St. Augustine noted in The City of God book 11 chapter 25, Plato was said to have first divided philosophy into physics, logic, and ethics, three parts just like the Trinitarian deity.

Let me guess, you need more?

Holy cow louis I just feel like the biggest retard on the cusp of the biggest find of the century.

>>18408646
>Christians will often appeal to Platonic philosophy and argue that God is the absolute principle of reality and equate him with the Monad of Neoplatonist thought.
Do they?

File: Maimònides.jpg (594 KB, 1536x2048)

594 KB JPG

Rambam dealt with this in the Guide to the perplexed

>>18408665
>The number 3 exists
>Therefore Christianity is true
Behold the most “intellectual” Christian on this board.

>not knowing where Adam and Eve were hiding
that's not what it really means, it's kind of like a rhetorical question or a parent playing with a child who is hiding while knowing exactly where they are
it points at Adam's naivete and shame, to think he could hide from God in the garden he created
no sin can be hidden from God, that's the point

anyways, the anthropomorphic traits of God make absolutely perfect sense once you realize the Old Testament is meant to be read through a Trinitarian lens
these anthropomorphisms properly belong to the person of the Son, the principle of creation and the image of God in which men were created, whereas the Father from whom he proceeds is entirely transcendent and ineffable
this is why we can call him the *living* God, who literally breathed Adam into life

that doesn't mean his divine body is a creation, like those of men and angels are, as he was wholly begotten in the mind of God and proceeded from it before all things were made; time and space were made *through* him, in that sense he is the primordial fabric of what you know as "real"
later would he literally empty himself and take on this flesh of Adam through the power of the Holy Spirit by the Virgin Mary, metaphorically laying down his life and then taking it up again, in glorification his divine form and human body are made one

in fact, this is the only way for omnipotence to make sense
because if God was incapable of tangibility or extension and everything these this particular quality makes possible, then he wouldn't be omnipotent
ironically, it's logically necessary that God be simultaneously intangible and tangible which is made possible through hypostatic union of the Godhead
God is both tangible and intangible, and always has been, because both persons communicate their particular traits which would normally be incompatible to the Godhead as a whole and God's essence has always been entirely perfect

of course, this is all heresy so don't take my word for it

>>18408665
but then they denied Plato's idea of the tripartite soul

>>18408699
I'm just quoting Augustine.

>>18408701
>the Old Testament is meant to be read through a Trinitarian lens
>these anthropomorphisms properly belong to the person of the Son, the principle of creation and the image of God in which men were created, whereas the Father from whom he proceeds is entirely transcendent and ineffable
>this is why we can call him the *living* God, who literally breathed Adam into life


lol no, it makes more sense when you realize they were animist schizophrenics still projecting divinities into inanimate objects like the burning bush

>>18408701
>the Old Testament is meant to be read through a Trinitarian lens
It's not though, that's anachronistic. The ancient Jews who wrote the hebrew bible did not have a concept of the trinity.

tldr
omnipotence is logically necessary if you admit the existence of discrete powers which are proportional to one another existing on an objectively gradiated scale and belonging themselves to certain kinds or domains, and that these various powers of certain strengths and qualities must stem from an ultimate source
and can be spoken of collectively, as a unit or set, that is to say all powers; hence this source would be itself all powerful

however, as certain people might be well aware, the idea is on the surface level semi-contradictory in multiple formulations one of which I already touched upon
what most people don't realize is that the Trinity, that is the recognition of multiple persons in God, immediately reconciles this seeming contradiction because the Father is greater than the Son

it follows that a triune godhead is logically necessary

>>18408714
That in itself is an anachronistic assertion. You're projecting the beliefs of contemporary Jews backwards into deep antiquity.

Regardless, the bible is divinely inspired so it's not actually necessary for the human instruments of its creation to actually understand everything it reveals.
This is the case in prophecy, where things are revealed through symbols the meaning of which would be inscrutable to those it was immediately revealed to.

Augustine was an animist schizo talking to spirits and demons in nature

>>18408701
>anyways, the anthropomorphic traits of God make absolutely perfect sense once you realize the Old Testament is meant to be read through a Trinitarian lens
these anthropomorphisms properly belong to the person of the Son, the principle of creation and the image of God in which men were created, whereas the Father from whom he proceeds is entirely transcendent and ineffable
A god by definition cannot be anthropomorphic as they are abstract metaphysical spirits. The are only two ways to rationalize any “anthropomorphic” portrayal of them:
>View it as purely allegorical rather than historical.
>Argue that they did not actually take an anthropomorphic form but rather than it was only an illusion they created.
The problem with the latter is that it’s basically docetism which Christians reject as heresy, thus it cannot be used as an argument in defense of Christianity.

