What is it? It is a form of spiritual discipline that claims to be based on the philosophy of Plato. It came to prominence around the 2 or 3rd centure CE. It was a major influence on Christian theology, influencing the likes of St Augustine and Dionysius the Areopagite.

The basic idea of it is strikingly obvious in the posts of M_Nwankwo and other Grail message adherents. It basically sees the world as a series of emanations away from a source which is known as 'The Good' and when christianised it is known as God. The purpose of man is to ascend up through the emanations until he gets back to God and when he does he experiences what is called Henosis, that is oneness with God.

THE QUESTION OF PLATO'S INFLUENCE ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

Those who have had some background education on the ideas and doctrines taught by renown Greek philosopher Plato understand the influence of Plato on subsequent philosophers. But is it the case that Plato also influenced the writers of the New Testament? University of Cambridge professor Christopher Stead argues in his book Philosophy in Christian Antiquity that Christianity was indeed influenced by a panoply of Greek philosophy, including Plato.

Plato, as well as his mentor Socrates, had believed in a dualistic universe. This is to say that the universe consists not only of the experiential world but also an immaterial, unperceived world housing the objective, transcendent, eternal, intelligible, archetypal, and perfect reality that makes objects what they "really" are. In Aristotle's Metaphysics we are told that Plato detached such Ideas from sensible objects.

In conjunction with dualism there exists the notion of deliverance from everything physical and material. This is characteristic of Plato since he wanted to abandon the idea of subjectivism in the world. Plato discussed the problem of anchoring reality in the material. Dualism then was his reaction to the materialistic Sophists, particularly to his predecessor Protagoras (fl. 425 B.C.E.) and Heraclitus. Simply for Plato, rooting reality in the sensible world of multiplicity and change grants little or no warrant to an objective reality. So to point to that chair in the corner, in the Heraclitean view, becomes useless because it is no longer that chair but a different one. Plato's remedy was to posit the world of the Forms in order to avoid the mutability of the world. This led to the distinctive view that an individual ought to yearn to be released from the physical world in order to attain a full and direct awareness of those Forms. In one of Plato's famous works, the Timaeus, there is a clear indication that the human soul is unhindered when separated from the body such that the faculty of reason is free to contemplate. Thus, a release from the body would be a preferable state of being rather than to remain "bound up essentially with the body . . . and have no direct part in reason and rational activity [allowing one to] behold the world of Forms." (5)

The teachings of Jesus, say those who associate Greek thought with New Testament theology, reflect a similar observation. Critics suggest that Jesus desired human beings to be loosed from the constraints of their physical bodies and to prefer a state of disembodied bliss. Such passages as the following suggest this portrayal:

Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing,

but the body is weak (Matthew 26:41)

Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

When he had said this, he breathed his last (Luke 23:46)



Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and

of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5)



God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).

Therefore, critics conclude that on this basis the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament Gospels, coupled with the theological motifs of the Gospel writers, probably derive their world view from Platonic thought.

http://sguthrie.net/greekchristian.htm

Plato, then, supposes a world of Ideas apart from the world of our experience, and immeasurably superior to it. He imagines that all human souls dwelt at one time in that higher world. When, therefore, we behold in the shadow-world around us a phenomenon or appearance of anything, the mind is moved to a remembrance of the Idea (of that same phenomenal thing) which it formerly contemplated. In its delight it wonders at the contrast, and by wonder is led to recall as perfectly as possible the intuition it enjoyed in a previous existence. This is the task of philosophy. Philosophy, therefore, consists in the effort to rise from the knowledge of phenomena, or appearances, to the noumena, or realities. Of all the ideas, however, the Idea of the beautiful shines out through the phenomenal veil more clearly than any other; hence the beginning of all philosophical activity is the love and admiration of the Beautiful.

http://ww.newadvent.org/cathen/12159a.htm


Yet many christians downplay or deny the influence.

A reader of this blog, also a good friend of mine, has asked me to explain a little about a comment I made about the ‘platonic view of going to heaven when you die’. In this post I will attempt to explain this, although a good place to start is in a previous blog which offers a introduction to the book ‘Creation Regained’

The church is influenced by culture. This is not necessarily a bad thing as the message of the church has always made use of aspects of culture in its proclamation. In using a language to communicate (greek, english), or using modern technology in services, we see that culture can be used by the Church. However, the church should not take on culture and ideological stances which are out of tune with the biblical witness. A church which wholeheartedly accepts ‘extreme consumerism’ and allows it to shape its message is in danger of losing its ability to critique the world view of its day. Back to ‘Plato’- The church has throughout history allowed its theology to be shaped by presuppositions which come more from Plato that the biblical-Hebraic worldview.


Plato thought that the world around us is not the real world, it is an illusion. The real world, the world of ideas, is available to those philosophers who allow their ’souls to guide them. We should understand soul as being something separate from the physical. Wikipedia offers the following description of the platonic understanding of soul.
——————————–


Plato, drawing on the words of his teacher Socrates, considered the soul as the essence of a person, being, that which decides how we behave. He considered this essence as an incorporeal, eternal occupant of our being. As bodies die the soul is continually reborn in subsequent bodies. The Platonic soul comprises three parts:

the logos (mind, nous, or reason)
the thymos (emotion, or spiritedness)
the eros (appetitive, or desire)

Platonic and Biblcial Christianity

Christianity has modified and Christianised this platonic view. A stereotype, but all to familiar, of Christianity+Platonism sounds like this.

