How is it "ignorance of the problem of interpretation"?

Interpretation has never been such a problem until the 1900's. There is a very long and well-attested Platonist tradition from Plato and Aristotle to Plotinus and Proclus all the way into modern times, which for some strange reason you choose to ignore.

See From Plato to Platonism by Gerson and other scholars if you don't believe me.

That's why I'm asking you a simple question. Why don't you try to look into how Plato's and Socrates' contemporaries would have read the dialogues if you really want to know?

But it seems that you are not interested.

IMHO that's rather irrelevant as you have no evidence for your claim. In the final analysis, all we have got is the NT text and the teachings of the Church Fathers. This is what the OP is about, not fanciful and unsubstantiated speculations.

Well, why don't you look at your own attacks?

.. your hermetic Christian Neoplatonist beliefs .... — Fooloso4

You have used translations where relevant words or passages were missing.

And you generally quote anti-Platonist authors with 20th-century liberal ideas and agendas.

Why can't you just look at the dialogues as a contemporary of Plato and Socrates for whom the dialogues were intended? Don't you see the anachronism, or are you just pretending?

Well, maybe you should try reading other people's posts before commenting? I already quoted your quote and explained why "the Law" only referred to what was universally applicable to all believers, not just to Jews.

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil ..... — Apollodorus

If Jesus had intended for his teachings to be just for Jews, he would have made sure that only Jews became followers and there would have been a Gospel for Jews in Hebrew or Aramaic, not in Greek.

You know absolutely nothing about my beliefs which actually illustrates your methodology.

You invited me to join your discussion and I am presenting my own arguments. If I agreed with everything you say, there would be no discussion and you would be talking to yourself.

I have no problem with you quoting the texts, provided you are using the correct translation. The problem is the anachronistic assumptions and erroneous interpretations you bring to the dialogues.

Of course you can do whatever you like, but if you think about it, it would be more realistic to look at the dialogues like a contemporary of Plato and Socrates, not like a hard-line liberal of the 1940's.

As much as you would like it to be the case, the fact remains that Plato and Socrates were not 20th-century liberals with atheistic or nihilistic tendencies. It just seems absurd to claim otherwise.

I think you are confused. Christians are not Jews and Christianity is not Judaism.

Mark 7 says very clearly:

"5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions ....

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7&version=NIV

Quite possibly, some Jewish followers of Jesus continued to adhere to Jewish dietary and other customs, but others obviously did not. St Paul, who was a Jew, was one of them. And as an increasing number of non-Jews joined the movement, Jewish laws were no longer required nor adhered to.

Whether one is acting prudently then, remains an open question. The examined life remains the primary, continuous way of life of the Socratic philosopher. — Fooloso4

Unfortunately, that sounds very much like indulging in facile sophistry. The fact is that everything remains an open question until you have a final answer. And you can't have a final answer until you arrive at ultimate reality.

The same applies to scientific facts and theories. They are what we think we know until we know better.

That doesn't mean that we know nothing or that Socrates was an atheist or nihilist. This is an unwarranted modern belief influenced by neo-Marxist interpretations that probably emerged in the early 1900's and was resuscitated in the 1940's and 50's before it was buried again due to lack of evidence and interest.

In any case, it is totally anachronistic to try to impose outdated liberal ideas of the 1900's on texts written centuries before the current era.

Are you implying Chinese are dumb? Hence they live happily under dictatorship. — ltlee1

Not necessarily. However, it may be possible to reach that conclusion from the facts of the situation, as you yourself have just done.

And yes, China is getting more and more aggressive and expansionist. It annexed Tibet in 1951. It tried to conquer India in 1962 and there have been border skirmishes ever since. It is currently planning to annex Taiwan and other places in the Pacific, and is building a corridor through Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey to get its hands on Mid East oil and attack Europe in preparation for invading America.

So, lots parallelz nazi german, as you say.

If you won't tolerate such a government, what make you think 1.4 billion Chinese will? — ltlee1

They may not know any better. If they have been under a dictatorship since 1949, then they have no standard of reference by which to judge that there are better alternatives.

The dictatorship prevents the emergence of a political culture and consciousness that would result in an awareness of (1) alternatives and of (2) ways to realize them.

A bit like a frog in a jar that is unaware of the existence of ponds, lakes, and other larger bodies of water where it may enjoy a greater supply of food, mating opportunities, and other advantages of a free existence.

So what is he really saying when he pretends to agree that the moon and the sun are deities? Isn't he saying, under the guise of irony, that it's highly debatable that they are deities? — Olivier5

The fact that Socrates used irony does not mean that everything he said was just irony.

Plato definitely describes visible and invisible Gods, including the Sun, Moon, and other planets that were living deities created by the Demiourgos or Maker of the Universe.

