Eastern VS Western Thinking

redleghunter said:

Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox, who hail the Greek fathers who were steeped in Greek education, disagreed with Augustine a Latin father based on Greek philosophy influence on original sin?

See why I'm skeptical on your approach to the subject? I think pious men can over play their hand on subjects such as sex in marriage when reading what Jesus and Paul said on celibacy. It does not have to be some Platonic notion of the flesh is evil. The Gnostics believed that stuff and Augustine and many church fathers refuted the Gnostics. Even the really Greek fathers.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the early church theologians. They were not infallible though and not always in agreement. Sounds familiar as such continued through the ages. But I really think some current and even past theologians over play the Greek philosophy angle.

Especially these internet blog sites promoting it. They should know it was not Platonic philosophy the early church encountered but Neo-Platonism which is of Oriental or Eastern origin from Alexandria. Probably why Alexandria was a hotbed for early Christian heresies.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Neo-Platonism

A system of idealistic, spiritualistic philosophy, tending towards mysticism, which flourished in the pagan world of Greece and Rome during the first centuries of the Christian era. It is of interest and importance, not merely because it is the last attempt of Greek thought to rehabilitate itself and restore its exhausted vitality by recourse to Oriental religious ideas, but also because it definitely entered the service of paganpolytheism and was used as a weapon against Christianity. It derives its name from the fact that its first representatives drew their inspiration from Plato's doctrines, although it is well known that many of the treatises on which they relied are not genuine works of Plato. It originated in Egypt, a circumstance which would, of itself, indicate that while the system was a characteristic product of the Hellenistic spirit, it was largely influenced by the religious ideals and mystic tendencies of Oriental thought.

To understand the neo-Platonic system in itself, as well as to appreciate the attitude of Christianity towards it, it is necessary to explain the two-fold purpose which actuated its founders. On the one hand, philosophical thought in the Hellenic world had proved itself inadequate to the task of moral and religious regeneration. Stoicism, Epicureanism, Eclecticism and even Scepticism had each been set the task of "making men happy", and each had in turn failed. Then came the thought that Plato's idealism and the religious forces of the Orient might well be united in one philosophical movement which would give definiteness, homogeneity, and unity of purpose to all the efforts of the pagan world to rescue itself from impending ruin. On the other hand, the strength and, from the paganpoint of view, the aggressiveness of Christianity began to be realized. It became necessary, in the intellectual world, to impose on the Christians by showing that Paganism was not entirely bankrupt, and, in the political world, to rehabilitate the official polytheism of the State by furnishing an interpretation of it, that should be acceptable in philosophy. Speculative Stoicism had reduced the gods to personifications of natural forces; Aristotle had definitely denied their existence; Plato had sneered at them. It was time, therefore, that the growing prestige of Christianity should be offset by a philosophy which, claiming the authority of Plato, whom the Christians revered, should not only retain the gods but make them an essential part of a philosophical system. Such was the origin of Neoplatonism. It should, however, be added that, while the philosophy that sprang from these sources was Platonic, it did not disdain to appropriate to itself elements of Aristoteleanism and even Epicureanism, which it articulated into a Syncretic system.​

Click to expand...

I think the argument your attempting to field here is dualism, that the soul survives the death of a person but the body fades off into the deep dark abyss. The pagans of the first century believed the body was like a shell, the soul was something that went on forever, once separated it was effectively freed, gnostics believed something a lot like this. The ancient Hebrews had a concept that could be described as when you die, that is it. There was some concept of an afterlife but nothing tangible really, just an occasional reference to the resurrection as far and I can tell. Supposedly, they had some inference to the afterlife but it's nothing to compare to Jesus describing what that would be in great detail. The Greco-Roman concepts were extremely different from the first century Christians who believed the body and soul would be reunited on the last day, whether righteous or wicked.

That or it's a naturalistic assumption that when your dead your done, either way, good luck introducing the New Testament witness in all of this. I have seen no resemblance to it in the thread except by accident.

redleghunter said:

Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox, who hail the Greek fathers who were steeped in Greek education, disagreed with Augustine a Latin father based on Greek philosophy influence on original sin?

See why I'm skeptical on your approach to the subject? I think pious men can over play their hand on subjects such as sex in marriage when reading what Jesus and Paul said on celibacy. It does not have to be some Platonic notion of the flesh is evil. The Gnostics believed that stuff and Augustine and many church fathers refuted the Gnostics. Even the really Greek fathers.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the early church theologians. They were not infallible though and not always in agreement. Sounds familiar as such continued through the ages. But I really think some current and even past theologians over play the Greek philosophy angle.

