Plotinus' view is kind of like animism. Everything is God — frank

Not at all. It's a common misunderstanding, but Platonism is monism. Very different from animism.

The One is definitely not a personal god — frank

It isn't "animism" either. God is God, whether personal or not. That's the accepted meaning of Greek "Theos".

If you have a system that believes in "God", "soul", "divine justice" and "reincarnation", then it is legitimate to look into how it justifies reincarnation.

In contrast, since reincarnation or metempsychosis implies transmigration of soul, a system that does not believe in soul, e.g. Buddhism, seems less suitable for that purpose although Buddhist teachings regarding recollection of past lives may be adduced in support of it.

I would not at say we might as well be China. We have a very different culture and we need to get back to educating for that different culture. However, I agree with the rest of what you said and the New World Order is the whole world. What Jack says means this is not just a US thing. — Athena

But there is a possibility that America is heading that way. If it happened in China where people went from worshiping the emperor to worshiping Mao Zedong overnight then it can happen anywhere. Pulling down statues and cancelling history can perfectly well end in cancelling culture and cancelling freedom. It looks to me that a lot of people are going along with that and I don't see what will stop it unless as you say, we go back to educating people in the established culture. But that won't happen if the education system is controlled by people whose main goal in life is to cancel Western culture as soon as possible.

Well, not like a personal god, right? More like animism of some kind? — frank

Not at all. Socrates/Plato make different statements from which it is possible to infer that they believed in:

1. Gods (described as being virtuous).
2. One God (especially in Socrates, Apollo).
3. One indescribable Supreme Being (similar to what Plotinus calls "the One").

As I said, the idea that Socrates didn't believe in God/gods is what his detractors claimed, not what follows from his own statements.

In any case, this is irrelevant to the topic which is how we justify reincarnation in philosophical terms, not whether Socrates believed in God.

You don't have to redefine it, just agree on what definition you are going to use — T Clark

Are you suggesting that we agree on a set of definitions and then agree on one of them whenever we choose to discuss anything that involves "consciousness"?

That's what this whole thread is about — T Clark

In that case, you would need to redefine the term with every new discussion.

Discussions on the forum and elsewhere suffer from the fact that definitions are not agreed on at the beginning. If you read the rest of the thread I think you'll see this is true for "consciousness." — T Clark

Well, that much I've noticed already to be honest. I was talking about everyday language in general. When we say things like "I become conscious", "I become aware", "I am self-conscious", etc. it is normally understood what is meant even if there is no precise definition for it in our mind.

Obviously, when more technical language is used, then a definition of the terms discussed should be agreed upon, otherwise meaningful discussion becomes difficult if not impossible. But then you would have to redefine it with every new discussion.

In any case, I still believe that consciousness is related to "awareness" and especially "self-awareness" which is also one of the dictionary definitions for it. So, it isn't all that different from how the word was used in the past.

In the present context the way the word has been used for centuries is irrelevant. OP wants to know how we are using the term now, in philosophical discussion. — Daemon

The term still implies "awareness" and above all "self-awareness". What has changed?

Resorting to false accusations, accusing me of saying things I did not is dishonest and cowardly. — Fooloso4

Well, if you're not conceding defeat even when you've obviously lost, then let's start from the beginning.

Resorting to false accusations and ad hominem arguments won't get you anywhere. If anything, it will only confirm that you've lost.

I said very clearly from the start:

“… tell us what tradition you're representing and what your position is. Then we can discuss. Not a problem for me at all, on the contrary …”

What more can I say? I think I was being quite fair, don’t you?

I was actually looking forward to having an interesting discussion.

But it was not to be. You never said anything about your tradition, your sources, your position, or anything whatsoever. Just baseless attacks and pseudo-philosophical statements a la neo-Marxist theories of historical materialism, relativism and anti-Christian atheism that are totally off-topic.

Anyway, just look at some of your statements:

"It is typical Christian chauvinism to take the teachings of a Jewish rabbi and make them into something they are not. But that is, after all, what the term Christian is all about."

If that isn't a baseless attack, I don't know what is. And so it goes on. That's why you can't possibly win.

It's just that you said the philosophers believed in god. I don't think Socrates did. Plato used him as a mouthpiece. Plato wasn't the only one who did that. — frank

Well, in my view, Socrates did believe in God.

According to Socrates, a philosopher's life was a preparation for death. And the only reason for that was that he, and other philosophers, believed in God, soul, justice, etc.

