Early Christianity corrupted by Greek philosophy?

[truthseeker32]

I have heard this argument used by evangelicals and Mormons against the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. They make claims that the trinity is not biblical, and came about due to hellenistic philosophies, as did the idea that God is outside of space and time.

I would like to hear evidences from both those who agree and disagree with this argument to better understand the issue.

 

[Thekla]

If you read the Early Christian Fathers, you will find many statements "against" philosophy.

To actually delve into this is time consuming, and requires deep and accurate working knowledge of ancient Philosophy (several philosophers and schools of philosophical thought attributed to these) as well as a deep knowledge of the writings of the Early Christian Fathers.

Too often, these allegations come from those who do not have knowledge of either. (I have read in a recent historical treatment of academia that western academia did not distinguish between Platonism and Neo-Platonism until the late 18th or 19th c.).

The ECFs did use philosophy when debating against philosophical distortions of and attacks against Christian teachings; to wit, they responded in language and form familiar to those they were "debating" against. They also used contemporary terminology, though (like John and his use of the "logos") they altered the content of meaning of these terms.

Many of the ECFs had the standard education - which at the time included studies in philosophy. Thus, they knew well the content and contours of Philosophy, and were able to actually keep it from creeping into (or secularizing) Christian teaching.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Philosophy is philosophy, and there is always some good and some bad philosophy. A lot of early Christians were Greek and Latin, and thus a lot of philosophy that was unraveled during the early Church could be considered 'Greek', but that doesn't mean it's bad philosophy, especially when some of these philosophers were active in the Church.

If we logically assess the Trinitarian doctrine and the idea that God is not subject to space and time, then we can see that the Catholic and Orthodox Church have the correct theology.

First, the Trinity: Jesus said no man can serve two Lords, that man cannot serve (for instance) God and mammon. So how can we claim to serve both God and Jesus unless they are both Lord and God?

Second, God and time: everything that exists depends upon the act of existing for its existence -- if there were no such thing as the act of existing, nothing could exist. If God depends upon anything other than himself for existence, then he is not the ultimate being. Therefore, we must conclude that God is the act of existing in itself. Once we understand that, and understand that God exists eternally, we can understand that God does not change and is therefore not subject to time, as time is a perceived measure of change.

 

[truthseeker32]

Great posts

First, the Trinity: Jesus said no man can serve two Lords, that man cannot serve (for instance) God and mammon. So how can we claim to serve both God and Jesus unless they are both Lord and God?

I have heard some say that "God" is a team name. Christ and the Father are indeed separate, but remain one God because "God refers to the team. Would you say this is invalid because, being outside of space and time, God and Christ can't be separate?

If you read the Early Christian Fathers, you will find many statements "against" philosophy.

What is the contemporary view of philosophy among Eastern Orthodoxy?

 

[Thekla]

What is the contemporary view of philosophy among Eastern Orthodoxy?

That it cannot save, nor could philosophy (or any other intellectual endeavor) discover on its own what was revealed by God.

There is respect for some philosophers - Socrates for example.
Recently, an EO monk wrote a book on Lao Tzu, and how he did hit on some things that were true. (The Chinese term Tao has almost exactly the same content of meaning found in logos; the English term "word" pales in comparison to the richness of tao and logos).

I personally have been awed by the development of the Greek language prior to the coming of Christ; it seems to me that the language was "prepared" to receive the writing of the Gospel.

In short, there are many shadows of the truth, bits of the truth, and preparations for receiving the truth in human history. But they all pale in comparison to the Truth, and only He reveals what is finally true.

Thought to mention: some EO writers (one in philosophy and another who is a Metropolitan) have noted the accuracy or promise of some of the thought of Heidegger, but of course do not embrace Heidegger's thought.

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

early Christianity was definitely corrupted by Greek philosophy, it's called 'gnosticism'

catholic Christianity on the other hand is most definitely the faith once and for all delivered to the saints

 

[Ishraqiyun]

No. I think Greek philosophy played a positive overall role. There were always at least two currents in early Christianity. The literalistic or what would now probably be categorized as the fundamentalist strain was one. I think the phrase of the church father Tertullian sums that wing of the faith up " I believe because it is absurd." To much curiosity causes one to cross limits that shouldn't be crossed. Just have faith in what you are told by the priests and ministers and then you will be saved. The other stream was more open and humanistic. They didn't fear Greek philosophy or even foreign religions for that matter. Most everything that I find valuable in the Christian faith came from this second stream of thought.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I have heard this argument used by evangelicals and Mormons against the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. They make claims that the trinity is not biblical, and came about due to hellenistic philosophies, as did the idea that God is outside of space and time.

I would like to hear evidences from both those who agree and disagree with this argument to better understand the issue.

Interesting greek word used for that.
Here are 2 verses that use the words for "philosopher/philosophy". Interesting

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm
　
NKJV) Acts 17:18 Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers/filosofwn <5386> encountered him. And some said, "What does this babbler want to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods," because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.