Especially these internet blog sites promoting it. They should know it was not Platonic philosophy the early church encountered but Neo-Platonism which is of Oriental or Eastern origin from Alexandria. Probably why Alexandria was a hotbed for early Christian heresies.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Neo-Platonism

A system of idealistic, spiritualistic philosophy, tending towards mysticism, which flourished in the pagan world of Greece and Rome during the first centuries of the Christian era. It is of interest and importance, not merely because it is the last attempt of Greek thought to rehabilitate itself and restore its exhausted vitality by recourse to Oriental religious ideas, but also because it definitely entered the service of paganpolytheism and was used as a weapon against Christianity. It derives its name from the fact that its first representatives drew their inspiration from Plato's doctrines, although it is well known that many of the treatises on which they relied are not genuine works of Plato. It originated in Egypt, a circumstance which would, of itself, indicate that while the system was a characteristic product of the Hellenistic spirit, it was largely influenced by the religious ideals and mystic tendencies of Oriental thought.

To understand the neo-Platonic system in itself, as well as to appreciate the attitude of Christianity towards it, it is necessary to explain the two-fold purpose which actuated its founders. On the one hand, philosophical thought in the Hellenic world had proved itself inadequate to the task of moral and religious regeneration. Stoicism, Epicureanism, Eclecticism and even Scepticism had each been set the task of "making men happy", and each had in turn failed. Then came the thought that Plato's idealism and the religious forces of the Orient might well be united in one philosophical movement which would give definiteness, homogeneity, and unity of purpose to all the efforts of the pagan world to rescue itself from impending ruin. On the other hand, the strength and, from the paganpoint of view, the aggressiveness of Christianity began to be realized. It became necessary, in the intellectual world, to impose on the Christians by showing that Paganism was not entirely bankrupt, and, in the political world, to rehabilitate the official polytheism of the State by furnishing an interpretation of it, that should be acceptable in philosophy. Speculative Stoicism had reduced the gods to personifications of natural forces; Aristotle had definitely denied their existence; Plato had sneered at them. It was time, therefore, that the growing prestige of Christianity should be offset by a philosophy which, claiming the authority of Plato, whom the Christians revered, should not only retain the gods but make them an essential part of a philosophical system. Such was the origin of Neoplatonism. It should, however, be added that, while the philosophy that sprang from these sources was Platonic, it did not disdain to appropriate to itself elements of Aristoteleanism and even Epicureanism, which it articulated into a Syncretic system.​

Click to expand...

I'm curious how you think things would have turned out if the fall had not happened. According to Augustine, sex was sinful. In his scheme of things, there would have been just two of each species if the fall did not occur.

Not the Hebrew view, for sure.

mark kennedy said:

I think the argument your attempting to field here is dualism, that the soul survives the death of a person but the body fades off into the deep dark abyss. The pagans of the first century believed the body was like a shell, the soul was something that went on forever, once separated it was effectively freed, gnostics believed something a lot like this. The ancient Hebrews had a concept that could be described as when you die, that is it. There was some concept of an afterlife but nothing tangible really, just an occasional reference to the resurrection as far and I can tell. Supposedly, they had some inference to the afterlife but it's nothing to compare to Jesus describing what that would be in great detail. The Greco-Roman concepts were extremely different from the first century Christians who believed the body and soul would be reunited on the last day, whether righteous or wicked.

That or it's a naturalistic assumption that when your dead your done, either way, good luck introducing the New Testament witness in all of this. I have seen no resemblance to it in the thread except by accident.

Click to expand...

Modern Judaism itself does not have a teaching on the afterlife and adherents are allowed to hold any view they wish. In fact, it wasn't something the Patriarchs worried about and the idea only came up for discussion after the Babylonian exile, where pagan teaching introduced it.

As far as Abraham was concerned, he wanted to keep what he already possessed, but was uncomfortable with the means the world adopted to do it, was alienated by the "country" and wanted a "holy city", a new humanity, not old Adam.

Wordkeeper said:

I'm curious how you think things would have turned out if the fall had not happened. According to Augustine, sex was sinful. In his scheme of things, there would have been just two of each species if the fall did not occur.

Not the Hebrew view, for sure.

Click to expand...

As I said get a pious former serial sinner like Augustine with the words of Jesus and Paul and you get an emphasis on celibacy. Which by extension would lead to his erroneous assumption sex inside of marriage is 'dirty.'

