Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine and St. Thomas: Masters of Theology

[Elin]

Yes. It comes from people who interpret his writings, not from Paul himself. One thing that differentiate the christian church from heresies is that the christian church has a global perspective on things while the heresies focus on one aspect (in detriment of the big picture) and say that only that one aspect os the truth.

Take, for instance, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. A lot of christians see it only as a penal substitution and take it completely out of its context. For instance,
the user Elin send me to read some ch. in Romans so that I understand the atonement. But,
in order to understand the atonement you have to read all the New Testament, not just some chapters.

Agreed. . .

And for your understanding to be correct, and for God not to contradict himself,
all your understanding of the NT must agree with the clear words of
Jn 3:6; Ro 1:18, 5:9; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; 1Th 1:10; Rev 9:15,
where atonement is about salvation from the wrath of God's justice on disobedience (Eph 5:6).

 

[GuessWho]

You still have not answered my question regarding understanding it according to its words in the light of the whole NT.

Yes, I have. But I used my words and not yours. The way you put it has no logic. I believe the Bible according to the words of those who wrote it because the Bible did not fall from the sky and the Bible did not write itself alone.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yes, I have. But I used my words and not yours. The way you put it has no logic. I believe the Bible according to the words of those who wrote it because the Bible did not fall from the sky and the Bible did not write itself alone.

so we have in imperfect book, written by men, and not inspired by God?

then whats the use of following it then, we can;t trust anything it says.

 

[Elin]

Yes, I have. But I used my words and not yours. The way you put it has no logic.
I believe the Bible according to the words of those who wrote it because the Bible did not fall from the sky and the Bible did not write itself alone.

Then we are agreed that the meaning of the NT is according to the statements of the received texts, viewed in the light of and in agreement with, the whole NT.

 

[Jeff_56]

if it's in line with , or in agreement with rcc then it is pagan/untrue/ opposed to JESUS,and not christian.

That makes it a Christian mentality, as found in Ro 3:9-20, 8:5-8 regarding those who are not born again.....

===========================================
if God punished you/me/us/anyone for their sin, you/me/us/they would die/ be dead/ be not alive/ POOF!
remember "the penalty for sin is death"

God needs to punish sin just as a doctor needs to proceed a hurtful (but saving!) operation. Your sin does not touch God's holiness. If you pray, if you fast, if you go to church etc., you do it because YOU need this, not God.

the influence of the world's ways on religion is massive and unremarkable. not worthy of study.

the ekklesia, born of yahweh, by yahweh's will and not man's

are not influenced by the world's ways nor its philosophers and don't study them. (they have died in yahshua hamashiach to the world and the world has died to us/ we have died to the world's vain/empty/ barbarous philosophies)

I remind you and others that the topic is about the influence that Plato, Aristotle, Agustin and Thomas Aquinas had in theology. If you think it is an catholic/protestant old crap you can move to another topic.

 

[GuessWho]

Your the one which keeps bringing it up. Not me.

...did you read that the topic is about how the greek philosophers (Plato, Socrates and Aristotle) influenced the catholic theologians (like Agustin of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas) or not? The reality offends you?

asked you what you believed in, You can not answer me?

I believe Jesus Christ is God who became man, suffered, was crucified and resurrected for our salvation.

 

[GuessWho]

Then we are agreed that the meaning of the NT is according to the statements of the received texts, viewed in the light of and in agreement with, the whole NT.

Of course. Not only with the context of the New Testament, but with the HISTORICAL context of the New Testament. You can't understand a romantic poet if you place him in postmodernism.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

...did you read that the topic is about how the greek philosophers (Plato, Socrates and Aristotle) influenced the catholic theologians (like Agustin of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas) or not? The reality offends you?


I believe Jesus Christ is God who became man, suffered, was crucified and resurrected for our salvation.

well I think more then that influenced the catholic church. I think paganism as a whole influenced them, they had to somehow make Christianity appeasing to people who worshiped pagan gods in order to get them all to follow this romain imposed religion. or else they would have had a mutiny from their own citizens.

