Of course I can say what a Christian is for myself. — Apollodorus

Then do it.

Personally, I have no particular interest in demonstrating Greek influence on Jesus beyond language, as I believe that different cultures have sufficient elements in common as to not necessitate external influence in all cases. — Apollodorus

Ok, so it doesn't matter. Likewise, one could go on and on with the hypothesis that Plato was influenced by Jewish monotheism, but it doesn't actually matter. It changes nothing whatsoever. Plato would still be Plato.

As he sees it, the revelation of divine knowledge goes through Plato to Plotinus to Jesus. Conspicuously absent is the revelations of the Jewish prophets. — Fooloso4

So it's an attempt to arianize Jesus. To un-Jew him.

Plato would still be Plato. — Olivier5

I think that would be self-evident.

As self-evident as the fact that Jesus the man was of his time and place, an individual not a universal. As such, even if he read Plato, which I seriously doubt for reasons I explained, he would have interpret it within his own cultural framework. It's impossible to extract him from his cultural context.

So it's an attempt to arianize Jesus. To un-Jew him. — Olivier5

It is telling that he attempts to make a connection, what he calls "an unquestionable connection", between Platonism and Christianity via divine knowledge, then denies he has any interest in wanting to demonstrate that connection, but refuses to address a central feature of Judaism, revelation. As if Jesus was a Platonist rather than a Jew.

As self-evident as the fact that Jesus the man was of his time and place, an individual not a universal. — Olivier5

I see. Now I understand where your confusion comes from! :grin:

You haven't read the actual NT text, presumably due to spending too much time posting questionable and misinformed hypotheses on forums. If you had intimated this to me earlier I would have explained it to you and saved you a lot of wasted time.

However, the text is very clear and states the facts in unambiguous terms:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God … And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth … Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever ..." (John 1:1,14; Hebrews 13:8).
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).
The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God (Luke1:35).
Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18).
“Nathaniel answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God” (John 1:49).

The Christian Creed itself states:

I believe in God, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

There is an extensive literature on this, much of it written by the world's most eminent scholars, not fake or second-rate ones like Ehrman.

In any case, it is clear from the NT text that, in Christianity, Jesus had the external appearance of a human, but in reality he was the Son of God manifested by the power of the Holy Spirit. So, I'm afraid you guys got it all wrong. You really need to urgently revise your understanding of the topic in order to avoid future confusion - and unnecessary waste of time .... :wink:

Jesus had the external appearance of a human, but in reality he was the Son of God manifested by the power of the Holy Spirit. — Apollodorus

So Jesus was NOT influenced by Hellenistic thought, the Son of God don't need no human influence!

You have confirmed the following:

There are some here, perhaps most, who prefer historiography to a mythologized history designed to support certain assumptions that have more to do with Christian dogma and Neo-Platonism than historical evidence. As with the Christian apologists, history is distorted or ignored and rational argument buried under misdirection and misrepresentation in favor of some version of transcendental truths they imagine they know something about. — Fooloso4

In any case, it is clear from the NT text that, in Christianity, Jesus had the external appearance of a human, but in reality he was the Son of God manifested by the power of the Holy Spirit. — Apollodorus

If you believe in it, I suppose. But what if one does not believe in the idea that gods have actual, literal offsprings on earth? What if one was to read "He will be called the son of God" as meaning: "that is a phrase or a title people will use to speak of him"?

So it's an attempt to arianize Jesus. To un-Jew him. — Olivier5

That is the context of what I was asking schopenhauer1 about upthread. Is the emphasis upon Hellenization an evolved development of the replacement theology advanced by Paul and company?

Grimes, for example, says the prophetic tradition brought nothing to the party. That approach is more honest than saying the tradition was actually different than what most historical accounts record. In both cases, however, the view directly challenges Augustine placing the revelation of the 'Israelites' above the fruits of Athens.