The aim of life is to leave this world and get to heaven. The physical is bad/neutral so we need to concentrate on the spiritual things. Jesus ’saves our souls’. We should spend our lives getting other souls saved.

In contrast the biblical worldview is that God has created a real-physical world. It is a gift which, has been perverted by sin. God has embarked on a rescue mission through Israel and climaxing in Jesus whereby the hope of Christianity is the resurrection of the body and restored earth. A Hebraic view of the soul is seeing the soul as including the whoel of the person, physical, spiritual, emtional… all bound up to form the soul.

The implications of a biblical worldview are huge as Christianity becomes life embracing and not world rejecting.

http://ordinand./2008/01/27/plato-and-christianity/
What I think this guy above is saying is that 'true' christianity does not conform with the platonic world view but has it's own worldview which is Hebrew. However he does not deny that many christians have taken on platonic ideas. The biggest of which is the idea of the soul.

THE SOUL
The idea of a soul separate from the body that leaves the body at death (or can even incarnate into another body) is not a hebrew idea and shouldn't be a christian one (according to some christians). It is a greek idea, articulated for posterity by Plato. This is probably Plato's biggest influence on Christianity.

Plotinus' starting-point is that of the idealist. He meets what he considers the paradox of materialism, the assertion, namely, that matter alone exists, by an emphatic assertion of the existence of spirit. If the soul is spirit, it follows that it cannot have originated from the body or an aggregation of bodies. The true source of reality is above us, not beneath us. It is the One, the Absolute, the Infinite. It is God. God exceeds all the categories of finite thought. It is not correct to say that He is a Being, or a Mind. He is over-Being, over-Mind. The only attributes which may be appropriately applied to Him are Good and One. If God were only One, He should remain forever in His undifferentiated unity, and there should be nothing but God. He is, however, good; and goodness, like light, tends to diffuse itself. Thus from the One, there emanates in the first place Intellect (Nous), which is the image of the One, and at the same time a partially differentiated derivative, because it is the world of ideas, in which are the multiple archetypes of things. From the intellect emanates an image in which there is a tendency to dynamic differentiation, namely the World-soul, which is the abode of forces, as the Intellect is the abode of Ideas. From the World-Soul emanates the Forces (one of which is the human soul), which, by a series of successive degradations towards nothing become finally Matter, the non-existent, the antithesis of God. All this process is called an emanation, or flowing. It is described in figurative language, and thus its precise philosophical value is not determined. Similarly the One, God, is described as light, and Matter is said to be darkness. Matter, is, in fact, for Plotinus, essentially the opposite of the Good; it is evil and the source of all evil.

Man, being composed of body and soul, is partly, like God, spiritual, and partly like matter, the opposite of spiritual. It is his duty to aim at returning to God by eliminating from his being, his thoughts, and his actions, everything that is material and, therefore, tends to separate him from God. The soul came from God. It existed before its union with the body; its survival after death is, therefore, hardly in need of proof. It will return to God by way of knowledge, because that which separates it from God is matter and material conditions, which are only illusions or deceptive appearances. The first step, therefore in the return of the soul to God is the act by which the soul, withdrawing from the world of sense by a process of purification (katharsis), frees itself from the trammels of matter. Next, having retired within itself, the soul contemplates within itself the indwelling intellect. From the contemplation of the Intellect within, it rises to a contemplation of the Intellect above, and from that to the contemplation of the One. It cannot, however, reach this final stage except by revelation, that is, by the free act of God,

http://ww.newadvent.org/cathen/10742b.htm

Influence of Neoplatonism

Christian thinkers, almost from the beginning of Christian speculation, found in the spiritualism of Plato a powerful aid in defending and maintaining a conception of the human soul which pagan materialism rejected, but to which the Christian Church was irrevocably committed. All the early refutations of psychological materialism are Platonic. So, too, when the ideas of Plotinus began to prevail, the Christian writers took advantage of the support thus lent to the doctrine that there is a spiritual world more real than the world of matter. Later, there were Christian philosophers, like Nemesius (flourished c. 450), who took over the entire system of neo-Platonism so far as it was considered consonant with Christian dogma.

http://ww.newadvent.org/cathen/10742b.htm
But I have yet to meet a Catholic theologian that would deny the influence. However they would phrase it in such a manner as the above quote.

The Neoplatonist framework as a whole sees the world as the product of 4 emanation. It starts with God which is called the ONE. Out of God comes the Nous (or Intellect), then the next emanation is the Anima Mundi or (Soul of the World), the the last emanation is the Phenomenal world of matter and sense objects.