Don't think the Greeks or Romans had an influence on that as they were quite loose with the whole sex deal.

mark kennedy said:

Yea I suspect you have a great deal to explore along these lines, as Trump would say, I wish you luck. The immorality of the soul was a fairly new concept in the time of Christ, mainly because he emphasized it in no uncertain terms. Soul sleep is a doctrine popular with Jehovah's Witnesses because they don't believe in the resurrection with regards to most people.

Click to expand...

Except for one story that is recorded as the 5th story in a series of parables I can find no emphasis on the the idea from Jesus, unless one reads an interpretation into the text that is.
This one story is hardly a reason to construct a theology that makes a mockery of the reason that Jesus died for us, namely so we could gain eternal life in Him.

Anguspure said:

Except for one story that is recorded as the 5th story in a series of parables I can find no emphasis on the the idea from Jesus, unless one reads an interpretation into the text that is.
This one story is hardly a reason to construct a theology that makes a mockery of the reason that Jesus died for us, namely so we could gain eternal life in Him.

Click to expand...

Hardly, that's exactly what Paul was talking about when he said, 'absent from the body, present with the Lord'. You don't remember Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus at the transfiguration, or Jesus telling the thief on the cross, today you will be with me in paradise:

I've never really seen a phenomenon like this anywhere else, we have a unique brand of skeptic in our midst. Threads get derailed by people who are preaching an blatant error, and will not yield to the obvious. What is more the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable, there is no figurative language. You have to have two things being compared, they usually feature a 'like' or an 'as' in the immediate context. They do the same thing with Genesis, just pass it off as figurative and they can turn the allegorization into whatever they like.

Wordkeeper said:

Modern Judaism itself does not have a teaching on the afterlife and adherents are allowed to hold any view they wish.

Click to expand...

Indeed modern Judaism is nothing like even 2nd Temple Judaism. Modern Judaism does not even talk about sin as this man testifies:

Wordkeeper said:

In fact, it wasn't something the Patriarchs worried about and the idea only came up for discussion after the Babylonian exile, where pagan teaching introduced it.

Click to expand...

Which is highly debatable. I will agree the concepts were not fully developed but I don't believe Babylonian pagan beliefs had anything to do with the development as we can also point to progressive revelation. That's of course if one believes in YHWH actually speaking to the prophets and not the skeptic version of history where the Hebrews were just making stuff up and a product of their environment.

However, concepts of the afterlife were there even in some of the earlier books of the OT well before the exile and revelation to Daniel during the exile:

Job 19: NASB
25“As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives,
And at the last He will take His stand on the earth.

26“Even after my skin is destroyed,
Yet from my flesh I shall see God;

27Whom I myself shall behold,
And whom my eyes will see and not another.
My heart faints within me!

Isaiah 26: NASB
19Your dead will live;
Their corpses will rise.
You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy,
For your dew is as the dew of the dawn,
And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits.

20Come, my people, enter into your rooms
And close your doors behind you;
Hide for a little while
Until indignation runs its course.

21For behold, the LORD is about to come out from His place
To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity;
And the earth will reveal her bloodshed
And will no longer cover her slain.

We find more from the Psalms as well. Only one of the quoted below Psalms date during the Babylonian captivity. And that would be Psalm 49, which when you look at it, there are no hints of pagan influence.

Psalm 49: NASB
15But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol,
For He will receive me.
Selah.

16Do not be afraid when a man becomes rich,
When the glory of his house is increased;

17For when he dies he will carry nothing away;
His glory will not descend after him.


Psalm 73: NASB
23Nevertheless I am continually with You;
You have taken hold of my right hand.

24With Your counsel You will guide me,
And afterward receive me to glory.

25Whom have I in heaven but You?
And besides You, I desire nothing on earth.

26My flesh and my heart may fail,
But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever


Psalm 16: NASB
8 I have set the LORD continually before me;
Because He is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.

9 Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoices;
My flesh also will dwell securely.

10 For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol;
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.

11 You will make known to me the path of life;
In Your presence is fullness of joy;
In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.


Psalm 21: NASB
5 His glory is great through Your salvation,
Splendor and majesty You place upon him.

6 For You make him most blessed forever;
You make him joyful with gladness in Your presence.


Psalm 23: NASB
5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You have anointed my head with oil;
My cup overflows.

6 Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.


And of course we have exilic Daniel reference here:

Daniel 12: NASB
1“Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued. 2“Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. 3“Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. 4“But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.”

We see as revelation increased so did knowledge and wisdom.

mark kennedy said:

Hardly, that's exactly what Paul was talking about when he said, 'absent from the body, present with the Lord'. You don't remember Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus at the transfiguration, or Jesus telling the thief on the cross, today you will be with me in paradise:

Have you not read about the burning bush in the book of Moses, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” You are badly mistaken! (Mark 12:27)​

Click to expand...

