?
>>482930
This doesn't make as much sense as you think it does, the Essenes were closer to Buddhists than they were to most Jews.

>>482931
Quite a few things are not made explicit in Scripture, because Scripture was written after the teachings of enormous complexity and depth started, and isn't meant to be comprehensive. Christianity concern is specifically in the ineffable, and frankly it deals with that as intellectually as possible, if we assume it can be dealt with at all.

>>482936
Orthodox Christianity is not a version, it is the Church Christ founded. That includes Oriental Orthodox, btw.

>>482935

You seem to know what you're talking about, can you tell me what's wrong with this?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/wiki/jesus

>>482940
>it is the Church Christ founded
That's what they all say.

>>482936
Already full addressed icons here, btw
>>473288
>>473290

Any argument you care you make concerning iconography can be taken up there.

>>482938
Right--Catholicism does that. But in >>482940 you claim that Orthodox Christianity isn't a mere version of Christianity, so it's clear you're not defending the same established theological framework that I am. I accept scriptural interpretation and spiritual struggle as an intellectual endeavor (your concept of theoria is clearly linked to the intellect), but really, are you denying that Orthodoxy was strengthened in any way by the presence of philosophies from outside of Christianity?

>>482942
I'll get to that in a minute, but first off, know that all Judaism today stems from Pharisaic Judaism, and it was substantially doctrinfied as a reaction to Christianity, that includes dogmatic exegesis.

>>482945
Orthodox Christianity is the only sort that isn't modernist.

>>482958
>Implying modernity is something that can be escaped
Maybe your doctrines haven't changed, but there's more to modernism than that.

File: Christian and pagan platonists.png (11KB, 598x405px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 598x405px

:^)

>>481821
are you literally retarded?
Neoplatonism had huge influences in the early church

>>482942
Alright, back to this: it's almost completely about the Second Coming. In fact, the passages about the First Coming to Pharisaic Jews, are no longer about the Messiah (for instance, the part about the Messiah dying for our sins). So they see all the passages about the Second Coming as about the first and only coming.

The Temple was rebuilt. The Temple is Christ, and thus His Body (the Church). The Temple before him was just a stand in for him.

The Law was not abrogated, it was fulfilled. The Law is carnal, that is, the body without the spirit. Once it had the spirit, it was no longer carnal (circumcision is a carnal symbol, unleavened bread is a carnal symbol, an eye for and eye is a carnal symbol). Christ is the Spirit.

God being one doesn't mean that Christians can't be part of him, since all of us being "One in Christ" is a big theme of Christianity.

As for Christ being a false prophet, the most influential Rabbi of all time on modern Judaism (who is referred to as the "Sage of All Sages" in the Talmud), said that the ant-Christ (Simon bar Kokhba, who slaughtered and tortured many Christians, and whose rebellion was the reason the Romans destroyed the Temple) was the Messiah.

>>482956
>but really, are you denying that Orthodoxy was strengthened in any way by the presence of philosophies from outside of Christianity?
Yes and no. Greek philosophy was used by Paul to debate Greek philosophers, so it strengthened it in a way, but it was also its opponent. It certainly didn't strengthen the substance of faith, if that's what you mean.

>>482966
Modernism might take hold outside the Church, but not within. For instance, we no longer bow to our elders and kiss her hands, but we still do so with the saints and our priests.

File: y8.jpg (76KB, 420x548px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 420x548px

>>482975
Some hot memes you got there, kid.

>>483033
St. Origen had a dream where he was accused before the throne of being a disciple of Plato and not of Christ. Many of the early scholars of the church were influenced by Plato and neoplatonism I have never seen this disputed by any scholar, and its almost certainly the academic consensus

File: 1445965131342.jpg (13KB, 201x219px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 201x219px

>>483128
>St. Origen
>St.

>>481667
who care god not real

>>483128
>Origen
>saint

His martyr's death is literally the only reason he isn't regarded as a total heretic.

