Zobel said:
Because dualism and Plato specifically were explicitly rejected. Neo Platonism was a pagan philosophical reaction to Christianity.
Is this what message board conversation has devolved into? "I don't have a rebuttal but let me bombard you with links that actual smart guys said and you can read them and I'll declare victory".Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Because dualism and Plato specifically were explicitly rejected. Neo Platonism was a pagan philosophical reaction to Christianity.
Except the philosophy clearly influenced their thinking.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20700314
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43251185
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27076609
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24644894
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44645981
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26778528
Dies Irae said:Is this what message board conversation has devolved into? "I don't have a rebuttal but let me bombard you with links that actual smart guys said and you can read them and I'll declare victory".Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Because dualism and Plato specifically were explicitly rejected. Neo Platonism was a pagan philosophical reaction to Christianity.
Except the philosophy clearly influenced their thinking.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20700314
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43251185
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27076609
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24644894
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44645981
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26778528
Well pack it up folks, we've got six catholic academic publications from the 2000s that says otherwise.Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Because dualism and Plato specifically were explicitly rejected. Neo Platonism was a pagan philosophical reaction to Christianity.
Except the philosophy clearly influenced their thinking.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20700314
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43251185
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27076609
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24644894
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44645981
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26778528
one MEEN Ag said:Well pack it up folks, we've got six catholic academic publications from the 2000s that says otherwise.Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Because dualism and Plato specifically were explicitly rejected. Neo Platonism was a pagan philosophical reaction to Christianity.
Except the philosophy clearly influenced their thinking.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20700314
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43251185
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27076609
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24644894
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44645981
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26778528
Catholic theology is definitely more interested in rubbing elbows with philosophy than orthodoxy. So not surprised there. Also, 'christian platonism' and 'rethinking' right off the bat signals this is headed down the wrong path. We're not trying to examine the claims of the church directly, but just building off of a stack of those claims that reach all the way into the 2000s.
The church tangled with plato's ideas because of its popularity at the time. Just like the tangled with Arianism or any other heresy. You see bits and pieces of church fathers attempting to explain plato through the lens of the Christian God but it only goes so far. Seems that orthodox churches were way faster to put the kabosh on examining God through a framework outside of Christianity.
Quote:
Practice of the two are mutually exclusive. You cannot be a Neoplatonist and a Christian at the same time.
What is the point of discussing if you're just going to link dump? Let me just cut and paste the entire life works of Averroes, St.Thomas Aquinas, and Anselm of Canterbury and you'll see that I'm right.Sapper Redux said:Dies Irae said:Is this what message board conversation has devolved into? "I don't have a rebuttal but let me bombard you with links that actual smart guys said and you can read them and I'll declare victory".Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Because dualism and Plato specifically were explicitly rejected. Neo Platonism was a pagan philosophical reaction to Christianity.
Except the philosophy clearly influenced their thinking.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20700314
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43251185
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27076609
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24644894
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44645981
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26778528
Huh? Zobel made a claim that Neoplatonism and Christianity were in opposition. The research done by philosophers, historians, classicists, and theologians says the exact opposite of his claim and I provided a tiny selection of different perspectives showing that link. Just a generic JSTOR search of "Neoplato*" and "Christian*" provides over 20,000 journal articles, and the overwhelming majority are discussing how Christianity was, at different times in its evolution, influenced by and drew from Platoism.
Look,Sapper Redux said:
I'll write a longer response when I have time, but your arrogance is palpable. No, those are not the first six articles. I tried to offer a brief overview of the variety of analysis. And your own comment essentially admits the importance of Platonic and Hellenistic philosophy to early Christian theology without being able to admit as much.Quote:
Practice of the two are mutually exclusive. You cannot be a Neoplatonist and a Christian at the same time.
Except the research clearly shows that's not the case. Maybe claiming the titles is exclusive. The philosophical principles are not, and Christianity liberally borrowed from the arguments and claims of the Neoplatonists.
