Is learning Greek Philosophy useful?

[Radagast]

Got another "standard" Christian response...

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

That verse doesn't mean what you think it means. You must still have your Hebrew lenses on.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. (Colossians 2:8, NIV)

Since Paul immediately goes on to talk about circumcision (Colossians 2:11), Jewish food rules and festivals (Colossians 2:16), and other Pharisaic rules (Colossians 2:21-23), what kind of "hollow and deceptive philosophy" do you think he meant?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

That verse doesn't mean what you think it means. You must still have your Hebrew lenses on.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. (Colossians 2:8, NIV)

Since Paul immediately goes on to talk about circumcision (Colossians 2:11), Jewish food rules and festivals (Colossians 2:16), and other Pharisaic rules (Colossians 2:21-23), what kind of "hollow and deceptive philosophy" do you think he meant?

Sorry no Hebrew lens were on, it is (wrongly) commonly used as an objection to the study of philosophy period. Your answer though is another story. Admittedly the "tradition(s) of men" includes extra biblical traditions you allude to, however...

The answer is in the immediate context...

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

"the basic principals of the world" and "not according to Christ"

In broader application it is the Christian philosophy according to Christ vs the empty deceitful philosophies patterned after the world.

 

[Radagast]

The answer is in the immediate context...

You have to take the whole chapter as context.

 

[trophy33]

You are, of course, free to read the bible any way you wish--as for me and my house---I want it to be as accurate as possible. I do not care to interpret the scripters according to a Pagan way of thinking. Even of those Jews who did speak Greek, they were still Jews and th0ought as such. And that is what bible interpretation is all about--they try to interpret the word according to how the Jews used their language.
That is why you don't understand what it means when they talked about the names---they meant something. It described who the individual was, and that is why Jesus is going to give the saved new names--that only He and the individual will know. Ha e you ever heard of the Targums? They were the Jewish scripture's in Aramaic. They are from the Babylonian exile. They were using Aramaic so much that the scribes had to translate the scripture into Aramaic--and they had to get it as it was meant to be read, not according to Babylonian thinking. In the synagogue, they read the scriptures in Hebrew, then it was translated into Aramaic--it was never read solely in Aramaic in the synagogues.

So, how can you explain that "pagan Greeks with pagan Greek thought" accepted the message about Christ massively and Jews with such great "Jewish thinking and language" rejected Christ?

As Monk Brendan said, it really looks like God prepared pagans to accept Christ and things about Him through their language and philosophy (terms like "Logos", ideas about gods and men having children etc). While Jews with all their aramaic, targums, synagogues, Hebrew, way of thinking, traditions etc. stayed outside.

 

[mmksparbud]

So, how can you explain that "pagan Greeks with pagan Greek thought" accepted the message about Christ massively and Jews with such great "Jewish thinking and language" rejected Christ?

As Monk Brendan said, it really looks like God prepared pagans to accept Christ and things about Him through their language and philosophy (terms like "Logos", ideas about gods and men having children etc). While Jews with all their aramaic, targums, synagogues, Hebrew, way of thinking, traditions etc. stayed outside.

Not all Greeks accepted and certainly not all Jews rejected! Just about all first Christians were Jews--it was to the Jew first and all the first disciples and apostles were Jews and Hellenist Jews.

 

[trophy33]

Not all Greeks accepted and certainly not all Jews rejected!

But the percentage was (and still is) quite different.

Just about all first Christians were Jews--it was to the Jew first and all the first disciples and apostles were Jews and Hellenist Jews.

Logically, because Jesus lived in Palestine. But in the moment apostles began to spread the word in the wider Greek world, the situation changed drastically. Paul is known more than most of other apostles and wrote most of the NT scriptures just because he was "the apostle of Greeks".
It really seems that "Greeks" (meaning the Roman empire) were prepared for Christ.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I mean, works of Plato and Aristotle have been used by Christians to defend their beliefs or even to get into a common ground with non-Christians. What do you think?