>>483147
Hmm guess my memory is bad, I though they referred to him as a saint in church history class way back when, Still influential

>>483156
He was literally anathematized by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, m8

>>483175
Ah well the catholic church still talks about him from time to time. I could have sworn my old text book called him a saint, then again that book had a whole chapter dedicated to how great Dorthy Day was.

>>483001
>The Temple was rebuilt. The Temple is Christ, and thus His Body (the Church).

Does this seem like an asspull to anyone else

>>483183
Liberal Catholics like him because he said Satan was going to heaven.

>>483195
Which, by the way, is perfectly reasonable to hope and pray for or even entertain the possibility of. It's just extremely presumptuous to state as a certainty.

File: 1445030814041.jpg (331KB, 517x768px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 517x768px

>>481667
>Christianity is not Jewish Zoroastrianism

>>481667

Yes I agree.

It came from the superstitious minds of a bunch of desert goat fuckers. Claiming it came from Platoism gives it far too much credit.

>>483190
Pretty much especially when I think they actually outlined dimensions for the temple in Ezekiel which pretty kills the idea of such a metaphorical temple

>>483232
I'd say that Zorastrianism is fundamentally anti-material. Christians do not cremate, for instance, out of respect for the body, but Zorastrians do not cremate because they saw the body as something wicked which would pollute the fire. I'd also say their dualism is a battle between two somethings, whereas in Christianity, sin is precisely 0, it isn't even a negative, hence it being so associated with death. The Devil is a formerly good angel who succumbed to sin.

>>483250
The Temple itself was something physical and real. That doesn't mean it wasn't a stand in for Christ. Christ's supplanting of the Temple is why it got rekt by God shortly after Christ.

>>483269

Jesus said to just leave bodies where they lay and not to bother with them.

Why do Christians bury their dead at all?

>>483232
Cosmogonic dualism is more Gnostic, but one can probably draw parallels in the apocalypticism.

By the same token Egyptian, Sumerian and Greek influences are noticable.

>>483291
Christ didn't prohibit burying bodies, he prohibited excuses for not following him or putting off following him.

>>483278
You think that was the reason and not just the Romans putting down insubordinates? Quite the interpretation.

>>483297
>he prohibited excuses for not following him or putting off following him.

Like fucking about burying the dead.

File: image.jpg (38KB, 512x446px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 512x446px

Neoplatonism is the only reason I'm still Catholic.

>tfw just received Based Plotinus's Enneads in hardcover for xmas from gf

Plato is the mystic backbone of the church. Just look at Augustine and Aquinas (although he's more Aristotelian and less mystical). Shit. Just compare the Orthodox notion of Theosis to the Neoplatonic Henosis.

>>483269
How is sin not negative? Those factors you mention seem to pale compared to both which have a transcendental God, a belief system based around personal moral choice which has important conseuqences for ones imortal soul
and to top it all off they have a day of Final Judgement where the dead will all be resurrected and God made human will become a savior born of a virgin will come and defeat evil forever.

>>482918
Again, you fucking retard, whether you think it had intellectual breadth or depth in its early stages is totally irrelevant to my statement about Aquinas and your non-sequitur mention of MUH ORTHODOXY.

>>483304
From a Christian perspective, sure it is the reason. That is when the Pharisees ceased to be God's people. Rabbi Akiva who would later be referred as the "Sage of All Sages" in the Talmud, and become enormously influential on Judaism, said Simon bar Kokhba was the Christ. Kokhba was the leader of the insurrection, and put tons of Christians to the sword and torture, and would go on to become ruler of the briefly (a few years) independent Jews...these actions more than anything severed the Christians from the Pharisees as having a common Jewish identity. The Roman destruction of the Temple meant that the Jews could no longer sacrifice the Passover Lamb, which would be feasted upon and whose blood was used to expiate sins by the High Priest. Christians would carry on this ritual in communion, and all this meant, from the Christian perspective, that God was expressing his judgement that Christians were the true heirs of His Covenant, and that Christ had supplanted the original Passover Lamb, and that His Body, the Church, was the new Temple.

>>483307
Yes. Because in that context, it was an excuse for not following him.