The One
The primeval Source of Being is the One and the Infinite, as opposed to the many and the finite. It is the source of all life, and therefore absolute causality and the only real existence. However, the important feature of it is that it is beyond all Being, although the source of it. Therefore, it cannot be known through reasoning or understanding, since only what is part of Being can be thus known according to Plato. Being beyond existence, it is the most real reality, source of less real things. It is, moreover, the Good, insofar as all finite things have their purpose in it, and ought to flow back to it. But one cannot attach moral attributes to the original Source of Being itself, because these would imply limitation. It has no attributes of any kind; it is being without magnitude, without life, without thought; in strict propriety, indeed, we ought not to speak of it as existing; it is "above existence," "above goodness." It is also active force without a substratum; as active force the primeval Source of Being is perpetually producing something else, without alteration, or motion, or diminution of itself. This production is not a physical process, but an emission of force; and, since the product has real existence only in virtue of the original existence working in it, Neoplatonism may be described as a species of dynamic pantheism. Directly or indirectly, everything is brought forth by the "One." In it all things, so far as they have being, are divine, and God is all in all. Derived existence, however, is not like the original Source of Being itself, but is subject to a law of diminishing completeness. It is indeed an image and reflection of the first Source of Being; but the further the line of successive projections is prolonged the smaller is its share in the true existence. The totality of being may thus be conceived as a series of concentric circles, fading away towards the verge of non-existence, the force of the original Being in the outermost circle being a vanishing quantity. Each lower stage of being is united with the "One" by all the higher stages, and receives its share of reality only by transmission through them. All derived existence, however, has a drift towards, a longing for, the higher, and bends towards it so far as its nature will permit. Plotinus' treatment of the substance or essence (ousia) of the one was to reconcile Plato and Aristotle. Where Aristotle treated the monad as a single entity made up of one substance (here as energeia). Plotinus reconciled Aristotle with Plato's "the good" by expressing the substance or essence of the one as potential or force.[3]
[edit]Demiurge or Nous
The original Being initially emanates, or throws out, the nous, which is a perfect image of the One and the archetype of all existing things. It is simultaneously both being and thought, idea and ideal world. As image, the nous corresponds perfectly to the One, but as derivative, it is entirely different. What Plotinus understands by the nous is the highest sphere accessible to the human mind, while also being pure intellect itself. As nous is the most critical component of idealism, Neoplatonism being a pure form of idealism.[4][5] The demiurge (the nous) is the energy, or ergon (does the work), that manifests or organizes the material world into perceivability.
[edit]The world-soul
The image and product of the motionless nous is the world-soul, which, according to Plotinus, is, like the nous, immaterial. Its relation to the nous is the same as that of the nous to the One. It stands between the nous and the phenomenal world, is permeated and illuminated by the former, but is also in contact with the latter. The nous is indivisible; the world-soul may preserve its unity and remain in the nous, but at the same time it has the power of uniting with the corporeal world and thus being disintegrated. It therefore occupies an intermediate position. As a single world-soul it belongs in essence and destination to the intelligible world; but it also embraces innumerable individual souls; and these can either submit to be ruled by the nous, or turn aside from the intellect and choose the sensual and lose themselves in the finite.
[edit]The phenomenal world
The soul, as a moving essence, generates the corporeal or phenomenal world. This world ought to be so pervaded by the soul that its various parts should remain in perfect harmony. Plotinus is no dualist in the same sense as sects like the Gnostics; in contrast he admires the beauty and splendor of the world. So long as idea governs matter, or the soul governs the body, the world is fair and good. It is an image - though a shadowy image - of the upper world, and the degrees of better and worse in it are essential to the harmony of the whole. But in the actual phenomenal world unity and harmony are replaced by strife or discord; the result is a conflict, a becoming and vanishing, an illusive existence. And the reason for this state of things is that bodies rest on a substratum of matter. Matter is the indeterminate: that which has no qualities. If destitute of form and idea, it is evil; as capable of form it is neutral. Evil here is understood as a parasitic, having no-existence of its own (parahypostasis), unavoidable outcome of the Universe, having an "other" necessity, as a harmonizing factor.[6]
The human souls which have descended into corporeality are those which have allowed themselves to be ensnared by sensuality and overpowered by lust. They now seek to cut themselves loose from their true being; and, striving after independence, they assume a false existence. They must turn back from this; and, since they have not lost their freedom, a conversion is still possible.
[edit]Practice
Here, then, we enter upon the practical philosophy. Along the same road by which it descended the soul must retrace its steps back to the supreme Good. It must first of all return to itself. This is accomplished by the practice of virtue, which aims at likeness to God, and leads up to God. In the ethics of Plotinus all the older schemes of virtue are taken over and arranged in a graduated series. The lowest stage is that of the civil virtues, then follow the purifying, and last of all the divine virtues. The civil virtues merely adorn the life, without elevating the soul. That is the office of the purifying virtues, by which the soul is freed from sensuality and led back to itself, and thence to the nous. By means of ascetic observances the human becomes once more a spiritual and enduring being, free from all sin. But there is still a higher attainment; it is not enough to be sinless, one must become "God", (henosis). This is reached through contemplation of the primeval Being, the One - in other words, through an ecstatic approach to it. Thought cannot attain to this, for thought reaches only to the nous, and is itself a kind of motion. It is only in a state of perfect passivity and repose that the soul can recognize and touch the primeval Being. Hence the soul must first pass through a spiritual curriculum. Beginning with the contemplation of corporeal things in their multiplicity and harmony, it then retires upon itself and withdraws into the depths of its own being, rising thence to the nous, the world of ideas. But even there it does not find the Highest, the One; it still hears a voice saying, "not we have made ourselves." The last stage is reached when, in the highest tension and concentration, beholding in silence and utter forgetfulness of all things, it is able as it were to lose itself. Then it may see God, the foundation of life, the source of being, the origin of all good, the root of the soul. In that moment it enjoys the highest indescribable bliss; it is as it were swallowed up of divinity, bathed in the light of eternity. Porphyry tells us that on four occasions during the six years of their intercourse Plotinus attained to this ecstatic union with God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism

What is it?  It is a form of spiritual discipline that claims to be based on the philosophy of Plato.  It came to prominence around the 2 or 3rd centure CE.  It was a major influence on Christian theology, influencing the likes of St Augustine and Dionysius the Areopagite.

