Bart,
Was Jesus smart enough to have a Platonic notion of God?
Jesus: Your God does not give you a rock or snakes. God, your Heavenly Father, is good all the time.
Scholar David Litwa says the Hebrew God did not pass the tests of Plato, for example, a god cannot be jealous.
“He was good; and in the good no jealousy ever arises about anything. Being free from jealousy, he wished that all things should become, as far as possible, like himself.”
Plato. Timaeus. 29e.
Jesus’ theology could only evolve out of Yahweh via The Republic, Book II 379-380 and Timaeus 29e.
Do you agree?
What do you think about Jesus’ concept of God being more than the God of the TANAK but also a god that passes Platonic notions of God?
Steve Campbell, Biblical Criticism / New Testament Criticism author
Author of Historical Accuracy, March 2021
Jesus is Decius Mundus who sacrificed himself for the world (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.4)
referencing Decius Mus, the son who sacrificed himself for victory, 295 BCE (History of Rome, Books 8-10 by Livy)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Well, @Robert, your Jesus from Nazareth crucified by Pilate had a heavenly Father good god who “loved” the world.
Jesus’ notion of God was a rejection of Yahweh and an acceptance of Platonic notions of God.
How well do you think Jesus knew a good god notion was needed?
For me, this is reason to fill a god-vacuum.
The God of Moses and the Temple of Jerusalem was weakened by the Jewish Civil War and The Jewish Revolt against Rome.
During early Christianity, people didn’t want a god who required His people to bend over backward and come up with an eschatological messianic movement to feign God would win in the end.
Robert
your characterization seems at least partly based on an under appreciated, limited, and derogatory caricature of contemporary Jewish schools of thought.
Steve
Jesus represents contemporary Jewish schools of thought. not one school but more than one school of thought.
Robert
Christian intellectuals certainly tried to combine the best of what they knew about Jesus, Judaism, Greco-Roman philosophy, and plain old common sense to adapt their understanding of Jesus to their own evolving historical circumstances.
Steefen
Thank you for admitting that.
The gospels are a composite of what intellectuals (gospel authors) tried to combine.
This combining, this adapting their understanding, evolving historical circumstances, certainly not an historically accurate account of a ministry from the late 20’s early 30s ended by the crucifixion of Jesus.
You agree with me.
The New Testament puts Jesus before Philo of Alexandria.
Jesus was mostly against the school of thought of the Pharisees.
When @Robert did Jewish thought move from militant messianism to whatever conflation you’re poorly suggesting?
Not with Jesus before he was crucified in the early 30s.
Militant messianism continued with the Roman overseers abused the Jews in the 60s leading to the revolt.
Militant messianism was present in the two Jewish-Roman Wars that followed the FIRST Jewish-Roman War.
No you don’t agree with me. TRY READING IN CONTEXT.
Robert
Christian intellectuals certainly tried to combine the best of what they knew about Jesus, Judaism, Greco-Roman philosophy, and plain old common sense to adapt their understanding of Jesus to their own evolving historical circumstances.
Steefen
Thank you for admitting that.
The gospels are a composite of what intellectuals (gospel authors) tried to combine.
This combining, this adapting their understanding, evolving historical circumstances, certainly not an historically accurate account of a ministry from the late 20’s early 30s ended by the crucifixion of Jesus.
You agree with me.
= = =
When you read in context, the text does not speak of
Jesus of Nazareth crucified by pontius pilate
astrology
reincarnation
fortune tellers
spirit-guides
space aliens
creating technological marvels in ancient history
This is a significant example of why discussions with you lose their value.
= = =
Steefen
The New Testament puts Jesus before Philo of Alexandria.
@Robert
False.
Steefen
The New Testament puts Jesus approximately Age 27 before Philo of Alexandria died 50 CE.
The only event in Philo’s life that can be decisively dated is his representation of the Alexandrian Jews in a delegation to the Roman emperor Caligula in 40 CE following civil strife between the Jewish and Greek communities of Alexandria.
To Philo, God exists beyond time and space and does not make special interventions into the world because God already encompasses the entire cosmos.
God does not make special interventions into the world.
Philo had a diplomatic mission to Caligula AFTER the crucifixion of Jesus.
Philo recounts the abuses of the prefect Aulus Avilius Flaccus, who he says retaliated against the Jews when they refused to worship Caligula as a god. AFTER Jesus was crucified and AFTER Jesus of the Gospels started criticizing Yahweh and preaching a good Platonic god.
Furthermore Philo’s Platonic concept of God traveled from Alexandria to Galilee for Jesus to pick up by 26 or 27 CE ? ? ?
I’ll let Bart address that MISCONCEPTION.
Bart:
There is close to zero chance that Jesus would be reading Timaeus in Galilee in the early first century.
Steefen
And I add: there is zero chance was reading Philo. Jesus didn’t belong to a book club that discussed AND adopted Platonic thoughts of God.
Bart,
Was Jesus smart enough to have a Platonic notion of God?
Jesus: Your God does not give you a rock or snakes. God, your Heavenly Father, is good all the time.
Scholar David Litwa says the Hebrew God did not pass the tests of Plato, for example, a god cannot be jealous.
