Socrates and Jesus

[Cypress]

Jesus and Socrates invite comparison as two of the greatest teachers in history and as seminal figures in the story of freedom.

Both were true philosophers, lovers of wisdom who saw their teaching as a vocation—not a career—and who lived and died as witnesses to the truth. Both brought messages of individual liberation and salvation to societies rooted in communal concepts of freedom.

As lovers of wisdom, Both Socrates and Jesus were concerned with the individual’s soul:

1. Socrates turned from the study of science to the soul.
2. Jesus had no interest in a political kingdom of God; his kingdom of God was in the individual’s soul.

The teachings of both Socrates and Jesus aimed at leading the individual to ethical decisions.

Both aroused bitter enmity among their peers—Sophists and Pharisees. Both were tried and sentenced to death by a jury of their peers on charges of blasphemy and treason.

Socrates was charged:
1. With blasphemy or atheism: refusing to believe in the gods of Athens, but in new, different divinities.
2. With treason: corrupting the young.

Jesus was convicted:
1. Of blasphemy before the Jewish Sanhedrin.
2. Of treason, for claiming to be king of the Jews, before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.

In each case, the charges were completely false. Both Socrates and Jesus were the victims of envy and slander. The most effective form of slander, “the Big Lie,” was used against both teachers.

The real reason that both teachers were convicted and executed was that both Socrates and Jesus struck at the heart of the community.

Neither Socrates or Jesus published. Why did Socrates and Jesus not publish?
1. Publication is an act of finality. It suggests that you know the truth.
2. The true philosopher is always searching for the truth, and in this search, there is no earthly finality.

Both proved even more powerful in death than in life. Since neither Socrates nor Jesus published anything their posthumous impact could be achieved only by others institutionalizing them. Plato institutionalized Socrates, while Saint Paul institutionalized Jesus:

1. Plato reduced the message of Socrates to writing and, along with Aristotle, laid the foundation of the modern university.
2. St. Paul interpreted the message of Jesus in a form comprehensible. to Greeks and Romans and laid the foundation for the Christian church.




Source credit: Professor Rufus Fears, University of Oklahoma

[TexanManWithPlans]

Jesus didn't exist, though. Remove the magic tricks and all you have left is Essene philosophy and Jewish mysticism. Oh, and John's gospel adds in some Hellenstic philosophy.

[BidenPresident]

Big difference. Jesus was a Jew in Roman control. Socrates was a free man.

Socrates was not religious.

[Cypress]

Jesus didn't exist, though. Remove the magic tricks and all you have left is Essene philosophy and Jewish mysticism. Oh, and John's gospel adds in some Hellenstic philosophy.

There is no serious scholar of religious studies who would agree that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. The balance of scholarly evidence is there was a Jewish philosopher by that name.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...45#post3207445

The authors of the Gospels were highly educated Greek speakers, suggesting they were Hellenic Jews or Hellenistic gentiles - rendering us unsurprised that elements of Greek thought crops up in the NT. The premise of the immortal soul goes back to Socrates and Plato.

[Cypress]

Big difference. Jesus was a Jew in Roman control. Socrates was a free man.

Socrates was not religious.

right, different historical contexts bewtween occupied Palestine and the city state of Athens.

However, Socrates believed humans have an immortal soul --- that is a very spiritual/religious take on the human condition by any measure.

[BidenPresident]

However, Socrates believed the soul is immortal, which is a very spiritual/religious take on the human condition by any measure.

No, Socrates never endorsed religion. At the end of his life he wondered whether the soul is immortal or not. He believed it was, though he knew there was no proof.

[Matt Dillon]

Jesus and Socrates invite comparison as two of the greatest teachers in history and as seminal figures in the story of freedom.

Both were true philosophers, lovers of wisdom who saw their teaching as a vocation—not a career—and who lived and died as witnesses to the truth. Both brought messages of individual liberation and salvation to societies rooted in communal concepts of freedom.

As lovers of wisdom, Both Socrates and Jesus were concerned with the individual’s soul:

1. Socrates turned from the study of science to the soul.
2. Jesus had no interest in a political kingdom of God; his kingdom of God was in the individual’s soul.

The teachings of both Socrates and Jesus aimed at leading the individual to ethical decisions.

Both aroused bitter enmity among their peers—Sophists and Pharisees. Both were tried and sentenced to death by a jury of their peers on charges of blasphemy and treason.

Socrates was charged:
1. With blasphemy or atheism: refusing to believe in the gods of Athens, but in new, different divinities.
2. With treason: corrupting the young.

Jesus was convicted:
1. Of blasphemy before the Jewish Sanhedrin.
2. Of treason, for claiming to be king of the Jews, before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.