Regarding soul, Socrates in Phaedo, before his death, says: “But now, inasmuch as the soul is manifestly immortal, there is no release or salvation from evil except the attainment of the highest virtue and wisdom…”

However, Socrates' beliefs are immaterial because Platonic belief in reincarnation goes back to Pythagoras and others so it isn’t dependent on what Socrates (or his detractors) believed.

Moreover, metempsychosis (Greek: μετεμψύχωσις), in philosophy, refers to transmigration of the soul, especially its reincarnation after death. Generally, the term is derived from the context of Greek philosophy where it is closely connected with the concepts of “soul”, “God” and “divine justice”.

The Buddhist theory of reincarnation, in so far as it doesn’t admit of “soul”, “God” and “justice” is a different thing and is less helpful, IMO.

Neoplatonism, yes. But I was talking about Socrates. The charge against him was of failing to show respect for the gods. — frank

You mean "failing to show respect" and "gods" as interpreted by his detractors.

"Neoplatonism" is a modern concept. Platonism is a tradition that stretches from Plato to the present.

There is no logical reason to substitute supposed statements by Socrates' detractors for a centuries-long Platonic tradition that clearly believes in God, soul, divine justice and reincarnation.

in order to know whether you have come up with a correct definition, you must already know what the term means. — Daemon

Correct. And it must be consistent with how the word has been used for centuries. That's why I said:

" It looks like the original meaning was “knowledge with” and by extension “self-knowledge” ("knowledge with/of oneself"), “self-awareness”, “consciousness”.

Greek: συνείδησις suneidesis < sun + eidesis
Latin: conscius < con + scio
Sanskrit: संविद् samvid < sam + vid

So, the simplest definition in modern language would be something like “self-aware intelligence” or, more precisely, "that which is aware of itself as itself". "

For a better understanding of what is meant by "soul", "mind" or "consciousness" I stated this:

"... Terms like “consciousness” aren’t normally a problem because the meaning is understood from the context.

But if we insist on having a definition it can be deduced from the sources.

It looks like the original meaning was “knowledge with” and by extension “self-knowledge” ("knowledge with/of oneself"), “self-awareness”, “consciousness”.

Greek: συνείδησις suneidesis < sun + eidesis
Latin: conscius < con + scio
Sanskrit: संविद् samvid < sam + vid

So, the simplest definition in modern language would be something like “self-aware intelligence” or, more precisely, "that which is aware of itself as itself"...."

Isn't Socrates supposed to have said "There is no such thing as Zeus"? — frank

"Supposed" is the right word. He was talking about the "Zeus" of mythology, not about "God" in general.

As already explained on other threads, Platonism believes in an indefinable and indescribable ultimate reality ("the One"), from which the divine Cosmic Mind ("he Theou Noesis" or short "Nous)" emanates, which in turn emanates the World Soul (Psyche):

"Reality itself was seen as comprising three basic levels of intelligence: the indescribable "One", the Cosmic Mind (Nous) and the Cosmic Soul.

If we compare intelligence with light, then these levels would be as follows:

1. Pure, changeless light in itself = the One
2. The Sun = Cosmic Mind or Universal Intelligence (Nous)
3. The Moon (whose light is a reflection of the light of the Sun) = Cosmic Soul (Psyche).

The human soul (psyche) itself has three basic levels:

1. Intellectual aspect responsible for thought processes.
2. Emotional aspect responsible for feelings and emotions.
3. Sensual aspect responsible for sense perception, imagination and bodily desires.

The core of the human soul, which we may term "spirit", is essentially identical with the Cosmic Mind (Nous) from which it emanates.

Although it is described as having different "parts", the soul is one. Its aspects may, to some extent, operate separately from one another but they are largely interdependent and form part of the same one mind.

For example, the sensual aspect registers discrete sensory perceptions and combines them into a mental image. The image is taken up and analyzed by the intellectual aspect, given a name and assessed in terms of its relevance to the self. The emotional part then reacts emotionally to the image and a decision is reached as to the course of action (if any) to be taken. All these mental functions or operations exist within, and are illumined by, the light of spirit or nous."

What I focus on is simply violence, systematic state terror - that's where I find that Stalinism and Nazism are virtually indistinguishable. And such wholesale violence will never be just a rational means to a political end, it's an invitation to madness and sadism that we can't resist whatever the nominal ideological reasons for the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents. — hwyl

Correct. And we mustn't forget that Nazism borrowed a lot from Stalinism. Nazism emerged after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and came to power in the 1930s when Stalin was the sole ruler of Russia. By then detention camps for political prisoners (gulags) had been established and millions of innocent people murdered in cold blood.

