Christianity and Platonism

Well, lucky me. Constantine is also a girl

How is it similar? John does not say Christ is the "rational" form of the universe, he says Christ is God and created the universe. Christianity doesn't posit God as the form of the universe, Christianity posits humanity as *icons* of God, not forms of God (the Platonic word for form is source of the word "idol"; man is created in God's image and likeness, not in his idol and form).

The Logos of John means the existence of Christ prior to his incarnation, and the equation of that existence with God as opposed to something other-than-God. That is what is definitive and mystical about it. This God is the Hebrew God. The Logos is the idea that everything is one and all distinction is in our head, it posits that there is not distinction between creator and creation, but that all thoughts of men are the Logos thinking.

>The Logos is the idea that everyting is one
The pagan Logos, that is. I am here showing how it is drastically different from the Christian Logos

>The fundamental mission of Christianity is about sanctifying the material world and joining it with heaven.

Sounds like imitating the Forms to me. Honestly there is just no escaping your religion's Platonic origins.

Mentioning Paul's Hellenistic theology doesn't help much either.

Paul understands Jesus as an entirely spiritual being. He outright says Jesus post-death is different than his pre-birth body. The Greek word he uses, I forgot, is what you would call the material of something divine such as stars or Gods. There is very much an idea that Christ shed his material body and received a superior body that was more spiritual. Paul promises a similar less-material body to his followers. Of course you will get different ideas about Jesus's material nature from different parts of the bible. Unlike in Paul's letters John has him as material and divine, while Mark has him as only material and not divine.

Simply put the idea of a dying and rise God cannot be done in Jewish theology, only Paganism allows that. The Old Testament God is not alive so he cannot die. The idea of God having blood would be blasphemy, blood creates ritual impurity because it is the opposite of the imitation of God, God is bloodless. So "drinking God's blood" is probably the single most blashemous thing you could manage....but it's perfectly fine with Greek Mystery Cults.

Fr Andrew Louth did include a chapter on Plato in "Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition"(free on bookos). He seem to acknowledge the influence of Plato's thought on the mystical tradition of Christianity.

In fact I heard that the typological interpretation of Scripture kinda have this Platonic outlook with the "type" and "antitype" being akin to the Theory of Forms where the "type" is somehow present in the "antitype".

I'm the user that draws kpop girls :3

>Sounds like imitating the Forms to me.
let's examine the word, used in Exodus 20:4, often translated as "likeness" or "form" is תְּמוּנָה (temunah); the Septuagint's equivalent to this is εἶδος (eidos), this is the term Plato is so fond of, and it is generally translated in his works as "form". This is *not* the same term used for likeness is many other parts of the Bible. For instance, the word translated as likeness in Genesis 1:26 is דְּמוּת (demuth), or דָּמָה (damah) in verb form--this term is also often translated as "similitude" in the King James Bible, such as in Hosea 12:10; the Greek equivalent to this is ὁμοίωμα (homoioma). If we look at how these words are used, the distinction is readily apparent: prophets often used the term "demuth" when describing what their visions looked like (Ezekiel 10:21, for instance), whereas temunah is used to mean a form (man is made in the likeness of God, not in the form of God) such as in Job 4:16, Psalms 17:15 and Deuteronomy 4:12, this term is often used as a stand-in for the face of God, which in Orthodox theology is God's uncreated grace, which is fully and truly God, and which we can behold (unlike God's essence, which is infinitely transcendent and beyond all creatures), it is *form* as opposed to the *simulacrum*.
cont

Now the term translated as "graven image" (or "idol" in other parts) is the word פֶּ֫סֶל (pesel), the Greek equivalent of this is the term εἴδωλον (eidolon), which is the source of the English word "idol"; it comes from the aforementioned "eidos". An eidolon is an avatar: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidolon_(apparition) Now this term is very distinct from צֶ֫לֶם (tselem), which is word translated as "image" in Genesis 1:26--the Greek equivalent here is εἰkών (eikón), source of the English word "icon"; you would used the term icon to describe someone's reflection, but you would never use it to describe someone's avatar (idol). While idolatry (idol + latria) is wrong, beholding icons is spiritually advisable, it's not just a matter of ornamentation,
cont

it's far more important. The more you behold something like pornography, the more harmful it is to you spiritually, but the more behold something like holy icons, the more beneficial it is to you spiritually. "The lamp of the body is the eye! If therefore your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" [Matthew 6:22-23, Orthodox translation]. Everything we see affects our spiritual health, either positively, or harmfully, and icons are crucial among the positive things. You are what you see, so to speak.

> I forgot, is what you would call the material of something divine such as stars or Gods
He says the post-Resurrection Body is spiritual rather than natural. The word generally translated as "natural" here is an adjective form of psyche, not "natural" as in physis.