If you believe in it, I suppose. — Olivier5

That was precisely what I was referring to and I’m glad you are beginning, however belatedly, to grasp the basic elements of the NT narrative and of Christology in general. As they say, it's never too late. :smile:

To my knowledge, most scholars who have studied the subject matter agree that there are three basic theoretical possibilities:

(1). Jesus was the Son of God, i.e., divine, in which case he was omniscient and needed no influence from anyone.
(2). Jesus was a human being, in which case he may have been influenced by Hellenistic Judaism and Platonism.
(3). Jesus never existed, in which case the question of his connection with Platonism does not arise, and all discussion of the subject is rendered superfluous.

Another, more distant possibility, would be that Ehrman was there and therefore he knows better than the rest of us. But I think we can safely discount this - for the time being.

In any case, it’s good to see that Foolo has opted for possibility (1) and I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate him for his choice. I’m almost certain he would make a good Christian if he tried to, perhaps even better than Paine who seems less certain about his beliefs.

In any case, it’s good to see that Foolo has opted for possibility (1) — Apollodorus

I can't tell if you are being serious or attempting to be clever.

If you affirm (1) then why all the effort to argue influence? If you affirm (2) then why the smokescreen of (1)?

To my knowledge, most scholars who have studied the subject matter agree that there are three basic theoretical possibilities: — Apollodorus

This just shows how woefully limited your knowledge is. Are you unaware of the differences in the versions of Christianity between the Johannine literature and Paul's writings? Or the differences between Paul and Jesus' disciples?

The conclusions of the council at Nicaea were made by men who were by no means unanimous in their decisions. If the NT is authoritative, then Arius' arguments should have prevailed. Even if one accepts that Jesus was in some sense divine, (this is not a unitary term), that a group of self-appointed human beings gets to decide what this means, whether Jesus was god or man, man who became god, one and the same being as God or not, is, to say the least, problematic.

the view directly challenges Augustine placing the revelation of the 'Israelites' above the fruits of Athens. — Paine

Okay, a bit of a "who said it first?" question.

My money is on Greeks having heard of monotheist cults from afar very early.

Is there anything I said you disagreed with, or are you just trying to be obnoxious for no reason?

If you affirm (1) then why all the effort to argue influence? If you affirm (2) then why the smokescreen of (1)? — Fooloso4

You are obviously confused, if not worse. I never affirmed absolutely nothing. It was YOU who affirmed (1):

So Jesus was NOT influenced by Hellenistic thought, the Son of God don't need no human influence! — Fooloso4

I was arguing (2) i.e., influence, solely on Crossan & Mack's hypothesis to the effect that Jesus was "a Jewish sage" as stated in the OP:

Several biblical scholars, my two favorite being John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack, suggest that Jesus was influenced by Hellenistic thought. They specifically argue that he was a Jewish sage — Dermot Griffin

So ... is it advanced alzheimer's or are you just being controversial for the sake of it? :smile:

. It was YOU who affirmed (1): — Apollodorus

That is the conclusion that follows from your appeal to the NT and the Son of God, not my opinion!

I never affirmed absolutely nothing ... I was arguing (2) ... — Apollodorus

and yet you claimed:

... the text is very clear and states the facts in unambiguous terms — Apollodorus

You claim that what you quote are the facts and use this to argue against the claim that Jesus the man of his time and place, an individual.

Are you now reluctant to affirm what you claim are facts?

I was arguing (2) i.e., influence, solely on ... — Apollodorus

So, you do not affirm (1) or (2). That leaves (3):

(3). Jesus never existed, in which case the question of his connection with Platonism does not arise, and all discussion of the subject is rendered superfluous. — Apollodorus

Creatures of the shadows abhor the light.

You claim that what you quote are the facts — Fooloso4

The "facts" according to the text, Einstein! :lol:

Anyway, I think you’re exerting your brain cells rather too hard and, God forbid, at your age it might cause you to suffer a stroke or something. I notice with some concern that schopenhauer1 has turned the shade of a boiled shrimp already.

In addition, I’ve got other things to do. So, good-bye Mr Foolo ….

The "facts" according to the text, Einstein! — Apollodorus

The point raised by @Olivier5 was not about the religious claims found in the NT, but rather, the fact that Jesus the man was of his time and place.

Now either it is a fact that Jesus was a man or he was not. You cite the NT in support of the claim that he was not man but God, that the NT states the facts in unambiguous terms. Either the facts according to the NT are the facts or not.