The basic idea of it is strikingly obvious in the posts of M_Nwankwo and other Grail message adherents.  It basically sees the world as a series of emanations away from a source which is known as 'The Good' and when christianised it is known as God.  The purpose of man is to ascend up through the emanations until he gets back to God and when he does he experiences what is called Henosis, that is oneness with God. 

Hi Pastor. You have added to the growing lists of ideas from my posts that people think are similar to other spiritual ideas. More specifically, to the claims that what is written in the Grail Message is similar to ideas from old and new religious, spiritual or philosophical movements. Previously on this forum, claims have been made that ideas from the Grail Message are similar to what is found in christianity, buddhism, hinduism, kaballah, etc and now you have added neoplatonism. It may be intellectually stimulating to debate on these similarities but in my view it is worthless spiritually. Thus I leave it to religious scholars and philosophers to engage in this debate. I may give an insight if I find any question as the thread develops that will be spiritually beneficial to the questioner and other readers. Stay blessed.

The One
The primeval Source of Being is [size=16pt]the One and the Infinite, [/size] as opposed to the many and the finite

Thank goodness. Can you now find a place and a sense, a reason in that which i had tried to propose: namely: the nature of God as being a oneness of infinity?

Deep Sight:

Thank goodness. Can you now find a place and a sense, a reason in that which i had tried to propose: namely: the nature of God as being a oneness of infinity?[i][/i]

Obviously Great minds such as yours and Plotinus' think alike. The fact that I've presented this information for discussion does not mean that I endorse it or even fully understand it. I'm hoping to stimulate discussion.

m_nwankwo:

Hi Pastor. You have added to the growing lists of ideas from my posts that people think are similar to other spiritual ideas. More specifically, to the claims that what is written in the Grail Message is similar to ideas from old and new religious, spiritual or philosophical movements. Previously on this forum, claims have been made that ideas from the Grail Message are similar to what is found in christianity, buddhism, hinduism, kaballah, etc and now you have added neoplatonism. It may be intellectually stimulating to debate on these similarities but in my view it is worthless spiritually. Thus I leave it to religious scholars and philosophers to engage in this debate. I may give an insight if I find any question as the thread develops that will be spiritually beneficial to the questioner and other readers. Stay blessed.

Well you must admit that the similarities are striking. My purpose for starting this thread is to stimulate intellectual debate, as spiritually worthless as that might be, it is an activity that I enjoy and hopefully you might have something to contribute whether of intellectual worth or of spiritual worth.

I'm trying to find a thread that was hot a few months back on Soul and the hebrew understanding Soul or nephesh. I can't find it but it would add to this thread considerably.

And what exactly are we supposed to debate?

Tudór:

And what exactly are we supposed to debate?

Good question. I don't know. To debate you need 2 contrary opinions and we don't have that here.

I suppose I could ask what people think about the validity of neoplatonism.

I would be interested, for instance, to know what Nwankwo thinks of it, especially from a Grail message perspective. Is it valid? by the way, I was not suggesting that it was the source of Grail message, I said that the scheme it proposes is recognisably like that Nwankwo proposes in his posts.

I found the thread on the soul and whether the concept of the immortal soul is christian or not.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-200823.0.html

Pastor AIO:

Good question. I don't know. To debate you need 2 contrary opinions and we don't have that here.

I suppose I could ask what people think about the validity of neoplatonism.

I would be interested, for instance, to know what Nwankwo thinks of it, especially from a Grail message perspective. Is it valid? by the way, I was not suggesting that it was the source of Grail message, I said that the scheme it proposes is recognisably like that Nwankwo proposes in his posts.

Hi Pastor. Scholars always like to compare and contrast and I respect that. That is the way the intellectual brain functions. I do not want to give an opinion on the merits or demerits of various religious and spiritual movements or a comparative analysis of these various teachings with the Grail Message. However what I can do is to give expression to the living knowledge that I have drawn from the Grail Message as well as my personal spiritual experiences in various planes of creation. Thus I have nothing to say about the teachings of other people or how similar such teachings are to my own views. Stay blessed.

Wow!! Great thread. Pretty much what I've been trying to say for a while now. It's almost like u saw right through me.  



If you notice the main themes in Jesus's teachings, in the first three synoptic gospels, are the "present Kingdom of God", and the "Coming Kingdom of God". The Gospel of John leans, IMO, towards the platonic worldview.

One thing that I think is really important to recognize, and to sort through, is just how complicated it is to get to the bottom of all of these layers of interpretation that has brought Christianity to where it is today.

1) First of all there is Jesus and his immediate audience - Israelites with a "Biblical-Hebraic worldview" (God created the world, it got messed up, he's coming back to claim it and make it great again).

2) Paul and his immediate audience - Non-Jews heavily influenced by Platonic philosophy who saw the body as finite and the soul as eternal. In Plato's Phaedo Socrates is quoted to have said "[The soul must] have it's resting place, freed from the shackles of the body,  the soul is most like what is divine, immortal. . .whereas body is most like what is human, mortal . . ,  [At death] the soul, the invisible part, which goes away to a place like itself . . .into the presence of the good and wise God, where, if "God" so will, my [Socrate's] soul must shortly go. . .  EVery seeker after wisdom knows that up to the time when Philosophy takes it over his soul is a helpless prisoner, chained hand and foot in the body. . . ,  (67d, 80bd, 82e)

This type of Worldview had been prevalent in the Greco-Roman world for about 4 centuries before Jesus, but it was not the way most Jews saw the world. So when Paul tells, say, Corinthians, about the afterlife or resurrection, from the Hebrew worldview it would be understood as the REINTEGRATION of body and soul in eternal life;  but the overwhelming majority of his audience would have translated this to mean the immortality of the soul. The implications of this is enormous. Add this to other layers of interpretation by the Church, its followers, then the reformation and the new interpretations, and on and on and on. . .and then u start to get a sense of how detached what people practice today is from what Jesus was most likely communicating to his immediate audience.

