Platonic Dualism and its influence on christianity.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

when it comes to judea-christian religions...Plato is perhaps the most influential philosopher. For example his mind body dualism, and theory of forms have influenced christian thinkers, and share many similarities with christian doctrine.

1.) What/who exactly did Plato influence?

2.) Mind/ Body dualism probably rests upon a category mistake. IMO

[jokerman]

Eastern Christianity doesn't rely upon a mind/body dualism, rather, upon a spirit/body dualism (and the mind would be a part of "body).  Spirit doesn't necessarily mean soul, in fact some theologians/philosophers enumerated only two spirits in the entire cosmos, good and evil, and that the part of people that was good was alike in all people.  This is much different from the Platonic conception of the soul.  Christianity didn't labor under the classical inheritance everywhere.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Than why has the west adopted platonic notions of the mind and soul?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Than why has the west adopted platonic notions of the mind and soul?

Has it?

I thought most christians believe in the existence of soul as being separate from the body? if this is true than yes.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

when it comes to judea-christian religions...Plato is perhaps the most influential philosopher. For example his mind body dualism, and theory of forms have influenced christian thinkers, and share many similarities with christian doctrine.

1.) What/who exactly did Plato influence?

2.) Mind/ Body dualism probably rests upon a category mistake. IMO

have you ever read the bible?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme02.htm#Influence%20on%20Christianity

I really shouldn't have to mention this.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I guess that means no

[The Mikado]

I, of course, will yield the stage to jmfcst if he has issue with my depiction of Christianity, but here's my view on the differences between Plato and Christianity.

So, according to Plato's Phaedo,, when our physical forms die, and our souls continue onward to inhabit a new form.  The soul does not die, anymore than a note dies when an instrument stops playing.  The soul (an analogy for Plato's beloved "forms") sheds its physical prison, but is eventually tied to a new one.

It doesn't work that way in Christianity.  Despite its pop-cultural depiction, the Bible predicts resurrection in flesh at the end.  Resurgam.  People will get out of their graves.  Plato would've found this image horrifying.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

People will get out of their graves.  Plato would've found this image horrifying.

[The Mikado]

People will get out of their graves.  Plato would've found this image horrifying.

Correction: people will get out of their graves with new, incorruptible flesh.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I, of course, will yield the stage to jmfcst if he has issue with my depiction of Christianity, but here's my view on the differences between Plato and Christianity.

So, according to Plato's Phaedo,, when our physical forms die, and our souls continue onward to inhabit a new form.  The soul does not die, anymore than a note dies when an instrument stops playing.  The soul (an analogy for Plato's beloved "forms") sheds its physical prison, but is eventually tied to a new one.

It doesn't work that way in Christianity.  Despite its pop-cultural depiction, the Bible predicts resurrection in flesh at the end.  Resurgam.  People will get out of their graves.  Plato would've found this image horrifying.

yeah, but it's not even a matter of correctly portraying Christianity's view of the resurrection, because to say that Plato influenced Christianity's thinking in distinguishing between the body/mind/soul/spirit/heart is to completely ignore the writings of the Old Testament which from the earliest chapters of Genesis made such distinctions.  That is why I asked if he had actually read the bible before making claims that even a biblical novice could shred into pieces.

that's not to say Plato hasn't had some isolated influence among the vast diversity of the history of the Post-Apostolic church, but he certainly didn't influence the writers of the bible, most of which was written before Plato was even born.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I, of course, will yield the stage to jmfcst if he has issue with my depiction of Christianity, but here's my view on the differences between Plato and Christianity.

So, according to Plato's Phaedo,, when our physical forms die, and our souls continue onward to inhabit a new form.  The soul does not die, anymore than a note dies when an instrument stops playing.  The soul (an analogy for Plato's beloved "forms") sheds its physical prison, but is eventually tied to a new one.

It doesn't work that way in Christianity.  Despite its pop-cultural depiction, the Bible predicts resurrection in flesh at the end.  Resurgam.  People will get out of their graves.  Plato would've found this image horrifying.

yeah, but it's not even a matter of correctly portraying Christianity's view of the resurrection, because to say that Plato influenced Christianity's thinking in distinguishing between the body/mind/soul/spirit/heart is to completely ignore the writings of the Old Testament which from the earliest chapters of Genesis made such distinctions.  That is why I asked if he had actually read the bible before making claims that even a biblical novice could shred into pieces.

that's not to say Plato hasn't had some isolated influence among the vast diversity of the history of the Post-Apostolic church, but he certainly didn't influence the writers of the bible, most of which was written before Plato was even born.

I agree, but than how has plato-influenced the post-apostolic church?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I, of course, will yield the stage to jmfcst if he has issue with my depiction of Christianity, but here's my view on the differences between Plato and Christianity.

So, according to Plato's Phaedo,, when our physical forms die, and our souls continue onward to inhabit a new form.  The soul does not die, anymore than a note dies when an instrument stops playing.  The soul (an analogy for Plato's beloved "forms") sheds its physical prison, but is eventually tied to a new one.

It doesn't work that way in Christianity.  Despite its pop-cultural depiction, the Bible predicts resurrection in flesh at the end.  Resurgam.  People will get out of their graves.  Plato would've found this image horrifying.

yeah, but it's not even a matter of correctly portraying Christianity's view of the resurrection, because to say that Plato influenced Christianity's thinking in distinguishing between the body/mind/soul/spirit/heart is to completely ignore the writings of the Old Testament which from the earliest chapters of Genesis made such distinctions.  That is why I asked if he had actually read the bible before making claims that even a biblical novice could shred into pieces.

that's not to say Plato hasn't had some isolated influence among the vast diversity of the history of the Post-Apostolic church, but he certainly didn't influence the writers of the bible, most of which was written before Plato was even born.

I agree, but than how has plato-influenced the post-apostolic church?

Well, seeing what you claimed in the title of this thread, doesn't the onus of evidence rest with you?

Christian beliefs are so diverse and the extremes are so strange, I'm sure you could find some examples plato-influence...as well as examples of even HanahMontana-influence.  But, that doesn't mean you can make a blanket statement that Christianity is/was influenced by either Plato or Hanah Montana.

As to the evidence you cited regarding the distinction of mind/body/soul...save your strength, for it can easily be shown the bible made such distinctions hundreds of years before Plato was even born.

[anvi]

Lots of important classical Greek philosophical terminology in John's Gospel, though.  The author of that Gospel clearly used the terminology in specifically Christian senses, but he did see fit to use it.  That's at least some degree of influence.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Lots of important classical Greek philosophical terminology in John's Gospel, though.  The author of that Gospel clearly used the terminology in specifically Christian senses, but he did see fit to use it.  That's at least some degree of influence.

can you show me some examples?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Lots of important classical Greek philosophical terminology in John's Gospel, though.  The author of that Gospel clearly used the terminology in specifically Christian senses, but he did see fit to use it.  That's at least some degree of influence.

I think I see what you are saying, for there are several examples in the bible where the statements of other religions and philosophy were tailored to preach Christ.  A prime example is in Acts 17:16-34, where Paul stands on Mars Hill and commandeers the religious ideas of the culture in order to preach Christ.

But I would argue, and correctly IMO, that such instances are NOT an influence on the new testament, rather it is simply the apostles having the wisdom to accurately preach Christ in terms their audience could understand.

[anvi]

Well, I mostly have in mind the so-called "prologue" to John's Gospel (1:1-18) in which Jesus is referred to by masculine Greek noun "logos."  Of course, logos is most often translated as "word," which is one of its major senses.  But the notion of "logos" had a long history in Greek philosophical thought, going back to the pre-Socratic Heraclitus, for whom "logos" was the "reason" or "rational order" that lies at the basis of a world of seeming flux.  The early Neo-Platonic philosophers of the 3rd centuries BCE followed this basic sense of logos, as for them the term referred both to the order of the world and the order of its genesis into material things.  Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher and exact contemporary of Jesus, thought that "logos" was the creative material order emergent in the universe, but served as an intermediary between absolute divinity and the world because, in a very Platonic fashion, Philo assumed that perfect divinity and spirit could not come directly into contact with matter.

Now, John's gospel was, according to tradition, written in Ephesus, which was a rather lively center of classical Greek thought.  There is no doubt that the author of John's gospel is "Christianizing" the term logos, both in applying the term to Jesus as well as insisting, perhaps in direct rebuttal to the strictly dualist Platonic conception of logos, that the logos did become a material being in the person of Jesus.  This latter point is asserted in what is, to me, one of the most beautiful verses in Christian scriptual literature, John 1:14, which if translated literally from Greek, reads: "the logos was made flesh, (and) he pitched his tent among us."

What I had in mind then by influence is that the author of John's gospel is appropriating a term well-known to the Hellenic and Hellenistic Jewish philosophical traditions and reinterpreting it in the light of Christian revelation.  He finds, that is, the notion of logos helpful in communicating what the nature of God is, but only when applied to how God relates to the world in the person of Jesus.

The post-apostolic Church fathers, at least those of them steeped in Hellenistic thought, would speculate much more deeply into the meaning of Jesus being called the logos, in terms much more Platonic than the Gospel of John itself.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

However, Jmfcst, I would implore you to consider that even plastic qualities can, over time, affect the substance.  You seem to think the substance of the Word is fully recoverable, but I am much more skeptical.

there is no doubt factions of Christianity were corrupted by other religions and philosophies and most of the letters of the New Testament were written to combat the same, but that is not a corruption of the scripture.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

To appropriate the word "logos" to convey the concept of the Word to the Greeks isn't a reinterpretation, it's taking an entirely hollow shell and filling it with a meaning with no necessary relation to the classical Greek one.

I don’t disagree.  For instance, when Paul was on Mars Hill, he took a statue dedicated “to an unknown god” and used that hallow shell of a concept as a segway to preach Christ to the Greeks and thereby reveal the God they did not know.  The end result conflicted with Greek belief (or as you put it, had "no necessary relation to the classical Greek one"), but Paul at least was wise enough to begin his appeal on common ground.   It simply has to do with finding and using broad commonalities to help the audience to focus, in order to direct that focus on Christ.

The examples John 1 and Acts 17 do not depict an “influence on Christianity” as the title of this thread supposes, as if to conclude that foundational Christian thinking was influenced by Greek philosophy, rather they’re simply examples of the Apostles having the wherewithal to be effective teachers.  This should be obvious, even if it is not obvious to “scholars” and “professors” who twist these examples to fit their preconceived notions that Christianity is simply a hodgepodge of differing philosophies and religions.

[anvi]

Jokerman,

What would the point be of the author of John's Prologue using the word "logos" to identify the divine nature if he considered the word "logos," as you call it, "an empty shell?"  If the word "logos" as that author uses it has "no necessary relation" to the available Greek uses, then why use the term at all?  Wouldn't, in that case, using the word "logos" be more likely to confuse his Greek-speaking audience (since he wrote the Gospel in that language to an audience conversant with Greek thought) than enlighten them if he meant something entirely different from the term than the meanings they were familiar with?  If such confusion was likely, then using the word "logos" would not have been a very good way to teach his audience.

JMF,

I don't see the need to be bothered by the word "influence."  It seems that your reaction to the suggestion that scriptural authors were influenced by a notion is to assume that their faith or teaching were corrupted by historical circumstances.  Why would that necessarily be the consequence?  Let's assume, for instance, that you are right, and that all John was doing by using this term was to be an effective teacher.  If that's the case, he is using terms to communicate revelation to his audience that have to fulfil two requirements; 1.) the terms cannot mislead the audience, they have to accurately represent the truth of God's nature as it has been revealed, and 2.) the terms have to be both familiar and appealing to the audience.  So, John in this case has to choose which terms to use and which not to use.  So, he chooses, in this case, "logos."  How could he have even chosen that word had he not been influenced by the word and its familiar philosophical meanings in the first place?  He had to have heard of the term, learned about what it meant to his audience, and approved of its use so as to put it in his Gospel and use it as a teaching tool.  Now, that does not imply, as I tried to make clear above, that John left the meaning of the term completely unaltered.  As I said, he "appropriated" it, he used its known-meaning as a stepping stone to communicate an additional meaning that, for him, was informed by revelation.  He associates the notion of logos with Jesus, who, like the classical Greek conceptions of logos, is God in his consumate divinity, but quite notably unlike the classical Greek conception, who became fully a human being, human flesh.  But, John could not have made the decision to use the term, could not even have known what it meant to his audience, without having been influenced by its meaning.  So, when I used the term influence here, I am not implying by it that the author of John's gospel is just manufacturing his conception of God out of a hodgepodge of available thought.  I'm using influence in the more minimal sense that John has to learn what the word means and be impressed enough with some of its familiar associations to choose to use it. and add to it, as a tool of communicating revelation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

JMF,

I don't see the need to be bothered by the word "influence."  It seems that your reaction to the suggestion that scriptural authors were influenced by a notion is to assume that their faith or teaching were corrupted by historical circumstances.  Why would that necessarily be the consequence?  Let's assume, for instance, that you are right, and that all John was doing by using this term was to be an effective teacher.  If that's the case, he is using terms to communicate revelation to his audience that have to fulfil two requirements; 1.) the terms cannot mislead the audience, they have to accurately represent the truth of God's nature as it has been revealed, and 2.) the terms have to be both familiar and appealing to the audience.  So, John in this case has to choose which terms to use and which not to use.  So, he chooses, in this case, "logos."  How could he have even chosen that word had he not been influenced by the word and its familiar philosophical meanings in the first place?  He had to have heard of the term, learned about what it meant to his audience, and approved of its use so as to put it in his Gospel and use it as a teaching tool.  Now, that does not imply, as I tried to make clear above, that John left the meaning of the term completely unaltered.  As I said, he "appropriated" it, he used its known-meaning as a stepping stone to communicate an additional meaning that, for him, was informed by revelation.  He associates the notion of logos with Jesus, who, like the classical Greek conceptions of logos, is God in his consumate divinity, but quite notably unlike the classical Greek conception, who became fully a human being, human flesh.  But, John could not have made the decision to use the term, could not even have known what it meant to his audience, without having been influenced by its meaning.  So, when I used the term influence here, I am not implying by it that the author of John's gospel is just manufacturing his conception of God out of a hodgepodge of available thought.  I'm using influence in the more minimal sense that John has to learn what the word means and be impressed enough with some of its familiar associations to choose to use it. and add to it, as a tool of communicating revelation.

Well, in that case, the use of the word “influence” becomes trivial to the point of being meaningless because then each object used as a teaching tool (the objects of each analogy) would be an “influence”.

For instance, “the word of God is a doubled-edge sword” – do double-edge swords now become an “influence” in Christian thought, or do doubled-edge swords simply serve as an object lesson?  If every common object of each object lesson is considered an “influence” then EVERYTHING is an “influence” and thus the word “influence” loses meaning and becomes redundant thus making it completely goofy to single out any particular thing as an “influence”

So, no, sorry, I don’t agree, rather I think much more is implied by the use of the word “influence”, I think it was meant to infer that Plato's ideas were used as the basis to formulate concepts and not simply an object lesson to help explain concepts.

I find this discussion on the motive behind choosing of the word "influence" interesting, so please reply.

---

On a tangential note:

Object lessons can be taken to an extreme so that the limitations of the object within the object lesson become overly restrictive in defining the boarder concept of what is being explained...  

Obviously, latter generations of Christians would take object lessons within the bible and turn them into restrictive definitions that would contradict other parts of scripture.  For instance: “Jesus is the Son of God”...the object lesson of a father and a son could be taken to an extreme by concluding God had sex with Mary (which some sects of Christianity believe), but that conclusion wasn’t the intent of the object lesson at all and contradicts other portions of scripture.

A good historical biblical example of an object lesson being taken too far is when Jesus was talking about returning to God the Father and Philip asked, “Show us the Father and that will be enough for us”.  But Jesus replies, “"Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.”  

Philip was taking the object lesson of a father and son too far and by doing so diluted the identity of Jesus.

[anvi]

Well, in that case, the use of the word “influence” becomes trivial to the point of being meaningless because then each object used as a teaching tool (the objects of each analogy) would be an “influence”.

For instance, “the word of God is a doubled-edge sword” – do double-edge swords now become an “influence” in Christian thought, or do doubled-edge swords simply serve as an object lesson?  If every common object of each object lesson is considered an “influence” then EVERYTHING is an “influence” and thus the word “influence” loses meaning and becomes redundant thus making it completely goofy to single out any particular thing as an “influence”

So, no, sorry, I don’t agree, rather I think much more is implied by the use of the word “influence”, I think it was meant to infer that Plato's ideas were used as the basis to formulate concepts and not simply an object lesson to help explain concepts.

I find this discussion on the motive behind choosing of the word "influence" interesting, so please reply.

It is an interesting discussion.  So, sure, let's continue it.

I think there are degrees of influence.  Some forms of influence are relatively trivial, as in the case of the "double-edged sword" you raise above.  The expression "double-edged sword" is an idiom, and it's used in this instance to communicate metaphorically or poetically some features about God's commands or revelations.  I would say, in this case too, the author of the expression is influenced by the meaning of the idiom "double-edged sword," and due to that influence is moved to use it. But, in this case, from a theological perspective, the influence involved is rather trivial.

There are other cases of influence that are more thoroughgoing in the ways that you portray above.  One example of this degree of influence would be, say, the influence that the writings of Copernicus had on Kepler and Newton.  The astronomical theories of Kepler and Newton would not have been possible without the theoretical groundwork laid by Copernicus, and so we can say that 16th and 17th century astronomers were deciseively influenced by the latter's ideas.