The Universe (Cosmos) itself has a soul and is a living being.

However, we could say that there has been an different trend, towards an emphasis in social justice in more recent thinking, especially in the trend of liberation theology, which focuses on the alleviation of suffering — Jack Cummins

Yes, I think social justice is very important. But if we are to construct a consistent moral philosophy based on NT teachings, we need to find a definition for it, look at what place it has or should have within Christian ethics, how it relates to the two great commandments and to the Decalogue, etc.

Incidentally, regarding the Decalogue, there is this interesting passage in Matthew:

1“And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying ….

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mat 5:17 – 20) https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/5.htm

It is tempting to think that by "the Law", Jesus meant the Jewish Law in general. However, the Jewish Law (Halakhah) was much more than the Decalogue. There are 613 basic laws and further rabbinic laws that together constitute Jewish Law. A lot of these are not applicable to non-Jews, for example, the prohibition against eating pork which would have been unacceptable to other cultures like the Greek and Roman ones.

As the Son of God and the founder of a new world religion, Jesus could not have referred to the Jewish Law, but to the Eternal Law of God that has existed from the beginning of the world and that is applicable to the whole human race.

Incidentally, the Decalogue consists of laws that were in force among another nations, not only the Jews. Even the first law or commandment, "you shall have no other gods before me" may be interpreted to mean that we should not put any other god first or above the Supreme God or Deity, i.e., that we should have and worship one God above all other divine or spiritual beings such as gods, angels, etc.

This would be consistent with Greek and Roman religion which had one supreme deity (Zeus, Jupiter) over others and even with Ancient Canaanite and Hebrew religion which had one main god (El, Elyon, Yahweh). In Ancient Greece, Socrates was accused of impiety toward the gods of Athens and of introducing new deities. So, such prohibitions were not an exclusive feature of monotheistic religion.

Therefore, it may be said that the core of this Eternal and Universal Law of God, according to Christianity, would be the two commandments given by Jesus, followed by the Decalogue. We have seen more or less what the two commandments are. But what about the Decalogue, how are we to interpret and apply it in a Christian sense?

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven, on earth, or in the water; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain
4. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. You shall remember it and keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

As can be seen, the first four refer to God and relate to Jesus’ first commandment (“love God”) and the following six refer to man and his neighbors and relate to Jesus’ second commandment (“love thy neighbour”).

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Ten Commandments

In particular, how should we define, interpret, and evaluate liberation theology?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Current day China democracy does not have a lot of commonality with Nazi German. — ltlee1

I tend to disagree with that statement.

1. For starters, China is a dictatorship. Perhaps not a dictatorship of one single leader, but still a dictatorship of the Communist Party.

2. Secondly, China's official policies are essentially national socialist and, to some extent, racist.

3. Thirdly, China is becoming more and more militaristic and aggressive in its rhetoric and foreign policy and has an expansionist agenda.

I think the similarities with Nazi Germany cannot be denied.

I have a couple more books which I wish to bring into the thread but will not do so until Monday — Jack Cummins

Only a couple? @180 might be disappointed to hear that. But I'm sure he'll be hopping back on the bus at the next opportunity. At any rate, I tend to think that detours are what makes a bus journey, and life, more interesting. So, do continue reading and inform us of your new findings that we can discuss in due course :up:

Thanks for the link. Yes, I think Whitehead is making an important point. We can't stay fettered to Newtonian ideas for ever. We need to explore new possibilities and perspectives. It isn't just time that progresses, we change and evolve too. Intelligence is never static, it is always full of new ideas and ready for new experiences. In any case, the subjective aspects of experience are as important if not more so than the objective ones.

As per the OP, only philosophical contemplation of the Bible / NT is relevant. — 180 Proof

Lol I think "only" was inserted by your good self.

@Jack is an open-minded kind of person with a wide range of interests and perspectives. And as I said, he was referring to "contemplation" and "critical reading" as two equally important, yet different, approaches to the NT text.

But you're more than welcome to jump back on the bus. After reciting some prayers and engaging in the vita contemplativa for an adequate period of time, of course.

"First, whole-process democracy transcends Western-style democracy in that the latter represents only the rights and interests of a small number of people, especially the upper class. By contrast, whole-process democracy is geared toward safeguarding the rights and interests of all the Chinese people, thus making it truly representational in nature"

So, there is "no upper or ruling class" in China, no multi-billionaires with links to the regime, and having just one party that seized power by force of arms in 1949 and has stayed in power ever since by suppressing opposition, constitutes "representative democracy".

Perhaps we should all emigrate to China then. I'm already learning Mandarin ....

Aramaic was the everyday language. Hebrew was used for religious purposes. So, the name is more likely to have been Aramaic even if it was Hebrew originally.

