You are like that, Greeks, elegant to speak, but crazy to think, because you have come to prefer the sovereignty of several gods to the monarchy of one God, as if you think you are following powerful demons. Tatien (around AD 120-180). [one]
Therefore, it is relatively unsafe for a person to believe in God’s existence or not. Existence is a pseudoconception. The important question is “Who is God?”To this question, Christianity offers a Trinitarian answer. Gordon H. Clark (1902-1985). [2]
- In ancient Greece.
- Atheism.
- [3] actually.
- “ungodliness?”(A) if/beia) to the gods [4] was the common accusation made to those who criticized the predominant religion.
- Neglecting their ritual obligations.
- Considered antisocial.
- [5].
If the person was public or influential, this accusation could serve as revenge or discredit public opinion. The best-known case is that of the philosopher Socrates (469-399 BC), who, among other accusations, had the idea of “not believing in the gods in which people believe, but in other new deities”. [6]
But actually, despite the old “atheists” lists. Greeks, [7] whose belief is called by Plato (427-347 BC). JC) “disease” [8]?It was extremely difficult to prove without a doubt that any Greek thinker had been a “pure” atheist. What happened was different: although ancient Greek paganism was full of legends and superstitions, some thinkers sometimes opposed popular beliefs and customs, declaring something relevant. historical-religious works that dominated the minds of peoples [9].
There is, for example, the perception that men tended to make of their gods in their image and likeness. In fact, it is a characteristic of the human being, projecting his world of himself, [10] giving a kind of?Change? Good bye.
Calvin (1509-1564) says that man intends to usurp God’s place: “Everyone becomes god and worships virtually himself, when he attributes to his own power what God declares belongs to him exclusively. “[11] However, Calvin’s understanding of the believing man remains: “The faithful heart does not invent a god of his liking, but focuses on the one true God, and does not attribute to him what seems good, but rejoices in God’s reveals himself to him?[12] And, “The only foundation of every religion is the immutable truth of God. “[13]
Xen-fanes makes a harsh and relevant criticism of Homer and Hesiod
Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods all that is shameful and shameful to men: theft, adultery, and mutual fraud.
So many pious actions contrary to the law mattered: theft, adultery and mutual fraud.
But mortals imagine that the gods are designed, have similar clothes, voice, and shape.
If oxen, horses, and lions had hands and could, with them, paint and produce works like men, the horses would paint figures of gods resembling horses and oxen, each (animal species) reproducing their own form.
Ethiopians say their gods are black and flat-nosed, Thracians say they have blue eyes and red hair. [14]
Xenophanes proposed a vision apparently close to monotheism or at least to a “non-anthropomorphic polytheism”, [15] but still cosmological, identifying, as Aristotle points out, that, that is, the universe, [16] as God [17] Xenophanes writes: “One god, the greatest among gods and men, neither in figure nor in thought similar to mortals. “[18] In fact, Xenophanes stands out to a supreme god above other gods and men. [19]
Reale (1931-2014) and Antiseri point out that “after criticism of Xenophanes, Western man will never again be able to conceive of the divine in human forms and measures. “
Who, with Socrates, Justin considers himself a Christian before Christ?[21] He ridicules the anthropomorphism and idolatry of contemporary religion, directing his critique towards the practice of sacrifice as a means of purification and towards prayers made to images:
In vain they seek to purify themselves, staining themselves with the new blood of the victims, as if, soiled with mud, they wanted to wash themselves with mud, and he would consider himself a madman if someone found him doing it. their prayers to the statues, as if it were possible to converse with the buildings, without realizing what the gods and heroes are. [22]
This may reveal what Heráclito says in Fragment 79: “Man is childish before divinity, like the child before man. “However, we must stress that it was not irreligious, it simply disagreed with the religious practice I had seen. [23]
Heráclito, fleeing the idea of fatalism, understood that man is responsible for his actions, so he said, “Is character a demon to man?(Dai / mwn) (Frag. , 119). [24]
Empédocle speaks of the privilege of knowing God, who is a spiritual being:
Blessed is the man who acquired the treasure of divine wisdom; wre fa wre fa wre fa wre fa wre fa wre acted that has a dark opinion on the gods.
It is not possible for us to place (the deity) within reach of our eyes or catch it with our hands, the main ways in which persuasion penetrates the heart of man.
Because his body (of divinity) is not equipped with a human head; two arms do not rise from their shoulders, feet, or agile knees, or hair-covered parts; It’s just a spirit; moves, holy and superhuman, and traverses the entire cosmos with quick thoughts. [25]
In Greek history, the 5th century BC. C. is usually called “Golden Age of Athens?” Or “Century of Pericles”, in particular, but not exclusively, associated with the period in which Pericles ruled Athens (444-429 BC).