Here is a brief discussion on its influence on St. Augustine. I got it from the Texas Christian University Philosophy department. http://www.tcu.edu/

[size=13pt]A Discussion of Neoplatonism and Its Influence on Augustine and the Christian Tradition[/size]


Neoplatonism

Philosophy was naturally not immune to these changes in outlook. The tone of religiosity already evident in Stoicism appeared even more strongly in an important school of philosophy developed in the third century and known as Neoplatonism. Unlike Mithraism and the other cults, Neoplatonism was a philosophical theory; as such, it was concerned with epistemological and metaphysical problems to which the cults were indifferent. For instance, the Neoplatonists were aware of the ambiguities in Plato's theory of forms; they made a genuine effort to deal with these difficulties—and at a far more sophisticated level, philosophically speaking, than had the Stoics. In the process of attempting to solve the technical philosophical problems on which Platonism broke and to which Aristotle had provided at best only a partial answer, Neoplatonism developed a philosophy of religion that was to have a long career in Western thought. Indeed, the Neoplatonic version of Platonism proved to be one of the chief modes of Plato's continuing influence on philosophical thought.

The two aspects of Platonism that chiefly appealed to the Neoplatonists were its tendency toward transcendence and its antirationalism, or rather—since that is perhaps too strong a term—its insistence that none of the really important truths can be communicated by conceptual means. In both respects the Neoplatonists simply emphasized those passages in Plato's writing that suited their own biases and ignored those in which Plato himself had sought to correct his more extreme statements. Thus the Neoplatonic reworking of Platonism plainly showed the mood of the new age.
As regards transcendence, Plato's insistence on the inferior status of the sense world and on the superior reality of the transcendent forms complemented the otherworldliness and world-weariness of the third century. The antirationalist side of Plato's thought had already been taken up in the last centuries of the old era by the so-called Academic sceptics, who had concentrated on those passages in which Plato had argued that physics can never be more than a "likely story."

But there is a significant difference between the ways in which the Neoplatonists and the Academic sceptics reacted to this antirationalist strain of thought. The latter had been content to remain sceptical about metaphysics and to fall back for guidance in the affairs of daily life upon an essentially pragmatic attitude. Since we can never know the absolute truth about anything, we should, they held, operate on the basis of probability. This has a very modern sound. Today we like to think that we do not lust after certainty. If a theory or a line of action "works," that is, produces satisfactory results, most people do not worry about whether it is "true." This pragmatic attitude seems also to have satisfied the Academic sceptics. But by the third century the conditions of life had changed. Men now sought certainty—through the mysteries of the Great Mother, through the worship of Isis, through the support of Mithra, through faith in Jesus of Nazareth. The same overwhelming desire for certainty affected the Neoplatonists, and since, like the sceptics, they had abandoned the old Greek conviction that truth can be reached by reason, they tried to find it by some suprarational method.

The trend toward otherworldliness reinforced this desire to find a new and better mode of knowledge. As the conditions of their life worsened, as men saw the world around them collapsing, they naturally turned away from it and found solace in the vision of another and a better world—perfect as this one is imperfect, beautiful as this is ugly, wholly good as this is corrupt and evil. These two considerations have an obvious affinity: The better world, about which ordinary experience can tell us nothing whatever, is experienced in the inner certainty of a suprarational vision. The central problem of philosophy for Neoplatonism, then, was how to achieve this vision, how to reach that better world. Neoplatonism shared this orientation with the Eastern cults. Its interest, like theirs, was in man's relation, not to other men and to nature, but to the other world. Hence, whereas the dominant interest of classical philosophy as represented by Plato and Aristotle, and even by the Stoics, had been ethical, the dominant interest of the new philosophy was religious. This signaled that the classical world was at an end.

The Coming of Christianity

So far some of the movements that were contemporary with the rise of Christianity have been examined in order to understand the climate of opinion in which it developed and which is reflected in its doctrine. Though some of these movements employed the language of old vegetation myths, some the language of crude Oriental dualisms, and some the technical language of Greek philosophy, they all rejected the old humanistic-naturalistic ideal in favor of a suprahuman excellence that can be achieved only by the aid of some supernatural agency. It is easy to see that in this respect they were but varying responses to the frustration and despair of the time of troubles that men were then experiencing.
In the days of the Antonines, the Empire must have seemed a permanent solution to the problems created by the collapse of city-state culture. Thus disappointment was even greater when it became evident that the Empire was incapable of coping with economic crisis and barbarian invasion. The popularity of the mystery cults, which brought hope to the masses, reflected this widespread uneasiness. But the masses had doubtless always been ignorant and superstitious, ready to put their trust in occult powers.
The rise of Neoplatonism is therefore even more striking evidence of the change in mood, for this was a view that appealed not to the uneducated proletarian but to the upper-class intellectual. The transformation it effected in Platonism is a good index of the alteration that had occurred in men's basic attitude toward life and its problems. Instead of a natural, or at any rate an intelligible, reality, we now find a beyond-being and a beyond-knowledge reality. The primary intellectual problem is not so much to understand this natural world as to grasp the reason why a transcendent and creative "One" should have chosen to produce it. The primary practical problem is to find a way of returning to that One from which we have sprung. Instead of the old view that the good life consists in self-culture through community living, there is now the belief that this world is evil, that man's good consists in release from it, and that this is beyond man's own power.
Because Neoplatonism was the outstanding contemporary philosophical theory, Christianity eventually had to take account of it. The earliest versions of Christianity were, it is true, like the mystery cults, directed largely toward the uneducated and illiterate. Later, when Christianity became socially respectable and aspired to a philosophical rationale, Neoplatonism proved both a model and a threat. Its bias toward transcendence, its asceticism, its deprecation of reason, and its emphasis on the centrality of mystical experience naturally held a strong appeal. But at the same time Christians had to steer clear of its pantheism and its denial of the reality of evil.