>>483309
You don't think Christ should be the mystic backbone of the Church?

Augustine has a lot of faulty theology, for instance the idea that Original Sin is passed through conception. Original Sin was what caused the state of creation to be as it is, it's not something you only get through conception, or else clones couldn't have it.

>>483316
Sin is a nihilism. It's not bizarro virtue.

>>483278
>The Temple itself was something physical and real. That doesn't mean it wasn't a stand in for Christ. Christ's supplanting of the Temple is why it got rekt by God shortly after Christ.

The prophecy literally talks about it being a physical building though. The temple being spiritual seems to be something shoehorned in after it was clear that Christ wasn't coming as soon as he indicated and that maybe people should start having kids and getting married again

>>483341
>Sin is a nihilism. It's not bizarro virtue.
Sin is the absence of virtue

File: rer.jpg (150KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 600x450px

>>483350
The prophecy also talks about seraphim having six wings, that doesn't mean they literally have six wings.

>The temple being spiritual seems to be something shoehorned in

Mark 14:58

>>483352
Sin is nothing, because there is nothing without God actively sustaining it.

>>483363
>Mark 14:58
This, by the way, is a false testimony given against Christ (an intentional corruption of Him already referring to himself as the Temple). But it was prophetic, and the Destruction of the Temple was brought on by following a false Christ. Thus God destroys the Temple in a way, but it would be equally as accurate to say those following the anti-Christ destroyed it.

>>483367
>Sin is nothing, because there is nothing without G

Which he must do in order to allow us to have free will.

>>483393
God doesn't sustain sin. He sustains *sinners*, like Satan. He sustains all the atoms used as tools. But sin itself, while a choice, is not actively sustained by God, the only thing God does is not forcibly prevent it.

>>483363
Mark, who despite being once "being a pharisee" doesn't understand basic Jewish custom and practice seems to be creating a new conditions to escape the constraints of an earlier prophecy. The various mesurements given arent metaphores for various aspects of Christ but for an actual building.

Its not fullfilling a prophecy if you wholly change the requirements 100s of years later.

>>483399
>
God doesn't sustain sin. He sustains *sinners*, like Satan. He sustains all the atoms used as tools. But sin itself, while a choice, is not actively sustained by God, the only thing God does is not forcibly prevent it.

Thats sustaining it, he might not go out of his way to foster it but he is a necessary component for it to be present.

File: vc.jpg (59KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 850x400px

>>483399
To elaborate some more on how sin literally doesn't exist: hell. As I've said several times, hell does not exist. Hell is the fire and lifght of God's love. There is no "separation from God", it only seems that way. Heaven and hell are the same thing, it's just a question of whether God's love is something painful to you, or something joyous. But the idea that you are ever not dwelling in God's love is only ever a delusion, and for those who don't *want* to dwell in God's love, this delusion is comfort, but once they feel and understand and cannot escape God's love, it becomes agony.

Sin does not, technically, exist. I don't mean the Gnostic idea of the material world being delusion, since the material world is a beautiful gift from God. I mean precisely in fact the idea that the material is sinful.

>>483416
The building is both a building and a metaphor. Similarly, a church is both a building and Christ's Body.

>>483431
So how can something like virtue exist?

>>483445
Virtue is love, love is God.

>>483437
But it only became a metaphore when authors 100s of years latter added that it would seem, which kind of goes against the purpose of a prophecy

>>483399
If I hold a rock, and know that if I drop it now rather than later that it will strike you, am I to blame? I can prevent your injury, thus I am compelled to do so. If I am unaware of your presence, or future injury, this is what we call an accident I am not morally guilty.

>>483449
How is God love and not just loving/the source of love?

Doesnt that definition mean that unless we are God we cannot love anymore than we can actually sin

>>483450
From a Christian PoV, most prophecies are generally not fully understood until after they happen. That is why Revelations is the only book the Orthodox never read in Liturgy, and why we aren't really comfortable with the Protestant penchant of whipping it out to predict this or that.