I have already addressed the thief on the cross and it doesn't matter how you look at it whether from your view or mine, Jesus was not with the thief in Paradise when he died becuase sinners don't go to paradise when they die.
On your view they go to the naughty place whether that be hell or hades. On my view they go to the grave awaiting resurrection to judgement.

So on your view when Jesus died so that we could live, it was all a bit farcicle because we were never going to die anyway.

I am indeed sceptical of anything that attempts to degrade what Christ did on the Cross for us.

I've never really seen a phenomenon like this anywhere else, we have a unique brand of skeptic in our midst. Threads get derailed by people who are preaching an blatant error, and will not yield to the obvious. What is more the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable, there is no figurative language. You have to have two things being compared, they usually feature a 'like' or an 'as' in the immediate context. They do the same thing with Genesis, just pass it off as figurative and they can turn the allegorization into whatever they like.

Click to expand...

On my view it is irrelevant whether it is parable or not. If it really happens, it happens at a time that is consitent with resurrection, and need not be happening at a time concurrent with when the story is told.

Anguspure said:

​

I have already addressed the thief on the cross and it doesn't matter how you look at it whether from your view or mine, Jesus was not with the thief in Paradise when he died becuase sinners don't go to paradise when they die.
On your view they go to the naughty place whether that be hell or hades. On my view they go to the grave awaiting resurrection to judgement

Click to expand...

Jesus said 'this day', that is not a tricky semantical exegetical challenge, he clearly meant that day. You are flatly contradicting the clear testimony of Scripture.

So on your view when Jesus died so that we could live, it was all a bit farcicle because we were never going to die anyway.

I am indeed sceptical of anything that attempts to degrade what Christ did on the Cross for us.

Click to expand...

Absent from the body present with the Lord is what Jesus does for us.

On my view it is irrelevant whether it is parable or not. If it really happens, it happens at a time that is consitent with resurrection, and need not be happening at a time concurrent with when the story is told.

Click to expand...

The fact that it's not a parable is highly significant, when it happened isn't exactly is something the Scriptures are silent about. This whole string theory, time dilation is a poor substitute for genuine metaphysics.

mark kennedy said:

Jesus said 'this day', that is not a tricky semantical exegetical challenge, he clearly meant that day. You are flatly contradicting the clear testimony of Scripture.

Click to expand...

How absurd, on your view sinners go to paradise.
Your view also flatly denies the clear and repeated testimony of Scripture that the penalty for sin is death, completley negates the need for substitutionary atonement and makes the idea of resurrection from the dead farcicle.

Anguspure said:

How absurd, on your view sinners go to paradise.
Your view also flatly denies the clear and repeated testimony of Scripture that the penalty for sin is death, completley negates the need for substitutionary atonement and makes the idea of resurrection from the dead farcicle.

Click to expand...

The Scriptures are clear we are all sinners and to be saved is to be justified by grace through faith, that's gospel. The the theif on the cross qualifies for grace, and I know that because he recieved it. Humanity is under the curse of sin and death, but the righteousness of God that is by faith has been revealed in Christ. That is the gospel, and what that has to do with the resurrection is a mystery to me.

mark kennedy said:

The Scriptures are clear we are all sinners and to be saved is to be justified by grace through faith, that's gospel. The the theif on the cross qualifies for grace, and I know that because he recieved it. Humanity is under the curse of sin and death, but the righteousness of God that is by faith has been revealed in Christ. That is the gospel, and what that has to do with the resurrection is a mystery to me.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the one who became sin for us and spent 3 days in the grave as a sinner on our behalf. When Jesus died he took on all of the sin of the world and paid the penalty for our sin. He suffered as we would suffer and paid the penalty for sin as we would have if it were not for Him.

He did not in any respect go to paradise until after His resurrection.

See here from the Gospel where Mary confuses the resurrected Lord for a gardner:

She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).

Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” (John 20)

On your view Jesus is not telling the truth here because according to that view He just spent 3 days in paradise in the presence of God (for that is what paradise means) with the thief.

Clearly here there is a paradox, and if a person wishes to finish it here and just trust that it'll all be resolved one day that is fine.

But if in an attempt we import foreign ideas of dualism and unconditional immortality that cloud other areas of theology then we do a disservice to the text, and now that truths about our created world have been revealed that help with resolving isuues such as this without reference to pagan ideaology we have even more reason to discard it.

redleghunter said:

As I said get a pious former serial sinner like Augustine with the words of Jesus and Paul and you get an emphasis on celibacy. Which by extension would lead to his erroneous assumption sex inside of marriage is 'dirty.'