Augustine’s Neoplatonism

Augustine was a long time reaching[his devout Christian belief]. His early life, up to about the age of thirty, was dominated, as we have seen, by a search for rational truth and by a profound and disturbing sense of sin and guilt. He took these feelings with him from Africa to Italy, and the not inconsiderable success he soon won in his profession did nothing to relieve his unrest. The broader intellectual life of Italy, however, opened new horizons to him. He made the acquaintance of Ambrose, the bishop who disciplined Theodosius  and learned from him that by interpreting the Bible allegorically one could make its naivete and its inconsistencies vanish. This was helpful; but even more valuable were insights Augustine gained through reading Neoplatonic metaphysics.

In the first place, he found in Neoplatonisrn a notion of the deity as a creative force, or energy, rather than as a crudely anthropomorphic architect or a handicraft worker. Coupled with what Ambrose taught him about allegory, this provided a plausible way of understanding the scriptural traditions about a creative Yahweh. In the second place, and even more important, Neoplatonism seemed to him to provide a solution for the problem of evil. Although the Neoplatonists were actually anything but clear about the status of matter, Augustine concluded from their writings that, if the whole world is a product of the Father's creativity, none of it can be bad. What we call evil is simply an incompleteness and a finitude resulting from the creature's inevitable separation from its maker. If evil were indeed something positive, as the Manichees held, we would have to ask how an omnipotent and all-good God could either create it or tolerate its existence. But if, as Neoplatonism seemed to show, evil is merely negative, merely the absence of good, Augustine held that there is no problem to solve. Hence the great stumbling block to his acceptance of orthodoxy was removed and his intellectual doubts were set at rest. He had found the truth.

But, to his consternation, something was still lacking—the will to accept the truth that he had found. He experienced the terrible frustration that Paul had described in his letter to the Romans: "I can will, but I cannot do what is right. I do not do the good things that I want to do; I do the wrong things that I do not want to do,  What a wretched man I am! Who can save me from this doomed body?" This was a period of black despair and frustration for Augustine. He had convinced himself of the truth of orthodox teaching, but nothing happened. He knew no inner light, no inner peace; his old life of sin, corruption, lust, and pride continued as before. [He later found the faith and passion that was required for a complete conversion to Christianity.]

Augustine was not merely a devout Christian; he was also a philosopher. And from a philosophical point of view, what is most striking about the brief homily just quoted is the way in which it is dominated by God, rather than by Jesus. Augustine's mind, although much like Paul's in many other respects, fastened on the Father rather than on the Son. This is perhaps explained by the fact that, whereas Paul was a missionary who taught a religious mystery, Augustine was a philosopher with a strong metaphysical interest. Anyone with a philosophical mind, even one who is deeply religious, is primarily interested in the nature of reality. Thus Augustine belongs, in this respect at least, to the same tradition as Plato and Aristotle and Democritus, but with the important difference that, whereas their interest in the nature of reality was mainly secular, his was primarily religious. It was not, for instance, a desire to solve the problem of knowledge that led him to investigate the nature of reality, nor was it the hope of providing a firm basis for social ethics. His motive was the will to find a satisfactory object of religious faith. What he found, therefore, was naturally a different kind of reality from theirs. Whereas Plato or Democritus employed either a relatively neutral term, like "form" or "atom," or an ethically colored term, like “the Good,” to designate what they held to be ultimate reality, Augustine used a purely religious term, "God."

www.phil.tcu.edu/readings/Neoplatonism.doc



I'll try to add some more later. I really wish I had time to contribute more now but it'll cost me dearly  

Nice one, Krayola. But we mustn't forget a very important distinction in Christianity from neoplatonism that was articulated in the writing of the creeds. It was possibly residual from the hebrew worldview. And that is . . .

[size=16pt]The resurrection of the Body.[/size]

Christians don't just believe in a bodyless soul soaring up to heaven.

m_nwankwo:

Hi Pastor. Scholars always like to compare and contrast and I respect that. That is the way the intellectual brain functions. I do not want to give an opinion on the merits or demerits of various religious and spiritual movements or a comparative analysis of these various teachings with the Grail Message. However what I can do is to give expression to the living knowledge that I have drawn from the Grail Message as well as my personal spiritual experiences in various planes of creation. Thus I have nothing to say about the teachings of other people or how similar such teachings are to my own views. Stay blessed.

I appreciate your position.

Paul taught the resurrection of the body. I should have put that in my initial post. It just didn't occur to me at he time.

I think the main distinction is with how the "Kingdom of God/Heaven" is understood. The Kingdom of God, from what I understand, was COMING. Jesus was coming back to reclaim the earth. The idea of everyone going to some magical place in the sky is what I think is foreign to Jewish thought.