>>483456
The NT explicitly says God is love
"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."

>Doesnt that definition mean that unless we are God we cannot love
That is correct. God loves *through* us. We are not capable of love until we become gods.

>>483469
Does that not mean that love is separate from Yahweh if other gods are capable of doing this? If love is an absolute condition, how can God = Love if other [lesser] gods can Love, and thereby be God?

>>483475
Well, we'll be distinct from God, but not separate from him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN6UNVwlRbk

>>483469
>"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."
So its a point of Dogma alone?

>That is correct. God loves *through* us. We are not capable of love until we become gods.

Dam thats probably the most depressing take on love ive seen here. Thats sounds like something a moderate Calvinist would say.

>>483512
>So its a point of Dogma alone?
What did you think it was? Some sort of scientific conclusion?

But it's also more than that, it's the major value that Christianity is built upon and which distinguishes it from other faiths.

>Dam thats probably the most depressing take on love ive seen here.
Then you probably don't understand what agape is, and how it is distinct from other forms of love.

>Thats sounds like something a moderate Calvinist would say.
No, because our freedom to open or close that circuit is still up to us.

>>483519
>What did you think it was? Some sort of scientific conclusion?

Not necessarily an empirical one, but one discovered by reason.

>Then you probably don't understand what agape is, and how it is distinct from other forms of love.

Can you explain it then so I dont go away with a tainted view of Orthodox love?

>No, because our freedom to open or close that circuit is still up to us.

I saw it more as being humans as being so low that they are incapable of loving at all and can only serve as Gods tools or conduit.

>>483531
>Not necessarily an empirical one, but one discovered by reason.
Orthodox Christianity is mainly existentialist.

>Can you explain it then so I dont go away with a tainted view of Orthodox love?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

>I saw it more as being humans as being so low that they are incapable of loving at all and can only serve as Gods tools or conduit.
Human capacity for love is impaired by Original Sin. Original Sin is not a matter of guilt or transmission by conception, but something with impaired creation. Animals, for instance, die because of original sin. To cleanse this corruption, Christ's blood is required, because it is God's blood, given in love. We were created in the image of God for one reason: to love. But sin impaired our purpose, and God became man to commune with us in our condition, and to do that fully he had to die. As the Orthodox saying goes, "God became man so that men could become gods." "Gods" here are not simply some super powerful entities, it means to restored to being full icons of God Himself, which includes our capacity to love. God created us to love and to love him back, and to love one another.

>>483551
Understand that Agape in Christianity is beyond other love, because other love is simply an emotion, chemicals and hormones. Agape is spiritual: it can function on conjunction with other loves, but it's not the same thing, it's not an emotion.

>>483551
>Orthodox Christianity is mainly existentialist.
How is existentialism seperate from reason?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape
Ive heard of that love before and that doesnt change the depressing nature of your comments, likewise its get wierd as under your reasoning our love for God is just God loving himself through people.

>Animals, for instance, die because of original sin.
Really is this another one of those existential points you accept as a matter of dogma?

>But sin impaired our purpose,
How can something that is literally nothing impair us so thoroughly that God had to die?

>. As the Orthodox saying goes, "God became man so that men could become gods."

Didnt know you guys were mormons, although it would explain the meglomania from Russia :^)

>>483699
>How is existentialism seperate from reason?
Have you read Notes from Underground?

> under your reasoning our love for God is just God loving himself through people.
That is what all Christians belief, afaik. When we pray, for instance, the Holy Spirit is praying through us. When we love, it is the Holy Spirit loving through us. When we do good works, it is the Holy Spirit working through us. This principle has been copied by many other ideologies (communism, it is the class working through us, nationalism it is the nation working through us, etc.).

>Really is this another one of those existential points you accept as a matter of dogma?
If you accept Christ, you accept his whole Truth, Christ is bread, but not a buffet.

>How can something that is literally nothing impair us so thoroughly that God had to die?
God had to experience that nothing and that delusion (he asked why he had forsake himself), in order to heal the rift between humanity and himself.