For example, if an English person has the English name "John", then John would be an English name even if originally (many centuries ago) it was a Hebrew one.

In any case, the NT was written in Greek, so it has the Hellenized or Greek version of the name.

So, I actually was referring to the Hebrew version of the name — Angelo

Just as a general observation, I don’t think the original was Hebrew, more likely it was Aramaic or even a Hellenized form of it. In any case, the NT has the Greek version Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs (something like Yeh-soos/Ee-soos in Modern English pronunciation) that was rendered as Jesus in Latin and other West European languages.

But I agree that, whilst being cautious about obvious cases of "superstition", we should keep an open mind about reports of miracles and show respect for what people feel to be genuine experience. Miracles have been reported by intelligent and educated people, not just the ignorant and the superstitious.

The bombs were definetly not dropped to destroy the japanese warmaking potential. — Echarmion

That is my argument too. I think it is important to distinguish between military strategy, political agendas, and propaganda by the press and other actors.

In military terms, you conduct smaller bombing raids that would focus on specific military targets, you don't flatten a whole city.

According to one theory, the nukes were intended as a message to the Soviets. But there are other possibilities:

Edit. "President Harry S. Truman decided to use the atomic bomb as revenge for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in 1942. Truman worried that an invasion of Japan would cost up to one million American lives and would drag on for far longer than the American public wanted due to the fanaticism of Japanese soldiers to defend their island and emperor. He also needed a reason to justify the $1,889,604,000 the government spent on the Manhattan Project, which in of itself was a secret program. He worried of the political ramifications of not using the weapon while spending almost $2 billion. Finally, Truman understood the Soviet Union's role in post-World War II global affairs would be one of an antagonistic player to American policies. He felt a showing of American military might would force the Soviet Union to reconsider its approach to its own Eastern European affairs."

https://www.reference.com/history/were-major-reasons-bombing-hiroshima-9e47a834f91d027c

That is a matter of debate. But you could, for example, start with words and expressions that fall under the general category of "invective" or "insult" and that are instantly recognizable as such by most people.

Personally, I tend not to use or react to them because it would be a waste of time. One should be able to take a "philosophical" approach in these cases, but the fact remains that they tend to lower instead of raise the level and quality of the discussion or conversation.

Half of the time people may search for something online and come across discussions on a forum only to discover ad hominems and other off-putting stuff that shouldn't be there in the first place.

There was no evidence that warning them would necessarily avoid all casualties, so some casualties must have been taken for granted even if they were not specifically singled out as target.

There were many thousands of civilian casualties and very few military. Some estimates have figures as high as 170,000.

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/survivors-hiroshima-and-nagasaki

But in general, unless someone writes out their argument in the form of a concise syllogism, the conversation should be counted as a discussion, a work in progress, a mutual effort, and while it is still just that, it would be overreaching to already call out fallacies. — baker

I think even if they did put their argument in the form of a strict syllogism, you are under no obligation to do the same with your own argument, except in the context of a formal debate.

Other than that, it's just a discussion, conversation or, simply, exchange of views which is what it tends to be in most cases anyway.

As a general principle, insults and ad hominems do not contribute to civilized dialogue and I think they should not be allowed on a forum.

Nuclear weapons to destroy manufacturing facilities? Doesn't make any sense to me.

95% of the casualties were civilians.

So, I doubt there was too much worrying about civilian casualties.

Besides, would you have advised the Japs to do the same in order to end the war?

Fact is, if "ending the war" is the primary concern, then we go back to "the end justifies the means" and all talk of avoiding civilian casualties becomes superfluous IMHO.

What I meant was that a debate between two people is not necessarily a philosophical dialogue. And even less a dialogue like one written by Plato, IMHO.

Anyway, have a nice day.

I haven't looked at Guthrie's "Socrates" in a long time — Fooloso4

You mean since the early 70's? I think that explains a lot ....

Examining the contrast between Plato and Diogenes, one might be inspired to stop mining Plato for traces of who Socrates was and just rely on Xenophon and Diogenes. — frank

I think there is a tendency to pay too much attention to Socrates. The problem with this is (1) we know very little about the historical person and (2) he is a character in other authors' works and therefore represents their views to some extent.

With regard to understanding Plato, I think looking into his connections to the traditions of Pythagoras, Zeno, Parmenides, et al., would be more productive. Though, of course, I wouldn't exclude Plotinus and other Platonists.

or you become so big and powerful that nobody dares to mess with you. — baker

Quite possibly, this is why China is trying to become as big and powerful as possible. A new colonial power. We'd better start learning Mandarin. Or self-defense tactics ....

You means the reader, including me. — Fooloso4

Correct. And this is what you usually deny when it is pointed out to you.

