Do You Follow Aristotlean or Platonic Philosophical Thought Processes In Religious Understanding?

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

And the whole was the substance. Shadows are still concrete because they are determined by physics. Shadows are the result of absence of light because a concrete object blocked the light.

Our reality is a shadow of a higher dimension.

We are in the 4th dimension and perceive time as the 5th dimension. 1,2,3.........past, present, future.

1, singularity is totality. Picture a zero as a "point" of wholeness. GOD.
2, singularity gives birth to self awareness. Duality. Is, is not. a perceived separation connected in a plane. The 1st dimension.
3, Thought, observation from another viewpoint from the plane. Opinion. Self evaluation.

This is the trinity. But it only exists in a 2 dimensional, sideays plane. There is no up or down. There is no space.

4, Space. We now have an object, with 4 viewpoint that gives it space, up and 3 directions. The tetrahedron. But we don't live a spacial tetrahedron reality. We live within time.

5, Time and space. The cube. Up, down, north, east, south west. A box.

We can't describe the 6th dimension, but if we could, it would be a cube within a cube.

I hope that helps.

edit on 3-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Oh you are giving me flahsbacks to art school...lol. Darn that 200 lines project.

A point is still in space and can have depth, and all lines extend from the point, whether they go up or down or sideways, but the two dimensional still has depth and weight.

Even in 2d, we can still perceive something because we can recognize the form. That form might not have weight, but the lines do. And if it were possible, we could draw a line extending beyond the plane. That's like coloring outside the lines.

____________ has just one weight, but if it were possible in ATS to make the line bigger, then you would see that it would have more weight, even though it is only still one line. The properties have now changed. I learned the hard way in art school, draw those lines with more weight!!!

As a very visual person, I notice those things. Perhaps a result of my creative sided brain?

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Aristotle “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

This is where the communist philosophy of the "greater good for the greater number" comes from, as opposed to the rights of the individual.

Are you sure that is your religious base?

By the way, my explanations are my interpretation of Platonic philosophy. Pythagoras is much too complicated to discuss right now, but his science and math have much to do with vibration and harmony.

edit on 3-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

The greater number is comprised of individuals, and like I said, each individual has their own properties. So not all would be the greater good, in my opinion, because some need to eat more, some need to eat less, some need to be warmer while some need to be cooler.

But when it comes to those properties, we all still need to eat and be warm when it is cold and be cool when it is hot. They couldn't see the forest for the trees.

reply to post by WarminIndy

A point is still in space and can have depth, and all lines extend from the point, whether they go up or down or sideways, but the two dimensional still has depth and weight.

No. This is a very important spacial understanding. A single point has no viewpoint. It is only a point. It has no up or down or sideways. It doesn't exist in space. Perhaps you're visualizing a sphere? A point is NOT a sphere.

This is the singularity that is all that there is, because there is nothing else.

Putting it in human terms, when the singularity becomes self aware, it thinks "I AM". This "thought" forces a perception from another point, "I AM NOT". Duality is born and 2 points of view now exist. But still no space. Just a line on plane. No up or down, only right and left.

The "I AM" observes that "it is" and "is not" from a 3rd, self creating point of view. Affirming the existence of 1 and 2, from a 3rd viewpoint. This is your trinity. But it still doesn't exist in time. There is no up or down. There is right and left, at an angle. (Holy Spirit)

Now, you have a triangle. Can you picture the 3 points of the triangle, so attracted (love) to one another that the 3 end points of the triangle suddenly snap together to make one point, with the existing 3 points below? That's the tetrahedron.



This is "LOGOS".

Now, we have space.

reply to post by WarminIndy


We are not finite, we are infinite. You think of yourself as your body, you are not your body, you are a spirit living a bodily experience. Your body may die, but your spirit, what makes you you, will continue on forever and has already existed forever.

God refers to himself as "I AM" to Moses while on Mt. Sinai. What is the thing that gives you the ability to say I am? Consciousness. Consciousness and the act of being is God, which is why Jesus said "Before Abraham ever was, I am!" He was not speaking only of himself, he was speaking of our (Holy) Spirit called consciousness.

What was, is, and will continue to be even after you die? Life! Life is the Alpha and the Omega, the eternal one. Life goes on forever, never beginning and never ending.

