Bridging the Gap

[2PhiloVoid]

I ran into it yesterday--I've been reading Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity, and it came up. It was pretty shocking.

Republic bk2, 361e-362a

"They'll say that a just person in such circumstances will be whipped, stretched on a rack, chained, blinded with fire, and, at the end, when he has suffered every kind of evil, he'll be impaled, and will realize then that one shouldn't want to be just but to be believed to be just."

(Obviously Plato is not Macchiavelli and not actually suggesting not being just. Just being his good old Socratic self.)

Some translations, including the one that showed up in the Ratzinger book, use "crucified" instead of "impaled." I freaked out, then grabbed my own copy and found "impaled" instead. I looked it up, and while "impaled" is the more literal translation, it refers to the form of capital punishment used in Greece that eventually became Roman crucifixion, so both are apparently legitimate.

Ok. I just found it and circled where it sits amidst some reading material I had from a Social Philosophy class 15 years ago. Amazingly enough, we were only given chapters 2, 3, 4 and 8, but ... there it is! It's so strange; I can see it now as I read it, but back then, it wasn't one of the parts that I 'noticed' and highlighted. Thank you for bringing this to my (our) attention. It is very interesting!

There are lots of parallels between Platonism and Christianity (especially once Plotinus formulates a God/Logos/Spirit trinity in the 2nd century), but this is one I hadn't been aware of until last night. (Granted, he could have been thinking of Socrates, but this is very different imagery than what would fit with Socrates' execution.)

Yes, I hadn't thought about this before, but I agree with you on these points you've gathered from Ratzinger, and you're inspiring me to reread these portions of Plato again. You're also inspiring me to start reading this new book by Robert Barron that I bought with a half dozen others here a few weeks ago.

 

[Silmarien]

Ok. I just found it and circled where it sits amidst some reading material I had from a Social Philosophy class 15 years ago. Amazingly enough, we were only given chapters 2, 3, 4 and 8, but ... there it is! It's so strange; I can see it now as I read it, but back then, it wasn't one of the parts that I 'noticed' and highlighted. Thank you for bringing this to my (our) attention. It is very interesting!

Yes, I hadn't thought about this before, but I agree with you on these points you've gathered from Ratzinger, and you're inspiring me to reread these portions of Plato again. You're also inspiring me to start reading this new book by Robert Barron that I bought with a half dozen others here a few weeks ago.

Hehe, my most recent purchase was this one, since I need to wash the secularism out of my liberal feminism a bit.

But yeah, I need to reread Republic myself, but it's intimidatingly long.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hehe, my most recent purchase was this one, since I need to wash the secularism out of my liberal feminism a bit.

Goodness gracious!! I guess that's one way to learn and conceptualize the Trinity. I'll have to add Sarah Coakley to the list of potential 'reads.'

But yeah, I need to reread Republic myself, but it's intimidatingly long.

....I'm not sure I'd want to conquer the entire Republic with all the other reading I'd like to do. Of course, in saying this, I'm sure I'll miss out on some stimulating Socratic inquiry. However, even with that being the case, I do feel very confident that I've given my best shot to a full reading and earnest analysis of Euthyphro. Because of that, I've decided to enroll in the Bug's Bunny theological seminary..........................or was it a philosophy academy? Ah! No matter.

 

[devolved]

Because of that, I've decided to enroll in the Bug's Bunny theological seminary..........................or was it a philosophy academy? Ah! No matter.

Don't know about Bugs, but if you ever need the concept of love explained, there's no one better than Daffy:

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hehe, my most recent purchase was this one, since I need to wash the secularism out of my liberal feminism a bit.

p.s. I see that your new book has something to do with the subject of prayer as well. That's definitely a plus!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Don't know about Bugz, but if you ever need the concept of love explained, there's no one better than Daffy:

Wow. That was so......................"New School"!

I'll tell you what! With this video, you not only explained the concept of love in ways I hadn't ventured (or dared) to dream about yet, but you also reminded me that I'm ever so increasingly becoming "Old School"!
So, uh, thanks a lot?!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wow. That was so......................"New School"!

I'll tell you what! With this video, you not only explained the concept of love in ways I hadn't ventured (or dared) to dream about yet, but you also reminded me that I'm ever so increasingly becoming "Old School"!
So, uh, thanks a lot?!

[edit: Or, @devolved, maybe I HAVE ventured to dream about that, but that's a whole can of worms that belongs in another thread.......like the following one!]

You're now on the "Artificial Friend's List," buddy! Oh, Yeah!