In 1918, the Soviet government paper Krasnaya Gazeta wrote:

"We will make our hearts cruel, hard and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea ... let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois, more blood, as much as possible".

This was pure insanity fueled by a hate-based political ideology. It lasted till Stalin's death in 1953 and carried on in more subtle forms until the collapse of Communism in 1991.

BLM strikes me as a pretty ineffectual organization, as far as actually making changes — Bitter Crank

If we go by what Cullors says, their ultimate goal is to replace white people with blacks, men with women and capitalism with communism. So, I think "opportunists" is the correct definition, but I'm less sure about "well-meaning".

As regards "trained Marxists", they come in many different shapes and forms. Some believe in Marxism because they've come to accept its teachings without asking too many questions. Others use Marxism as an excuse to engage in acts of violence, etc. There are big differences between groups, both in terms of ideology and practical activism. But Marxism has a long history of providing "legitimacy" to terrorist groups. Take the Irish Republican Army (IRA) for example.

Or there is no god and the evil doer prospers and then turns to dust along with his victims, destined to be swallowed by a black hole in cold dark space. — frank

There is always the possibility. But most philosophers have believed in God and in Justice, so an argument from justice isn't quite as outlandish as it may seem to some.

As I said before, in the Platonic context, reincarnation does seem to be connected with the concept of divine justice.

For example, Plato's Politeia starts with a discussion of justice, it mentions justice more than 250 times and ends in the story of Er which clearly involves the concept of divine justice.

So, @Bartricks’ argument from God was basically correct:

“An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being - God - exists. Life here is dangerous and we who are living such lives are ignorant of most things. God, being all powerful, let that be the case. But God, being omnibenevolent, would not have subjected innocent persons to such a life. Thus we are not innocent. But when we are born we have performed no actions in this life. Thus the moral crimes for which this life is a punishment must be ones we performed in a past life. Thus we must have lived previously.”

This was similar to my own:

“If God is just as is generally admitted, then it stands to reason that he might give us a second chance and not judge us after just one life. Therefore, we (the soul) must have more than one life.”

In a Buddhist setting, there is such immense pressure to approve of and agree with the doctrine that it paralyzes one's critical thinking abilities — baker

Good point. Personally, I think Buddhism has some interesting theories but it doesn't seems to contribute much to the discussion because its explanation of reincarnation is too nebulous.

IMO, the Platonic (and possibly Hindu) view is more detailed and better suited for finding a satisfactory or acceptable solution.

I find myself being confused about which word to use when I try to describe it. — T Clark

Terms like “consciousness” aren’t normally a problem because the meaning is understood from the context.

But if we insist on having a definition it can be deduced from the sources.

It looks like the original meaning was “knowledge with” and by extension “self-knowledge” ("knowledge with/of oneself"), “self-awareness”, “consciousness”.

Greek: συνείδησις suneidesis < sun + eidesis
Latin: conscius < con + scio
Sanskrit: संविद् samvid < sam + vid

So, the simplest definition in modern language would be something like “self-aware intelligence” or, more precisely, "that which is aware of itself as itself".

Having said that, you may be able to agree on a definition for the purposes of this thread or forum but you won't be able to enforce it worldwide, so that part of the problem will be very hard if not impossible to solve.

As to whether or not it is part of a Chinese plot: I think that the conditions of US academia are wholly sufficient for producing and propagating CRT, with all of its flaws. — ToothyMaw

So, are far-left organizations and foreign powers involved in this CRT project or not?

BLM leader Patrice Cullors has openly endorsed the policies of Socialist leaders like Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong and has described herself and other BLM organisers as “trained Marxists”.
I think she admits that in her book as well, "When They Call You A Terrorist".

Activists at BLM demonstrations have been seen carrying signs with Black Nationalist and Socialist slogans such as “Smash capitalism!” and “fight for Socialism!”

The cyber activities of the Chinese Communist Party division called "United Front Work Department" and its involvement in Western civil movements are well known.

BLM is apparently financially supported by the Chinese Progressive Association:

Trained Marxist' Black Lives Matter co-founder is being funded by group linked to the Chinese Communist Party

don't see liberalism solving the issues of racial inequality plaguing our society — ToothyMaw

So, you would advocate communism instead of liberalism?

