But the fact remains that the only Jesus we really know is the Jesus described in the New Testament, which was not interested in scientifically objective history. — Jack Cummins

Very good observation. I'm not sure if there are any Jewish records of a revolutionary called "Jesus" which one would expect to find if this had been the case.

But, at the end of the day, we can only go by the evidence we have and by what Christianity sees as the truth. And the ultimate truth, of course, is spiritual or metaphysical. We can only find it by experiencing it within ourselves.

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor 3:16)

Hence the practice of prayer and meditation or contemplation as an extension of religion and philosophy in many traditions, not only Christianity.

Note that Plato may well have been voluntarily ambiguous here or there, for obvious reasons of self-protection. In those cases, the "true" Plato teaching may well be simply ambiguous by design...In these cases, the true Plato teaching may be unknown. Lost. — Olivier5

In that case, it's all speculation and a waste of time. It would be much easier and quicker to write our own dialogues and pretend that this is what Plato would have written, had he been a follower of Genghis Khan, Karl Marx, or Saddam Hussein.

It does not appear to you because you close your eyes when it appears. — Olivier5

Good point. Perhaps that's what tends to happen when people close their eyes to the Forms and insist that they are just a figment of Plato's imagination.

The best solution to combat terrorism is not getting involved in conventional warfare in the first place — Wittgenstein

Good point. Islamic terrorists do seem to see their actions as part of some "Jihad" or "holy war" so, terrorism does seem to amount to waging war by non-conventional means.

Marxists like Trotsky advocate terrorism in the cause of communism:

L Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism

Personally, I am against war and violence in general. But the question remains, what do you when the "enemy" gives you no other option?

Unfortunately, civilians have always been targeted in wars, e.g., fire-bombing of German cities and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I'm not sure how philosophy can justify one side doing it whilst condemning the other, except by arguing that the end justifies the means. Or "law of the jungle" or something.

It follows that we cannot have much certainty about what Plato and Socrates truly meant to say. — Olivier5

By the same token, we can't have much certainty about anything. However, we have the texts under discussion, viz., the dialogues, and on that basis, we may infer logically (1) what the character "Socrates" is trying to say and/or (2) what Plato is trying to say through Socrates.

It does not appear from the text that either Socrates or Plato thought the Forms to be "hypothetical", "myths" or "noble lies".

Socrates does not say he believes the sun and moon are gods, he asks whether Meletus is accusing him of not believing that they are gods as other men do. — Fooloso4

He is using that in his defense against the charge of asebia or impiety toward the Gods.

He starts his testimony by saying "Let the event be as God wills".

And he says that he would rather obey God than the men of Athens, etc. (29d)

In the Republic Socrates says that the sun is the offspring of the Good. (506e) Nowhere does he refer to the Good as a god. — Fooloso4

That looks like another straw man to me. In reality, Socrates says:

"Therefore we ought to try to escape from earth to the dwelling of the Gods as quickly as we can; and to escape is to become like God, so far as this is possible; and to become like God is to become righteous and holy and wise” (Thaetetus 176a – b).

He unquestionably believed in God, as already discussed and established beyond reasonable doubt.

That much is true, and I readily confess that I am one of them.

Unfortunately, the Greeks involved in the Parthenon's "reconstruction" appear to have made a right mess of it. And Prince Charles refuses to return the marble statues.

So, it's all Greek to me.

No, what is being measured is the passing of time, which is better described as the rate of such changes. The "rate" requires relations between changes themselves, not relations between objects, but relations between changes.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Maybe so. However, it still comes down to changes and changes are what is observed in the objects.

The objects and changes in them are observed on the basis of sensory perception such as color. The changes are changes in color, etc. as perceived by the mind.

And this seems to bring "time" very close to subjective experience.

It has not been established that the Forms are "presuppositions" or "hypotheses". Socrates certainly does not call them that.

The claim that the Forms are more than just hypothetical requires that they are things known. — Fooloso4

They may be unknown to some and known to others. Socrates does not say that they are unknown to all. Nor does he dispute their existence. On the contrary, he presents arguments in favor of their existence.

Collingwood's concept of 'absolute presupposition' avoids the negative connotation of the words 'lie' and 'myth'. — Olivier5

Theoretically, perhaps. But the connotation remains in everyday language.

Even if we designate something "noble lie", to most people's minds it is still a lie.

The way I tend to see it is that Plato's dialogues should be read on their own terms and taking into consideration the cultural and religious situation of his time, not in light of the opinion of 20th century liberal philosophers.

but to give substance to our measurements of duration, we must assume that there is actually something being measured. — Metaphysician Undercover

But isn't what is being measured simply the changes that take place in the relation objects have to one another?