At that time, Athens experienced its great political, artistic, literary and social development, in addition to the preparation of a well-trained army.
This is a moment of great democratic development in Athens; assemblies and tribunals depended on the rhetorical capacity of their participants; discourse was the most effective way to gain influence, power, and honor, or to defend against enemies; rhetoric has taken on an unprecedented character. state of political weapon, ensuring victory for those who knew how to use it better.
On this subject, write Jaeger (1888-1961)
The faculty of oratory is situated on an identical plane to that of the inspiration of the muses with poets, and lies above all in the judicied ability to utter decisive and well-founded words (?) The classical era simply calls the speaker a rhetorical politician. (?) At this stage, the political formation of leaders must be based on eloquence, which has necessarily become the formation of the speaker [26].
This century is marked by profound changes. Victory in the Medical Wars (499-449 BC), [27] when the Persian invaders were expelled from the Helénic lands (Marathon (490); [28] Salamina (480) [29] and Plateia (479)[30]) brought prosperity to trade, increased wealth and, above all, development and splendor of their culture.
Pericles (499-429 BC) endowed Athens with a democratic constitution; the political and civil life of the city acquired new aspects, awakening a new intellectual interest; concern for the origin of the material world, as we have seen, which was characteristic of earlier times, now gives way to man’s concern. In this context, fundamentally sophisticators, eloquent speakers, rhetorical speakers and pedagogues emerged, the purpose of which was the education of the nobles, [31] notably in Grammar, Literature, Philosophy, Religion and, above all, Rhetoric.
The sophists were teachers who had a great influence in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. Severe criticism of the religion practiced arose from them. Protagoras (around 480-410 BC), for example, based on the principle that man is the lord and the norm of all reality, led his thinking through complete subjectivism, saying, “Is man the measure of all things that are as they are and who are not as they are?[32]
From this concept he deduces his theological agnosticism which, it seems to us, was the only possible way to be consistent with his relativistic thinking. Therefore, your understanding: “As for the gods, I cannot know if they exist or if they exist. they do not exist or what their form may be, for there are many obstacles to their knowledge: the darkness of the problem and the brevity of man’s life?[33].
One of his contemporaries, disciple of Parmenides (530-460 a. C. ), Melisso de Samos (around 490-430 BC), also shared the same agnosticism, according to the testimony of Disgenes Laércio:?Isn’t it possible to meet them? [34]
Calvin mentions that the Greek poet Simonides de Ceos (c. 557-c. 468 BC) . JC), when the tyrant Hieron I of Syracuse asked him what God would be, after a few days of reflection, he replied, “The more I think the darker the subject seems to me?[35]
Thrasymaca of Chalcedon (459-400 BC), understanding that justice is always the strongest, [36] argued that the gods were invented by the rulers to frighten men. However, if they exist, they have no action or concern matters. [37] In fact, the concept of a god indifferent to human problems was not strange in the 5th / 4th centuries BC. C. , as Plato (427-347 BC) points out, even fighting this notion [38].
Another respected sophist and speaker, Predico de Céos (c. 465- around 399 BC), disciple of Protágoras (c. 480-410 BC), “Precursor of Socrates,” pessimistic about life, argued that we should not fear death, for we will never find it: when death comes, we will no longer exist. He understood that all goods, including the divine one, came to us only with great effort, with the worship of the gods as a fundamental ingredient: “The gods do not grant to men any of the beautiful and good things without fatigue or study, but if you want the gods to be kind to you, should you worship them?
According to Prodicus, according to the available documentation, the origin of religion was associated with the gratitude of men, who called the gods things useful for life, such as the sun, moon, rivers, lakes, food, and wine.
Plato (427-347 BC), with correct discernment, understood that one of the evils of his time was the corrosion of religion practiced by supposed priests and prophets?what he calls beggars and soothsayers, that exploited the credulity of the people, especially the rich.
In the context described, one of the formulas used by these religious leaders was to make people believe that they could change the will of the gods by offering sacrifices or, through certain enchantments, so that the gods would be limited and unethical, without moral norm, guided by human seductions:
Beggars and soothsayers come to the gates of the rich to try to persuade them that they have the power, given by the gods because of sacrifices and enchantments, to heal for pleasures and feasts, for sacrifices, for any crime committed by themselves or their ancestors, and on the other hand, if you want to harm an enemy , for a small fee, will they harm the righteous and the unjust with the same ease, persuading the gods to be your servants?innovations and witchcraft. For all these pretensions, they invoke the gods as witnesses, some by addiction, guarantors of facilities (?). Others, to show how the gods are influenced by men, invoke Homer’s testimony, because he also said, “Flexible even the gods are. With your prayers, through sacrifices, vows of pleasure, libations, fat of victims, do men make us propitious, when someone has escaped and made a mistake?(Lyada IX. 497-501) [41].
