4 ms·

Not bad, but the Alexandrian tradition was not the only way to interpret Christianity. The idea that Christianity's understanding of God's oneness was merely bo

Not bad, but the Alexandrian tradition was not the only way to interpret Christianity. The idea that Christianity's understanding of God's oneness was merely borrowed from Neoplatonism is an old cliche, but it leaves too much out. Without going into this too much, I would say that the early Christian thinkers accepted the Platonic and Neoplatonic problem of trying to answer how the one related to the many, or how it became many, but their aswers were often their own and quite creative. E.g. Athanasius's distinction beween essence and will.

dr_dshiv 7y ago
Right, definitely not claiming this is the only way to interpret christianity. But, the design constraints are: how to interpret christianity in a manner that is commensurable with modern science and ancient traditions? Hence... Note that there is no need to find the original interpretation (impossible), only an early, valid, and widespread interpretation. And whatever it is, it should provide spiritual meaning AND not conflict with empirical reality. I would not treat Athanasius kindly, considering his role in the Arian heresy. But I'll check out his work. Also, I don't mean to claim that Christianity "merely borrowed". Christian thought had a huge influence on Neoplatonism (Origen and Plotinus were schoolmates). I'm only saying that interpreting Christianity without Platonism is really missing out. (Platonism was actively removed from later Christianity, as it was seen as pagan.)
- lukebuehler 7y ago
  I agree with your assessment that people are missing out when they don't consider the Neoplatonic influence on Christianity, especially when stating it this way is the only way of getting people to look at it from a different perspective. "Eastern Christian philosophy," or simply "Eastern Theology" really came into its own, and while it is absolutely valid to study Church writers in contrast and relationship to Neoplatonic philosophy, they developed their own tradition. Thus, parsing the logos tradition as if Origen, the Cappadocians, Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, etc., were "philosophers" in their own right is actually quite a fruitful endeavor.
  - dr_dshiv 7y ago
    Yes! I came into all this from Pythagoreanism, which had such an impact on Plato. It was a scientific religion, essentially, with no fixed doctrine. And it played a huge role in Neoplatonism, early Christianity and the renaissance. Pythagoras, the same guy we all learn about in middle school! You might like shwep.net I am a subscriber. He is a really good historian -- and interviews even better ones. Also the book "Western Esoterism: a guide for the Perplexed". Because this whole Oneness concept is right at the thumping heart of "the esoteric". There are real mysteries there, like you wouldn't believe. And, humanistic magic, I'm telling you!

dr_dshiv 7y ago

Right, definitely not claiming this is the only way to interpret christianity. But, the design constraints are: how to interpret christianity in a manner that is commensurable with modern science and ancient traditions? Hence... Note that there is no need to find the original interpretation (impossible), only an early, valid, and widespread interpretation. And whatever it is, it should provide spiritual meaning AND not conflict with empirical reality. I would not treat Athanasius kindly, considering his role in the Arian heresy. But I'll check out his work. Also, I don't mean to claim that Christianity "merely borrowed". Christian thought had a huge influence on Neoplatonism (Origen and Plotinus were schoolmates). I'm only saying that interpreting Christianity without Platonism is really missing out. (Platonism was actively removed from later Christianity, as it was seen as pagan.)

lukebuehler 7y ago
I agree with your assessment that people are missing out when they don't consider the Neoplatonic influence on Christianity, especially when stating it this way is the only way of getting people to look at it from a different perspective. "Eastern Christian philosophy," or simply "Eastern Theology" really came into its own, and while it is absolutely valid to study Church writers in contrast and relationship to Neoplatonic philosophy, they developed their own tradition. Thus, parsing the logos tradition as if Origen, the Cappadocians, Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, etc., were "philosophers" in their own right is actually quite a fruitful endeavor.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  Yes! I came into all this from Pythagoreanism, which had such an impact on Plato. It was a scientific religion, essentially, with no fixed doctrine. And it played a huge role in Neoplatonism, early Christianity and the renaissance. Pythagoras, the same guy we all learn about in middle school! You might like shwep.net I am a subscriber. He is a really good historian -- and interviews even better ones. Also the book "Western Esoterism: a guide for the Perplexed". Because this whole Oneness concept is right at the thumping heart of "the esoteric". There are real mysteries there, like you wouldn't believe. And, humanistic magic, I'm telling you!