tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1740051288986861153..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Orthodox PlatonismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31197770918711557342007-08-24T18:22:00.000-04:002007-08-24T18:22:00.000-04:00orthodox said:katharsis: Is it important in Orthod...orthodox said:<BR/>katharsis: Is it important in Orthodoxy? I'd be struggling to think of any Orthodox books that talk about it. So who cares?<BR/><BR/>Apophatic theology. Is it offensive to you, to say that the mysteries of God cannot be fully stated by cataphatic statements<BR/><BR/>***********************<BR/><BR/>Now you're backpedaling from your original objection, in which you denied the Platonic background for these ideas. <BR/><BR/>The only thing consistent about your argumentation is your inconsistency. Put another way, you consistently prevaricate.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30760001726353135532007-08-22T13:19:00.000-04:002007-08-22T13:19:00.000-04:00orthodox said:Where does he say that? He mentions ...orthodox said:<BR/><BR/>Where does he say that? He mentions certain imagery being derived from Plato. He mentions borrowing of terminology. He mentions a "discernable influence" from Plato. (But you already conceeded that mere influence is no sin).<BR/><BR/>So it looks to me like you're making it all up again, and what's more are unwilling to defend it, now trying to cover it up and blaming the bishop.<BR/><BR/>*********************************************<BR/><BR/>Sorry you're so illiterate. If only your teachers had held you back a few grades until you mastered basic written English. Too late now.<BR/><BR/>You selectively summarize the bishop. But he attributed more of Gregory's theology to the Platonic tradition than mere imagery and terminology. <BR/><BR/>Rather, it went to such fundamental concepts as apophatic theology, katharsis, and true knowledge.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70094187934286305782007-08-21T16:24:00.000-04:002007-08-21T16:24:00.000-04:00o show that they are dependent on Plato you would ...<I>o show that they are dependent on Plato you would have to prove that they could not have come about other than from Plato. That Orthodoxy has something in common with some other beliefs proves nothing whatsoever for you.</I><BR/><BR/>Take it up with the Bishop. I'm not the one claiming dependence on Plato. He is. I'm merely taking him at his word. You're the one that's engaging in a running commentary to blunt what he said. So much for bowing to your betters in your Communion. <BR/><BR/><I>The existence of energies of God, on the contrary, is a result of a careful examination of scripture. The divine in scripture is often manifested by divine light. That either means God is a cheap carnival side-show artist, putting on light show when he rolls in, or it means that God manifests his very self by something akin to the experience of light.</I><BR/><BR/>And here we have quite the example of what I'm talking about.<BR/><BR/>One does not arrive at these conclusions by grammatical-historical exegesis. One arrives at them by adopting Platonic categories and then imposing them upon Scripture - as has been demonstrated elsewhere to you on this blog. You rip, for example, passages from Ezekiel and then assume what you need to prove throughout in your acontextual and agrammatical exegesis.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-92192386107431631262007-08-21T08:53:00.000-04:002007-08-21T08:53:00.000-04:00orthodox said:"Nonsense. To show that they are dep...orthodox said:<BR/><BR/>"Nonsense. To show that they are dependent on Plato you would have to prove that they could not have come about other than from Plato. That Orthodoxy has something in common with some other beliefs proves nothing whatsoever for you."<BR/><BR/>Gene isn't the one showing Platonic dependence. Rather, he is quoting from an Russian Orthodox bishop who, in his annotated quotes (of Gregory) and running commentary on the same, is showing Platonic dependence.<BR/><BR/>Gene is merely quoting from a Russian Orthodox bishop, who is, in turn, quoting from Gregory, and commenting on on Gregory.<BR/><BR/>What Gene then did, after you went postal, was to remark on the implications of this material.<BR/><BR/>So your argument is not with Gene, but with the bishop. And why should we deem an anonymous layman like you to be a more reliable spokesman for Orthodox tradition than a Russian Orthodox bishop?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14477080649991197892007-08-21T01:37:00.000-04:002007-08-21T01:37:00.000-04:00ORTHODOX: So what's the criteria here? If I can fi...<I><BR/>ORTHODOX: So what's the criteria here? If I can find anything at all that Augustine and Plato and Calvin have in common, then the case is established and their theology is Plato influenced? Well here we go, all three believed in the human soul, as do you. Thus you are Plato influenced. Ouch</I><BR/><BR/>I outlined what you would need to do above.<BR/><BR/><I>GENE: Being influenced and basing key elements of a whole theological system on pagan philosophy are not convertible principles.<BR/><BR/>ORTHODOX: Oh, so the goal posts are moving again are they? Influence is no longer a sin, but rather basing key elements of a theological system. But then you assume what you haven't proven, which is that merely sharing beliefs in common and referring to them means that their basis is found in them.</I><BR/><BR/>On the contrary, I've not changed the goal posts at all. I've simply given the quotes. The quotes show that key elements of Orthodox theology are <I>dependent</I> on these influences. They become the filtering lens and become part of the warp and woof of Orthodox theology. These aren't my statements, these are coming from your own communion.<BR/><BR/>And you're the one that brought up the ramifications of "influence." There's a difference between, ""making reference" and "influence," and in this discussion you've contradicted yourself:<BR/><BR/>A. I don't see the point in documenting who said what about what philosopher. <B>Doing so would not prove anything."</B><BR/>B. "In point of fact we are all 'influenced' by non-Christian philosophy, even if it is simply the pagan or athiest philosophy of our surroundings." <BR/><BR/>So, it would prove something Orthodox, the degree of the degree of philosophical influence from a non-Christian philosophy on a theological tradition.<BR/><BR/>I'll remind you, admitting certain discontinuities does nothing to overturn various continuities. So this is just a diversionary tactic on your part to deflect attention away from the areas of direct influence.<BR/><BR/><I>ORTHODOX: Since reformers claim to be always reforming, who knows what reformed theology is? Yes, maybe Calvin was found wrong and the reformers of the reformers are right. Or the reformers of the reformers of the reformers.</I><BR/><BR/>You're the one who wants to make Calvin "the" spokesman for Reformed theology, and Augustine it's "poster boy," but that's simply untrue. <BR/><BR/><I>GENE: And now we have the high churchman refusing to bow to his betters. So much for Orthodox's high church ecclesiology. He'll bow the knee to his betters when it suits him, but when they say something that cuts against the grain of his prefabricated views of his Communion, he quickly becomes his own pope.<BR/><BR/>ORTHODOX: LOL, what nonsense are you talking about now.</I><BR/><BR/>No, Orthodox, you're the one who claimed,<BR/><BR/><I>"So what is the point of this stupid posting? To misrepresent Orthodoxy again?"</I><BR/><BR/>So, when your betters are quoted, you call it misrepresentation and "stupid." Well, if it's stupid, it says something about your theology and your own particular view of your betters in the hierarchy. So much for your high churchmanship.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77900227809603001972007-08-20T19:24:00.000-04:002007-08-20T19:24:00.000-04:00Then you try and spread some mud around by referri...<I>Then you try and spread some mud around by referring to "influence". Well, if we're going to accuse anyone, why not the reformed poster boy Augustine who quotes Herodotus, Plato, Cicero, Tacitus, Aristotle among others.</I><BR/><BR/>A. Augustine is not the "poster boy" of Calvinism. We've been over that before.<BR/><BR/>B. Our rule of faith is not Augustine.<BR/><BR/>C. Augustine's Platonism does not take us by surprise.<BR/><BR/>D. And, like I said, if you want to lay that charge at our feet, by all means trace the line all the way. Somehow, I don't think you're capable.<BR/><BR/><I>And since Augustine is such a great influence on Calvin we might say Calvin is influenced by proxy. </I><BR/><BR/>Being influenced and basing key elements of a whole theological system on pagan philosophy are not convertible principles.<BR/><BR/>And, you'd have to prove that philosophical principles are key elements to Reformed theology - which is rather what those quotes have to say about your theology. However, in our theology, they take an ancillary, not a primary, status.<BR/><BR/>I've pointed you to several works in that area, but you're too lazy or too cheap to bother yourself with reading them. Your self-reinforcing ignorance mounts with each word you type.<BR/><BR/>Further, Calvin is not the spokesman for Reformed theology. What about Bullinger, Zwingli, Bucer, Ursinus, Gomarus, Turretin, Witsius, and others?<BR/><BR/><I>So this whole "influence" thing, is just mud slinging tarted up as scholarship.</I><BR/><BR/>And now we have the high churchman refusing to bow to his betters. So much for Orthodox's high church ecclesiology. He'll bow the knee to his betters when it suits him, but when they say something that cuts against the grain of his prefabricated views of his Communion, he quickly becomes his own pope.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80818829912082296932007-08-20T09:10:00.000-04:002007-08-20T09:10:00.000-04:00ORTHODOX SAID:"I don't see the point in documentin...ORTHODOX SAID:<BR/><BR/>"I don't see the point in documenting who said what about what philosopher. Doing so would not prove anything."