For all things philosophical.
Short answer, no. Plato was the model for Christianity. The story about Plato was that his mother, Perictione, was visited by Apollo, Zeus's messenger, who becomes Gabriel in Christianity. She was a virgin, dontcha know? And if you want to see a resurrection story, look no further than the Myth of Er. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er It's at the end of his Republic, basically a handbook for how elites should lie to the hoi polloi to suppress them.
Well, then frig nose wot this 'God'\sage is on about re Christ to me - that He did.uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 8:57 pmShort answer, no. Plato was the model for Christianity. The story about Plato was that his mother, Perictione, was visited by Apollo, Zeus's messenger, who becomes Gabriel in Christianity. She was a virgin, dontcha know? And if you want to see a resurrection story, look no further than the Myth of Er. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er It's at the end of his Republic, basically a handbook for how elites should lie to the hoi polloi to suppress them.
I watched Zeitgeist about a year ago - there were a lot of stories about the repetition of sacrifice and resurrection - and the dates aligning with many stories from myth\legend.
To me, it just seems this convoluted entity has been banging away at some message to us - perhaps while self constrained, for aeons.
For all I know you're right atto, me old mucker. I've no idea whether Jesus the son of god walked the Earth; I don't think the evidence is very compelling, but I can't rule it out. As I said in another thread "Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature..." viewtopic.php?f=12&t=26657&start=15#p410774 The only thing I'm fairly certain of is that any conception of 'god' that was written when people thought the Sun goes round the Earth needs updating, particularly the piffling notions of 'infinity'.
Yes, I agree.. & Reality IS a Convoluted Apparition of the Truth!uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 5:54 amFor all I know you're right atto, me old mucker. I've no idea whether Jesus the son of god walked the Earth; I don't think the evidence is very compelling, but I can't rule it out. As I said in another thread "Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature..." viewtopic.php?f=12&t=26657&start=15#p410774 The only thing I'm fairly certain of is that any conception of 'god' that was written when people thought the Sun goes round the Earth needs updating, particularly the piffling notions of 'infinity'.
Indeed, as is often the case, truth is stranger than fiction.
About plato, f*ck knows, since we only know what he let Socrates and the boys have their say in the dialogues. And having read most of them I would say that Socrates was something of an average Joe western country agnostic. For the time probably something on the atheist side. The gods seems to the Greec people of those days to have been everywhere present, but he did not dwell overly much on them, more on how things works down here on these bitter fields of lamentation (loosely translated from scandinavian). I dont thing you should look in the Republic when analyzing this. It was an Ideal State, a thought experiment and a wild one too, as admitted by Soc himself. Better to look in other dialogues for his views that might reveal his religious believes.
personally (BTW i do not respect Plato as a thinker - respect Aristotle and Socratise(sp) moreso (yes i know all we have of the latter's views mindset is via Plato), i thihk Plato was a Theist. prob a monethiest - Zeus being God. other gods being not actual Gods, but just mortals views of particualar gods (i.e. they erronously viewed them as outside entities,. instead of Zeus).
but just conjecture per Plato's views of the ideal forms in heaven - the less ideal are here on earth.
so knowing he thought of a higher ideal form than found here on earth, to me shows that he was not an Atheist.
BTW - I'm an Atheist btw - not that it matters. what fact is irrelivant to my nature.
i would be the same man if i were an muslim or jew or hindu or tree worshiper/etc..............
why not rule it out via convention evidence of common man on the ground.
Jesus was a man, he first thought he was like his mentor (for in fact Jesus "converted" to John the Baptist's view of our world - i.e. JtB was on point - Jesus was a no body, the latter took note and the then Joined JoB "cult".
then JoB was killed for insurrection, and of course 3 or so yrs later his desiple Jesus was too.
Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God (Paul did in his letters, and so did Gosp of John - the latter goes farther and claims Jesus was God himself - jesus himslef left no written record, and so do not his nature - found in many others works written about him - in his mouth.
I personally think (note again there is NO writtings from Jesus himself) that he was an Essene guy (both wise and good) - heard about John the Baptist (who imo seemed a good guy also) also an Essene (more hardcore Essene even imo) - they clicked, Jesus liked the message and was baptized by John,
for 2-3 yrs Jesus preached his mentors message - that - Another - will come who will be the messiah................then after a time (IMO) Jesus got a big her head and thought "maybe i;m the messiah?".
i personally think he fell into the "pride=trap" and amended his views (parted with JoB) than thought that he no longer was to herald the comming of a future messiah, but was instead the "one" - "king of the jews" instead.
this seems the be case reading the synopics statement of the lable to put over his cross.
just sayin, it Jesus had stayed with the mindset of his mentor (which he had IMO for a couple of yrs post baptism by JoB) - there would be no need to label the cross as "king of the jews" (synopics are not agreement - but knowing the mindset of the Empire - the moniker would not include personal name).
sad, Jesus seemed a good man, but maybe (I think he did) bought into his own mythos, and so went from "I'm not the messiah, but he will be here soon, to..................I'm the messian"
and so the inscription on the cross per the synopics.
Because the evidence that Jesus was a common man is exactly the same evidence that he was the son of god. The fact that the same evidence, the NT, can be interpreted in completely different ways, just shows how good people are at making up stories. Some people make up stories starting from the premises: 'Jesus existed' and 'he was the son of god'. Others, like yourself, have played with the premises: 'Jesus existed' and 'he was not the son of god'. You can develop any number of valid arguments based on either of those options. Then there are those like yours truly, who start with premises we know to be true: 'There are stories about a character called Jesus' and 'people are good at making up stories'.
One of the easiest things in all of history to rule out. It's inconceivable that a god or son of god would have, among other things, a Chosen People in its itinerary as depicted in the OT with circumcision as signature to confirm the arrangement. I'm also certain the Jesus and his old man knew nothing of what was already scientifically understood by mere mortals in that period.
That there was a Jesus who walked the earth is very likely true but not any god or Son of god. That is a 99.999999% certainty. The iota that's missing is due only to a formality of logic and even that gets finalized by an abundance of historical data not to speak of simple common sense such as Lucretius had knowing almost nothing of what was already known 150 years ago. Extreme skepticism was practiced even then because some stories seemed too absurd to possess any credence. Unbelievably these useless vestiges abound even now though so atrophied they smell to high heaven. The "truth" of Jesus being the son of god should already have been declared outdated by the time Constantine made it official and still existing two millenniums later.
Not everything exists in a flux of uncertainty. There is such a thing as calling a spade a spade once in while because that's what it still is, then and now.
According to the presiding court, which sentenced him to death, he had been teaching radical ideas to youth, including atheism, which got him the chair.
But in his defence, Plato said he believed in demi-gods, which is logically impossible to conceive, if there were no gods.
The jury did not buy this. He had to drink hemlock.
What Plato believed about gods was his own business. But if you want to know, he enjoyed praying, his belly-button licked, poetry, light housework (no ironing), knitting and putting away fruit compote.
Rule 1: Rule out all other rules.
Rule 2: Rule out the very rule itself. (Advanced Ruleology.)
Rule 3: Create new, unassailable rules.
The thing is I'm not sure that believing that a man could walk on water is a problem. Certainly not in the way that attacks on abortion clinics, mosques and synagogues, homosexuals, progressive politicians etc are. Not to mention the fundamentalist dream of armageddon that could get us all killed if someone as bonkers as Trump, with the faith of Mike Pence, got anywhere near the White House. It's a moot point, but if you tell someone that everything they believe is a load of bollocks, yer kinda killed any chance of dialogue. On the other hand if you don't pull out the roots, you haven't killed the weed.