Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5334Re : Re : [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism & Religion

Expand Messages
  • Marco Bormann
    Apr 2 7:02 AM
      thanks a lot for your remarks Michael,
      I admit that I have not read Cyril yet.
      I read them chronologically and I just past
      St. Augustine.

      > De : Goya <goya@...>
      >À : neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
      >Envoyé le : Lundi 2 avril 2012 14h45
      >Objet : Re: Re : [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism & Religion

      >> @Stephen Clark
      >> "I now think that the obvious comparison of the CHristian Trinity with
      >> Plotinus's three hypostases is wrong. The One and the Nous relate fairly
      >> well to the first and second persons, but Plotinus' Soul is not the same
      >> as the Christian Spirit: actually Nous serves both as Logos and as
      >> Spirit."
      >> I agree with this remark. Christians almost always argued against the
      >> concept of a world-soul,
      >M.C. Not Cyril of Alexandria, who cites Porphyry's Trinity as a precursor
      >to the Christian Trinity, and writes (Contra Julianum I, 47), that the
      >Holy Spirit is the world soul according to Plato, because the Spirit gives
      >life (John 6, 63) and proceeds from the Father, who is alive by virtue of
      >the Son.
      >often with the argument that movement of planets
      >> which oftentimes got associated with the souls or has been seen as an
      >> expression of its perfection would be way to simple for a soul. I do have
      >> trouble understandig the concept of the Holy Spirit - I try of course to
      >> abstract from its theological role. It seems to me to be some kind of
      >> unity of the One (God) and the Nous. In Marius Victorinus I found some
      >> hints that he for instance sees it as the Nous that realizes the One.
      >> But I think it's quite interesting comparing Christian and Neoplatonic
      >> views though I am somehow under the impression that from Plotinos or even
      >> Ammonios on it is pretty much a one way street where Neoplatonists did
      >> never read Christian Trinity as a possible contribuition to their thinking
      >> while Christians tokk everthing the could get. But probably this is due to
      >> much greater internal struggles among the Christians and probably because
      >> their thinking was more metaphorical than the Platonist's.
      >M.C. ??????
      >> @Michael Chase
      >> " it's been argued that Porphyry is also behind the Christian idea of the
      >> Trinity."
      >> Just a personal remark. I am getting a little suspicious about the mass of
      >> stuff that finally get attributed to Porphyrios while at the same time
      >> there is not so much left of what he wrote. It looks like a welcome black
      >> hole to solve all kinds of philological quests.
      >M.C. Perhaps. Yet the authority of Cyril - who was able to read a lot more
      >Porphyry than we can, particularly his Philosophos Historia, is of a
      >different opinion, and his testimony should not, I think, be dismissed
      >without careful scrutiny.
      >Cyril's viewpoint has been studied by a number of respectable scholars:
      >S.R.C. Lilla, The Neoplatonic Hypostases and the Christian Trinity,
      >Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition, Aldershot
      >in 1997, 127-189 ;
      >C. Moreschini, “Una definizione della Trinità nel Contra Iulianum di
      >Cirillo d'Alessandria”, in C. Moreschini & G. Menestrina, eds., Lingua e
      >teologia nel cristianesimo greca, Atti del convegno tenuto a Trento
      >l'11-12 dicembre 1997, Brescia : Morcelliana, 1999 (Religione e Cultura
      >11), p. 251-270  
      >Michael Chase
      >CNRS UPR 76

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic