Been a while, & I haven't read all the posts since the last time I posted, so I'm sorry if this point has been covered already. But I came across this verse just a few minutes ago. It reminded me of a point that was percolating within me when last I was here, but didn’t get to post.
The verse is Psalms 119:140 (KJV)Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
“very pure?” How does that apply to our topic, “Inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture?”
How pure is very pure? Is it almost completely pure? Does that make scripture very inerrant? Is that like almost inerrant? Almost inerrant is not innerant.
Psalms 12:6 reads, “ The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”
No matter how many times silver is purified in a furnace, it is never 100% pure. I think words are like that. Language is constantly developing, improving or degrading, in a human field. Language development studies show languages improves over time up to a point – then languages start to degrade.
At any point in a human language’s development, can God ever purify it to the point where we can say it is 100% pure?
I think not. Nothing in the earthly realm can be made completely pure. That’s why we need Holy Spirit - because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
I think language is like that. It is a human means of communication. God can purify it, but it is ultimately imprecise. It takes Holy Spirit to enlighten the eyes of our understanding as to the truth of the Word that is recognizable as holy in application.
. . . . It takes Holy Spirit to enlighten the eyes of our understanding as to the truth of the Word that is recognizable as holy in application.
Hello Tom,
Apart from your story book who told you there was such a thing as a Holy Spirit?
Is your alleged Holy Spirit any different to the Holy Spirit J.w's claim?
Is your alleged Holy Spirit any different to the Holy Spirit Mormons claim?
Is your alleged Holy Spirit any different to the Holy Spirit SDA's (7th Day Adventists) claim?
Is your alleged Holy Spirit any different to the Holy Spirit Moslems claim?
Is your alleged Holy Spirit any different to the Holy Spirit Hindu's claim?
Is your alleged Holy Spirit any different to the Holy Spirit Buddhists claim?
Hypothetically assuming you have one and assuming another denomination beat you to them, how do you convince an illiterate person that your particular Holy Spirit is the correct one and they have been duped by those that came before?
I guess I just don't get.. I'm not trying to be the "dissenter" who takes this discussion in a different direction, so I hope this post is actually helpful if only to aid others to clarify their thoughts on the subject.
But to me, it seems like you can't avoid circular logic if one is going to attempt to arrive at calling anything "God's words".. Which then makes the attempt rather, well, subjective and biased.. Am I wrong?
I have no doubt that the creator of the heavens and earth left His mark in everything. It's clearly evident even today with anyone who makes something. Whether it be the unique way your hand moves with every stroke or the logic each person utilizes and pushes into their creation. To some extent I believe it is unavoidable. The same reason you track who made bombs, viruses, and other man made creations back to the original. So in the same way, I believe God's handiwork has a sort of indelible mark.
Course with that, one has to first start with the premise that there is someone/something that created such said things before one can begin to define his attributes that then could be used to actually pin point his "mark". So before I could even begin to acknowledge various "writings" (graphE - aka: scripture) as being "breathed" by God, well, we'd have to actually start from scratch. I'll accept the premise of there being a "creator" of the heavens and the earth since there is enough scientific prove to persuade me on this, but you'll have to persuade me how you jump from there to the Bible is His very words.. Maybe you guys didn't want to go there, and are looking for those who already "accept" your premise of the Hebrew writings (and the various canons thereof) or even further of the NT writings.. But if you ask me, I like to check everything, consider it all suspect until proven. Anti-american maybe, guilty until prove innocent, but why wouldn't I, I was already taken for a ride by those whom I approved innocent but were wildly guilty!
Ok, there's my starting spiel...
While I believe some things written in said Christian writings may actually have been said by our Creator.. I believe many things in there are also writings of those who were "inspired" by our Creator, and not HIS actual words or even possibly His complete and without variance thoughts on any such matter.. Just so you know, my POV!
Personally I don't see 2 Timothy 3:16 as actually defining what "writings" he refers to when he says "All God inspired and profitable writing [is] for teaching, for reproving, for perfecting, for the training in what is right....." I actually see him referring to two things, those writings both inspired and those profitable..
Hi Spec,
RE: your post above, “But to me, it seems like you can't avoid circular logic if one is going to attempt to arrive at calling anything "God's words".. Which then makes the attempt rather, well, subjective and biased.. Am I wrong?”
I think so, and here is why I think so:
Subjective means:
1. Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias
2. Of a mental act performed entirely within the mind
You said, “I have no doubt that the creator of the heavens and earth left His mark in everything.… I believe God's handiwork has a sort of indelible mark.”
I am entirely in agreement. Consider this, Spec. If God indelibly marks His handiwork and His Word is His handiwork, His Word will bear His signature.
That’s all quite redundantly said, but it is not circular. It starts with God. It ends with His mark establishing what is and what is not His Word. While it may appear to the outside casual observer that this process is subjective and biased because it takes place entirely within the mind, it is not subjective because God is there - working with you – confirming the Word as His – with signs following. That’s His mark.
Matthew 18:15 ¶Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Christ is the indelible mark of God on His Word.
When God has written His Living Word on the fleshy table of your heart, His signature is there, His mark, on your heart.
Then with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, you, we, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
…
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost.
Perhaps this info would be more useful here in this thread rather than where I posted it yesterday in response to a comment by Robert on the old thread about my article. Anyhow, for what it's worth...I've found James Barr's works very helpful in understanding the issue of inerrancy of the scriptures, so maybe some of you might, too.
roberterasmus, on 08 March 2010 - 11:25 AM, said:
The inerrancy issue is very important to some who do think the the originals were "perfect".
RE
Posted Yesterday, 08:16 AM
Indeed, it is.
Most of us acknowledge that the inerrancy of the Bible (that it is free of errors or discrepancies of any kind) is not only a hallmark of fundamentalist thought, but of many evangelical positions, as Bob points out it is addressed in many institutions of higher learning. We understand it comes from the idea of divine perfection, i.e. that "God is perfect," so His Word (the Bible) must be "perfect." This is an idea VP inherited and propounded in PFAL over and over again.
Where this idea comes from is interesting to me, so I thought the following info might be useful to others interested in this thread. This is from the biblical scholar, James Barr, in his book Fundamentalism, pg. 277:
"When conservatives say that the Bible is inspired by God, this means for them that it is completely without faults, failings, errors or discrepancies of any kind, or that such as exist are so absolutely minimal as not to count. What is the basis for this conclusion? There is no biblical or exegetical ground upon which it can be made, and conservative apologists do not even pretend to attempt an exegetical demonstration of it. [ Penworks note: exegetical means explanatory, in this case explain from the Bible.] The implication is a philosophical one. The nature of God is to be perfect; and if he involves himself in something, as he would do in inspiring a collection of books, these books would partake in the divine qualities of perfection...This way of thinking about God does not come from the Bible. In the Bible God is presented above all as active and personal: he can be argued out of positions he has already taken up, he operates in a narrative sequence and not out of a static perfection. The picture of God which presents perfection as the essence of the doctrine of God is clearly of Greek origin and is well represented in the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions. It was incorporated into Christian thought at a very early date and has remained extremely influential. "
I'd like to know when this "very early date" was. Does anyone participating in this discussion happen to know?
James Barr's credentials are outlined in several places, including in this tribute by Vanderbuilt University upon his death:
I’m interested in the evidence you might provide for books being “composed” in “Solomon’s scriptorum”. Also, I’m interested in the verb you used for Moses’ writings (“upgraded”); script and material only? There are some who feel that they were edited. I don’t; there’s no evidence for this, IMHO.
The book where I read about the possibilities of a scriptorium in Solomon's court was Scribal Culture and the making of the Hebrew Bible by K. van der Toorn, 2007. His main considerations were the relatively expensive support that a professional scriptorium required, and the wealth of Solomon's court, rather than any hard archaeological evidence. I went up to the University library to consult the copy I had read, but I couldn't find it on the shelf. The students are finishing up their papers and their finals, and the library is a mess. I worked at Waldenbooks off-and-on for seventeen years, and I'm well familiar with the problems of mis-shelving. Otherwise, I'd give you some page numbers.
