This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Simply ... should I read the bible?

Red Dog's Avatar Jump to comment 66 by Red Dog

Comment 62 by JHJEFFERY :

Comment 61 by logicophilosophicus

Again I think our conversation is more semantic than real, but the NT shows definite signs of dualism. Even the bodily resurrection of JC requires an undead essence to allow for the reanimation of the body. Admittedly this is not articulated in the text.


Matthew 10:28 (NIV)

28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Understand that I am not arguing that Plato himself was solely responsible for the dualism--it was an idea that had been floating in many cultures for centuries before JC.

Keep in mind that the bible was subtly altered by the Catholic scholars who both translated and recopied it. To really judge if that or any section was truly Platonic I think you need to go back to the original Greek and also keep in mind there is some possibility that even that may have been subtly altered.

Bart Ehrman wrote a whole book on this topic: Misquoting the Bible the Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

I'm not saying that I know for sure that that particular quote doesn't reflect Platonism, just that its a complex issue to really understand. I'm no biblical scholar but most of what I've read by Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, and others reinforces the position of logicophilosophicus, that most of the Platonism (as I said Gospel of John is an exception) in Christianity came after most of the bible was written, by other scholars who interpreted the texts and added on additional dogma.

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:21:58 UTC | #951082