Christianity has Platonic elements but its theology and metaphysics are drawn from Aristotle for the large part.
Arguably Protestantism is slightly more influenced by Augustine so it's more Platonic to a degree.

>>483750
Roman Catholic theology might draw from Aristotle, but Orthodox theology certainly doesn't. Doesn't draw from Plato either.

>>482355
Kierkegaard also appropriated some Greek philosophical ideas, particularly, from Socrates.

That being said, Platonism like it or not played a major role in the systematization and development of Christian doctrine.

St Paul for example had some Stoic influence and the idea of Logos is one that is borrowed from Greek philosophy. Still, Christian theologians would modify the philosophical ideas they appropriate from to conform to doctrine.

>>483798
Could you give some examples about what you mean regarding Paul?

File: 1450834093423.jpg (134KB, 460x460px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 460x460px

>>481667
>The scientific method came from Christianity

>>483001
>It certainly didn't strengthen the substance of faith, if that's what you mean.
I mostly meant that you're in denial if you don't think there was some influence.

>>483857
I don't really care to debate that because I don't know enough about, but regardless, Bacon was factually a Christian who wrote extensive theological works. Christ was not a Platonist.

>>483891
I don't think there was. I think some theologians might have been influenced by Greek philosophy, but I do not think any part of their theology which was influenced by such, had any long-term impact on the Church, except in the West.

>>483893
That may be so, but that does not mean the scientific method itself is a Christian idea. Bacon's method was built on the ideas of men all throughout history, before Jesus of Nazareth even, just like any other idea. It was an inevitable evolution of science and would have occurred regardless of the religion of the creator.

>>483906
Why would the evolution of science be inevitable more than any other sort of evolution?

>>483900
>I don't think there was
>But there was

>>483924
It's like saying existentialism was influenced by theories on semen retention and pseudo-Lamarchkian evolution because Nietzsche liked them. You have to actually speak of some substance, not theologoumena which left no lasting mark on Christianity.

>>483924
>>483931
Debating the platonic influence with you is pointless as you deny that such a thing could happen at all. But plato was not only used in Christian Theology but was also respected by the many early christians.

>Augustine
“The utterance of Plato, the most pure and bright in all philosophy, scattering the clouds of error . . .”

“I found that whatever truth I had read [in the Platonists] was [in the writings of Paul] combined with the exaltation of thy grace.”

>Eusebius

“[Plato is] the only Greek who has attained the porch of (Christian) truth.”

>Clement of Alexandria

“. . . before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith . . . . For God is the cause of all good things, but of some primarily, as of the Old and New Testaments; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily . . . . For [philosophy] was a schoolmaster to bring ‘the Hellenic mind . . . to Christ.’ Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.”


I wish modern christians showed the same reverence to him as the early christians did, but oh well. You can't have everything.

File: Cheetah.jpg (30KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 450x450px

>>481667
>Christians never used Greek philosophy, namely the Academy of Plato or Neoplatonism, to define their beliefs or argue in favor of them
It is as if the philosophies of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages never happened... in your mind, at least.

>>483944
He thinks Christians only used Philosophy to counter it, to attack it etc. I doubt he read the works, that's why he confidently talks shit.

He will be back to octo's /christian/ in a month or two.

>>483938
Augustine is heterodox and had a number of faulty teachings, some which didn't even have to do with Plato (just war theory, original sin transmitted by conception, etc.)

Eusebius is highly regarded as an historian, but theologically he was on the same page as Origen.

Clement of Alexandria is right, but that does not indicate Platonism influenced Christianity, but is rather reflecting a regard for Platonism (Plato, for instance, was against sex in man-boy love, which won him regard from Christians).

>>483921
Because the development of science is pre-determined, in a sense, as opposed to cultural developments like art, religion, etc.

If you wiped all scientific knowledge from the world, people who eventually rediscover medicine, physics, chemistry, biology, etc in exactly the same way as we know them now. Maybe in a different order or at a faster or slower rate or whatnot than in our timeline, but the point is that someone at some point would discover atoms or penicillin or helium or whatever else regardless of the culture or societies of their world.