Great point. If you look at the commentary surrounding St. Spyridon and the Arian controversy during the first counsel time you'll read things about how they couldn't come up with concise, neat and satisfying defense against Arianism that would shut it down.The Banned said:
1. Faiths will always poke at each other because each one believes (or at least should believe) they have the one true faith. When one believes that, it's going to naturally cause some degree of friction. Take the Eucharist. If the baptists are wrong, they are roundly rejecting the institution Christ left us. If they're right, then Catholics are idolators. Makes sense that they may poke back and forth
2. Eh. The majority of the church was in favor of or leaning towards the Arian heresy until the Church shot it down. There have always been mistaken believers, either due to poor formation or bad preachers.
one MEEN Ag said:Great point. If you look at the commentary surrounding St. Spyridon and the Arian controversy during the first counsel time you'll read things about how they couldn't come up with concise, neat and satisfying defense against Arianism that would shut it down.The Banned said:
1. Faiths will always poke at each other because each one believes (or at least should believe) they have the one true faith. When one believes that, it's going to naturally cause some degree of friction. Take the Eucharist. If the baptists are wrong, they are roundly rejecting the institution Christ left us. If they're right, then Catholics are idolators. Makes sense that they may poke back and forth
2. Eh. The majority of the church was in favor of or leaning towards the Arian heresy until the Church shot it down. There have always been mistaken believers, either due to poor formation or bad preachers.
It took two things to really put an end to Arianism: a miracle and time.
St. Spyridon's miracle of the clay shard during the debate basically ended a deadlocked debate. And then it took a long long time to see Arianism to go away. And that is the view of the church. If you're wrong, a way to tell if its wrong is that it will eventually fall away because God will not allow the church to disappear or be defeated by lies.
Sapper, that is why I personally think the philosophy underpinnings is ultimately silly. The church didn't start because of thinkers. It started because of Jesus and his miracles. Miracles and prophecy showed the way of the church. OT and NT. The church is founded and advanced by those who showed great devotion to God, not philosophical minutae.
If you struggle with miracles, you're going to lean on philosophy to explain a God that doesn't interact with you. If you have miracles, who cares about how Christianity compares to pagan secular beliefs about God and how they think God arranged the world.
Divine Liturgy is at 10 this Sunday. Everyone's welcome.
Zobel said:
Save your time, I already put in more energy than it's worth. Live and don't learn, that's me. Let's fast forward to where you tell me I don't know what time talking about, call me an anti-Semite, ignore my rebuttals and sourcing and declare victory.
Bottom line - Neoplatonism as a general category teaches an impersonal God. Platonism teaches dualism. Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with both. The end.
Quote:
You're making an anachronistic mistake by separating theology from philosophy
This is funny because it's trueone MEEN Ag said:Look,Sapper Redux said:
I'll write a longer response when I have time, but your arrogance is palpable. No, those are not the first six articles. I tried to offer a brief overview of the variety of analysis. And your own comment essentially admits the importance of Platonic and Hellenistic philosophy to early Christian theology without being able to admit as much.Quote:
Practice of the two are mutually exclusive. You cannot be a Neoplatonist and a Christian at the same time.
Except the research clearly shows that's not the case. Maybe claiming the titles is exclusive. The philosophical principles are not, and Christianity liberally borrowed from the arguments and claims of the Neoplatonists.
Your argument is basically on the same tier as, 'Islam, judiasm, and christianity all believe in the same God!' Just because you and the church fathers can spot similarities, and address them does not mean its the foundational essence of the religion.
And you're looking at this from the lens of catholic post schism. Thats not the church fathers. And even honing in on one idea of any of the church fathers doesn't make them the arbiter of it. And again, the catholic church is way more into trying to express christianity through philosophy than the orthodox church. The orthodox are going to say this is all wrong and futile. The catholics are going to celebrate the half of Christianity that they can stuff into neoplatonism, ignore the half they cant, roll out the mission accomplished banner, and celebrate how they've built a bridge connecting christianity into pagan thought. Champaign reception to follow on the top floor of the ivory tower.
If you really want to get down to brass tacks, the continual push into philosophy versus the arms length approach of the orthodox church is a huge defining difference between the two. You can't sit here and say that, 'its christianity neeneer neeneer neeneer! You're going to get orthodox believers to just flat out say thats not the faith tradition of the apostles nor what they accept. Thats why you think its arrogant for Zobel to hand waive academic papers while you consider it the foundational source of truth. The whole pursuit is futile.
Zobel said:
And I'm saying that is nonsense. Good chat.
Zobel said:
I use pythagorean theorem. I must be a pythagorist.
Zobel said:
I use logic and animal taxonomy, I must be an Aristotlean.