Are you Greek? — frank

Apparently, we all are:

'Speaking at a banquet in the presidential palace of Athens on Wednesday night, Prince Charles quoted the great English Poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley and said: “We are all Greeks".'

https://greekreporter.com/2018/05/10/prince-charles-we-are-all-greeks-video/

it could be adopted as a useful doctrine, a foundational myth. — Olivier5

But why does it have to be a "myth"? And why does a myth have to be a "lie"?

Suppose the thing that the hypothesis hypothesizes about is true, as given in my example/s above, e.g., world, Forms, etc., and the hypothesis neither proves nor disproves the truth of it, but simply attempts to describe, explain, or define it.

I'm not talking about the "goodness" or otherwise of the results. I'm talking about the relation of the hypothesis and the hypothesized thing to one another.

But if time is deemed a psychological trait and not something of physics will that undermine all scientific discoveries and knowledge? — SteveMinjares

It possibly undermines at least some of the findings of science.

Time is usually defined as "the continued sequence of existence and events". But this doesn't actually explain what time really is.

It seems that what it can be reduced to is the perception of change or movement. And it is a well-known fact that change/movement is perceived or experienced differently by different observers.

So, time may well be an illusion. The question is, whose illusion is it?

Is it (a) the illusion of the individual, (b) a collective illusion, or (c) a hierarchy of illusions within one all-encompassing illusion?

There’s no set of arguments that can establish that time is an illusion. Data is required. — Wheatley

But is there any hard proof that can establish that time in not an illusion?

Isn't that glaringly obvious? — Olivier5

Apparently not. Some seem to think that if Socrates hypothesizes about something, then the thing he hypothesizes about is a "hypothesis" or "a lie".

godless communists! — frank

To be fair to them, many aren't quite as "godless" as generally assumed. They do have their own gods and idols, as well as prophets, messiahs, promised lands, and paradise on earth, though they may not always realize or admit this.

Unfortunately, Marx wasn't very good at philosophy. That's why he had to get a part-time job as a journalist, cutting and pasting from other people's publications (when Engels wasn't writing articles for him) and was unemployed for many years. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree and this seems to be true of his followers ....

Collingwood's idea is very close to the "noble myth". — Olivier5

That may or may not be the case. However, hypotheses may be used in many different ways. That's why I said:

So, Socrates often uses hypotheses to prove the validity of a concept, not to deny it. He does this, for example, with the immortality of the soul and concludes that “it turns out that the soul is immortal” (Phaedo 114d). — Apollodorus

It depends on what is intended to achieve by using a hypothesis. If a hypothesis is used to prove or explain something, then it is incorrect to say that the opposite is intended.

People can hypothesize about the existence or nonexistence of the world, for example, without this changing anything about the world, etc.

Also, “Jesus is presented as the long-awaited Messiah, who was expected to be a descendant of King David. Matthew begins by calling Jesus the son of David, indicating his royal origin”

Genealogy of Jesus – Wikipedia

So, the accuracy of describing Jesus as "not royalty" seems rather doubtful.

In fact, he'd considered himself to be sent by "God" (whom he refers to in the singular form during his hearing/trial) to the Athenians. — aRealidealist

Not only that. He clearly says:

"Do you mean that I do not believe in the godhead of the Sun or Moon, which is the common creed of all men? You are a liar, Meletus"

Unfortunately, some appear to be of the view that all ancient texts are to be read in an atheist, and where possible (and sometimes even when not possible), neo-Marxist sense.

Again, Collingwood comes to mind: The logical efficacy of a supposition does not depend upon the truth of what is supposed, or even on its being thought true, but only on its being supposed. — Olivier5

That was exactly what I was saying:

If we hypothesize about what it is or how it comes about, it doesn’t mean that perception itself is mere hypothesis. — Apollodorus

It is an elementary mistake to mix up the hypothesis with what is being hypothesized about.

So, Socrates often uses hypotheses to prove the validity of a concept, not to deny it. He does this, for example, with the immortality of the soul and concludes that “it turns out that the soul is immortal” (Phaedo 114d).

Socrates does not deny the Forms, he merely attempts to find ways of mentally describing or defining them as well as he could.

Therefore, it is incorrect to say "Socrates says the Forms are hypotheses". Plus he never says this in the dialogue. The claim that he does would appear to be a lie.

Or not — Banno

Very funny. However, I think the joke is on those who missed the joke.

Which is rather more funny than just funny :rofl:

Who I find persuasive and who you find persuasive has a great deal to do with our assumptions about the relationship between the human and the divine. — Fooloso4

I would say that even more important is evidence. The opinion of so-called "scholars" isn't worth much without evidence, don't you agree?

Anyway, are we still discussing the dialogue and your lack of evidence, or have you run out of ideas?

Compulsory reclining at Passover may not be as old as it is thought.

"The earliest evidence in m.Pes.10.1, which is difficult to date but is probably late 1st Century"

"In later rabbinic literature we only find references to reclining at Passover, but Philo records that the Therapeutae reclined at a non-Passover meal (Contemplative Life 9, 69)"

(link provided above)

Edit. I'm not sure he was actually required at the time. But even if he was, it was a Jewish custom to recline at meals, particularly, at special meals, just like their Greek and Roman neighbors from whom they adopted the custom.

There is no historical evidence to support the view that reclining at Passover was particularly old at the time of Jesus.

"It seems more likely that reclining became normal because this was customary throughout the civilised world when associations met for a sacrificial meal, and that it only became a “Jewish” custom after they had followed this Greek custom for hundreds of years." See link provided above.

Reclining at Passover was compulsory but Jews were reclining at other meals like everybody else, not only at Passover.

It is generally accepted he lived as a Jew — Hanover

That is quite possible. However, reclining at triclinia in the Roman/Greek manner was also practiced among Jews in Roman Palestine. Why would Jesus have been an exception?

The story of being born of a god and a human is not something he would have allowed. — Fooloso4

And of course you spoke to him and he told you exactly how he felt about it. Therefore you know. Makes perfect sense.

Jesus was Jewish. He reclined as a Jew. — Hanover

Well, from a Christian viewpoint Jesus was the son of God so it would be difficult to establish to what extent, if any, he was Jewish.

There is no evidence that he reclined exclusively at Passover.

Apparently, "Jews followed many of the customs found in other associations [Greek and Roman], including meals in communal halls, eating sacrifices, and reclining at triclinia"

JEWISH ASSOCIATIONS IN ROMAN PALESTINE:FIRST CENTURY EVIDENCE FROM THE MISHNAH

Eating in a reclining position was probably introduced from Persia from where the Greeks also adopted the custom. As this was widespread in the areas of the Roman Empire that were at the time under Greek influence, Jesus and his group were still reclining in the same or similar manner.

As you can see, @Fooloso4 is using Cicero to interpret Plato. :grin:

My own suggestion would be to read Plato's own statements according to which the soul is immortal and divine and therefore the most important part of man.

Plato's theory of soul

"However, since the soul turns out to be immortal ... these are the reasons why a man should be confident about his own soul ... if he is one who in his life ignored bodily pleasures and adorned his soul not with an adornment that belongs to something else, but with the soul's own adornment, namely, temperance, justice, courage, freedom, and truth, and thus awaits the journey to Hades as one who will make it whenever destiny calls ..." (Phaedo 114d - 115a).

Yes, the way Socrates and, above all, Plato saw the Forms is definitely insubstantial and immaterial, just like the Forms themselves. That was what I was trying to say.

I fully agree with that. Language is an expression of culture. And as Scott Gleaves and other NT scholars have observed, Greek culture and language were highly influential in Roman Palestine. So there was certainly a very interesting and obviously productive fusion of cultures that in turn gave rise to a new culture that has lasted for two millennia into the present. This is one of the reasons that make Christianity an interesting and important area of study.

I find that very interesting too. Of course, in religious terms, if Jesus was the son of God, then there would be no reason why he shouldn't speak several languages, especially such as were spoken at the time in Roman Palestine.

But I think in cultural terms it is also interesting to consider that when Jesus sat down with his disciples at his last meal or supper, he was probably not sitting on a chair as later imagined by artists, but he and his group were reclining on couches in the Greek fashion that was also popular in other parts of the Roman Empire.

This was accurately shown in early frescoes but not in later medieval depictions which actually reflects the changing culture and loss of awareness of historical fact.

Jesus Reclined To Dine

And, of course, that was exactly how Greek and Roman philosophers reclined during a symposium.

I think that to understand an author's mode of thinking and what message he might intend to convey it would be useful to read all or most of his dialogues but especially those containing terms like "eidos", "idea", "paradeigma", "theophiles", etc., and see how he uses them and in what sense.

BTW, I don't think it would be entirely wrong to refer to Plato's disciples and followers as "Platonists". In any case, the way they read his dialogues may actually help us to better understand and interpret them. IMO There can be no harm in looking at a text from various angles.

You have agreed with @Fooloso4 — Banno

I don't see where Socrates says "the Forms are hypotheses". According to Plato they are realities.

"Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality ... Furthermore, he believed that true knowledge/intelligence is the ability to grasp the world of Forms with one's mind"

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

That's why experiencing the Forms was central to Plato's philosophy.

My own view is that acquaintance with the ideas and ideals which were central to the philosophies and ideologies arising within Christianity is of central importance in demystifying the underlying assumptions if the ideas and ideals, and of looking behind the surface of the thinking of religious beliefs derived from the Bible. — Jack Cummins

That is a very good observation. It is often overlooked that the Greek-speaking part of the Roman Empire that included Egypt, Syria, and Palestine, was a very cosmopolitan region.

Jesus' hometown of Nazareth was in close proximity to Hellenistic-Roman cities where Greek culture was dominant. The city of Sepphoris was only three miles from Nazareth on the road to Galilee.

How do you view the possibility that Jesus spoke Greek, in addition to Aramaic and Hebrew?

Other writing by Plato, or other writings by others interpreting Plato — creativesoul

1. I meant other writings by Plato as in other dialogues of his.

2. Plato did not write for himself, he wrote for his immediate disciples and wider audience including posterity, i.e., largely (though not exclusively) Greek Platonists. That's why he must be read in the cultural, religious, and political context of the time.

This seems too tangential to the OP though, — creativesoul

Platonism in general, perhaps. But surely not Plato's views in a discussion of a work by Plato.

For a proper understanding of the dialogue I think it is essential to take into consideration the author's own views as reflected in other writings and not impose an artificial and anachronistic interpretation on it. But, as I said, this is just my opinion.

In any event, I think there were cross influences. — 3017amen

Absolutely. One current of thought would have it that the OT is purely Hebrew or Jewish but this has little to do with historical fact. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that the Hebrews were a small nation wedged between powerful and influential civilizations such as Egypt, Assyria, and Mesopotamia. The OT itself relates how the Hebrews dwelt in Egypt (Canaan itself was under Egyptian rule for several centuries) and how they were later deported to Mesopotamia. And, of course, there was Persian influence and as the OT says, there was the influence of other ethnic and cultural groups with which the Hebrews shared their territory, such as the Philistines.

The Philistines were apparently from the Aegean space (Crete?) but there were close commercial links between the Greek world and the Levant and, especially after Alexander's conquest of the region, there was substantial cultural influence that was officially promoted by the Greek rulers. There were ten Greek cities (Decapolis) in Syria-Palestine and Greek cultural and linguistic influence was particularly strong at the time Christianity emerged.

St Paul was born in Tarsus (Syria), an important center of Greek culture and philosophy alongside Antioch (Syria), Alexandria (Egypt) and other places. His teacher Gamaliel trained his students in both the Greek and Jewish tradition, and as the NT relates, Paul was sufficiently fluent in Greek and in Greek philosophy to debate with the philosophers of Athens where he also preached in the synagogue (Acts 17:16-34).

In addition to Greek being widely spoken throughout the Middle East including in Palestine, Hebrew and Aramaic had more than 3000 words of Greek origin, in addition to undergoing other changes in phonology, syntax, phraseology and semantics under Greek influence (G Scott Gleaves, Did Jesus Speak Greek? The Emerging Evidence of Greek Dominance in First-Century Palestine).

The NT was not only composed in Greek, but we find Greek concepts such as Hades used by Jesus himself:

“And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" - Matthew 16:18

"And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades" - Matthew 11:23

But even going further back, we can see close parallels between Greek and Hebrew religion. For example, God (Zeus/Yahweh) was regarded as the king of the gods, was associated with a sacred mountain, and was represented as driving a chariot across the sky. Temple architecture shows alignment with the sun, animal sacrifices described in the OT could equally describe similar practices among the Greeks. Even the concept of afterlife as a shadowy existence in the underworld (except for heroes and the initiated) was virtually identical among Greeks and Hebrews, etc.

Edit. By the time of Jesus, Jewish religion had also come under the influence of Hellenistic religion which, like its Egyptian counterpart, believed in a divine judgement after death which would result in the soul either entering paradise or being condemned to a shadowy existence in the darker realms of the other world (see Phaedo, etc.). And this is found in Christianity, too.

If God is everything, what sense does it make to talk about whether God invented anything at all? That was the point. — creativesoul

That is due to two or more levels of worldview and experience:

1. To the Platonists, God, Ultimate Reality or Universal Consciousness is everything. Philosophy of the monistic idealist type is what explains reality for them.

2. To ordinary people, God, the World, and man are totally separate realities. They rely on dualistic religion and mythology to understand the world.