I didn't mean anything deep by using the word "upgrading." I was just thinking about the possibility that the books of Moses may have been originally written in proto-Sinaitic. Purely speculation.
...In the Bible God is presented above all as active and personal: he can be argued out of positions he has already taken up, he operates in a narrative sequence and not out of a static perfection. The picture of God which presents perfection as the essence of the doctrine of God is clearly of Greek origin and is well represented in the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions. It was incorporated into Christian thought at a very early date and has remained extremely influential. "
I'd like to know when this "very early date" was. Does anyone participating in this discussion happen to know?...
Second Temple Judaism wasn't monolithic and neither were the Christian communities that sprang from it.
Hellenism made itself felt throughout the eastern Mediterranean world and east as far as western India in the inter-testimental period. In the first half of the first century, the Jewish writer Philo was generating an hermaneutic by combining Jewish exegesis and Greek allegoric interpretation. Some people claim Philo was the true creator of Christianity!
There were a mix of philosophical schools between 300 BC and 200 AD, with Stoic, Epicurian and Cynic being common and Stoicism being dominant. So a lot of Paul's Gentile converts were coming to Christianity with various philosphical predispositions already formed. Many took what Paul wrote and ran with it, without making careful distinctions between what they were learning from Judaism and what they already believed from philosophy.
That's not very definitive, Pen, but I hope it helps!
Thanks, Steve. I'll look into Philo and the rest. The "where did that idea come from" sort of question always interests me and naturally, this one does very much because in my view it affects the main premise of TWI research - inerrancy...
the quality of your questions may have a lot to do with your expectations not being met
demanding answers is a quintessential form of violent communication
hospitality is a wellspring of sound reason
The facts are that the quality of my questions are so correct and decimating to false ideologies, that those questions can not be legitimately answered and so pitiful excuses or silence are the inept alternative provided in lieu of a shred of credibility for the ideologies that oppose mine.
My questions and facts are hard hitting certainly, for they are NOT what false religions and self acclaimed but failed story book Jesus believers want to hear.
Thanks, Steve. I'll look into Philo and the rest. The "where did that idea come from" sort of question always interests me and naturally, this one does very much because in my view it affects the main premise of TWI research - inerrancy...
Cheers!
I've been reading Augustine for awhile. I got interested while I was reading The Ruin of the Roman Empire, The Emperor Who Brought It Down, The Barbarians Who Could Have Saved It by James J. O'Donnell (2008). He also wrote a book called Augustine, A New Biography. I got hold of a copy, and that fired me up to find out what Augustine actually wrote. So I read Confessions (I cheated a book report on Confessions forty-three years ago, passing the report with an informed/lucky guess rather than by reading), and now I'm working on City of God. Synchronistically, I got to Book VIII, chapter 6 earlier today. Here are some quotes,
"The Platonic philosophers, then, so deservedly considered superior to all the others in reputation and achievement, well understood that no body could be God and, therefore, in order to find Him, they rose beyond all material things. Convinced that no mutable reality could be the Most High, they transcended every soul and spirit subject to change in their search for God. They perceived that no determining form by which any mutable being is what it is---whatever be the reality, mode or nature of that form---could have any existence apart from Him who truly exists because His existence is immutable."
"The Platonists have understood that God, by reason of His immutability and simplicity, could not have been produced from any existing thing, but that He Himself made all those things that are. They argued that whatever exists is either matter or life; that life is superior to matter; that the appearance of a body is sensible, whereas the form of life is intelligible. Hence, they preferred intelligible form to sensible appearance. We call things sensible which can be perceived by sight and bodily touch."
These quotes are from pages 152 and 153 of the Image Books edition of The City of God (1958), edited by Vernon J. Bourke, ISBN 0385029101
The Platonists posited the existence of two parallel cosmoi, the kosmos aisthetos or cosmos accessible to the senses, and the kosmos noetos or cosmos accessible only to the mind. Everything accessible to the senses changes, therefore the kosmos aisthetos is inferior to the kosmos noetos. God never changes (His immutibility), so He Himself, though He does not belong to the kosmos noetos, can be approached only through the insensible realm. Neo-Platonists confused ideas about spirit with ideas about the insensible realm and came up with the "spirit realm versus the natural realm" dichotomy. The Platonists, along with all the other Greeks, continued to subscribe to the idea that a material, mortal body is inhabited by an immaterial, immortal soul.