I would certainly consider it. I would be extremely hesitant in blindly accepting the data provided by the Catholic sect.Zobel said:
No
Zobel said:
It's almost as if a framework or tools for analyzing a problem can be used with different axioms to come to wildly different conclusions.
It's a felt banner, though.Dies Irae said:This is funny because it's trueone MEEN Ag said:Look,Sapper Redux said:
I'll write a longer response when I have time, but your arrogance is palpable. No, those are not the first six articles. I tried to offer a brief overview of the variety of analysis. And your own comment essentially admits the importance of Platonic and Hellenistic philosophy to early Christian theology without being able to admit as much.Quote:
Practice of the two are mutually exclusive. You cannot be a Neoplatonist and a Christian at the same time.
Except the research clearly shows that's not the case. Maybe claiming the titles is exclusive. The philosophical principles are not, and Christianity liberally borrowed from the arguments and claims of the Neoplatonists.
Your argument is basically on the same tier as, 'Islam, judiasm, and christianity all believe in the same God!' Just because you and the church fathers can spot similarities, and address them does not mean its the foundational essence of the religion.
And you're looking at this from the lens of catholic post schism. Thats not the church fathers. And even honing in on one idea of any of the church fathers doesn't make them the arbiter of it. And again, the catholic church is way more into trying to express christianity through philosophy than the orthodox church. The orthodox are going to say this is all wrong and futile. The catholics are going to celebrate the half of Christianity that they can stuff into neoplatonism, ignore the half they cant, roll out the mission accomplished banner, and celebrate how they've built a bridge connecting christianity into pagan thought. Champaign reception to follow on the top floor of the ivory tower.
If you really want to get down to brass tacks, the continual push into philosophy versus the arms length approach of the orthodox church is a huge defining difference between the two. You can't sit here and say that, 'its christianity neeneer neeneer neeneer! You're going to get orthodox believers to just flat out say thats not the faith tradition of the apostles nor what they accept. Thats why you think its arrogant for Zobel to hand waive academic papers while you consider it the foundational source of truth. The whole pursuit is futile.
Zobel said:
Christian metaphysical beliefs were revealed to mankind, not constructed. That's the whole crux of the matter. The fact that there is independent overlap between some of the foundational principles of Platonism and the teachings of the Torah don't make one derivative of the other - though from the 2nd century BC through the 2nd century AD you find Jewish, Christian, and neopythagorean writers making the claim that the Platonic philosophical tradition were constructed and interpreted through the Jewish tradition.
747Ag said:It's a felt banner, though.Dies Irae said:This is funny because it's trueone MEEN Ag said:Look,Sapper Redux said:
I'll write a longer response when I have time, but your arrogance is palpable. No, those are not the first six articles. I tried to offer a brief overview of the variety of analysis. And your own comment essentially admits the importance of Platonic and Hellenistic philosophy to early Christian theology without being able to admit as much.Quote:
Practice of the two are mutually exclusive. You cannot be a Neoplatonist and a Christian at the same time.
Except the research clearly shows that's not the case. Maybe claiming the titles is exclusive. The philosophical principles are not, and Christianity liberally borrowed from the arguments and claims of the Neoplatonists.
Your argument is basically on the same tier as, 'Islam, judiasm, and christianity all believe in the same God!' Just because you and the church fathers can spot similarities, and address them does not mean its the foundational essence of the religion.
And you're looking at this from the lens of catholic post schism. Thats not the church fathers. And even honing in on one idea of any of the church fathers doesn't make them the arbiter of it. And again, the catholic church is way more into trying to express christianity through philosophy than the orthodox church. The orthodox are going to say this is all wrong and futile. The catholics are going to celebrate the half of Christianity that they can stuff into neoplatonism, ignore the half they cant, roll out the mission accomplished banner, and celebrate how they've built a bridge connecting christianity into pagan thought. Champaign reception to follow on the top floor of the ivory tower.
If you really want to get down to brass tacks, the continual push into philosophy versus the arms length approach of the orthodox church is a huge defining difference between the two. You can't sit here and say that, 'its christianity neeneer neeneer neeneer! You're going to get orthodox believers to just flat out say thats not the faith tradition of the apostles nor what they accept. Thats why you think its arrogant for Zobel to hand waive academic papers while you consider it the foundational source of truth. The whole pursuit is futile.