Plato made harsh criticisms, particularly homer and Hesiod for having forged concepts of God that, in his opinion, did not correspond to reality [42]; Why such legends?that were mixed with true and false elements [43]?they should not be counted on children and young people, as they would corrupt their formation. The first stories to be told should be the noblest, the ones that steer in the direction of virtue. [44] For him, God was above our rational capacity and, though perceived, would be incommunicable: ??. Discovering the author and father of this universe is a great success, and when it has been discovered, is it impossible to make known to all?[45]
Plato points out precisely that the Creator who formed the universe is a personal and good being:
He was good and envy is never born in which he is good. Free of envy, I wanted everything to be born as close as possible to him. (?) God wanted everything to be good: He excluded, by his power, all imperfection, so he took all this visible mass, devoid of all rest, changing without measure and order, and put it from disorder in order, he felt that order is worth infinitely more than disorder [46].
There is also an interesting aspect: although the question of monotheism is not discussed among Greek philosophers, [47] therefore:?God? And? Gods?These are interchangeable expressions; Is there any very quoted fragment among the ancients ?, written by Antstenes of Athens (c. 450-360 BC) . JC), first sophist and later disciple of Socrates (469-399 BC). JC), in which it says: as Cicero mentions (106-43 BC): ????Antstenes (?) In his book Natural Philosophy, does he destroy the power and personality of the gods by saying that although popular religion recognizes many gods, there is only one God in nature?[48].
Later, Christian apologists, inspired by these critics and other Greek and Roman philosophers “impatient with useless deities,” would use similar methods to criticize the Greek religion and that of other peoples[49].
In the centuries after the New Testament, the question of adopting Greek philosophical views was not peaceful. There were those who agreed and others who understood that Christianity had nothing to do with pagan thought. Here’s what we’ll see on the next topic.
[1] Taciano, Speech against the Greeks, Sao Paulo: Paulus, 1995, 14. P. 80.
[2] Gordon H. Clark, atheism: In: Carl Henry, org. Dictionary of Christian Ethics, Sao Paulo: Cultura Crist, 2007, p. 63 See also: Gordon H. Clark, God: In: E. F. Harrison, ed. Theological Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: T. E. L. L. , 1985, p. 157-167.
[3] In classical Greek there were the terms a) / qeoj (“ungodly” or “abandoned by the gods”) (cf. Liddell
[4] In classical Greek, the word was not reserved only for religious content, it had a broader use, involving behavior (ethical content). Plato, for example, uses it in the sense of “evil” (?) The gods and the parents?(Platon, The Republic, 7th ed. Lisbon: Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian, (1993), 615c) and, contempt for men (Platon, The Republic, 391c). See several examples in: W. Foerster, a (sebh/j, etc. : In: G. Friedrich; Gerhard Kittel, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 8. Ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. , (reprinted) 1982, v. . 7, pp. 185-187 See also: W. Gonther, Piedade: En: Colin Brown, ed. , The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Sao Paulo: Vida Nova, 1981-1983, v. 3, pp. 544-547 In the New Testament, the word has the common use of wickedness: Rom 1:18; 11,26; 2 Tim 2. 16; Titus 2,12; Thu 15. 18.
[5] As for the gradual distinction between the terms a) qeo / thj eoa) sebe / ia, see: W. Foerster, a (sebh/j, etc. : In: G. Friedrich; Gerhard Kittel, eds. Dictionary of the Will, c. 7, p. 186.
[6] Plato, Defense of Socrates, São Paulo: Cultural April, (Os Pensadores, v. 2), 1972, 24b-c. P. 17. (See: Jean-Yves Lacoste, Atheism: In: Jean-Yves Lacoste, dir. Dictionary of Critical Theology, Sao Paulo: Paulinas; Loyola, 2004, p. 204-205). Of course, there are many other cases. Another acquaintance is that of Dagoras of Melos (c. 465-410 BC), because in all the mentions made in his name, the nickname of ‘the atheist’, a disciple of Democrite, who was accused of impiety while teaching in Athens (411 BC) due to his alleged atheism (See: Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, England: Pinguin Books, 1972, I. 1. p. 69; III. 88-90, p. 232) (See: WKC Guthrie , The Sophists, Sao Paulo: Paulus, 1995, p. 220-221; Atheism: In: William Fleming, The Vocabulary OF Philosophy, Mental, Moral, and Metaphysical, 2. Ed. New York: Sheldon
[7] See W. K. C. Guthrie, The Sophists, p. 220-221. See: Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, I. 1; Joel Calvino, The Institutes, I. 3. 3.