>blood creates ritual impurity because it is the opposite of the imitation of God,

um, blood is used to *purify* things quite a bit in the OT, and Moses seas the covenant with "the blood of the covenant". It is also used to mark doors. It's *consuming* blood which is considered wrong (and still is, apart from Christ's Blood, in Orthodox Christianity, see: Acts 15:29). The reason for this is because the blood is the life, it is the sealing of communion with something; communion is reserved for with God, communing with animals impairs our being the image of God.

"Type" and "antitype" are way of structuring things innate to Hebrew thought. If you cared to read Robert Alter's translation and commentary on the Tankah, you'd see what I mean. Trying to shoehorn it into Platonic forms, which is the idea of realities which make echos that aren't realities themselves but mere shadows, is'appropriate. David is a type of Christ, but he's not some empty shadow of him. John the Forerunner is bot the type of Elias and the antitype (since Elias will come again and be martyred), but that's not the same thing as some shadow cast in a cave that we learn to transcend for the real thing.

*seals the covenant

>Old Tesament
Missy if you followed that book you wouldn't be worshiping Jesus, you'd be going to Temple on the 7th day, and you'd reject the enchanted bread and wine cannibalism rituals as witchcraft.

You can fudge around with semantics all you want but if it acts like a Form, is treated like Form, is imitated like a Form, and is a concept founded by a bunch of Hellenized Jews and Gentiles...than it's a Form.

>It is also used to mark doors.
>he thinks this had to do with ritual purity
There's a reason the high priest had to wash their hands at the end of every sacrifice, because doing this creates blood, and blood removes you from the presense of God (but dumb ass Christians somehow turned this upside down and think it brings you closer to it)

>the blood is the life
Exactly and God is not alive. Hence he has no blood and doesn't die. You're free to go with your Pagan Hellenistic Christianity, but thinking it has any connection to Judaism is just retarded.

Well, one instance in the NT or Hebrews did compare the altar on Earth as a "shadow" of the one in Heaven.

Jews don't even have a Temple anymore, it got rekt and they were unable to rebuild after several attempts. Christ is the Temple
> blood removes you from the presense of God
Ezekiel 43:20

>Exactly and God is not alive
God is literally life itself.

Hugely different sense
> (figuratively) a spiritual reality (good or bad) relating to God's light or spiritual darkness.
biblehub.com/greek/4639.htm

Plato uses it in the sense of a mirage.

>its another constantine conversion attempt episode

I'll take it over those schmucks that just post bible verses. I think we've got two now, a protestant and a Catholic.

Constantine is at least polite and well read in things that aren't the Bible.

Not history, i wish the mods would delete your shitposting and horrible interpretations of literally everything

It's religion. The sticky says this board is for history, philosophy and religion.

Biggest mistake ever. At least you personally should stay in these shitpost containment threads and stop offering opinions on adult topics.

That's because adult topics are lewd.

Greek philosophers took generally understood terms and used them with slightly different meanings based on their own theology or world view.

to say the Gospel of John is removed from this tradition, something no secular scholar would ever argue, is begging credulity.

That Christian theology differed in some important areas from the neo-platonic cults in no way implies they were not influenced by Plato anymore than differences between the Church fathers and contemporary jews implies the church was not influenced by Judaism

Please explain how the Word of John, a reference to the Old Testament, has any share of the heritage of Greek philosophy. Explain which aspect of the concept came from Greek philosophy.

Im not here to right an essay on the subject, you could easily find academics making the point.

If you or even bishops disagree with the assessment they are probably wrong.

I can find academics relentlessly attacking Christianity too

Probably, but that some scholars are hostile to Christianity is not an argument that a widely accepted theory is wrong

The problem with that theory is that it takes for granted that Christianity is not some faith revealed by God, but an organic growth from purely human ideas. So in that framework, it makes sense to fill in the blanks with the human ideas Christianity was created from. But if you take Christianity as revelation, you are not under obligation to accept theories as to human ideas it was cobbled from.

Oh good lord. There is not some academic conspiracy to dismantle Christianity. Analysing Christianity as a historical phenomenon is not the same as attacking. Most fucking Bible scholars are Christians themselves.

>i'm not here to, like, argue man.
>but i'm totally right and other interpretations are wrong

kek

>There is not some academic conspiracy to dismantle Christianity
Uh, no, but there was in 19th Century Germany, and it had profound effects on the premises and theories of secular scholarship on Christ.

>if I deny reality and substitute my own, I can reject reality

People like you are why Christianity is regarded as anti-intellectual.

No, there wasn't. There was an attempt to critically analyse Christianity with an unbiased eye. You're basically saying that anyone who doesn't buy Christianity hook line and sinker is unfit to study it.