Which is it?

Like your hero Euthyphro you hurry off claiming to have other things to do. At least he had the courage to state and stand by his convictions.

I wasn't thinking of it in terms of the ultimate source for the idea of Monotheism.

Platonism and Neo-Platonism do make references to Orphic and Eleusinian Mysteries but both of those are firmly ensconced in the Homeric theogony. The dominant theme of Platonism in the first three Centuries, however, was the unity of a cosmic whole whose nature is ordered by the same agency that permits us to understand it.

That is radically different from the talk of one cosmic order being replaced by a new one in the immediate future. Plotinus railed against those who said the cosmos needed to be saved from the evil that ruled it. He directed this rebuke toward the Gnostics: Paul could have taken their place in the penalty box.

Sorry, Foolo, but I am not Euthyphro, and you are not Socrates, except perhaps in your dreams!
Regards to the northern cardinal and your fellow Christian .... :smile:

I think the question of how Greek Philosophy gave to Christianity its intellectual foundation is a good one.

Jesus was a carpenter, not an academic.

The Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation shows the influence of Greek Philosophy. Revelation even states that John lived on the Greek island of Patmos.

Paul was the academic mostly responsible for Greek Philosophy influencing Christianity at its very beginning. And the Christian Apologists from the first century onward were highly influenced by Greek Philosophy.

Once again, which is it? Why are you so afraid of stating where you stand? And why are you so intent on burying this and other threads? Are you that intolerant of views that do not match your own views which you keep hidden?

Paul was the academic mostly responsible for Greek Philosophy influencing Christianity at its very beginning. — Joe Mello

You need to read the texts more closely. Saul was a cop hunting down Christians for committing heresy according to his form of Jewish Law. He changed teams on the way to Damascus to punish Christians there. He didn't get a Master's degree before he assumed the role of Paul the Apostle.

Apart from Paul, apostles referred to the direct witnesses and disciples of Jesus. He hacked himself into a time he had not personally experienced. Let's call whatever that might be something different than an academy.

You need to read the texts more closely. Saul was a cop hunting down Christians for committing heresy according to his form of Jewish Law. He changed teams on the way to Damascus to punish Christians there. He didn't get a Master's degree before he assumed the role of Paul the Apostle. — Paine

Paul was a Hellenistic Jew from Asia Minor (Tarsus) with a pretty good Greek education in forms of Greek rhetoric as seen in the epistles. This was his background before he even got to Jerusalem and even by his own admission was searching for where he belonged. He found it with his own syntheses of Hellenistic concepts, mystery cult , and the original Jesus movement he co-opted to his own syntheses and cause.

No argument with your description.

The story of his conversion and the subsequent interchanges with Christians in Jerusalem suggests the 'co-option" was not only a narrative made after the fact but an attempt to marginalize some people in real time.

That is simply not true. Targumin existed for a reason, and they were not sacrilegious. Or not too much, not anymore than the Septuagint... — Olivier5

Targumin are spoken sermons and were forbidden to be written as ... drumroll... sacrilege

There are a very (very) few examples that were written down later on but religious leaders weren't at all happy about it. The oldest is something close to 60 AD IIRC but that dating is seen as controversial.

Jesus read the Tanak in Aramaic. Like everybody at the time. — Olivier5

Now who's getting things wrong? Firstly:

These texts are almost exclusively in Biblical Hebrew, with a few passages in Biblical Aramaic (in the books of Daniel and Ezra, the verse Jeremiah 10:11,[2] and some single words).

And second it didn't even exist until several hundred years after the period of time of Jesus.

Do you have some source to show me that what I was taught and studied is wrong? I'm all for evidence-based knowledge but at this point it's some dude on the 'net vs. a couple of years of study. (which, incidentally, I double-checked before writing this comment)

Edit: also based on skimming the previous couple of pages of... catfight... I'm out of this. This isn't philosophy it's ego battle royale.

That is radically different from the talk of one cosmic order being replaced by a new one in the immediate future. Plotinus railed against those who said the cosmos needed to be saved from the evil that ruled it. He directed this rebuke toward the Gnostics: Paul could have taken their place in the penalty box. — Paine

But isn't the idea that matter is corrupt part and parcel of the platonic creed? It doesn't sound that different from the idea that the world is corrupt.