Krayola:

Paul taught the resurrection of the body. I should have put that in my initial post. It just didn't occur to me at he time.

I think the main distinction is with how the "Kingdom of God/Heaven" is understood. The Kingdom of God, from what I understand, was COMING. Jesus was coming back to reclaim the earth. The idea of everyone going to some magical place in the sky is what I think is foreign to Jewish thought.

I would say that the bolded is even more foreign to jewish thought, don't you agree?

jagunlabi:

I would say that the bolded is even more foreign to jewish thought, don't you agree?

I agree. Because their idea of a Messiah was a human, kinda like David, that would liberate them from oppressors and rule with divine justice.

A lot of work is going into separating Pauline theology from the teachings of Jesus himself, and to sort out how much of an influence paul's theology had on the Gospel writers, because Paul introduces things that Jesus himself did not teach. A lot of Paul's teachings don't fly in the Jewish community and is responsible for a lot of tensions between the Jewish religious community and the Early Christian Community which was mostly Pauline (In Roman territory). It is a lot of these tensions that show up in the gospels, and the distaste of the Gospel writers towards the Jewish religious authorities comes across in their writings. "Jews" (gross-overgeneralization) didn't reject Jesus per se. . . they rejected the theology that developed around Jesus. The teachings of Paul just didn't make sense in a Jewish worldview, which Jesus was deeply rooted in. Paul made a lot of changes to accommodate non- Jews and they couldn't be reconciled with "traditional" Jewish thought.

Krayola:

I agree. Because their idea of a Messiah was a human, kinda like David, that would liberate them from oppressors and rule with divine justice.

A lot of work is going into separating Pauline theology from the teachings of Jesus himself, and to sort out how much of an influence paul's theology had on the Gospel writers, because Paul introduces things that Jesus himself did not teach. A lot of Paul's teachings don't fly in the Jewish community and is responsible for a lot of tensions between the Jewish religious community and the Early Christian Community which was mostly Pauline (In Roman territory). It is a lot of these tensions that show up in the gospels, and the distaste of the Gospel writers towards the Jewish religious authorities comes across in their writings. "Jews" (gross-overgeneralization) didn't reject Jesus per se. . . they rejected the theology that developed around Jesus. The teachings of Paul just didn't make sense in a Jewish worldview, which Jesus was deeply rooted in. Paul made a lot of changes to accommodate non- Jews and they couldn't be reconciled with "traditional" Jewish thought.

Whoa! We need to slow down here. Can you back what you are saying here with examples? Because these are heavy statements to make just gbolah! like that without back up. Jewish worldview at the time of Jesus was, in my understanding, quite heterogenous. Maybe you should first explain what you mean before I comment.

Pastor AIO:


Whoa!  We need to slow down here.  Can you back what you are saying here with examples?  Because these are heavy statements to make just gbolah!  like that without back up.  Jewish worldview at the time of Jesus was, in my understanding, quite heterogenous.  Maybe you should first explain what you mean before I comment. 

haha. u're right.

This stuff isn't easy to sort thru for that exact reason. So a lot of generalizations have to be made, and that is what gets us all into trouble. Appreciating how heterogeneous EVERY element of society is is very important.

We tend to think in terms of groups. . . we put pharisees into a box, Jews inside a box, christians inside a box, gentiles inside a box etc, like all members of these groups agreed on everything.  that is hardly ever the case. . .but sometimes u just have to speak like that.

I'm not saying all of Pauline theology was an invention of Paul. . .because there is evidence that people believed in some of the stuff before Paul. (if you look at one entry i made on that archaelogy thread,  read about the house of st peter in capernaum), I'm saying elements of that theology were unacceptable in "traditional" Jewish thought. So while some of Jesus's followers would have believed in such, not all would have. There have been different expressions of belief in Jesus right from the get go and Pauline theology just happened to be the most successful because, IMO, he understood the Greco-Roman worldview and did a good job of accommodating it.

What kind of examples do u want just to make sure we're on the same page?

Why did we allow laziness to prevent us from progressing this exciting discussion? ? ?

Very nice topic though but My question to Pastor; What is the negative influence of neoplatonism in early Christianity. I say early Christianity because Christianity today is far from holding a single philosophy.

TheClown:
Very nice topic though but My question to Pastor; What is the negative influence of neoplatonism in early Christianity. I say early Christianity because Christianity today is far from holding a single philosophy.

I do not think that early Christianity held a single philosophy either. There were a lot of strands of ideas that were very very tangled up.

Plotinus' starting-point is that of the idealist.

...and there should be nothing but God. He is, however, good; and goodness, like light, tends to diffuse itself. Thus from the One, there emanates

I haven't finished reading the OP, but the parallel between goodness and light seems to me to be quite arbitrary and vague, yet it is key to the flow of the author's "argument".

Myself, my starting point would be "suffering". In acknowledging suffering, we acknowledge both experience and potential. Suffering expresses an awareness of the difference between what is experienced, and concept or idea (Idea) of what potentially "could be". It is coupled with a sense of frustration or "obstructed power" -- the belief that there is a way out of the suffering that is obscured or confounded by our condition.

Suffering is a natural starting point in the discourse of emanation and forms (if that is the paradigm you wish to follow).

As in, "I know, therefore I am", so, "I suffer, therefore I could be".

sinequanon:


I haven't finished reading the OP, but the parallel between goodness and light seems to me to be quite arbitrary and vague, yet it is key to the flow of the author's "argument".