If you wiped all cultural developments from the world, no one would ever recreate the Mona Lisa, People will likely reinvent painting and at some point paint pictures of women, but never a painting exactly the same as Mona Lisa.
If you wiped all theological developments from the world, no one would ever recreate a religion with exactly the same philosophy or structure or mythology or whatnot as Buddhism or Christianity or Islam or any other religion.

The scientific method would have arisen at some point no matter the religious background of the society or person who creates it, just as how people would have eventually observed Neptune or created gunpowder or formulated algebra.

>>483974
>If you wiped all scientific knowledge from the world, people who eventually rediscover medicine, physics, chemistry, biology, etc in exactly the same way as we know them now.
Why do you say that?

File: african_jesus.jpg (41KB, 642x998px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 642x998px

>>481667
Christianity came from a group of people who followed Christ

Same thing with Buddhism came from a group from the teachings of the Buddha

After Jesus, Paul, the Apostles and etc spread what they did (which is heavily perverted today) this is what is known as Christianity.

Also influenced by loose-leaf Gnostic terms. The Christians were likely not labeled as anything during the time. They probably just talked about God and did actual spiritual exercises

>>483975
Because humans naturally have a tendency to observe their surroundings and the capacity to understand them and pass down knowledge to their descendants who will continue the chain of scientific understanding of the world.

It's like asking why I would claim that beavers would build a dam if I left them in a lake with a bunch of trees and sticks around. It's a natural instinct of the beaver to build a dam, just as it's a natural instinct of man to observe his surroundings and contemplate them.

>>483994
Humans have a cultural tendency. To say they have a natural tendency, when there are people who have lived since the dawn of man without any discovery or advancement beyond subsistence, is going too far.

>>483973
neither of the quotations indicate plato influenced Christianity. The claim is made by Scholars of Christianity, (Abu Bart Al Ehrmani etc) you are free to disagree at your whim.

I just hate Christians shitting on people that many early Christians revered.

>>484014
Where did I shit on Plato?

>>484004
Not at all. Even the most isolated societies of man exhibit scientific and technological progress, whether it be fire-wielding or architecture or weapon crafting or whatnot. They may use extremely primitive tech, but it's still progress from nothing.

>>484020
And they can just as easily regress, or start sacrificing technology in favor of other values.

>>482927
It comes out of two textual traditions, Merkavah, which can be reckoned to be as old as 800BCE depending on who you ask, through the Hekhalot material, which ends around 800CE with the Geniza fragments, those fragments are where Kabbalah as we understand it develops.

13th c. as the date for Kabbalah comes from the writing of the Zohar, which is a stupid date, given that Sefer Yetzirah has already been a thing for like a thousand years, if not a bit more.

>>483994
I don't see how it follows that your earlier claim is true. Institutional science isn't instinctive.

>>484035
Regression and suppression are only temporary things. Isolated societies like the Sentinelese are only primitive because they progress at an incredibly slow rate, not because they don't progress at all. And the reason for their extremely slow rate of advancement is primarily a result of their isolation, they're not linked to the massive hub of population that is the rest of the world that allows for such rapid technological advancement.

I believe that if you left the Sentinelese on their island for an infinite amount of time, their society would at some point, however many of millions of years that may take, reach a level of technology just as advanced as us today, with obvious exceptions for discoveries and advancements that would require physical resources not found on their island, and assuming of course that they're not wiped out by some disease or evolve into a different species entirely or something else during that time.

>>484039
It's an inevitable development of human cleverness and instinct for observation.

>>484056
>Regression and suppression are only temporary things.
No, regression wasn't temporary for the Aborigines, for instance.

And a change in values doesn't mean technology has to necessarily be suppressed, just that it becomes largely ignored in the same way as religion does when a society ceases to value it.

>>484056
>It's an inevitable development of human cleverness and instinct for observation
How do you know?

>>484069
>No, regression wasn't temporary for the Aborigines, for instance.

That's a racist meme with no basis in fact.