A critical difference is that philosophy relies on reason, the biblical religions on revelation. — Fooloso4

However, the two are not mutually exclusive. There have always been philosophers who practice religion and religious people who practice philosophy. The Church Fathers are a good example. Christianity brings Athens and Jerusalem together.

It could be that Plato never went that far. Or it could be that he did, but that he thought against publishing this rather revolutionary metaphysical view during his life time because it would have been too risky. — Olivier5

He didn't have to. It was a logical conclusion of his ideas as expressed in his works. This is precisely why it was taught by Plotinus and other Platonists who saw themselves as followers of Plato's philosophical position.

There is no essential difference, what we are doing here IS a philosophical dialogue. — Olivier5

If you say so, it must be true.

What we do know is his concern for the human things - self, morals, political life. — Fooloso4

And don't forget the soul that gives life to a human being and that, according to Socrates/Plato is the most important part of man.

And that is why I said I suspect the answer to your question has to do with the assumptions you bring to it. — Fooloso4

And you, of course, never bring any assumptions to your questions. Except when you do, right?

Can you read ancient Greek? — frank

A little bit.

I've read Ms. Armstrong and she clearly does not mean philosophical contemplation (i.e. critical-hermeneutic à la Spinoza, Hume, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Bultmann ...) when she says "contemplation". — 180 Proof

I think the point was that NT passages may be approached in different ways at different times. Sometimes through contemplation, other times through critical reading. Two different things, no?

I think that the centre of any ethics of from the NT has to be that of loving others as oneself. Sometimes, I think that people forget that a starting point for loving others is to love oneself. Also, I don't think loving oneself and others is a simple task. — Jack Cummins

I think you hit the nail on the head there. St Augustine in City of God points out that you can't truly love others unless you love yourself because only self-love and knowledge of what is good for you can teach you how to love and be good to others. And vice-versa, as Socrates would have put it, you are good to others because that is good for you.

But as Augustine says, in order to properly love yourself, you must first love God. And Socrates would have agreed because God or the Divine (to theion) is Goodness, Beauty, and Truth as well as Justice and Wisdom. By learning to love those qualities you learn how to love them in and for yourself and in and for others.

Here Augustine makes an important observation:

"Thus, if a man knows how to love himself, the commandment to love his neighbour bids him to do all he can to bring his neighbour to love God. This is the worship of God; this is true religion; this is the right kind of devotion" (City of God, X 3).

This is why Jesus said: ''You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 22:37-40).

The Law includes the Decalogue or ten injunctions to love your father and mother, abstain from committing murder, theft, adultery, perjury, etc. It may not seem like much, but I think it can be used as a good foundation for a basic moral philosophy.

I can't see why inserting philosophy leads to confusion — Jack Cummins

:up: I can't see anything negative about philosophy either. Besides, it's a personal choice. I for one, would introduce philosophy into politics, arts, and all aspects of life. Isn't this what true philosophy is supposed be about?

Karen Armstrong suggests the importance of contemplation of texts. But, I do think that a critical reading is also important, — Jack Cummins

I think Armstrong is absolutely correct. Contemplation of Bible passages is an established practice. Of course critical reading is important especially from a philosophical perspective.

However, at the end of the day, we can't get anywhere without practice, so we may choose a passage that we understand or appeals to us for contemplation, and look into others when we are not engaged in contemplation. That way, we kill two birds with one stone and hopefully make some progress not only intellectually, but also spiritually. I don't think that would be a bad thing.

By the way, I think you did mention the subject of ethics which I thought was important. If you were to construct a moral philosophy based on the NT, what would you say is the best way to go about it?

What's the trace of Plato in our thinking today, our intellectual debt to him? Or is this debt rather a liability, some sophisticated mental shackle we should get rid of? — Olivier5

Maybe like Marx and others whose philosophy has never amounted to much and has only tended to fetter people to superstitions and obsolete ideas.

But why not write our own dialogues? If Plato wrote dialogues, why can't we? And isn't posting comments on an online forum the same as writing philosophical dialogues?

You must have been here for a couple of years and the other one possibly many years. Just think how many dialogues you could have composed in this time.

A 'realpolitik' rule of thumb: The sisyphusean terrorism by the oppressed is justified by the wanton terrorism of the oppressor. — 180 Proof

Good point.

Engels’ definition of revolution was “the most authoritarian thing that exists; it is the act, whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon; and the victorious party must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries” - Engels, F., “On Authority”, 1874, MEW, Band. 18, s. 308.

So, it would seem that in some cases the oppressed engage in terrorism to counteract oppression and then apply state terror to stay in power by oppressing and terrorizing others.

I for one, tend to believe that humans should try and evolve and leave well behind them the stage of violence as a "solution" to problems. But I'm sure that others would disagree.