Myself, my starting point would be "suffering". In acknowledging suffering, we acknowledge both experience and potential. Suffering expresses an awareness of the difference between what is experienced, and concept or idea (Idea) of what potentially "could be". It is coupled with a sense of frustration or "obstructed power" -- the belief that there is a way out of the suffering that is obscured or confounded by our condition.

Suffering is a natural starting point in the discourse of emanation and forms (if that is the paradigm you wish to follow).

As in, "I know, therefore I am", so, "I suffer, therefore I could be".

This is so fascinating. I almost want to start another thread just to discuss these things you are saying.

While I can't speak for Plotinus, I think your criticism depends on how you're reading the passage and there is more than one interpretation.

When he says 'Goodness, Like light, ...', he is not necessarily suggesting an essential similarity in the ways Goodness and Light work. Rather he might be saying that the similarity is superficial but follows the same pattern. For example if I say that, ' I eat garri just like a gardener shovels soil into a wheelbarrow', I am not suggesting that there is an indelible connection between the way I eat and the way the gardener works. I'm just saying that visually, superficially the way a garderner works resembles the way I eat.

So Goodness in the way it diffuses itself is similar to the way that light diffuses itself. And perhaps also the way that salt in a cup of water diffuses itself, and a fart in the wind diffuses itself.




Suffering as a starting point for religious practice is a strong argument and in fact one that I totally agree with a embrace.

However I'm not sure whether you mean it as a basis for cosmogony.

PastorAIO:


There were a lot of strands of ideas that were very very tangled up.

...and competing with each other for prominence.

At different times, bits and pieces of various strands of ideas fused together.

plaetton:

...and competing with each other for prominence.

At different times, bits and pieces of various strands of ideas fused together.

Yup! and in fact many of the various strands had their origins in Judaism which was multifaceted too. It was the Pharisees that believed in the resurrection of the Body, not the Sadducees.

PastorAIO:


This is so fascinating. I almost want to start another thread just to discuss these things you are saying.

While I can't speak for Plotinus, I think your criticism depends on how you're reading the passage and there is more than one interpretation.

When he says 'Goodness, Like light, ...', he is not necessarily suggesting an essential similarity in the ways Goodness and Light work. Rather he might be saying that the similarity is superficial but follows the same pattern. For example if I say that, ' I eat garri just like a gardener shovels soil into a wheelbarrow', I am not suggesting that there is an indelible connection between the way I eat and the way the gardener works. I'm just saying that visually, superficially the way a garderner works resembles the way I eat.

So Goodness in the way it diffuses itself is similar to the way that light diffuses itself. And perhaps also the way that salt in a cup of water diffuses itself, and a fart in the wind diffuses itself.




Suffering as a starting point for religious practice is a strong argument and in fact one that I totally agree with a embrace.

However I'm not sure whether you mean it as a basis for cosmogony.

I've finished reading the OP, and I can see in the Wiki article how Plotinus supports his "diffusion of light" comment.

I've given the OP a second reading to apply the contexts of the first reading.

"Suffering", I see as a natural starting point in a discourse on spirituality and religion.

I hadn't considered cosmogeny, but, now that you mention the word, it can be argued that the phenomenal world is something that is "endured" and has a "duration" or temporality contingent upon endurance. Time, itself, may be an artifact of incompleteness, finiteness and "disunity".

Does time exist outside the domain of suffering? Do space and distance exist outside the domain of suffering? In a real, undifferentiated world of Oneness what connotation could distance or delay have? It could be said that these aspects of the phenomenal world are part of its cosmogeny -- that the phenomenal world is our own subjective rendition of our "devolved" condition.

As an aside, I think that some of these neo-Platonic ideas can be found in Buddhist traditions. Did they evolve separately?

sinequanon:
As an aside, I think that some of these neo-Platonic ideas can be found in Buddhist traditions. Did they evolve separately?

I've just read that Plotinus' student, Porphyry, wrote that Plotinus' was influenced by Indian philosophy.

And that some philosophers claim that Plotinus plagiarized Numenius, who referred to a measure of consistency between the works of Plato and of the Brahmins of India.

sinequanon:


I've finished reading the OP, and I can see in the Wiki article how Plotinus supports his "diffusion of light" comment.

I've given the OP a second reading to apply the contexts of the first reading.

"Suffering", I see as a natural starting point in a discourse on spirituality and religion.

I hadn't considered cosmogeny, but, now that you mention the word, it can be argued that the phenomenal world is something that is "endured" and has a "duration" or temporality contingent upon endurance. Time, itself, may be an artifact of incompleteness, finiteness and "disunity".

Does time exist outside the domain of suffering? Do space and distance exist outside the domain of suffering? In a real, undifferentiated world of Oneness what connotation could distance or delay have? It could be said that these aspects of the phenomenal world are part of its cosmogeny -- that the phenomenal world is our own subjective rendition of our "devolved" condition.

As an aside, I think that some of these neo-Platonic ideas can be found in Buddhist traditions. Did they evolve separately?

Considering that the Roman empire stretched from western Europe to Persia, and before then Alexander of Macedonia's empire stretched all the way from Europe to India, it makes sense that there would have been an exchange of ideas within the far reaches of the empire. Also we mustn't for the Silk Road which has been transporting goods and ideas on and off for many millenia.


I would agree that Suffering, or discontent, is the basic trigger for Religious impulses. Whether Suffering is Cosmogenic or inversely whether cosmogony brings about suffering, seems to me to be a classic Chicken or Egg question.

Imagine the creators impulse to create. Was it experienced as a suffering that needed to be relieved by creating?