It would appear that Augustine preferred his Christianity mottled with Platonic dialectic.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
18
17
12
Popular Days
Mar 12
23
Mar 9
11
Mar 8
9
Mar 11
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 10 posts
Steve Lortz 18 posts
geisha779 17 posts
roberterasmus 12 posts
Popular Days
Mar 12 2010
23 posts
Mar 9 2010
11 posts
Mar 8 2010
9 posts
Mar 11 2010
7 posts
Popular Posts
pawtucket
No one is required to "answer" you. Quit goading others. You are more than welcome to your opinion as is everyone else on this board.
Sunesis
I'm not going to address whether people think they are inspired, inerrant or whatever, people will have their own opinion. I will just address what I think about the order of the NT cannon. Its just
Steve Lortz
James D. G. Dunn is just about the best current New Testament scholar I've found in my all too brief and spotty survey of the literature. He has written a number of good books. Two that may bear on re
Tom
Greetings all,
Been a while, & I haven't read all the posts since the last time I posted, so I'm sorry if this point has been covered already. But I came across this verse just a few minutes ago. It reminded me of a point that was percolating within me when last I was here, but didn’t get to post.
The verse is Psalms 119:140 (KJV)Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
“very pure?” How does that apply to our topic, “Inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture?”
How pure is very pure? Is it almost completely pure? Does that make scripture very inerrant? Is that like almost inerrant? Almost inerrant is not innerant.
Psalms 12:6 reads, “ The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”
No matter how many times silver is purified in a furnace, it is never 100% pure. I think words are like that. Language is constantly developing, improving or degrading, in a human field. Language development studies show languages improves over time up to a point – then languages start to degrade.
At any point in a human language’s development, can God ever purify it to the point where we can say it is 100% pure?
I think not. Nothing in the earthly realm can be made completely pure. That’s why we need Holy Spirit - because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
I think language is like that. It is a human means of communication. God can purify it, but it is ultimately imprecise. It takes Holy Spirit to enlighten the eyes of our understanding as to the truth of the Word that is recognizable as holy in application.
Maybe I’m wrong. What do you think?
Love in Christ,
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Composer
Hello Tom,
Apart from your story book who told you there was such a thing as a Holy Spirit?
Is your alleged Holy Spirit any different to the Holy Spirit J.w's claim?
Is your alleged Holy Spirit any different to the Holy Spirit Mormons claim?
Is your alleged Holy Spirit any different to the Holy Spirit SDA's (7th Day Adventists) claim?
Is your alleged Holy Spirit any different to the Holy Spirit Moslems claim?
Is your alleged Holy Spirit any different to the Holy Spirit Hindu's claim?
Is your alleged Holy Spirit any different to the Holy Spirit Buddhists claim?
Hypothetically assuming you have one and assuming another denomination beat you to them, how do you convince an illiterate person that your particular Holy Spirit is the correct one and they have been duped by those that came before?
Cheers!
Edited by ComposerLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
the Holy Spirit is claimed?
like owning air....?.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Composer
That's just about spot on!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Hi Spec,
RE: your post above, “But to me, it seems like you can't avoid circular logic if one is going to attempt to arrive at calling anything "God's words".. Which then makes the attempt rather, well, subjective and biased.. Am I wrong?”
I think so, and here is why I think so:
Subjective means:
1. Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias
2. Of a mental act performed entirely within the mind
You said, “I have no doubt that the creator of the heavens and earth left His mark in everything.… I believe God's handiwork has a sort of indelible mark.”
I am entirely in agreement. Consider this, Spec. If God indelibly marks His handiwork and His Word is His handiwork, His Word will bear His signature.