<BR/><BR/>It wouldn't? <BR/><BR/>"In point of fact we are all 'influenced' by non-Christian philosophy, even if it is simply the pagan or athiest philosophy of our surroundings."<BR/><BR/>Now he contradicts his initial denial by admitting that it would prove something after all—which is the degree of philosophical influence from a non-Christian philosophy on a theological tradition.<BR/><BR/>"That I might make reference to such philosophy is no more significant than Paul making reference to the Unknown God as a point of argument."<BR/><BR/>Now he's equivocating, as if "making reference" is the same thing as "influence."<BR/><BR/>"In fact, against the platonic idea of liberation from body..."<BR/><BR/>Now he's trying to salvage his position by accentuating the selective discontinuities between Platonism and Orthodoxy. Yet no one denies that. And admitting certain discontinuities does nothing to overturn various continuities. So this is just a diversionary tactic on his part to deflect attention away from the areas of direct influence.<BR/><BR/>"So what is the point of this stupid posting? To misrepresent Orthodoxy again?"<BR/><BR/>A classic example of inkblot psychology, in which the patient indignantly accuses the psychiatrist of showing him "dirty pictures."<BR/><BR/>All Gene did was to reproduce some verbatim quotes from a Russian Orthodox bishop, as well as linking to a presentation by Alexander Golitzin, professor of eastern Christian theology at Marquette University—without offering any editorial commentary on his own.<BR/><BR/>Yet our paranoid Orthodox commentator immediately accuses Gene of "misrepresenting" Orthodoxy with his "stupid" posting.<BR/><BR/>How does it misrepresent Orthodoxy to present verbatim quotes from Orthodox sources?<BR/><BR/>And if it's "stupid," then Orthodox must think that Orthodox theology is stupid since the entire post consists of verbatim quotes about Orthodox theology from Orthodox sources. <BR/><BR/>It's says a lot about our commenter's intellectual insecurities that he is so defensive and easily offended when you merely reproduce Orthodox theology from Orthodox sources.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46424369358725026742007-08-19T22:09:00.000-04:002007-08-19T22:09:00.000-04:00The problem, Orthodox, is that Platonism here is r...The problem, Orthodox, is that Platonism here is rather clearly portrayed as permeating Orthodox theology at several levels.<BR/><BR/>John, by way of contrast, may well have used the Logos because it bridged the gap between Jews and Gentiles in his audience, but the concept is NOT derivative of Greek Philosophy.<BR/><BR/><BR/>And, before you go there with Reformed theology, I'll remind you that Augustine's Platonism comes as no surprise to us, but if you want to talk about the influence of Plato in our theology that'll require several steps:<BR/><BR/>You would need to summarize the Platonic doctrine of God, with direct quotes from Plato. Then you'd need to summarize the Philonic doctrine of God.<BR/><BR/>Then, you'd need to consider crossbreeding. For we can characterize Philonic Platonism as either Platonic Judaism or Judaic Platonism. In other words, Philo's Judaism is colored by Plato, but his Platonism is also colored by his Judaism.<BR/><BR/>Next, you'd need to summarize the Plotinian doctrine of God. As with Philo, this would also allow for the possibility of crossbreeding inasmuch as Plotinus was a post-Christian philosopher who studied under a Christian philosopher (Ammonius Saccas). From there he'd need to summarize the doctrine of God in Origen, Pseudo-Dionysius, Athanasius, and the Cappadocian Fathers.<BR/><BR/>From there you would need to shift from East to West to summarize of the doctrine of God in Augustine, Boethius, and Anselm, as well as Aquinas, and you would also need to summarize the doctrine of God in Maimonides and Avicenna as these feed into Medieval Scholasticism.<BR/><BR/>From there he would need to summarize the doctrine of God in Calvin and Reformed Scholasticism. You would need to document the evolution of the doctrine of God through these various permutations, with direct quotes to show direct dependence. I somehow don't think you are up to that task.<BR/><BR/>And, in Reformed Theology Proper, philosophical argumentation enjoys an ancillary status only, and after having been thoroughly vetted through the above stages. I'm not so sure that can be said of these issues in your theology, Orthodox.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18732124516036127782007-08-19T22:02:00.000-04:002007-08-19T22:02:00.000-04:00orthodox said..."It is no different to the apostle...orthodox said...<BR/><BR/>"It is no different to the apostle John who employed the idea in Greek philosophy of "The Word" and applied it to Christian thinking."<BR/><BR/>Another one of Orthodox's interminably ignorant statements. John's Logos theology goes back, not to Greek philosophy, but to the OT concept of the debar Yahweh or word of the Lord.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com