 

[cvanwey]

What about them? I honestly don't care. It's the potential prophecy about the Crucifixion in Plato's Republic that gives me the most pause, seeing as how I'm a shameless Hellenizer and all. The Old Testament isn't the only thing that you could say has been fulfilled here.

Avoiding it doesn't make it go away. OT prophecy is one of the main arguments which Christians use to validate the NT. Furthermore, if following your rationale, the 'god' of the OT would swiftly invalidate the 10 commandments.

I remember reading Plato Republic in a philosophy class decades ago. Though I don't recall the absolute specifics, it seems the main premise of the book was to define justice. However, I doubt most are taking prophecy from this author any more seriously than the prophecies from Nostradamus

 

[cvanwey]

Is the Resurrection, as it is presented in the New Testament, a literal claim?

Yes, I believe that it is.

Man, cvanwey, you don't ask for much, do you?

The thing is, I'm going to cut ahead in the middle of your chase and again say that we'll need to apply steps 1 through 4 in order to even begin to crack this open. Moreover, we have what I'm going to call here, the "cvanwey subjectivity problem." And this problem is that your Christian interlocutors will need to know what you mean by the term "evidence" and what kinds of it will satisfy you.

So, we have to argue first over the nature of evidence and to what qualifies as evidence. If it isn't the same thing epistemologically and ontologically as it is in, say, science, then we have a problem, and the outcome would then look something like this: Christian after Christian after diverse Christian offers to cvanwey some notions, citations, or evaluations of evidence pertaining to the Resurrection of Jesus, BUT because none of those things fits how cvanwey conceptualizes "evidence" in this sphere of philosophical discourse, then he simply bats away each and every offering that is given to him in the process of time.

I mean, I don't know about you, but I so hate playing games where the goal posts not only move, but are basically invisible.

Let's start with the evidence which convinced/convinces you, and why it is sound?

I mean, I've never been to New York, but truly and fully believe the claimed evidence for September 11th, 2001. Such an event, though tragic, as it affected many many many lives, fails in comparison to claims of a resurrection claim - which also claims to indicate 'eternal salvation'. So for such an event to be 'true' evidence, needs to appear sound to me. So watch'za got for this very specific claim? As a precursor, I feel I may have studied many/most such topics of evidence for this claim. So long descriptions are not necessary. If you mention the topic, there is a good chance I have ran across it. At which point, we can explore accordingly.

I studied claims for the resurrection for a couple of years now, with an open mind - (believe it or not). Why, because I repeatedly heard from, what I considered very respected people, that the 'evidence' for a resurrection is so overwhelming, it is 'flat out undeniable'. So let's start by comparing the 'evidence' for this claim, to that of any other mundane well substantiated claim, (i.e.) the winner to last years Super Bowl, or as mentioned prior - '911'; neither of which I attended and only had to accept or deny such claims, based upon presented 'evidence'.

Fast forwarding even further, once this resurrection evidence is presented, I should have no choice but to accept it. At which point, I will then have one remaining dilemma... Do I choose to follow or not At which point, would test my personal and relative moral compass against the claims and assertions of the 'proven all mighty creator'.

I'm ready when you are.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's start with the evidence which convinced/convinces you, and why it is sound?

Evidence that has "convinced" me? You do realize that in asking this of me, you're asking a person, maybe someone like yourself, who thinks that there is a huge contemplation to make when attempting to jump "Lessing's Ditch." Of course, I do like to consider myself somewhat of a kind of spiritual "Evel Knievel," hermeneutically speaking.

Where do you stand on the idea of Lessing's Ditch? I have to ask because how one conceptualizes and addresses this issue affects some small portion of the outcome, regardless of the evidence!

Oh, and Happy Halloween!

 

[cvanwey]

Evidence that has "convinced" me? You do realize that in asking this of me, you're asking a person, maybe someone like yourself, who thinks that there is a huge contemplation to make when attempting to jump "Lessing's Ditch." Of course, I do like to consider myself somewhat of a kind of spiritual "Evel Knievel," hermeneutically speaking.

View attachment 244462

Where do you stand on the idea of Lessing's Ditch? I have to ask because how one conceptualizes and addresses this issue affects some small portion of the outcome, regardless of the evidence!

Oh, and Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween as well.

I'm not sure why 'Gotthold' is the accepted 'standard' for evaluating evidence?

I do see where you are going by asking however...

I guess I'm more curious than anything, as to the fundamental reasons you have accepted claims to a postmortem Jesus claim; where I, on the other hand, have doubted them

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Happy Halloween as well.

I'm not sure why 'Gotthold' is the accepted 'standard' for evaluating evidence?