That’s all quite redundantly said, but it is not circular. It starts with God. It ends with His mark establishing what is and what is not His Word. While it may appear to the outside casual observer that this process is subjective and biased because it takes place entirely within the mind, it is not subjective because God is there - working with you – confirming the Word as His – with signs following. That’s His mark.
Matthew 18:15 ¶Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Christ is the indelible mark of God on His Word.
When God has written His Living Word on the fleshy table of your heart, His signature is there, His mark, on your heart.
Then with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, you, we, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
…
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
just moving to the top
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
If you are meaning that everyone shares the same air then ok.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Composer
My Post above #103 - remains unanswered?
Thank you.
Edited by ComposerLink to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
No one is required to "answer" you. Quit goading others. You are more than welcome to your opinion as is everyone else on this board.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Composer
Try this wep site
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?
There more into hating God
I never knew you did like God
because you may get into hot water here
I go there too
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Composer
I was at first led to believe this is a discussion forum?
You know, present a question, expect sensible legitimate evidence in support of answers?
Apparently not!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Composer
no will prove anything nor can you
we believe and you do not
and I never told you people will do anything nor did anybody other
look they not even talk to you if keep on
so what you do not believe as we do
there are Atheism here
they post in doctrine too
but tell us in a showing love
and they make some good points
but you to be bitter
I know Paul was trying to fight but I a big boy
look up the Way Ministry before you speak and also check JW because there are some EX-JW
know you are talking to
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Hi everyone,
Perhaps this info would be more useful here in this thread rather than where I posted it yesterday in response to a comment by Robert on the old thread about my article. Anyhow, for what it's worth...I've found James Barr's works very helpful in understanding the issue of inerrancy of the scriptures, so maybe some of you might, too.
The inerrancy issue is very important to some who do think the the originals were "perfect".
RE
Posted Yesterday, 08:16 AM
Indeed, it is.
Most of us acknowledge that the inerrancy of the Bible (that it is free of errors or discrepancies of any kind) is not only a hallmark of fundamentalist thought, but of many evangelical positions, as Bob points out it is addressed in many institutions of higher learning. We understand it comes from the idea of divine perfection, i.e. that "God is perfect," so His Word (the Bible) must be "perfect." This is an idea VP inherited and propounded in PFAL over and over again.
Where this idea comes from is interesting to me, so I thought the following info might be useful to others interested in this thread. This is from the biblical scholar, James Barr, in his book Fundamentalism, pg. 277:
"When conservatives say that the Bible is inspired by God, this means for them that it is completely without faults, failings, errors or discrepancies of any kind, or that such as exist are so absolutely minimal as not to count. What is the basis for this conclusion? There is no biblical or exegetical ground upon which it can be made, and conservative apologists do not even pretend to attempt an exegetical demonstration of it. [ Penworks note: exegetical means explanatory, in this case explain from the Bible.] The implication is a philosophical one. The nature of God is to be perfect; and if he involves himself in something, as he would do in inspiring a collection of books, these books would partake in the divine qualities of perfection...This way of thinking about God does not come from the Bible. In the Bible God is presented above all as active and personal: he can be argued out of positions he has already taken up, he operates in a narrative sequence and not out of a static perfection. The picture of God which presents perfection as the essence of the doctrine of God is clearly of Greek origin and is well represented in the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions. It was incorporated into Christian thought at a very early date and has remained extremely influential. "
I'd like to know when this "very early date" was. Does anyone participating in this discussion happen to know?
James Barr's credentials are outlined in several places, including in this tribute by Vanderbuilt University upon his death:
James Barr
Cheers,
Pen
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
the quality of your questions may have a lot to do with your expectations not being met
demanding answers is a quintessential form of violent communication
hospitality is a wellspring of sound reason
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The book where I read about the possibilities of a scriptorium in Solomon's court was Scribal Culture and the making of the Hebrew Bible by K. van der Toorn, 2007. His main considerations were the relatively expensive support that a professional scriptorium required, and the wealth of Solomon's court, rather than any hard archaeological evidence. I went up to the University library to consult the copy I had read, but I couldn't find it on the shelf. The students are finishing up their papers and their finals, and the library is a mess. I worked at Waldenbooks off-and-on for seventeen years, and I'm well familiar with the problems of mis-shelving. Otherwise, I'd give you some page numbers.