And how do you define "racial inequality"?

Here's a useful introduction to the subject of Justice in Platonic thought:

“In the study of Plato, two points seem so obvious as hardly to need restating. One is the special place of justice in his writings. As Eric Havelock observed, though Plato devoted several dialogues to single virtues, only justice received the honour of a treatise in ten books: the Republic, or “On Justice” as its first editors subtitled it. Yet justice is also prominent elsewhere, as in Euthyphro, where it eventually supersedes holiness, as the principle regulating man’s relations with the gods, or the Theaetetus, an inquiry into knowledge trained specifically on the question of what is just. Indeed, as Jay Kennedy has recently shown, justice was often literally central: the cluster ‘philosophy, justice and god’ recurs at the exact centre of many Platonic texts.”

D. Cammack, “Plato And Atheinian Justice”, History of Political Thought, Vol. 36., No. 4 (Winter 2015), pp. 611-642

Is the Tory party trying to find a new narrative to convince the population to keep voting for them while the country becomes poorer and more unequal due to austerity. Are they paranoid of the rise of socialism coming after their wealth? — Punshhh

How is it "a new Tory narrative" when the Tories have been in power since 2010 and their narrative seems to be working?

Labour is simply unable to bring its policies in order and is too minorities-oriented. A few years back, Sadiq Khan, currently Mayor of London, proclaimed that "Labour is and has always been the party of British Muslims". After that, with Corbyn as leader, Labour was accused of anti-Semitism and pandering to militant Islam. IMO Labour currently has an image crisis with the majority of voters. Nothing to do with the Tories.

Plus, there are changes everywhere, like in France and other European countries. I doubt people seriously want socialist policies like abolition of private property, nationalization and total state control over society. A bit of socialism might be OK but anything more than that would be going downhill. Look at the history of Soviet Russia and other socialist regimes, all failed one after the other.

Furthermore, CRT asserts that race-conscious policies need to be pursued to both combat white supremacy and to create more equality of opportunity. — ToothyMaw

"Race-conscious policies", "white supremacy" and "equality" seem to be rather nebulous concepts that are used to promote dubious political agendas and create division in society. It looks like Marxist "class-wars" have progressed to "culture-wars" and "race-wars".

And as far as I am aware, these movements tend to be exploited by foreign powers like China to destabilize Western governments.

The question is how do we separate mind processes from divine justice in Platonic thought when the human mind is an emanation of the divine mind.

The cosmic order (taxis) is a manifestation of the cosmic mind and justice in human society is a manifestation of cosmic order.

Injustice is like a disease that leads to disorder (ataxia). To restore order and justice in society, the human mind must operate in harmony with the cosmic mind.

So, it isn’t just about “how knowledge works” but also about how knowledge should work in harmony with divine order and justice in order for man to live a just life in a just society.

And that doesn't sound like equity! But then again, we need to shout sometimes; on a micro scale, if we've fallen and we're being trampled in a crowd, we'll die if we don't shout. But we're not asking everyone to stop what they're doing and help us in every way. We have a need which isn't being recognized, so we shout that get that need heard so it can be met.

From https://www.raceforward.org/about/what-is-racial-equity: — TLCD1996

That was more like a general observation.

However, talking about race, which races would you say are not treated equitably or are "being trampled in a crowd"?

Personally, I tend to think it's more nations or ethnic groups than "races". For example, the Kurdish people aren't allowed to have their own state, Tibetans are being suppressed by China, etc.

Explaining otherworldly justice didn't drive his presentation of immortality of the soul, though. Did it? What am I missing? I think he was more focused on explaining how knowledge works.[/quote]

Depends on how you look at it. The story of Er does involve the concept of divine justice. And the whole book revolves around just government and just living. So, justice was a key element.

I think that deep need to see divine justice comes from Christianity's role as the religion of the weak and oppressed. — frank

Justice or righteousness was central to Platonic thought. The Greeks even had a goddess for it: Δίκη or Dike.

What ways have we tried to divide the mind? And can they operate separately from one another? — TiredThinker

Ancient philosophers like Plotinus saw the mind as a spiritual, i.e., non-material reality.

Reality or existence itself was seen as comprising three basic levels of intelligence: the indescribable "One", the Cosmic Mind (Nous) and the Cosmic Soul (Psyche).