Can you experience being unconscious? Can you be aware of non-awareness? No, life is a never-ending experiences with no gaps in-between. What you experience from moment to moment Is only a taste of what has been happening for eternity already, and it will continue to happen for eternity again.

The light of God is the light that you possess, it is you and you are it. Like my profile says, it doesn't matter what you look at, it's what you SEE, which is the light of God, the image that you see from moment to moment. We were created in God's (your) image after all.

God is I AM, I AM is consciousness, and consciousness creates the world around you. You are it and it is you, you are the creator and the creation all at once.

Matthew 6
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

The single eye that Jesus speaks of is what some call the third eye or the minds eye. This "third eye" is the image you see. If you make your two eyes into one (your image), your body will be full of light because your image is pure light, if it weren't you'd be blind. We are all the same on the inside, we all possess consciousness. We are the universe (God) experiencing itself from infinite points subjectively.

You are not your body. Your body is temporary, but your essence, your spirit, is eternal. We're in heaven already, and you've already been here for eternity, you just forgot.

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

A point is still in space and can have depth, and all lines extend from the point, whether they go up or down or sideways, but the two dimensional still has depth and weight.

No. This is a very important spacial understanding. A single point has no viewpoint. It is only a point. It has no up or down or sideways. It doesn't exist in space. Perhaps you're visualizing a sphere? A point is NOT a sphere.

This is the singularity that is all that there is, because there is nothing else.

Putting it in human terms, when the singularity becomes self aware, it thinks "I AM". This "thought" forces a perception from another point, "I AM NOT". Duality is born and 2 points of view now exist. But still no space. Just a line on plane. No up or down, only right and left.

The "I AM" observes that "it is" and "is not" from a 3rd, self creating point of view. Affirming the existence of 1 and 2, from a 3rd viewpoint. This is your trinity. But it still doesn't exist in time. There is no up or down. There is right and left, at an angle. (Holy Spirit)

Now, you have a triangle. Can you picture the 3 points of the triangle, so attracted (love) to one another that the 3 end points of the triangle suddenly snap together to make one point, with the existing 3 points below? That's the tetrahedron.

This is "LOGOS".

Now, we have space.

edit on 3-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

In 3D, a vertex is defined as a point in space. The plural is vertices. In 3D art, the vertices are joined by lines. But definitely a point in space.

What you are referring to is Eucledian Geometry, and you might have mentioned it in the thread, if so I apologize.

However, to make connect anything, you need multiple points. Even the triangle and tetrahedon are connected by vertices.

Vertices

Face, edge and vertices make a triangle.

Definition of Vertex

Vertex typically means a corner or a point where lines meet. For example a square has four corners, each is called a vertex. The plural form of vertex is vertices. (Pronounced: "ver - tiss- ease"). A square for example has four vertices.

In art, a vertex does carry weight because it has properties of weight. The size of the vertex does not matter to the shape of the angle, the change in location does.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I think, therefore I am...as the old philosopher said.

But if one has to think to be infinite, then are those who are trapped in their minds without the ability to express their thoughts, are they infinite also?

Is it simply thinking, or comprehending what we think that makes us? I am here at my desk, I know I am here at my desk, I am thinking about being here at my desk, but soon to be there in my bed, but does it mean I will be here or there forever? I think that's silly, of course. But on earth, in this life, my body is here. That is true. But my spirit is subject to whether or not my body is here. It is here in my body because my body is here.

But my soul, which is not my spirit, will live forever whether I am here or there. My spirit is the sum of my personality and tells other people who I am.

Have you ever experienced this before? You have a person in your car and you drop them off but an hour later you can still feel them as though they were still in your car? But you associate them by their personality. I have had friends die, their personalities never went away because that's what I remember about them. So the personality isn't just for them, it's for us to remember them by. But it does not bring them back to me. Their soul is for them. I can't experience their soul.

The soul may be infinite, but it is still subject to the body as long as the body lives. How does the infinite become subject to the finite? Or is the finite subject to the infinite? As this present mind, which is finite, thinks about itself, then only my mind can be infinite. And once my body ceases, my mind ceases. I am no longer capable of thinking about the finite or infinite. I am no longer because I can no longer think.