“He was good; and in the good no jealousy ever arises about anything. Being free from jealousy, he wished that all things should become, as far as possible, like himself.”
Plato. Timaeus. 29e.
Jesus’ theology could only evolve out of Yahweh via The Republic, Book II 379-380 and Timaeus 29e.
Do you agree?
What do you think about Jesus’ concept of God being more than the God of the TANAK but also a god that passes Platonic notions of God?
Steve Campbell, Biblical Criticism / New Testament Criticism author
Author of Historical Accuracy, March 2021
Jesus is Decius Mundus who sacrificed himself for the world (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.4)
referencing Decius Mus, the son who sacrificed himself for victory, 295 BCE (History of Rome, Books 8-10 by Livy)
Reply from Bart
Jesus’ relationship to Platonic philosophy is less a question of smarts than of education and access.
I’d say that in Galilee in the early first century there was close to zero chance that Jesus would be reading the Timaeus.
Keep playing dumb.
= = = = =
The Gospel Jesus was no later than 37 C.E.
That Gospel Jesus had a Platonic notion of God.
Christians, with the Gospel of John were more Platnoic than the Synoptic Jesus. We are not talking about the Gospel of John and the second century.
From where and when and how Jesus supplemented his study of Jewish scripture with Platonic thought?
Robert
The most plausible historical reconstructions of Jesus and his teachings do not support the idea that he had a Platonic conception of God.
Steefen
We are specifically and only talking about Jesus’ notion of God in the Litwa video, up to 13:52, Comments 1 and 7.
The notion of God for Jesus was not the God of Moses.
Jesus’ criticism of the God of Moses evolved to meet the criteria of Plato in Book II of The Republic and Timaeus.
A good, Our Father god beyond God of Moses reproach is what Jesus of the Gospels offered.
In the Synoptic gospels we see the Ehrman apocalyptic prophet notion of God and we see a notion of God that passes Platonic tests.
How did Jesus get a notion of God that passed Platonic tests?
Answer: by gospel writers who wrote historical fiction. They interpolated Plato’s good god into the gospels, especially author of Gospel of John or the gospels were all new theology literary exercises that also was a retelling of 1 Enoch and the themes in the 1 Enoch parables.
1. The “Son of Man” as Preexistent Judge
📖 1 Enoch 48:2–6; 69:26–29
The Son of Man was chosen before creation, revealed to the righteous, will sit on the throne of glory, and will judge kings and mighty ones.
He is a light to the nations and an agent of salvation, yet also the one who condemns the wicked.
📖 Parallels in the Gospels:
Matthew 25:31–32 — “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another…”
Mark 14:62 — Jesus tells the high priest: “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
👉 Both echo the Parables of Enoch’s vision of the enthroned, preexistent Son of Man as universal judge.
2. The Son of Man Revealed to the Righteous
📖 1 Enoch 62:5–7
The Son of Man is revealed to the righteous and the chosen; kings and mighty ones are terrified, but the faithful rejoice.
The Son of Man intercedes for the righteous before God.
📖 Parallels in the Gospels:
Luke 12:8–9 — “Everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God.”
Matthew 13:41–43 — “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin… Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”
👉 Again, the Son of Man as revealer, vindicator, and judge of the righteous closely reflects the Enochic vision.
Litwa (scholar) interviewed on Gnostic Informant
The TANAK God, God of Moses specifically, was not the Platonic good God who is unambiguously good and unchanging.
The Old Testament God was not good.
Christianity (Jesus 1st half of ministry and later developers of Christology) wants to appear intellectual.
It wants to take on all the intellectual repertoire of its time Jesus at age 27, say, up to 160 CE.
The dominant philosophy was Platonism.
Although Jesus had an apocalyptic view of God, Jesus and early Christians did not want to present themselves as believing in 1) fables, 2) conflicted, and 3) morally problematic depictions of God. They wanted God to be unchangeable, everlasting, unknown, transcendent, hyper-cosmic and most importantly, good. There would be no question about the fundamental goodness of God. These are the fundamental traits of Platonism.
I have said God letting the disciples and Mary Magdalene not knife Judas as the Last Supper, to let the wicked tenants kill the land owner’s son, to let Abraham pass the test of not killing his son but God does not pass the test of letting his son get sacrificed is problematic.
Nevertheless the apocalyptic notion of God joined forces with Platonic forces, not in the year 90 into the 2nd century but on the living lips of Jesus. The TANAK, even translated into the Septuagint does not present a Platonic notion of God the way the gospels do.
Gnostic Informant: Popes are Neo-Platonists.
The apocalyptic notion of God (be it from Enoch 1 & 2 or the gospels) joined hands with Platonism.
Again, Jesus was not a Platonist. The passing of Platonic tests were interpolations into your Jesus probability.
Litwa says there is good God, then a good demiurge, but then there were angels of nations and not all of the angels of nations were good.
Yahweh/Iao was ambiguously good because Yahweh/Iao was jealous; but Plato said that god must be jealous of other nation-angels.
Michael of Israel fought with the angel of Persia.
Stop 13:37
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)