If we compare intelligence with light, then these levels would be as follows:

1. Pure, changeless light in itself = the One

2. The Sun = Cosmic Mind or Universal Intelligence (Nous)

3. The Moon (whose light is a reflection of the light of the Sun) = Cosmic Soul (Psyche).

The human soul (psyche) itself has three basic levels:

1. Intellectual aspect responsible for thought processes.
2. Emotional aspect responsible for feelings and emotions.
3. Sensual aspect responsible for sense perception, imagination and bodily desires.

The core of the human soul, which we may term "spirit", is essentially identical with the Cosmic Mind (Nous) from which it emanates. Essentially, it is self-consciousness or mind that is aware of itself, i.e., mind that has itself as itself as object of experience, whereas the lower aspects of the soul are mind that is aware, and operates at the level, of thoughts, emotions or sense perceptions, respectively.

Although it is described as having different "parts", the soul is one. Its aspects may, to some extent, operate separately from one another but they are largely interdependent and form part of the same one mind.

For example, the sensual aspect registers discrete sensory perceptions and combines them into a mental image. The image is taken up and analyzed by the intellectual aspect, given a name and assessed in terms of its relevance to the self. The emotional part then reacts emotionally to the image and a decision is formed as to the course of action (if any) to be taken. All these mental functions or operations exist within, and are illumined by, the light of spirit or nous.

As (in this perspective) mind or soul is a metaphysical reality, there is no reason why it couldn't exist separately from the physical body.

It's Mahayana/Vajrayana style. Some Tibetan monks, for example, regularly have debating practices where heavy insults are part of the course — baker

Greek philosophers and even Christians indulged in a bit of that, too.

Problem with Bartricks is that his polemics are powerful but he constantly insults and derogates anyone who challenges him — Wayfarer

Well, I can't go into that. I just thought that his arguments were neatly formulated and they seem to be consistent with philosophical traditions that believe in reincarnation, such as Platonism. I still believe that Platonic sources like Plotinus would be a good start. Defining "mind" or "soul" may be hard to crack - Plotinus himself explains why - but I think that, in general lines, the original philosophers were on the right track.

I am not going to respond to any more of your false accusations. — Fooloso4

So, you’re finally conceding defeat. I could have told you that from the start. Christianity is a tremendous force in this world and it is rather ridiculous for any one person to presume to defeat it. It just won’t happen.

The fact is that Christian tradition acknowledges several levels of scriptural interpretation:

“For as man consists of body, and soul, and spirit, so in the same way does Scripture.” - Origen

Such levels are (1) somatic/literal, (2) psychic/ethic and (3) pneumatic (spiritual)/allegorical. There are others but they can only be learned from a qualified teacher.

So, of course, seen in this light, “Son of God” can have more than one meaning. That was precisely what I explained to you in my previous post which you chose to ignore and put a spin on it to “prove” your point. Kings David and Solomon were “Sons of God” in the sense of “appointed as representatives of God”, whereas Jesus was the Son of God in the sense of “brought into being” as well as “appointed to a certain position or mission”.

“Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds …” Hebrews 1:2

Jesus himself spoke in parables and for a very good reason which he himself explains by the parable of the sower and the seeds of which some are eaten by birds, others fall on barren soil and others on good soil. The seeds symbolize the words of a spiritual teacher.

By the way, this is why true Christianity is totally against forced conversion. Forced conversion is morally wrong and does not lead to salvation. True Christians lead by example. In the early years of Christianity Pagans converted because they were impressed by the Christians’ moral conduct.

Anyway, you need to remember that the whole point of Christianity is to expand our mind and elevate it to higher levels of experience that eventually lead to salvation. If you stubbornly cling on to ”history” you stay stuck at the somatic/literal level that doesn’t get you anywhere. You get bored, disappointed, frustrated, angry and give up. You might even turn against Christianity and attack those who believe in it. And all this just because of your inability to understand.

The identity of Jesus as a spiritual or divine being is absolutely crucial to the correct understanding of Christian teachings. This is why the Gospels give no physical description of Jesus (and why it is wrong to refer to him as "Jewish rabbi"). The only time he is described in the Gospels is when Jesus and some of his disciples ascend a mountain, the Mountain of Transfiguration, and on reaching the top Jesus’s face “was shining as the sun, and his garments became white as the light” (Matthew 17:20).

This scene actually encapsulates what Christianity is about at its core: the ascent of the soul to higher planes of experience and its transformation into a spiritual being of light.