No, there was a large movement to destroy Christianity at the time, expressed in works such as the Essence of Christianity. The concept of historical progress had reached a fever pitch in Germany, and Christianity was fundamentally incompatible with it

Even if the Faith is revealed by God, that does not mean that human ideas cannot contribute to it on some level, otherwise there would never be disagreement between authorities.

When such theories can be supported with evidence and logical arguments you are engaging in willful ignorance to ignore them in favor of tradition

19th century saw a lot of work, but not a lot of it is still considered relevant and a lot of it has been dismissed .

Most biblical scholars today are some variety of Christian

>it had profound effects on the premises and theories of secular scholarship on Christ.
no it didn't. most scholars repudiate a lot of their claims. ex: Jesus not being historical. modern scholarship is hardly connected at all

That wasn't a movement within bible scholarship, and those were philosophers attempting to secularize Christian values, you goddamn asshole.

But this is fucking pointless. Any academic argument about Christianity could be brought to bear, and if it defied your premises, you'd just go "NUH-UH DIVINE REVELATION." You're a fucking brick wall without the charm.

It doesn't really make any statements on this unless you are someone like Erhman.

Most however just leave this alone and overall don't paint a picture that is objectionable to the Apostolic Churches at least.

I think it's better this way, otherwise we won't get to read the Early Christians as they are and end up reading theological viewpoints into them.

>b. a shadow, i. e. an image cast by an object and representing the form of that object: opposed to σῶμα, the thing itself, Colossians 2:17; hence, equivalent to a sketch, outline, adumbration, Hebrews 8:5; opposed to εἰkών, the 'express' likeness, the very image, Hebrews 10:1 (as in Cicero, de off. 3, 17, 69nos veri juris solidam et expresssam effigiem nullam tenemus, umbra et imaginibus utimur).

This is sort of like Plato's Forms and Ideas.

I'm going to bed now. I hope tomorrow would be a good day as I practice drawing cute girls

A lot of is outdated, that doesn't mean it hasn't fathered later theory.

The movement to secularize Christian values is essentially what was driving analysts such as
David Strauss and William Wrede. Bruno Bauer epitomizes this movement, since his agenda was clear, yet he had a profound influence on secular scholarship. These are all the children of Hegel, who certainly did not believe in the historicity of the Resurrection, but doesn't actually address this critically, he rather presumes it in the Phenomenology of the Spirit. Hegel makes an effort to sublate Christianity into Greek philosophy, and the shoe doesn't really fit, so he butchers the toes.

Trying to dichotomize early Christianity from Christian theology is folly. Even if you don't accept the theology as true, the theology is integral to their whole mission, and the whole point of an Apostolic Church is to preserve their theology.

>This is sort of like Plato's Forms and Ideas.
Have you read the allegory of the cave?

Trannies are mentally ill, seek help at once.

>historicity of the Resurrection
Wew.

Their issues are not some chemical imbalance, but the result of demons confusing them. This much is clear by how many are drawn to confusion through anime. To those who are spiritually sick, only Christ can minister, that is why secular psychologists have proven ineffectual and are even now suggesting the body be mutilated and distorted to placate the demon.

But to all who are in such way sick, compassion is absolutely imperative, for it is fundamental to spiritual treatment. Any expression of hate or condescension is only to the benefit of the demon and the harm of your soul. They are not just pushing simple fantasies, but people who are actually sick, and if you treat them as if they can just chose to snap out of it, you do not understand how spiritual sickness works.

See my argument for it here: pastebin.com/9XxNnSU6

>this faggot believes in demons

Christianity has been destroying itself. It was ultimately the theologians and bishops that killed God. They centered God in metaphysics and history. When Spinoza showed up and defeated the metaphysics that allowed for God it removed half of God's vitality. Than when people started doing actual historical biblical study, treating it like any other book, (which Spinoza basically invented) the other half of God died.

With there being no metaphysical reason to believe in God and the historical account of so much of the bible depleted, God died. You might put the blame on Spinoza and his successors but it was originally the theologians/bishops that insisted Jesus needed to historically rise from the grave to be God, that God had to be the first mover to matter.

Spinoza's entire endeavor rests on objectifying truth instead of treating it as a living subject.

>the result of demons confusing them
Christians everyone.

>but it was originally the theologians/bishops that insisted Jesus needed to historically rise from the grave to be God

This is literally in Paul's letters.

>but the result of demons confusing them.

How do you get the idea of him being a tranny from that wall of text.

This is wrong actually. Gender identity confusion has been linked to schizophrenia and that can be treated with various medications. It's just that in this case the lunatics have organized to such an extent that actually giving them proper treatment is going to be very difficult.

>How do you get the idea of him being a tranny from that wall of text.

It's a meme. Not sure where it started from.

I don't think you know what schizophrenia is. It involves see hallucinations and hearing voices..