>>18408731
*there

>>18408646
>You cannot reconcile the Old Testament with Platonic philosophy if you view literally any of it as historical
This is a false dilemma. Not just that one or the other is true, but it is entirely false.

For one no actual Christian tradition, including the most conservative Catholics to mainline Protestant Churches that I'm aware of, require a belief in Biblical literalism. We have always been open to the Platonic because Plato is the root of western metaphysics and logic. Philosophy could not be totally separated from metaphysics for the longest time because of this.

Second of all, this doesn't lead to Gnosticism. Even where gnosis became some fixation... Westerners have almost always gravitated towards Hermeticism (+alchemy) or materialism, or some kind of pagan apostasy in our heretical pursuits. Hermeticism is much closer to Indo-European and Egyptian pre-Christian belief. Some like Jung and Terence McKenna, and many more of recent argued that something like this over heebslop will emerge along with Christ and some type of eschatology, rather than this reconciliation you propose.

There is no possibility at all of Christians reconciling with a literalist view of the Old Testament after the likes of Descartes, Gauss, Darwin and others. It would be like an Indian who wants to stay in India and use soap and not be covered in poop and pee. Utter impossibility.

>>18408740
>For one no actual Christian tradition, including the most conservative Catholics to mainline Protestant Churches that I'm aware of, require a belief in Biblical literalism
If that’s the case, you wouldn’t believe that Daniel was a real historical figure or that 2 million Israelites were really enslaved in Egypt and wandered the desert for 40 years. The Book of Jonah is obviously ahistorical given that even after Jonah supposedly lived, Nineveh still continued to worship their native gods until the Christianization of the Assyrians in the 2nd-3rd centuries AD and still continued to act in their “wicked” ways (Ashurbanipul, the most brutal Assyrian king, lived long after Jonah).

>>18408731
>god by definition cannot be anthropomorphic as they are abstract metaphysical spirits

your definition of "god" is insufficient
how can something be both abstract and truly alive, unless these things are reconciled through hypostatic union

can a god eat or not
if not, which even we are able to do, how are they gods
are they like little babies, who cannot handle solid food and must persist on mother's milk

or is it an abstract kind of feel, where they just behold the food and that is enough for reasons
or maybe one better, they need priests to eat food offerings for them so that the crowds will be satisfied in their stead

maybe the malignant spirits you're speaking of do hunger, in some sense
but that wouldn't make them God

>>18408728
>the bible is divinely inspired so it's not actually necessary for the human instruments of its creation to actually understand everything it reveals.
[fixates on a couple of lines in Daniel and Isaiah that call for a messiah or son of man and ignores the hundreds and hundreds of pages of prophetic works in the hebrew bible that do not]

>>18408752
>how can something be both abstract and truly alive
Because they are not anthropomorphic, they live on a higher plane of existence which is non-physical, the material universe is a shadow of it. Look up Plato’s theory of forms.

>>18408748
You're right anon. I don't. I don't even think Moses was like a real guy that lived. As I got older especially I realized I never believed in the Old Testament in really any meaningful way.

My grandfather, and his grandfather, and every man in my male line quietly nodded their head like I did when they heard stories like Jonah and the whale, not out of insincerity. But because we knew priests and clergy even did not literally believe in these things and almost never did. In the best moments of such men there was some deeper concept of Pistis or Noesis that they were reaching for in parable, like Jesus often was.

It is the New Testament, Christ specifically, and the rich history of Europe and the Mediterranean broadly that gives Christianity any compelling qualities. Even if you zoom out as like the biggest reddit atheist ever, the sheer synchronicity of Christ, the events that led up to this, and what occurred after make it one of, if not the greatest things to have ever happened. I think Christianity will still be here in 1000 years and it will look more like something Carl Jung or Rene Girard understood than what some heebslop enjoyer can even imagine.