See the responses below which I gave a few years ago to another hapless individual, wherein I take into consideration a pound or two of Gotthold and Kierkegaard (yes, I am lazy and I don't want to write all of the following out yet again ):

Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

I do see where you are going by asking however...

...that's good that you see where this might (might?) be going.

I guess I'm more curious than anything, as to the fundamental reasons you have accepted claims to a postmortem Jesus claim; where I, on the other hand, have doubted them

I'll just cut to the chase: My basic answer will end up essentially appearing to the casual observer as some kind of "faith" emerging from a Coherency model of Epistemology, and it will be one that is more Existential in nature (...shall we say "Subjective? Interjective? Sobjective?") than it will be Evidentialistic or Foundationalistic.

 

[cvanwey]

See the responses below which I gave a few years ago to another hapless individual, wherein I take into consideration a pound or two of Gotthold and Kierkegaard (yes, I am lazy and I don't want to write all of the following out yet again ):

Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

...that's good that you see where this might (might?) be going.



I'll just cut to the chase: My basic answer will end up essentially appearing to the casual observer as some kind of "faith" emerging from a Coherency model of Epistemology, and it will be one that is more Existential in nature (...shall we say "Subjective? Interjective? Sobjective?") than it will be Evidentialistic or Foundationalistic.

The 'credibility' of any specific 'witness' is not what seems to live or die as 'true/false', by my standards. It is more-so the quantity, as well as the independent consistency/corroboration which reigns 'true' to such a claim.

Sal, having a 'revelation' on a trip in the desert, of course does not sway many as 'evidence', regardless of his 'trustworthiness' or 'accountability'. And it may even be possible what he claims to have experienced he may have thought was actually 'true.' But so do the intelligent people I have spoken to, whom have had a near death experience and witnessed their god, whom happens to not been Yahweh BTW.

When watching the video of the OP, one specific point is made, which seems to hold or resonate with myself... As soon as humans had the ability to validate such claims, is ironically when all such revelations discontinued coming to fruition in history. Coincidence?

One could argue God does not work upon a human time time. One could also argue God needed to reconcile sin long ago, to 'save' more soles. However, seems rather ironic, that no such 'miracles' have been demonstrated in such a way, as to become a mundane fact by validation.

At such an impasse, humans would no longer have to debate, or attempt to practice some sort of possible 'rational discourse' (emotion vs logic), 'faith', or other, to accept a claim. It would be 'common knowledge'. Yes, some might still deny, like 'landing on the moon', or the 'world is flat', but I think you get the gist...

Thoughts?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The 'credibility' of any specific 'witness' is not what seems to live or die as 'true/false', by my standards. It is more-so the quantity, as well as the independent consistency/corroboration which reigns 'true' to such a claim.

I won't criticize your desire to see a consensus among various credible past testimonies by which to apply your own personal analysis and evaluation.

Like you, I too would very much prefer to see the Christian faith have a historical litany of testimonies behind it to boost its historical legitimacy. I'd also like to see evidences both for and against Jesus' historical personage and for and against His supposed resurrection. (Yes, I said 'supposed,' since that is what it often looks like to those who are committed to the present milieu of the 21st century "hive" mind...)

Sal, having a 'revelation' on a trip in the desert, of course does not sway many as 'evidence', regardless of his 'trustworthiness' or 'accountability'. And it may even be possible what he claims to have experienced he may have thought was actually 'true.' But so do the intelligent people I have spoken to, whom have had a near death experience and witnessed their god, whom happens to not been Yahweh BTW.

Sure. I'm not going to contest these possibilities, but we do need to keep in mind that a subjective collection of individual Near Death experiences that we ourselves can't test won't be testable

No, we have to realize that Lessing's Ditch comes into play, and that even IF Paul is found to be credible to us, that in itself probably won't be enough for us to say, "Eureka! I've discovered my faith in Jesus through Paul!" No, we're still going to find ourselves flying through the air in the epistemological void of the Ditch.

When watching the video of the OP, one specific point is made, which seems to hold or resonate with myself... As soon as humans had the ability to validate such claims, is ironically when all such revelations discontinued coming to fruition in history. Coincidence?

Is that exactly what you think he's saying at point 5:25 to 5:55? (CHECK?!]

One could argue God does not work upon a human time time. One could also argue God needed to reconcile sin long ago, to 'save' more soles. However, seems rather ironic, that no such 'miracles' have been demonstrated in such a way, as to become a mundane fact by validation.

Or, it could be that Jewish writing, such as much of what we read in the Old Testament is of a different paradigmatic nature than what we today many times assume it is or that we think it should be (i.e. for it to be "useful" to us), and it is this difference that Jewish scholar, Jacob Neusner (2004) lays out in his book, Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture: Introduction to the Rabbinic Midrash.