I didn't mean anything deep by using the word "upgrading." I was just thinking about the possibility that the books of Moses may have been originally written in proto-Sinaitic. Purely speculation.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Second Temple Judaism wasn't monolithic and neither were the Christian communities that sprang from it.
Hellenism made itself felt throughout the eastern Mediterranean world and east as far as western India in the inter-testimental period. In the first half of the first century, the Jewish writer Philo was generating an hermaneutic by combining Jewish exegesis and Greek allegoric interpretation. Some people claim Philo was the true creator of Christianity!
There were a mix of philosophical schools between 300 BC and 200 AD, with Stoic, Epicurian and Cynic being common and Stoicism being dominant. So a lot of Paul's Gentile converts were coming to Christianity with various philosphical predispositions already formed. Many took what Paul wrote and ran with it, without making careful distinctions between what they were learning from Judaism and what they already believed from philosophy.
That's not very definitive, Pen, but I hope it helps!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Thanks, Steve. I'll look into Philo and the rest. The "where did that idea come from" sort of question always interests me and naturally, this one does very much because in my view it affects the main premise of TWI research - inerrancy...
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Composer
The facts are that the quality of my questions are so correct and decimating to false ideologies, that those questions can not be legitimately answered and so pitiful excuses or silence are the inept alternative provided in lieu of a shred of credibility for the ideologies that oppose mine.
My questions and facts are hard hitting certainly, for they are NOT what false religions and self acclaimed but failed story book Jesus believers want to hear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
What-
false ideologies
pitiful excuses
you are in for a abrupt awakening
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm curious, Composer. Why are you so worried about what anyone here believes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I've been reading Augustine for awhile. I got interested while I was reading The Ruin of the Roman Empire, The Emperor Who Brought It Down, The Barbarians Who Could Have Saved It by James J. O'Donnell (2008). He also wrote a book called Augustine, A New Biography. I got hold of a copy, and that fired me up to find out what Augustine actually wrote. So I read Confessions (I cheated a book report on Confessions forty-three years ago, passing the report with an informed/lucky guess rather than by reading), and now I'm working on City of God. Synchronistically, I got to Book VIII, chapter 6 earlier today. Here are some quotes,
"The Platonic philosophers, then, so deservedly considered superior to all the others in reputation and achievement, well understood that no body could be God and, therefore, in order to find Him, they rose beyond all material things. Convinced that no mutable reality could be the Most High, they transcended every soul and spirit subject to change in their search for God. They perceived that no determining form by which any mutable being is what it is---whatever be the reality, mode or nature of that form---could have any existence apart from Him who truly exists because His existence is immutable."
"The Platonists have understood that God, by reason of His immutability and simplicity, could not have been produced from any existing thing, but that He Himself made all those things that are. They argued that whatever exists is either matter or life; that life is superior to matter; that the appearance of a body is sensible, whereas the form of life is intelligible. Hence, they preferred intelligible form to sensible appearance. We call things sensible which can be perceived by sight and bodily touch."
These quotes are from pages 152 and 153 of the Image Books edition of The City of God (1958), edited by Vernon J. Bourke, ISBN 0385029101
The Platonists posited the existence of two parallel cosmoi, the kosmos aisthetos or cosmos accessible to the senses, and the kosmos noetos or cosmos accessible only to the mind. Everything accessible to the senses changes, therefore the kosmos aisthetos is inferior to the kosmos noetos. God never changes (His immutibility), so He Himself, though He does not belong to the kosmos noetos, can be approached only through the insensible realm. Neo-Platonists confused ideas about spirit with ideas about the insensible realm and came up with the "spirit realm versus the natural realm" dichotomy. The Platonists, along with all the other Greeks, continued to subscribe to the idea that a material, mortal body is inhabited by an immaterial, immortal soul.
It would appear that Augustine preferred his Christianity mottled with Platonic dialectic.
Love,
Steve
(edited to correct Greek terminology)
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.