By knowing Greek Philosophy one gets to laugh, when someone who is ignorant claims Christian Theology came out of Greek Philosophy,. There is no problem in knowing the historical culture of their day.

 

[Dave-W]

The Orthodox Church teaches that philosophy was given to the Gentiles to prepare them for Christ.

The main thing about studying the best philosophers is that they teach you how to think clearly and rationally.

We just finished the celebration of Hanukkah, which is about the events recorded in Maccabees 1. So I am reading a book “Light” by First Fruits of Zion about the events we commemorate. The issue arose from the process of Hellenization. On page 23 there is this quote that I think applies to this discussion, and to why the Maccabees took up arms against the Greek occupiers.

The story of Hanukkah is the story of a war between two world-views, that of Hellenism and that of Torah. Hellenism is the language of humanism, philosophical theology, and relativism. Torah is the language of theism, mitzvot, deeds, and revelation.
​

Judah Maccabee and his brothers were on the side of Torah. God saw to it they won.

 

[Radagast]

Hellenism is the language of humanism, philosophical theology, and relativism. Torah is the language of theism, mitzvot, deeds, and revelation.

Me, I speak the language of Christianity.

Judah Maccabee and his brothers were on the side of Torah. God saw to it they won.

As I recall, Judas Maccabeus allied himself with Rome. That really worked out well, didn't it?

 

[Dave-W]

As I recall, Judas Maccabeus allied himself with Rome. That really worked out well, didn't it?

That alliance was a hundred years later and was over the dispute between 2 of Judah’s grandchildren (or great grandchildren) over who should be the next king.

Ya know, I bet Judah and his family would be REALLY angry over his name being made Greek.

 

[Radagast]

That alliance was a hundred years later

Really? I was pretty sure it was the year before Judas Maccabeus died.

καὶ ἐπέλεξεν ᾿Ιούδας τὸν Εὐπόλεμον υἱὸν ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ ᾿Ακκὼς καὶ ᾿Ιάσονα υἱὸν ᾿Ελεαζάρου καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς Ῥώμην στῆσαι αὐτοῖς φιλίαν καὶ συμμαχίαν (1 Macc 8:17)

Ya know, I bet Judah and his family would be REALLY angry over his name being made Greek.

I'm using the Septuagint version of the name. The book of Maccabees was written in Greek, after all.

And, if the ghost of Judas Maccabeus is offended, watch me not care in the slightest.

 

[trophy33]

We just finished the celebration of Hanukkah, which is about the events recorded in Maccabees 1. So I am reading a book “Light” by First Fruits of Zion about the events we commemorate. The issue arose from the process of Hellenization. On page 23 there is this quote that I think applies to this discussion, and to why the Maccabees took up arms against the Greek occupiers.

The story of Hanukkah is the story of a war between two world-views, that of Hellenism and that of Torah. Hellenism is the language of humanism, philosophical theology, and relativism. Torah is the language of theism, mitzvot, deeds, and revelation.
​

Judah Maccabee and his brothers were on the side of Torah. God saw to it they won.

And, surprise... Jews rejected and killed their own Messiah, Hellenized Greeks accepted Him.

So, Greek thinking was probably more useful than Hanukkah. Or, God is more merciful to Greeks. Or both.

 

[Dave-W]

And, surprise... Jews rejected and killed their own Messiah, Hellenized Greeks accepted Him.

Hellenized Jews rejected Torah, the Law. Here is what James (Jacob) said:

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands [gr = myriads, ten thousands] there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law;

Those were NOT Hellenized.

 

[Uber Genius]

I mean, works of Plato and Aristotle have been used by Christians to defend their beliefs or even to get into a common ground with non-Christians. What do you think?

Plato's Timaeus and allegory of the cave are worth reading but the neoplatonic ideas that influenced both the Church Fathers as well as Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas are best acquired by reading, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. I don't know of any Evangelicals who are also Platonists, believe that eternal immaterial forms are the source of causal origin of all that exists. Aristotle was co-opted by Aquinas to suggest such were the ideas in God's head, but no need to put Aristotle ahead of Aquinas on the reading list.