At such an impasse, humans would no longer have to debate, or attempt to practice some sort of possible 'rational discourse' (emotion vs logic), 'faith', or other, to accept a claim. It would be 'common knowledge'. Yes, some might still deny, like 'landing on the moon', or the 'world is flat', but I think you get the gist...

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that you've just begun your jump into Lessing's Ditch by invoking for us here your epistemological impasse.........

 

[Silmarien]

Avoiding it doesn't make it go away. OT prophecy is one of the main arguments which Christians use to validate the NT. Furthermore, if following your rationale, the 'god' of the OT would swiftly invalidate the 10 commandments.

I remember reading Plato Republic in a philosophy class decades ago. Though I don't recall the absolute specifics, it seems the main premise of the book was to define justice. However, I doubt most are taking prophecy from this author any more seriously than the prophecies from Nostradamus

What part of "I am a Platonist" don't you understand? That is a separate religious paradigm.

If Christianity is true, it follows that the Old Testament is in some sense inspired. I don't take that for granted, though, since my default position is viewing the Old Testament as a bunch of myths. I don't care about OT prophecies. I do care about a potential Platonic prophecy, though, because I am a Platonist.

 

[cvanwey]

What part of "I am a Platonist" don't you understand? That is a separate religious paradigm.

If Christianity is true, it follows that the Old Testament is in some sense inspired. I don't take that for granted, though, since my default position is viewing the Old Testament as a bunch of myths. I don't care about OT prophecies. I do care about a potential Platonic prophecy, though, because I am a Platonist.

I only understand that your description states both ' Rogue Platonist' (and) "Christian Seeker". My point is that the only prophecy, which counts to an active or practicing Christian, is that which resides from the Bible specifically. And sure, you could make a case for your cause. But the only ones which count, to a practicing NT follower, is that of the ones written specifically within the OT. Sure, you may be 'rogue'. But if you are truly a seeker of Christianity, I doubt they care of the 'prophecy' outside their own believed collection of texts; which is all encompassed within 66 chapters.

Again, if you are a seeker, or wanting to become a Christian in any way, it would stand to reason you would need to accept that the OT speaks of a later prophet. That's all. And yes, there exists many denominations... However, one of the main premises of Christianity, is to demonstrate fulfilled prophecy. The NT attempts to demonstrate this quite clearly. So if you do not care, it's almost as large as saying you are a Christian, while not believing in a resurrection.

 

[Silmarien]

I only understand that your description states both ' Rogue Platonist' (and) "Christian Seeker". My point is that the only prophecy, which counts to an active or practicing Christian, is that which resides from the Bible specifically. And sure, you could make a case for your cause. But the only ones which count, to a practicing NT follower, is that of the ones written specifically within the OT. Sure, you may be 'rogue'. But if you are truly a seeker of Christianity, I doubt they care of the 'prophecy' outside their own believed collection of texts; which is all encompassed within 66 chapters.

I kind of am a practicing Christian--it doesn't fit all that comfortably yet, but it really is the missing piece in my Platonism, so there's no use in pretending otherwise. It's pretty common in Catholicism and especially Orthodoxy to say that Christianity fulfills the hope unspoken in all religions, not just Judaism. Seriously, you need to break out of the shell of fundamentalist Protestantism if you want to wander around telling people what they should and should not care about.

I am much, much more intrigued by prophetic language that we run into outside of the biblical context, because the possibility that the NT writers were deliberately sculpting the story to fit the prophecies is ruled out. Given how early Christianity co-opted and incorporated Greek philosophy, I do give more weight to the argument that Greek thought prefigured Christ than I do to biblical prophecy.

 

[cvanwey]

I kind of am a practicing Christian--it doesn't fit all that comfortably yet, but it really is the missing piece in my Platonism, so there's no use in pretending otherwise. It's pretty common in Catholicism and especially Orthodoxy to say that Christianity fulfills the hope unspoken in all religions, not just Judaism. Seriously, you need to break out of the shell of fundamentalist Protestantism if you want to wander around telling people what they should and should not care about.

I find it peculiar that you, on the one hand, tell me what (I) need to be doing; and yet, on the other hand, tell me I what I shouldn't tell others.

I'm not wandering aimlessly here. OT prophecy is practically as revered as the claimed resurrection itself. It becomes one of the central reasons or justification for the term 'Christianity'. Without it, you may as well not call yourself a Christian. You eliminate all OT prophetic claims, than there exists no foundation for the future claimed Messiah. And Christians, of all sects, refer to many of them for justification in their faiths. Heck, even Jesus Himself apparently claims to be Yahweh, as expressed from the OT. Jesus himself references OT scripture. Again, you can't have the NT w/o the OT. So to delete such chapters seems to instead be inventing your own religion, apart from the core claims of Christianity.