NKJV) Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy/filosofiaV <5385> and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html
&#12288;
5385. philosophia fil-os-of-ee'-ah from 5386; "philosophy", i.e. (specially), Jewish sophistry:--philosophy.
5386. philosophos fil-os'-of-os from 5384 and 4680; fond of wise things, i.e. a "philosopher":--philosopher.
5384. philos fee'-los properly, dear, i.e. a friend; actively, fond, i.e. friendly (still as a noun, an associate, neighbor, etc.):--friend.
4680. sophos sof-os' akin to saphes (clear); wise (in a most general application):--wise. Compare 5429.

Religious philosophy is philosophical thinking that is inspired and directed by religion. Depending on religion, there are different philosophies for each religion:
Buddhist philosophy
Christian philosophy
Hindu philosophy
Islamic philosophy
Jewish philosophy

Philosophy of religion is a relevant field. A branch of philosophy that is concerned with the philosophical study of religion, that discipline has a long history, traditionally within the study of metaphysics. Philosophy of religion is the philosophical thinking about religion by various persons. This discipline can be carried out dispassionately by persons who self-describe as believers, those who may be called nonbelievers, and others who may treat or characterize their own belief or belief in general in specialized ways.[1]

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

Jesus:Christian philosophy

The life and teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels form the basis of Christianity, see also Ministry of Jesus.
In the case of Reformational philosophy the law-idea of Creation in relation to Fall and Redemption clarifies the understanding of the exceptional role of Jesus the Christ in Creation through the law-modalities that set the conditions of existence for all creatures. There is no record of any writing by Jesus, nor of any systematic philosophy or theology in the formal sense. Several accounts of his life and many of his teachings are recorded in the New Testament, and form the basis for some Christian philosophies, such as Jesusism.

St. Paul: Saul of Tarsus was a Jew who persecuted the early Christian church and who helped to facilitate the martyrdom of St Stephen, a Greek-speaking Jewish-Christian. Saul underwent a dramatic conversion. He became a Christian leader who wrote a number of epistles, or letters, to early churches, in which he taught doctrine and theology. In some ways he functioned in the manner of the popular marketplace philosophers of his day (Cynics, Skeptics, and some Stoics). A number of his speeches and debates with Greek philosophers are recorded in the Biblical book of Acts. His letters became a significant source for later Christian philosophies. See also Paul of Tarsus and Judaism.
&#12288;

 

[sbvd]

When the first Christians tried to explain their religion they had no choice but to use the philosophical terms of their culture, which happened to be a fancy amalgam of the Greek, the Latin (always much more practical) and the Egyptian (always much, much, more mystical) as much as the Jewish.

Of these, the various, different, and competing Greek schoolS had the more prestige. Nevertheless, none of them were a perfect match for Christianity and the ECF had to use bits and pieces in a slow process that gave birth to the earliest concepts of a not-yet systematic Theology. They did a pretty good job, and he who claims otherwise should state the specific problems in the specific issues.

 

[heymikey80]

I have heard this argument used by evangelicals and Mormons against the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. They make claims that the trinity is not biblical, and came about due to hellenistic philosophies, as did the idea that God is outside of space and time.

I would like to hear evidences from both those who agree and disagree with this argument to better understand the issue.

Disagree.

Christianity is a redemptive theology. It's going to redeem those good points that have come to light from conventionally grasping for God with our senses and sensibility -- through general revelation and human faculties of reason. People are going to make mistakes, along with useful and subtle insights.

There is nothing in hellenistic philosophy to compare with the theology of "trinity" -- as I remember it the term itself was coined for a Christian viewpoint, merging "tripartite" and "unity".

Rather ironic is the idea that Mormonism, a basically polytheistic view of gods, would accuse as "hellenistic" the idea that embraces the unity of God as God. Greeks and Romans were generally polytheistic (not in entire, as philosophers will tell you -- but in general). They'd find the polytheism of Mormonism more akin to their own views than they would, Christianity.

 

[Incariol]

Why are people assuming a Greek philosophical influence is a bad thing? The faith originated in an eastern Roman territory where Hellenism was rampant. The New Testament was written in Greek, Jesus and the Apostles likely had at least a passing familiarity with the language. Greek philosophy would have been prevalent in the area.

I don't see the problem here.

 

[MrPolo]

It is nonsensical on its face to say that if something is influenced by Greek philosophy that it is therefore "corrupt." In addition to John citing the Greek philosophical term "Logos," Paul, discoursing with Greeks commended the truth possessed by their poet philosophers:

Acts 17:28 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

Paul was said to "reason" with the God-fearing Greeks in Athens (Acts 17:16-17) and as we see, as part of that reasoning, Paul commends their own philosophers rather than saying Greek philosophy is automatically a corruption.

David MacDonald has a useful article about Greek philosophy in the Bible at this link.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Why are people assuming a Greek philosophical influence is a bad thing? The faith originated in an eastern Roman territory where Hellenism was rampant. The New Testament was written in Greek, Jesus and the Apostles likely had at least a passing familiarity with the language. Greek philosophy would have been prevalent in the area.

I don't see the problem here.

The name of the destroyer in Reve 9:11 is also a Greecian name

Young) Luke 23:38 And there was also a superscription written over him, in letters of Greek/ellhnikoiV <1673>, and Roman, and Hebrew, `This is the King of the Jews.'

Young) Revelation 9:11 and they have over them a king--the messenger of the abyss-- name [is] to him in Hebrew, Abaddon, and in the Greek/ellhnikh <1673> he hath a name, Apollyon.

1673. Hellenikos hel-lay-nee-kos' from 1672; Hellenic, i.e. Grecian (in language):--Greek.

 

[narnia59]

It is nonsensical on its face to say that if something is influenced by Greek philosophy that it is therefore "corrupt." In addition to John citing the Greek philosophical term "Logos," Paul, discoursing with Greeks commended the truth possessed by their poet philosophers:

Acts 17:28 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

Paul was said to "reason" with the God-fearing Greeks in Athens (Acts 17:16-17) and as we see, as part of that reasoning, Paul commends their own philosophers rather than saying Greek philosophy is automatically a corruption.

David MacDonald has a useful article about Greek philosophy in the Bible at this link.

Good information.

And let's not forget that old pagan Greek Hippocrates. He wrote one of the most definitive pro-life statements ever as part of his oath....

"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."

 

[Thekla]

From what I understand, the concept of "trinity" in some Platonic thought requires a sort of "heirarchy" (subordinationsim) - and Christological heresies tend to some version of this. The ECFs rejected this understanding as it was the introduction of intellectual system which would distort and/or undermine Christian revelation; syncretism.

 

[Incariol]

Aren't there some churches that even have icons of Plato and Aristotle and talk about how their philosophy was a sort of prelude to Christ and the Gospel?

 

[narnia59]

Aren't there some churches that even have icons of Plato and Aristotle and talk about how their philosophy was a sort of prelude to Christ and the Gospel?

I don't know about that, but I know Pope Benedict says this in his book "Introduction to Christianity":

The Cross is revelation. It reveals, not any particular thing, but God and man. It reveals who God is and in what way man is. There is a curious presentiment of this situation in Greek philosophy: Plato’s image of the crucified “just man”. In the Republic the great philosopher asks what is likely to be the position of a completely just man in this world. He comes to the conclusion that a man’s righteousness is only complete and guaranteed when he takes on the appearance of unrighteousness, for only then is it clear that he does not follow the opinion of men but pursues justice only for its own sake. So according to Plato, the truly just man must be misunderstood and persecuted in this world; indeed, Plato goes so far as to write: “They will say that our just man will be scourged, racked, fettered, will have his eyes burned out, and at last, after all manner of suffering, will be crucified.”

 

[Incariol]

I don't know about that, but I know Pope Benedict says this in his book "Introduction to Christianity":

The Cross is revelation. It reveals, not any particular thing, but God and man. It reveals who God is and in what way man is. There is a curious presentiment of this situation in Greek philosophy: Plato’s image of the crucified “just man”. In the Republic the great philosopher asks what is likely to be the position of a completely just man in this world. He comes to the conclusion that a man’s righteousness is only complete and guaranteed when he takes on the appearance of unrighteousness, for only then is it clear that he does not follow the opinion of men but pursues justice only for its own sake. So according to Plato, the truly just man must be misunderstood and persecuted in this world; indeed, Plato goes so far as to write: “They will say that our just man will be scourged, racked, fettered, will have his eyes burned out, and at last, after all manner of suffering, will be crucified.”

Plato is so cool.

 

[Thekla]

I don't know about that, but I know Pope Benedict says this in his book "Introduction to Christianity":

The Cross is revelation. It reveals, not any particular thing, but God and man. It reveals who God is and in what way man is. There is a curious presentiment of this situation in Greek philosophy: Plato’s image of the crucified “just man”. In the Republic the great philosopher asks what is likely to be the position of a completely just man in this world. He comes to the conclusion that a man’s righteousness is only complete and guaranteed when he takes on the appearance of unrighteousness, for only then is it clear that he does not follow the opinion of men but pursues justice only for its own sake. So according to Plato, the truly just man must be misunderstood and persecuted in this world; indeed, Plato goes so far as to write: “They will say that our just man will be scourged, racked, fettered, will have his eyes burned out, and at last, after all manner of suffering, will be crucified.”

This is indeed an example of some of the truth being 'glimpsed' before the revelation (St. Nektarios of Aegina cites this passage as well).

And to me, this sort of tracking throughout history - of some who did "glimpse", and those who awaited, evidence of human yearning for the Christ ... glory to God is all I can say

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

You have to approach thinking and theology with a philosophy. There is no way around it (although most people are obvious to their philosophy).