>>18408646
Reminder that polytheism is more logical than monotheism. Monotheism creates a “metaphysical gap,” a god who is simultaneously an absolute principle and a personal, emotional creator. This is a logical contradiction that polytheism avoids by distributing divine functions. Polytheism is a better map of the human psyche, representing various facets of the human experience (war, love, wisdom, etc) as distinct entities rather than a single, often contradictory deity.

Yes, the gods all emanate from the One, but they are still separate individuals from each other hence the diversity of all things. If there was only one god, then all things would be the same. The fact that everything comes in different colors, shapes, and sizes proves there is more than one force at work, even if all these forces are part of a cosmic order uniting them all.

>>18408763
I don't need to look anything up, since I'm an idealist, philosophically at least. I read Plato regularly, a long time ago.

Socrates, who forwarded the theory of forms, was executed by his own city as an atheist and for corrupting the youth.
And Socrates, recognized one god at least. In a higher form. He rejected the poetic myths which his city enshrined.

These "gods" you're invoking are phantasms of the mind. Which is why you call them abstractions.
Not truly alive, like the true God is.

>they are not anthropomorphic
The Greek gods certainly were anthropomorphic.
They could even be wounded, give birth, etc. They metaphorically embody very human flaws, because at some point they really were humans. Or at least a kind of human, even if hybridized.

>>18408754
I'm mostly fixating on Genesis 18 and 19 actually.

Thanks for playing

>>18408785
>Socrates, who forwarded the theory of forms, was executed by his own city as an atheist and for corrupting the youth.
Socrates’ last request before his execution was literally to sacrifice a rooster to Asclepius. He and every other Greco-Roman philosopher still believed in the existence of the gods and that they were actual divine beings who controlled aspects of reality and were owed worship, even if they viewed them in more abstract terms. They still defended traditional religious practices and believed they were a valid way for the masses to access the divine. Porphyry of Tyre, whom even Augustine admitted was one of the most learnt intellectuals of his time, literally defended divination and consulted oracles.
Also the Athenians literally regret their decision a few decades later.
>recognized one god
The divine source he believed in was beyond human understanding, so even calling it a god would be a misnomer. What he did believe in is that the gods were all emanations of this divine source.
>The Greek gods certainly were anthropomorphic. They could even be wounded, give birth, etc. They metaphorically embody very human flaws, because at some point they really were humans. Or at least a kind of human, even if hybridized.
The myths are allegories for deeper truths not literal historical events. This is unlike your Bible where you believe that Abraham was a real person and that there really was a mass migration of 2 million Israelites from Egypt. You know what your problem is? It’s that you take everything at face value which is proven by the fact that you unironically think the Old Testament is describing real historical events.
>muh one true God
Except Yahweh is neither the creator of the universe nor the absolute principle of reality. He is at best a minor spirit whose also vengeful and narcissistic considering the command “thou shalt have no other gods before me” is attributed to him.

>>18408646
Christ informed the Jews that He knew Abraham, who "rejoiced to see My day" (John 8:56), and when they protest that He was far too young, He announces, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (verse 58), taking upon Himself the divine name of the Eternal God. Later, He tells His disciples, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9), meaning that Jesus is "the express image" of the Father (Hebrews 1:3). In His final prayer with the disciples, He asks, "And now, O Father, glorify Me . . . with the glory which I had with You before the world was" (John 17:5).

meaning Moses saw the backside of christ, adam and eve were with christ, abraham dined wit christ etc. and most of theophanies of the other. not sure if you understand the trinity

>>18408826
>Moses saw the backside of christ, adam and eve were with christ, abraham dined wit christ etc.
Yup. And if the conclusion that all the appearances of Yahweh in the OT were actually the one preincarnate Christ seems a little too awkward to maintain, now you're thinking like a Gnostic, who would say there are at least two if not several entities with distinct intentions going under the name Yahweh ("I am" / "The one who is") in the Hebrew Bible. Also, maybe some humans writing on their own are in the mix, going by what Paul sometimes seems to imply.

Leviticus 18:5
You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the LORD.

Romans 10:5
Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that “the person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that comes from faith says...

Galatians 3:11-12;17;21b
Now it is evident that no one is reckoned as righteous before God by the law, for “the one who is righteous will live by faith.” But the law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, “Whoever does the works of the law will live by them.”

My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

...For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law.

Romans 5:20
But law came in (alt. translation: "came in stealthily"), so that the trespass might *increase*, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more

Colossians 2:21-22
“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? All these regulations refer to things that perish with use; they are simply human commands and teachings.