In each case, the charges were completely false. Both Socrates and Jesus were the victims of envy and slander. The most effective form of slander, “the Big Lie,” was used against both teachers.

The real reason that both teachers were convicted and executed was that both Socrates and Jesus struck at the heart of the community.

Neither Socrates or Jesus published. Why did Socrates and Jesus not publish?
1. Publication is an act of finality. It suggests that you know the truth.
2. The true philosopher is always searching for the truth, and in this search, there is no earthly finality.

Both proved even more powerful in death than in life. Since neither Socrates nor Jesus published anything their posthumous impact could be achieved only by others institutionalizing them. Plato institutionalized Socrates, while Saint Paul institutionalized Jesus:

1. Plato reduced the message of Socrates to writing and, along with Aristotle, laid the foundation of the modern university.
2. St. Paul interpreted the message of Jesus in a form comprehensible. to Greeks and Romans and laid the foundation for the Christian church.




Source credit: Professor Rufus Fears, University of Oklahoma

It used to be US colleges institutionalized Socrates. It seems that has largely has been gotten away from in favor of critical theory and critical pedagogy.

[Matt Dillon]

Jesus didn't exist, though. Remove the magic tricks and all you have left is Essene philosophy and Jewish mysticism. Oh, and John's gospel adds in some Hellenstic philosophy.

Oh? What about Ethiopian history that predates The Constantinian Bible?

[Cypress]

No, Socrates never endorsed religion. At the end of his life he wondered whether the soul is immortal or not. He believed it was, though he knew there was no proof.

What I am saying is that if we meet anyone today who believes humans have an immortal soul, we would consider that person to be spiritual and religious -- even if they do not affiliate with an organized church or religion.

[BidenPresident]

What I am saying is that if we meet anyone today who believes humans have an immortal soul, we would consider that person to be spiritual and religious -- even if they do not affiliate with an organized church or religion.

I guess. Immortality of the seems like a stupid idea to me.

[TexanManWithPlans]

There is no serious scholar of religious studies who would agree that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. The balance of scholarly evidence is there was a Jewish philosopher by that name.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...45#post3207445

The authors of the Gospels were highly educated Greek speakers, suggesting they were Hellenic Jews or Hellenistic gentiles - rendering us unsurprised that elements of Greek thought crops up in the NT. The premise of the immortal soul goes back to Socrates and Plato.

Lol.

[TexanManWithPlans]

Oh? What about Ethiopian history that predates The Constantinian Bible?

I'm unsure what you're driving at. I never denied the existence of Christianity in Ethiopia.

[NiftyNiblick]

My requisite non-sequitur of the day [less tolerant members might call it an attempted thread-jacking, but it's not intended that way]:

Don't you hate the term "Platonic" for a non-physical friendship between members of opposite gender?
Who knows that much about Plato's personal friendships with women to make his name a word for the practice?
He probably didn't sleep with them, given that he's thought to have been gay, but what did he do with them?
We may be using his name not knowing that he was into all sorts of stuff that didn't involve actual vaginal penetration but might still be considered indelicate, even if not sexual.

Let's come up with a better word to describe a friendship with a member of the opposite sex that's rather similar to the friendships we have with members of our own sex.
Or is a word for that even needed?

[Cypress]

My requisite non-sequitur of the day [less tolerant members might call it an attempted thread-jacking, but it's not intended that way]:

Don't you hate the term "Platonic" for a non-physical friendship between members of opposite gender?
Who knows that much about Plato's personal friendships with women to make his name a word for the practice?
He probably didn't sleep with them, given that he's thought to have been gay, but what did he do with them?
We may be using his name not knowing that he was into all sorts of stuff that didn't involve actual vaginal penetration but might still be considered indelicate, even if not sexual.

Let's come up with a better word to describe a friendship with a member of the opposite sex that's rather similar to the friendships we have with members of our own sex.
Or is a word for that even needed?

It is weird, and it did not dawn on me until a few years ago that the term Platonic friendship is a reference to Plato. Seems totally incongruous.

If anything, non-sexual frienships should be named after Aristotle since he wrote a whole treatise on friendship.

I propose Aristotelian friendship as the proper and relevant colloquial term which should be used

[Cypress]

There is no serious scholar of religious studies who would agree that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. The balance of scholarly evidence is there was a Jewish philosopher by that name.

Lol!

Scholarly consensus:

"Virtually all scholars who have investigated the history of the Christian movement find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain." - Wikipedia

"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed" - Graham Stanton, Professor of Religious History, Kings College, London

"Jesus certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian agrees." - Dr. Bart Ehrman, professor of religious studies" University of North Carolina

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Stanton, Graham (2002). The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford Bible Series) (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 145.

Ehrman, 2011. Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. p. 285