So if being rests upon my ability to think, then when the ability is gone, so is my being. Does your soul think? Does your soul have an independent mind that has the ability? If your soul is infinite, then your soul must be able to think on its own.

Moses died. He was never called "YOU ARE" by God, that was reserved by God for God alone. Moses had the power to think before He met God. But Moses still died.

The Bible does say "as a man thinketh in his heart, so he is". It's what you think you are in your heart, and if you think you are infinite, then the totality of him should be infinite, not just parts of him. But you think that only part of you is infinite, that part you have called your spirit. So does your spirit have a heart that thinks it is infinite, or does that come from your mind that thought about it?

This debate is thousands of years old and no one has fully answered it yet.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Yes, even those who are trapped in their minds are infinite because they still possess the infinite source of energy called consciousness.

In a way, your body is also infinite. It may not stay in its current form for eternity, but the atoms which make it up will always exist in one form or another. What I meant by your body only being temporary is that you do not inhabit this body for eternity, your spirit moves onto another body after it dies.

Then again, the physical universe as a whole IS your body, because you are consciousness. So in an even deeper way, you will always possess the same body, which is the universe that you see around you. Once you die, your body will be buried and it will decompose and become part of the soil that surrounds it, so Earth is part of your body believe it or not.

The body of Christ (consciousness) is the physical universe, NOT the church. The atoms that make up your body are a part of an enormous array of atoms called the universe. Everything is connected, and since your Spirit and mind are connected to your body, the Bride of your consciousness is your body and the physical universe.

Father (Holy Spirit), Mother (Earth/physicality), and Son (mind). That's the real Trinity, not the counterfeit Catholic version.

God is wholly eternal, because energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Both physical and immaterial energy is eternal, meaning both your body and spirit are eternal, even though they change forms.

ETA: Didn't Moses speak to God within his head? When God said he was I AM, what makes you think Moses wasn't telling himself he was I AM? We are all the I AM because we exist. God is existence as a whole.

reply to post by WarminIndy

What you are referring to is Eucledian Geometry, and you might have mentioned it in the thread, if so I apologize.

No. I didn't refer to Eucledian geometry because this isn't Eucledian geometry. This isn't geometry at all. It's logical, but it isn't mathematics.

In answer to your thread: Do You Follow Aristotlean or Platonic Philosophical Thought Processes In Religious Understanding? I am explaining Platonic Philosophy, the way I understand it and how it relates to my "religious" understanding.

There is no 3D, because we are talking about the moment of creation, before 3D. This is the Platonic explanation of how matter, time and space, came into existence, according to my understanding. There are no points for the singularity to radiate out to, because there is no space.

Words fail me.
I think that despite sterling efforts, they have failed everyone else as well.
Words can only go so far, and this subject requires us to venture into deeper realms than language can plumb.

Nil desperandum.

May I add my own perspective, without I hope appearing to trivialise or diminish in any way, the ideas of others.

Knowledge can be put into words.
Understanding can't.

What I think of as religion, or as I would call it, an awareness of the sacred nature of existence, is beyond words.
My mind is the interface between existence and myself, all that I perceive comes through my mind. If you like, my mind is the window through which I view the world. My mind is limited, and these limits represent the window frame.
Should an elephant walk past my window, the size of the frame would limit my understanding of the creature.

The window is glazed with coloured glass, representing my opinions.
Everything I see is modified by whatever colours I've chosen to install.
And I have the sheer, unmitigated gall to describe this as reality, and (even sillier), to expect others' reality to match my own.
Dear oh dear !

In spite of their verbal dexterity, and flashy juggling of large concepts, philosophers are merely painting the window frame, and arguing the merits of one shade of glass over another. They try to perfect the mind, rather than come to grips with its limitations.

The window is ultimately an obstacle to perception, though fortunately able to give us tantalising glimpses of the Numinous.

No amount of improvement will render the mind suitable for the task of "Finding God."
As I've said before, a person seeking God, is like a whale seeking the ocean.
Our mind is the only thing which separates us from the Divine.
Dropping the mind, is the essence of Zen -- which I think of as anti-philosophical, and at the same time, the absolute pinnacle of human philosophical endeavour.
So I suppose that is the answer to your question.
Thanks for asking.

mistersmith.

mistersmith
Words fail me.
I think that despite sterling efforts, they have failed everyone else as well.
Words can only go so far, and this subject requires us to venture into deeper realms than language can plumb.

They were only human, as you and I are.

May I add my own perspective, without I hope appearing to trivialise or diminish in any way, the ideas of others.

Yes, you were invited to do so.

Knowledge can be put into words.
Understanding can't.

I agree, Paul also said "we know in part, we understand in part"

Should an elephant walk past my window, the size of the frame would limit my understanding of the creature.

Unless it were a baby elephant and you had just a peephole. If it were a standardized frame size then you would see the elephant more clearly. And that depends on if the window were installed by you as the builder or someone else was the builder. If you are the builder, then you limited your own view.

The window is glazed with coloured glass, representing my opinions.
Everything I see is modified by whatever colours I've chosen to install.

Paul said "we see through a dark glass, but then face to face"

No amount of improvement will render the mind suitable for the task of "Finding God."
As I've said before, a person seeking God, is like a whale seeking the ocean.
Our mind is the only thing which separates us from the Divine.

Dropping the mind, is the essence of Zen -- which I think of as anti-philosophical, and at the same time, the absolute pinnacle of human philosophical endeavour.
So I suppose that is the answer to your question.
Thanks for asking.

mistersmith.

And thank you for answering.

The whale seeking the ocean reminded me of...of course..



Yes, even I have an appreciation for Hitchhikers Guide.

reply to post by WarminIndy


I see my thoughts as they become modified by your "window."
My opinion is reinforced.
A double-edged irony.

Saul of Tarsus, tent maker and Roman citizen aka Saint Paul had some very interesting things to say, but I think he would make a rather awkward dinner guest.
My favourite quote of his is in Acts. "Whom ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you."
Such confidence rarely goes unpunished.
And I await my turn.

mistersmith.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

ETA: Didn't Moses speak to God within his head? When God said he was I AM, what makes you think Moses wasn't telling himself he was I AM? We are all the I AM because we exist. God is existence as a whole.

edit on 4-10-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

No, Moses spoke to the voice from the burning bush. The voice was audible. Eljah said that the voice was not found in the storm or the earthquake, but in the still, small voice. Maybe Elijah's was inward.

But if I had to rely on my own mind for my conscience, but my conscience can be seared like a hot iron if I do something over and over again that I should not, then my mind cannot understand anymore right from wrong.

Do we perceive right from wrong in our consciousness? In our minds we can justify the evil that we do, we can become egotistical or narcissistic or we can become humble. We can even say in our minds "I have done no sin" when we harm someone else. That's what I view as mortal sin, what we do to someone else that is so damaging their lives are destroyed forever. I am not Catholic, so I don't follow their teaching about mortal sin. The seven deadly sins are things we first do to ourselves that affect others in some ways.

Even the Bible says we came from the ground and to the ground we shall return. But to me, God exists beyond this universe. And energy, as it has properties that make it energy, when it is transferred from one form to another, it's properties then change. No one should say audio waves are warm or cold.

Scientists are still on the fence if the universe is finite or infinite. But an infinite God cannot exist in a finite universe. I should hate to think evil is infinite, there has to be an end to it sometime. My brother who practices Wicca believes God is an energy.

I think what you are saying is that the universe is an endless cycle of energy transference. But I believe that God can make the cycle and God can break the cycle, because God is beyond the known universe.

In my consciousness, I humbly turn myself over to a greater mind and a greater will, because I recognize that I am limited in all that I am. I can't even pick out the right Powerball numbers. (I did pick out the right numbers for the wrong game...d'oh)

mistersmith
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I see my thoughts as they become modified by your "window."
My opinion is reinforced.
A double-edged irony.

Saul of Tarsus, tent maker and Roman citizen aka Saint Paul had some very interesting things to say, but I think he would make a rather awkward dinner guest.
My favourite quote of his is in Acts. "Whom ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you."
Such confidence rarely goes unpunished.
And I await my turn.

mistersmith.

I didn't make your window, you did. You invited me to see through your window, there may be an elephant out there, but you aren't sure. So I just assume that for the next time, you could either ask the elephant experts or you could adjust your window size. It's not my fault your window isn't big enough to see the elephant. And because you couldn't see the elephant, I merely suggested that perhaps it could be a baby elephant, but an elephant nonetheless.

So you don't have to invite Paul to dinner, but he is welcome to dinner at my house and we can discuss the size of elephants and windows over at your house.

And Acts 17, the Mars Hill sermon goes like this

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[c] 29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

The god of imagination is framed by the individual. Even as you believe in yourself that the god you imagine must be part of your imagination because he is determined by the size of your window. Again, I didn't build your window, you invited me to see from it, but then told me I might not be able to clearly see through it, because you put the colors there. Why would you invite me to look through a window that isn't clear?

I then agreed that we see through a dark glass. But if we are the builders of our windows, then why not just break the glass out to get a better view?

But if you aren't sure an elephant is an elephant, why not ask elephant experts?

ETA:I didn't make that quote bold and it's not in the code...so please excuse the bold that I didn't insert.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Indy,

Since you asked us which philosophy we identify, in our religious understanding, with more, Plato or Aristotle.......

A quick summary of Platonic philosophy:

The primary concept is the Theory of Forms. The only true being is founded upon the forms, the eternal, unchangeable, perfect types, of which particular objects of sense are imperfect copies. The multitude of objects of sense, being involved in perpetual change, are thereby deprived of all genuine existence.[4] The number of the forms is defined by the number of universal concepts which can be derived from the particular objects of sense
en.wikipedia.org...

Aristotle's philosophy, who was a student of Plato, can be quickly explained:

Aristotle maintained that four separate causes are necessary before anything exists: the material cause, the formal, the final, and the moving cause. The first is the antecedents from which the thing comes into existence; the second, that which gives it its individuality; the moving or efficient cause is that which causes matter to assume its individual forms; and the final cause is that for which the thing exists.
www.infoplease.com...

My question to you is "What philosophic school do you think that the teachings of Paul represent, and why?"

How does Paul's imagery of "looking through a glass darkly" reflect either of these philosophic viewpoints?

reply to post by WarminIndy


In my metaphor, the window represents the mind.
Given that - you will see that we each can only look through our own window.

I get the impression that the bit about the elephant went past you as well --
QED.

mistersmith.

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

My question to you is "What philosophic school do you think that the teachings of Paul represent, and why?"

How does Paul's imagery of "looking through a glass darkly" reflect either of these philosophic viewpoints?

edit on 4-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

The glass darkly was a comment made by the other poster about seeing through a dark glass that is colored. I was merely replying that it is the same thing Paul said, which before him other Greek philosophers have also said.

The point was being made that we can't see from this side. That is true that we can't see from this side, but one day we will see and know all things. That was an agreement on that point.

As Paul did interact quite a bit with Greek philosophers in his day, and debating at the forum was the order of the day, Paul seemed to agree with some things Plato said, some things Aristotle said and some things Socrates said.

I think we tend to forget about the world they lived in. The Greeks and Jews did have a lot of debates about everything and Paul was educated by Gamaliel. I am pretty sure there were many, many debates that were never recorded. But as Paul is certainly not the first Christian, he was the first to introduce Christianity into the debate arena. But like the title of the thread, it's not so much about Aristotle or Plato, it's about the thought processes. We all think a certain way because our minds and brains function toward certain views. How does your thought process explain religion to you?

Paul was merely saying "this is how I understand God". Is your perception of God based on your own worldview or was it framed by others? I think that once you understood in your way, you then read things that bolstered your worldview. Then you would be reading the perceptions of others and allowing it to be framed by that bolstering. But we all do that because we tend to trust those who came before us that we believe had greater wisdom than we do.

Did you arrive at your conclusion based on what you experienced or what you read that you agree with? That's just a simple question, but just asked so you can think about it yourself.

What steps in your thought process led you to the conclusion you are at today?

mistersmith
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

In my metaphor, the window represents the mind.
Given that - you will see that we each can only look through our own window.

I get the impression that the bit about the elephant went past you as well --
QED.

mistersmith.

No, as I am Aristotlean in thought process, I want to know everything about the elephant and why you couldn't arrive at the conclusion it was an elephant outside your window. I know there was no real elephant, but as you were commenting about a tangible object with properties, then what is it about those properties that you might not recognize? You said because it was too big for your mind to understand. Big is a property as small is a property.

As the elephant has been used for a long time as an allegorical device, hence the story of the blind men feeling the legs, the trunk, the tusks and not knowing what it is comes up with their own truths about what they feel. My mind asks the question, "why not ask the elephant expert?"

If you could not tell it was an elephant based on your own view, then how would you explain it to me? I got what you meant by using the device. If I am led to believe your view is correct, then I am subject to your truth, and if your truth is not really true, then why must I be expected to believe your truth?

If I perceive that something is outside my window but I can't fully see it, I can't just make up my own truth about what it is. No matter how big or little my window is, that means nothing about the truth of what is on the other side. The truth is that something is there, and it is up to me to find out what by asking the right questions of the right people.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Paul was merely saying "this is how I understand God".

In my opinion, Paul doesn't seem to grasp Pythagoras, Plato or Aristotle, at all. His concept of a man appearing as the embodiment of LOGOS, and his death and blood sacrifice as spiritual redemption, isn't reflected in any of these philosophies.

Did you arrive at your conclusion based on what you experienced or what you read that you agree with? That's just a simple question, but just asked so you can think about it yourself.

My conclusions are based on my personal experience. I was delighted to find my personal experiential philosophy of my own reality and existence echoed in Platonic and Pythagorean doctrine.

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Paul was merely saying "this is how I understand God".

In my opinion, Paul doesn't seem to grasp Pythagoras, Plato or Aristotle, at all. His concept of a man appearing as the embodiment of LOGOS, and his death and blood sacrifice as spiritual redemption, isn't reflected in any of these philosophies.

Did you arrive at your conclusion based on what you experienced or what you read that you agree with? That's just a simple question, but just asked so you can think about it yourself.

My conclusions are based on my personal experience. I was delighted to find my personal experiential philosophy of my own reality and existence echoed in Platonic and Pythagorean doctrine.

edit on 4-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Then at least you are honest in that.

But Paul was not the first to present that idea, John was. But Paul does say "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all", echoing his understanding of Echad. Paul was a multi-linguist. He spoke Hebrew in the synagogue, he spoke Greek as the lingua franca and he spoke Latin as a Roman citizen. His father was a Roman citizen, so by inheritance, he was as well. We also know he was a Pharisee from the tribe of Benjamin, so he had all bases covered.

Paul dealt with the Jews on the very concept from Judaism "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". That was a very old teaching in Judaism. And it was found in the very ancient Greek religions, we know from the worship of Artemis, they did sacrifice bulls.

And we can even find in Euthyphro the nature of what the purpose of morality is. The Euthyphro Dilema was the question of Plato's day. Even Amos and Hosea ask the same questions, and they lived 300 years before Plato. So Paul read Amos and Hosea and was able to debate with thinkers like Plato. And Plato never said the Logos, he said Theos.

As Paul was primarily a teacher to Christianized Jews first, it was to them that he taught about the redemptive sacrifice. But he taught in many of the early churches and each of the seven in Revelation were founded by him. But the Greeks, he had to address in a different manner. And the Greeks did call him Jupiter, associating him with their god, but he refused that name.

Each letter written by him was to a specific church with a specific problem. That's why for each church there is a different message. Did he have a grasp of the philosophers? Yes, indeed, but he wasn't going to stick with just one. He was Jewish and would have primarily been concerned with Jewish philosophy which they would have all understood what he was talking about. It was John who taught the Logos first. John 1:1"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was God and the Logos was with God"

The redemptive sacrifice was well-known to Jews then. They had it in their writings since Moses.

Here is a Jewish perspective on sacrifice.

reply to post by WarminIndy


None of Paul's teachings reflect the philosophies of Pythagoras, Plato or Aristotle. There is nothing within any of these philosophies that addresses a blood sacrifice to atone for sin, nor do these philosophies address original sin.

John 1:1"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was God and the Logos was with God"

This has nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus and LOGOS are 2 different things. There is no salvation in innocent blood.

Jesus dying on the cross for sins, raising from the dead, being born of a virgin, performing miracles have nothing to do with the philosophies that you've chosen to discuss.