Hulver's site || Comments || Herland

neo-Platonism was condemned by the early church by lm (4.00 / 1) #10 Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:28:51 PM EST

At least in its strict form. From Ignatius of Antioch on, orthodox forms of Christianity have held that by God becoming incarnate, not only all of human nature, but the entire universe was transformed. Even prior to Ignatius, you've got a conception of the new heaven and the new earth in the New Testament as places that are both material and spiritual. This way of thinking comes to its most refined exposition in Thomas Aquinas in the west and Maximos the Confessor in the east.

That said, many orthodox Christians do tend towards a more moderated Neoplatonism except rather than referring to all matter as pulling the spirit down, they refer to `fallen nature' or `corrupted nature.' But where Neoplatonism really comes out in full force is in the heavily Calvinist forms of Christianity. I'm not certain you could successfully argue that Calvin himself was an Neoplatonist, but many modern sects that were influenced by his thinking do seem to think that matter is of no account.

But to be fair, the dualism that does exist in some forms of modern Christianity is almost entirely at the popular level rather than at the dogmatic level. (The notable exception being some of the Christian sects that are moving to various forms of theological liberalism.)

I think the real reason homosexuality gets a special place as a very heinous sin is really more dependent on Aristotle than Plato. Sexual sins are given a special prominence in the New Testament. As sex in the marital relationship is held out as a symbol of the relationship between Christ and the Church, any perversion of that relationship is already worthy of special note. Many early Church documents suggest severe liturgical discipline for sexual immorality. If you add to this a bit of natural law theory, you're left with a teleologically twisted form of a very notable sort of sin.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic

Dates by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #11 Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:25:39 AM EST

Neoplatonism was basically started by Plotinus who lived from 205 to 270 AD. Another major figure was Proclus from 412 to 485. Cary cites Denys/Pseudo-Dionysius and Augustine as introducing neo-Platonism into Christianity.

Ignatius of Antioch lived roundabout 35 to 110 AD. So I think he and the other really early Christians were a bit too early to reject Neoplatonism.
--
"Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise." -- Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

: Perhaps they were too early to reject it by name by lm (4.00 / 1) #14 Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 07:00:08 AM EST

But some of the early camps were teaching something very similar to Neoplatonism far earlier than Plotinus. For example, Marcion was teaching that the physical world was a mistake, created by a sort of bumbling deity and that the real `spiritual' God sent the Christ principle to become incarnate to reveal the fullness of spirit by teaching us who are trapped in physical bodies to transcend physicality. Various gnostic groups also taught something along these lines.
And some people, like me, think there is less difference between Platonism and Neoplatonism than other people claim. Sure, there are differences. I won't deny that. I just don't think they're all that substantial.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]