PS: if I can go a bit on a limb, as a Plato ignoramus, and ask you what what you think of the following comparison with some brands of 2nd Temple Jewish mysticism: in both cases it seems to me that a monotheist 'creation story' has to put forth a theory of how the world as we know it, full of contradictions, confusion and seeming imperfections and problems, could have been once created (or be eternally created) by one unique good god or principle. In other words: a theory of evil, or at least of imperfection.

The problem does not arise in polytheism, but one would logically expect that a unique, perfect, good god or principle would create a perfect, good, coherent world. But no matter how much philosophical distance and rationalisation you try to put between you and reality, reality always bites your ass in the end. That's the lesson of Candide. There is no justice in this world, there's only a hope for justice.

So the monotheist must explain this world apparent imperfection.

Plato, correct me if I'm wrong, wrote that ideality (ideal forms) when 'implemented' in reality can only be imperfect. Some currents of Jewish mysticism say that in the process of creation, something wrong happened (so to speak) but it couldn't have happened any other way: God's ideality had to compose its creation as necessarily separate from Him and hence imperfect. I think it's the same idea.

Your question is worthy; It makes me nervous to venture a reply, but I will try.

I take your point that invoking a single creator is to locate the source of evil within the creation. One big difference between the story of Genesis and Timaeus is that the Creator and Man have a direct interaction with each other that changes over time in the first story while the Craftsman of the Timaeus brings all the components of the world into the realm of Becoming and that structure does not change even though our experience within it does.

There is a myth of the age of man's innocence in Plato's Statesman. It consits of the Pilot reversing the motion of the entire cosmos when disorder threatened its existence. Time and growth go backwards in the repair sessions. Once the place is reset, time runs forward again, and the Pilot lets go of the tiller. Our age is described as such:

For men, deprived of the care of the deity who had possessed and tended us, since most of the beasts who were by nature unfriendly had grown fierce, and they themselves were feeble and unprotected, were ravaged by the beasts [274c] and were in the first ages still without resources or skill; the food which had formerly offered itself freely had failed them, and they did not yet know how to provide for themselves, because no necessity had hitherto compelled them. On all these accounts they were in great straits; and that is the reason why the gifts of the gods that are told of in the old traditions were given us with the needful information and instruction,—fire by Prometheus, the arts by Hephaestus and the goddess who is his fellow-artisan, seeds and plants by other deities.1 [274d] And from these has arisen all that constitutes human life, since, as I said a moment ago, the care of the gods had failed men and they had to direct their own lives and take care of themselves, like the whole universe, which we imitate and follow through all time, being born and living now in our present manner and in that other epoch in the other manner. — Plato, Statesman, 274b, translated by Fowler

To see our condition in that way is sharply different from the story of our relation to a Creator who can spare us from evil if he wills it. We are given the choice to follow the way of the righteous and that is the possibility of our happiness as expressed in Psalm 1. But we need more help than that to overcome what confronts us. It is in that register I hear Paul saying that he needs help in his struggle with sin. The Creator as a participant in our person.

I could say more but figure I shouldn't bring too many points forward at a time.

No doubt there are many differences including in terms of a personal relationship with God being less of a possibility or imperative in Plato than in 2nd Temple Judaism. Evidently Plato's One is not personalized like Yahweh is, and such personalization comes with advantages -- one can speak to Yahweh, ask Him questions, and sometimes He answers -- and disadvantages -- anthropomorphism.

Paul also should be recognized as departing from '2nd Temple Judaism' when he said this world would be replaced by another one. Connecting a personal conviction to a change in the grounds of our existence is different than hoping the Creator will help you overcome suffering and oppression in this one.

In that way, one can see Job as the antithesis of Paul. Certainty of righteousness is no guarantee of outcomes. Job had to fend off his 'friends' who insisted that such an algorithm was in place.

Paul also should be recognized as departing from '2nd Temple Judaism' when he said this world would be replaced by another one. — Paine

Not sure that is so original. Judaism was not monolithic back then , not as much as now anyway, and eschatologic hopes were a big thing.