Given that we all are limited in our study time, cultural contexts like Ancient Near East (ANE) Literature from 2600 BCE to 330 BCE would be a better use of one's time as it sets the context for the OT.

Similarly, NT Culture from the Seleucids through 100 C. E. would be equally helpful.

Modern philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, Marilyn Adams, Robert Adams, William Alston, Keith Ward, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Richard Swinburne, J.P. Moreland, John Lennox, Peter Kreeft, Jacques Ellul, Roderick Chilsome, William Lane Craig, robin Collins, Paul Copan, Ed Feser, Dallas Willard and Francis Schaeffer(sure I have forgotten dozens) are all more impactful and practical than Plato or Aristotle on our current Christian philosophical foundations. So it is a matter of prioritization.

Often ideas such as impassibility, or the ineffability of God are seem more like philosophical baggage rather than reasoned inferences necessitated by God's nature.

Note: (Should have given a trigger warning to our Thomistic friends here on CF, mods please don't send me a "flaming" warning for saying "seems like philosophical baggage," please, no really, please).

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Plato's Timaeus and allegory of the cave are worth reading but the neoplatonic ideas that influenced both the Church Fathers as well as Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas are best acquired by reading, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. I don't know of any Evangelicals who are also Platonists, believe that eternal immaterial forms are the source of causal origin of all that exists. Aristotle was co-opted by Aquinas to suggest such were the ideas in God's head, but no need to put Aristotle ahead of Aquinas on the reading list.

Given that we all are limited in our study time, cultural contexts like Ancient Near East (ANE) Literature from 2600 BCE to 330 BCE would be a better use of one's time as it sets the context for the OT.

Similarly, NT Culture from the Seleucids through 100 C. E. would be equally helpful.

Modern philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, Marilyn Adams, Robert Adams, William Alston, Keith Ward, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Richard Swinburne, J.P. Moreland, John Lennox, Peter Kreeft, Jacques Ellul, Roderick Chilsome, William Lane Craig, robin Collins, Paul Copan, Ed Feser, Dallas Willard and Francis Schaeffer(sure I have forgotten dozens) are all more impactful and practical than Plato or Aristotle on our current Christian philosophical foundations. So it is a matter of prioritization.

Often ideas such as impassibility, or the ineffability of God are seem more like philosophical baggage rather than reasoned inferences necessitated by God's nature.

Note: (Should have given a trigger warning to our Thomistic friends here on CF, mods please don't send me a "flaming" warning for saying "seems like philosophical baggage," please, no really, please).

lol

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But the percentage was (and still is) quite different.


Logically, because Jesus lived in Palestine. But in the moment apostles began to spread the word in the wider Greek world, the situation changed drastically. Paul is known more than most of other apostles and wrote most of the NT scriptures just because he was "the apostle of Greeks".
It really seems that "Greeks" (meaning the Roman empire) were prepared for Christ.

...I don't know about that. In looking at all of the problems in the Corinithian church, I'd say they had their share of cultural hold-ups which sometimes seems to have prevented them from fully accepting Christ and living our their faith.

 

[RDKirk]

How do you know it is a "false idea?" Have you read other Jewish writings from the same era to verify that?

I would submit that reading Jewish texts thru a Greek logic lens is the distortion, not the other way around.

And I would argue that we continue to view Jewish texts through a Greek logic lens.

 

[mmksparbud]

And I would argue that we continue to view Jewish texts through a Greek logic lens.

Which is why Greek philosophy crept into the bible and distorted some concepts that the Jews never had, which means God didn't either as He is the one (Holy Spirit) that inspired the bible, not the Greeks.

 

[Radagast]

Which is why Greek philosophy crept into the bible

Well, no.

This is generally what people say when they want to attack the Bible in order to spread heresy.

Any Greek philosophical terms and quotes are in the Bible because God wanted them to be there.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well, no.

This is what people say when they want to attack the Bible in order to spread heresy.

No--the heresy is the Greek philosophy.