The symbolism of light is central to Christian teachings:

Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

And because God is light, the light of truth, order and justice, to love God in the literal sense means to obey his law and carry out his will, whilst in a higher sense it means to love him as spiritual light, as the light of intelligence, of wisdom, and of life. On that higher level we embrace that light and welcome it into our life that it may lift us up and take us out of darkness.

This is why love of God necessarily takes precedence over love of our neighbour and spiritual concerns take precedence over material ones.

“Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness” – Matthew 6: 31-33

Obviously, people do care about those things to some extent, but the way I see it they are not the primary concern in philosophy in general and in Christian (or Platonic) tradition in particular.

In any case, if we want to interpret Christianity correctly, we must interpret it in a way that is consistent with its own teachings, not according to neo-Marxist theories of historical materialism and relativism.

I am thinking that the Platonic mystics are of extreme importance. — Jack Cummins

When properly understood, most certainly. But, as I said before, people are often attracted to more "exotic" traditions and tend to overlook the treasures buried in their own back yard, so to speak.

Generally, I feel that life can be hard to predict in an exact way. — Jack Cummins

The interesting thing is that some people seem to have an uncanny ability to more or less predict the course of their own lives from a fairly early age. Maybe they're more in tune with a wider reality and the role they can and/or are "destined" to play in it?

In contrast, others seem to bear what might be termed - for lack of a better phrase - the burden of a "heavy karma".

As there was a revolution in Russia around the same period of time, I would suspect that being a Communist was common enough for most people to have met one. — thewonder

However, you can't extrapolate from this that Communists enjoyed the support of the majority. They didn't even have the support of the non-Communist Socialists, let alone the majority of the population.

Even in Russia, the Bolshevik revolution or coup was carried out by a small group of Marxist ideologists with the help of radicalized workers and elements of the military that had been exposed to systematic revolutionary propaganda.

As admitted by Luxemburg herself, the rural population, i.e. the vast majority of the population was less than impressed with Communism, which is why it was bribed with promises of "bread and land". These of course were false promises as the country descended into chaos and Lenin in 1921 was forced to introduce his New Economic Policy of "state capitalism".

Of course, Luxemburg was dead by then so she couldn't have known that Soviet Communism was a failure from the start.

But we are in 2021 now, we know what the facts are and we can't pretend otherwise.

In any case, I don't think your claim that Nazism could have been avoided by embracing Communism makes much sense. Or at least it doesn't follow from what you're saying.

IMO it's a legitimate topic on a "philosophy forum".

As already stated, I believe that @Bartricks' argument(s) come very close to what I had in mind.

Obviously you have not looked at any of the sources I pointed to. Most are by Christian scholars. — Fooloso4

It’s the other way round. It’s you who isn’t looking at the sources and that’s where the problem is. I've quoted sources from the start.

The Marxist use (or misuse) of history has long been exposed by Popper, Kolakowski and many others. My point was that neo-Marxists do tend to use deliberately distorted interpretations of history to support their baseless theories. You seem to be doing the same though you may not notice it or are trying to hide it, without much success.

I’m not surprised that you aren’t aware of this, but you aren’t applying your theory consistently, quite apart from the fact that you haven’t got one.

Just look at the preposterous statements you’re making:

“Jesus was addressed as “rabbi”, therefore he couldn’t have been the Son of God. He was a Jewish rabbi”.

No logical connection whatsoever between one thing and the other!

The fact is that the Gospels show very clearly that Jesus was addressed as “the Son of God”:

“Nathaniel answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God” – John 1:49.

You see the word “rabbi” bot not “Son of God”. Maybe you’re blind on one eye, who knows?

Since you haven’t spoken to Jesus, you can’t claim to know who he thought he was. So, that’s another big neo-Marxist lie.

You have no proof that the Christian concept of “Son of God” was “stolen” from the Jews, etc., etc.

And, of course, Christians have the right to believe in Jesus in whichever way they wish. You deny this, and IMO that exposes you as an anti-Christian extremist.

Correct. BTW, do you actually believe in reincarnation? — frank

I do at least for the purposes of this discussion. Nobody denies that terms like "soul" are hard to define but it doesn't help when people ignore the sources and try to relegate reincarnation to clinical psychology.

you are also vacillating, "self or soul" as if they are the same — Banno

I'm not "vacillating" at all. They're often treated as the same. In normal life, we identify with our thoughts and emotions, i.e. the lower aspects of the soul. That's precisely why Platonic and other philosophical systems recommend identification with the higher aspect of the soul for the purpose of spiritual elevation and salvation.