Though I get that you are a 'rogue', your suggestion for me, of 'breaking my shell' appears rather odd quite frankly.

I am much, much more intrigued by prophetic language that we run into outside of the biblical context, because the possibility that the NT writers were deliberately sculpting the story to fit the prophecies is ruled out. Given how early Christianity co-opted and incorporated Greek philosophy, I do give more weight to the argument that Greek thought prefigured Christ than I do to biblical prophecy.

Yes, I get it, you are 'rogue.' However, I doubt you would go far with this line of thinking in Christian seminary.

 

[Silmarien]

I find it peculiar that you, on the one hand, tell me what (I) need to be doing; and yet, on the other hand, tell me I what I shouldn't tell others.

Not really. I think you should either get a better understanding of the Christian world beyond fundamentalist Protestantism or leave Christianity behind altogether. You shouldn't be applying fundamentalist assumptions to people who come from other segments of the Christian world, though, because it just doesn't work.

Of course, if for whatever reason you only want to discuss the fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity, you could clarify that in your OP as well.

I'm not wandering aimlessly here. OT prophecy is practically as revered as the claimed resurrection itself. It becomes one of the central reasons or justification for the term 'Christianity'. Without it, you may as well not call yourself a Christian. You eliminate all OT prophetic claims, than there exists no foundation for the future claimed Messiah. And Christians, of all sects, refer to many of them for justification in their faiths. Heck, even Jesus Himself apparently claims to be Yahweh, as expressed from the OT. Jesus himself references OT scripture. Again, you can't have the NT w/o the OT. So to delete such chapters seems to instead be inventing your own religion, apart from the core claims of Christianity.

I'm not inclined to delete the Old Testament. I find an allegorical reading of Genesis very intriguing, and some of the Prophets are interesting as well. If Christianity is true, then Judaism has to be in some sense inspired as well. That's fine. I have no problem with progressive revelation.

Doesn't mean I care about Old Testament prophecy, though. If Christianity is true, then it would follow that there's something to the prophecies as well, but I find arguments revolving around them particularly suspect. Which seems reasonable. Last I checked, I'm not required to accept every argument people like to run with.

Yes, I get it, you are 'rogue.' However, I doubt you would go far with this line of thinking in Christian seminary.

Eh, there are stranger things than me coming out of divinity schools.

 

[cvanwey]

Not really. I think you should either get a better understanding of the Christian world beyond fundamentalist Protestantism or leave Christianity behind altogether. You shouldn't be applying fundamentalist assumptions to people who come from other segments of the Christian world, though, because it just doesn't work.

I have a firm grasp. My best friend basically rejects all of the OT claims (of the supernatural) as fairy tale; but is somehow a Christian and accepts a resurrection claim. So I'm well aware of all such belief structures - (fundamental to progressive). But as I've pointed out to him as well, how is it consistent to reject practically the entire set of claims, but to retain the only one, which very loosely labels him a Christian? For this, I get shoulder shrugs and changing of the subject.

My point is simple, w/o Yahweh's 10 commandments, prophecy, and a resurrection, you may want to call yourself something other than a Christian, as all such claims go hand and hand by definition to the topic really. But do as you please, it is a free country. It just does not appear consistent with the belief system is all....

Of course, if for whatever reason you only want to discuss the fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity, you could clarify that in your OP as well.

No, I find your position fascinating, vexing, and perplexing... I welcome it quite frankly.

Doesn't mean I care about Old Testament prophecy, though. If Christianity is true, then it would follow that there's something to the prophecies as well, but I find arguments revolving around them particularly suspect. Which seems reasonable. Last I checked, I'm not required to accept every argument people like to run with.

I'm not saying that you HAVE to. But the Christian umbrella seems to incorporate prophecy as a staple or prerequisite to the belief system.


(Rant beginning..... now) What I find more intriguing however, is the us (vs) them mentality. Meaning, Christian (vs) not Christians. I find it interesting that I place questions here. Some answer like you, and some answer differently and even contradictory to you. But I see no in-fighting between conflicting faiths (fundamental on one end, and you on the other). Instead, I see 'agree', 'like', and 'winner' being added to such posters; as long as the post has some Christian label associated.

It would be refreshing if I saw Christian against Christian debating points whom conflict with each other. Instead, it appears that Christians all band together and non-believers, agnostics, deists, and skeptics kind of band together (but not as much, as there may not be as many). Interesting... Maybe I'll post a topic about it... (end rant)