I think the influence of the notion of logos on John's Prologue, in this instance, is somewhere in-between these cases in degree.  I would not claim in this case that the theology of the Gospel of John would not have been possible or could not have been articulated without using the term logos and its associated meanings from Greek thought.  That would obviously be stating more than would be warrented, because there is a very great deal more to the theology of John's Gospel, informed by the tradition of teachings John belonged to and by what was to him Christian revelation.  But, on the other hand, I don't think this case of influence is as trivial as the "double-edged sword" example either.  My reason for saying this is that what we find at the beginning of John 1 appears to be a very important theological articulation about 1.) the nature of God, 2.) God's relationship to the world as its originator, and 3.) God becoming a human being in Jesus.  Theological teachings that are that important, that are so central to an evangelist's message that they go right at the beginning of the gospel, require a careful selection of words, precisely because the teaching has so much weight.  So, when John decided to use the word "logos," he knew that his audience, familiar as they were with Greek thought, associated it with divinity, the reason and ground of being, and as in one way or another the source of creation.  These are all things that John would have agreed, in general, that people should associate with God. So he not only sees fit to use the term as its available meanings, but he knows, I would presume, that his readers will use it too, they will read his gospel, ponder its teachings, and repeat them to others of the same cultural background.  However, John also uses the concept because he wants to add something very fundamental to it in light of Christian revelation; he wants to emphasize, in contrast to the ancient Greek dualistic conceptions, that the logos not only could be found in the world, but lived in it as a person ("the word became flesh and pitched his tent among us").  He is using the concept because there are associations it has he approves of, but also because he wants to make a very important, very non-trivial point, about the Christian conception of logos, namely, that it is God incarnate.  That, I think, would have made a big impression on John's audience.  So, I think this is a case of influence that is not thoroughgoing, it is not something without with the Christian revelation could not have been expressed, but on the other hand was used by John to express something of profound importance.  That's why I say this is a case of "some degree of influence."

Now, as we all know, texts can be misinterpreted by people, Biblical texts surely included.  Some in early Christian history, including Gnostics, some early church fathers who were far more influenced by Greek thought than Jewish theology (which is what happens when a movement converts non-Jews as Christianity did from Paul's mission onward) took John's allusion to logos way too far and construed Christian theology in far more dualistic terms that John did.  But, however one assesses that outcome and its consequences in the history of Christianity, it does not dilute the fact that the author of John's Gospel Prologue did see fit to use the term logos in a pivotally important theological discourse about the nature of Christ.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think the influence of the notion of logos on John's Prologue, in this instance, is somewhere in-between these cases in degree.  I would not claim in this case that the theology of the Gospel of John would not have been possible or could not have been articulated without using the term logos and its associated meanings from Greek thought.  That would obviously be stating more than would be warrented, because there is a very great deal more to the theology of John's Gospel, informed by the tradition of teachings John belonged to and by what was to him Christian revelation.  But, on the other hand, I don't think this case of influence is as trivial as the "double-edged sword" example either.  My reason for saying this is that what we find at the beginning of John 1 appears to be a very important theological articulation about 1.) the nature of God, 2.) God's relationship to the world as its originator, and 3.) God becoming a human being in Jesus.

Yes, but the total concept of those 3 points is already articulated elsewhere in scripture, in the New Testament as well as in the Old Testament (prior to Plato), without use of the logos analogy...So John is not introducing a new concept, rather his is simply using the Greek word “logos” to teach the concept.

And, yes, it can be argued that the “logos” analogy may be deeper than the “double-edged sword” analogy, but that doesn’t mean “logos” had any part in formulating the doctrine of Christology, rather it was just a tool used to illustrate Christology, just as a double-edged sword was used illustrate how efficiently God's word cuts through our conscience.  So, yes, "logos" had great "influence" but only because it is an effective tool in helping to demonstrate the concept of Christology.

If “logos” were foundational, then it becomes rigid and all sorts of funky doctrines could be spun off depending on how it is defined: e.g. “Jesus is the word of God, therefore Jesus is the literal word of God” - instead of Jesus being the embodiment of the authority of God’s word since he himself is God in the flesh, which was John’s point as you pointed-out so well in the rest of your post.

This discussion is interesting to me not simply because I see it as exposing the error of assuming Christology is partly a product of Plato, but also it shows how easy it is for a Christian to take the object of an analogy as foundational and thus miss part or all of the point.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

here's an example of someone using the word "influence" in an attempt to say Plato was the basis of Christian theology:

http://www.wisegeek.com/who-is-plato.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess the genius who wrote that never read Genesis chapter 1, otherwise he would know Plato was NOT Christianity's basis for believing that man was created in the image of God.