 

[GuessWho]

so we have in imperfect book, written by men, and not inspired by God?

then whats the use of following it then, we can;t trust anything it says.

Uhm, yes, the Bible has its imperfections, but these imperfections do not affect or alter the message. And only because it has imperfections does not mean that it is not inspired by God; it means that those who wrote are imperfect men and not robots.

 

[jamie26301]

Uhm, yes, the Bible has its imperfections, but these imperfections do not affect or alter the message. And only because it has imperfections does not mean that it is not inspired by God; it means that those who wrote are imperfect men and not robots.

Take cover.

 

[GuessWho]

well I think more then that influenced the catholic church. I think paganism as a whole influenced them, they had to somehow make Christianity appeasing to people who worshiped pagan gods in order to get them all to follow this romain imposed religion. or else they would have had a mutiny from their own citizens.

Yes, of course. I only referred to some clear aspects of the platonic philosophy (such as the superiority of the soul over the body). It doesn't mean that I covered everything in the topic.

 

[Elin]

Of course. Not only with the context of the New Testament, but with the HISTORICAL context of the New Testament. You can't understand a romantic poet if you place him in postmodernism.

Nope. . .history doesn't alter the meaning or usage of the words in the NT.

We cannot deny the meaning or usage of the words of the text based on some historical framework which makes it impossible to be true.

More than half the NT can be thrown out on that basis.

Historical context may broaden one's understanding of the context, but it does not alter the meaning or usage of the words in the text, which will always be in agreement with all of the NT.

 

[Elin]

Uhm, yes, the Bible has its imperfections, but these imperfections do not affect or alter the message. And only because it has imperfections does not mean that it is not inspired by God;
it means that those who wrote are imperfect men and not robots.

Nope. . .all Scripture is God-breathed (2Tim 3:16) and God did not give imperfections in his word.

 

[GuessWho]

Nope. . .history doesn't alter the meaning or usage of the words in the NT.

Yes it does. An example that comes in mind is the protestant understanding of "legalism", an understanding that has little to do with what Paul really said when he accused some christians of "judaising" faith.

 

[GuessWho]

Nope. . .all Scripture is God-breathed (2Tim 3:16) and God did not give imperfections in his word.

Well, whether you like it or not, He allowed them (the imperfections).

 

[Elin]

Yes it does. An example that comes in mind is the protestant understanding of "legalism", an understanding that has little to do with what Paul really said when he accused some christians of "judaising" faith.

To what Scripture using the word "legalism" are you referring?

 

[Jeff_56]

yahweh's word was written perfectly the first time, by men inspired by yahshua.

translators made mistakes, on purpose or by accident.

those who trust 'english' translations for instance, without seeking yahweh for HIS WORD,
fail to find out what is written.

yahweh promises through yahshua to train/teach his children the truth about all things. not vary many, if any, are willing to learn from him. he is merciful yes, and also very very strict guarding his word... very very few ever learn it.

Uhm, yes, the Bible has its imperfections, but these imperfections do not affect or alter the message. And only because it has imperfections does not mean that it is not inspired by God; it means that those who wrote are imperfect men and not robots.

 

[GuessWho]

To what Scripture using the word "legalism" are you referring?

I am actually referring to the usage of "works"...the works of which Saint Paul was talking about have been interpreted by the protestants as meaning "good deeds" when they debated the catholics. They understood them as "legalism". The "works" of which Saint Paul is talking about refer to something else than it was believed by the protestants.

 

[jamie26301]

I am actually referring to the usage of "works"...the works of which Saint Paul was talking about have been interpreted by the protestants as meaning "good deeds" when they debated the catholics. They understood them as "legalism". The "works" of which Saint Paul is talking about refer to something else than it was believed by the protestants.

It was following the Mosaic Law, right? Not an all encompassing term for everything not done from faith.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Uhm, yes, the Bible has its imperfections, but these imperfections do not affect or alter the message. And only because it has imperfections does not mean that it is not inspired by God; it means that those who wrote are imperfect men and not robots.

if it has imperfections (which I would the english translations has some imperfections due to translations, which can be readily fixed by going to the origional languages) then it is useless.