Don't think the Greeks or Romans had an influence on that as they were quite loose with the whole sex deal.

Click to expand...

It all boils down to this.

The Greeks thought that humanity originated from a mix of the divine and the earthly. In order to fix the problem, man had to shed the earthly and rise to heaven as pure spirit.

The early Christians thought Platonism, matter being the problem, made sense. It explained how God's creature turned sinful: his body had become contaminated. And it was passed to all his descendants through sexual reproduction. Fixing it involved the church dispensing grace through baptism and other rituals.

Judaism teaches that Adam was created with survival instincts. Like other creatures. Then he was commanded to learn to subdue himself, tame himself like a rider trains a horse, regulate his impulses, to be useful to God.

Which is a more coherent interpretation?

Wordkeeper said:

Which is a more coherent interpretation?

Click to expand...

What history actually teaches us. Which what you propose is not how the orthodox fathers of the church taught theology.

The only early theologians who did what you wrote were Gnostics. And the prevailing philosophy of the time as I pointed out already was neo-Platonism.

Whoever is pushing this teaching of the early church father seeing the Platonic version of body evil vs soul good, is not very knowledgeable on the early writings.

I say that because the same skeptics can just go to Romans chapters 6 through 7 and make the same claim against the apostle Paul.

I'm sure no Christian would attempt to do that...

Anguspure said:

He did not in any respect go to paradise until after His resurrection.

Click to expand...

The price was paid on the Cross. Jesus did say It is Finished before giving up His spirit to the Father.

It's absurd to you because you reject the soul or inner person cannot leave the grave. That's really a problem for you as the Scriptures testify against your sunk assertion.

redleghunter said:

The price was paid on the Cross. Jesus did say It is Finished before giving up His spirit to the Father.

It's absurd to you because you reject the soul or inner person cannot leave the grave. That's really a problem for you as the Scriptures testify against your sunk assertion.

Click to expand...

So what He told Mary is not true?

Anguspure said:

So what He told Mary is not true?

Click to expand...

100% true!
When Mary saw Christ He was risen bodily. Therefore, what He said was true.

redleghunter said:

What history actually teaches us. Which what you propose is not how the orthodox fathers of the church taught theology.

The only early theologians who did what you wrote were Gnostics. And the prevailing philosophy of the time as I pointed out already was neo-Platonism.

Whoever is pushing this teaching of the early church father seeing the Platonic version of body evil vs soul good, is not very knowledgeable on the early writings.

I say that because the same skeptics can just go to Romans chapters 6 through 7 and make the same claim against the apostle Paul.

I'm sure no Christian would attempt to do that...

Click to expand...

TIME magazine is not a personal blog. Wright is a respected theologian AND historian:

Quote
TIME: Why, then, have we misread those verses?

Wright: It has, originally, to do with the translation of Jewish ideas into Greek. The New Testament is deeply, deeply Jewish, and the Jews had for some time been intuiting a final, physical resurrection. They believed that the world of space and time and matter is messed up, but remains basically good, and God will eventually sort it out and put it right again. Belief in that goodness is absolutely essential to Christianity, both theologically and morally. But Greek-speaking Christians influenced by Plato saw our cosmos as shabby and misshapen and full of lies, and the idea was not to make it right, but to escape it and leave behind our material bodies. The church at its best has always come back toward the Hebrew view, but there have been times when the Greek view was very influential.

Wordkeeper said:

TIME magazine is not a personal blog. Wright is a respected theologian AND historian:

Quote
TIME: Why, then, have we misread those verses?

Wright: It has, originally, to do with the translation of Jewish ideas into Greek. The New Testament is deeply, deeply Jewish, and the Jews had for some time been intuiting a final, physical resurrection. They believed that the world of space and time and matter is messed up, but remains basically good, and God will eventually sort it out and put it right again. Belief in that goodness is absolutely essential to Christianity, both theologically and morally. But Greek-speaking Christians influenced by Plato saw our cosmos as shabby and misshapen and full of lies, and the idea was not to make it right, but to escape it and leave behind our material bodies. The church at its best has always come back toward the Hebrew view, but there have been times when the Greek view was very influential.

Click to expand...

It's a good quote.

Can you quantify this now?

redleghunter said:

100% true!
When Mary saw Christ He was risen bodily. Therefore, what He said was true.

Click to expand...

And the soul suffers no penalty for sin?