[8] Plato uses the phrase :?Illness of atheism? (Platon, The Laws, Bauru, SP. : EDIPRO, 1999, p. 357-358, 402). Chapter X of his book is dedicated to the defense of religion by combating certain forms of atheism. See a good summary of this chapter in: Atheism: N. Abbagnano, Philosophy Dictionary, 2. ed. Sao Paulo: Mestre Jou, 1982, p. 82-83.
[9] See some examples of dissatisfaction at: W. K. C. Guthrie, The Sophists, 212s.
[10] Do man in general and primitive man in particular tend to imagine the world outside his image?(Bronislaw Malinowski, Magic, Science and Religion, Lisbon: Edies Seventa, (s. d. ), p. 20).
[11] Joao Calvino, The Book of Psalms, Sao Paulo: Paracletos, 2002, c. 3, (Ps 100,1-3), 549.
[12] Joel Calvino, The Institutes of Christian Religion: Special Edition with Study and Research Notes, Sao Paulo: Cultura Crist, 2006, v. 1, (I. 1), p. 61.
[13] Joel Calvino, As Pastorais, Sao Paulo: Paracletos, 1998, (Tt 1. 2), p. 303.
[14] Xenophanes, Fragments, 11-16. In: Gerd A. Bornheim, org. The Pre-Socratic Philosophers, 3rd ed. São Paulo: Cultrix, 1977, p. 32. Later, did a second century Christian writer apologize for Christianity? who was severely persecuted during the reign of Hadrian (117-138 AD), who is his writing addressed to ?, criticizes Greek polytheism 😕 The Greeks, who claim to be wise, were more ignorant than the Chaldeans, a multitude of gods who were born, some men, other women, slaves of all passions and interpreters of all kinds of iniquities. They themselves said that their gods were adulterers and murderers, angry, envious and evil, parricides and fratricides, thieves and lame and hunchbacked and thieves, witches and fools. (?) Then we see, oh king, how ridiculous, silly and impious are the words that the Greeks introduced, naming beings who are not gods. They did this, according to their evil desires, so that, having gods as defenders of their evil, they could fall into adultery, theft, murder, and all kinds of vices. In fact, if the gods did all this, how could the men who worshiped them do it? (?) Men imitated all this and became adulterers and perverts and, imitating their god, committed all kinds of vices. Now, how can we conceive that God is adulterous, perverted and parricidal? (Aristides of Athens, Apology, I. 8-9. In: Apologist Fathers, São Paulo: Paulus, 1995, p. 43-45).
[15] W. K. C. Guthrie, The Sophists, p. 211
[16] See: Giovanni Reale; Dario Antiseri, History of Philosophy: Antiquity and Middle Ages, Sao Paulo: Paulus, 1990, v. 1, 49.
[17] Aristotle, Metaphysics, Sao Paulo: Cultural April, (Os Pensadores, v. 4), 1973, I. 5, p. 223.
[18] Xen-fans, Fragment, 23
[19] Cfr. Etienne Gilson, The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy, Sao Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2006, p. 55.
[20] Giovanni Reale; Dario Antiseri, History of Philosophy: Antiquity and Middle Ages, v. 1, 48.
[21] Justin of Rome, I Apollogia, Sao Paulo: Paulus, 1995, 46. 3. P. 61-62.
[22] Hereclito, Frag. , 5. See also: Fragment, 14. On Herclito, Bréhier comments:? The wisdom of Herclito despises what the common person refers to: starting from popular religion, the veneration of images and, above all, mysterious, Orphic or Dionysian cults (Frags. , 5,14,15), with their vile purifications by blood, merchants of mysteries, that feed the ignorance of men about the afterlife? (Yes, Bréhier, History of Philosophy, Sao Paulo: Mestre Jou, 1977, I / 1, p. 53).
[23] Heráclito, Frags. , 14/67
[24] Let us remember that for the Greeks, man at birth is bound to a dai/mwn (“god”, “goddess”, “divine power”, “destination”, “lucky”) and that this determines his destiny for good or evil. Note that the Greek word for happiness is me) daimoni /a (good demon). In the fragment of Heráclito, he seems to criticize the dominant conception of “destiny”, blaming man for his conduct (See: FE Peters, Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon, 2. Ed. Lisbon: Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian, (1983), p. 47-48). Kirk and Raven comment: “Dai/mwn here simply means a man’s personal destiny; this is determined by his own character, over which man has a certain dominion, and not by external and often capricious powers that act, perhaps, by a “genius”. Attributed to each individual by chance or by chance? (GSKirk; JERaven , The Pre-Socratic Philosophers, 2. ed. Lisbon: Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian, 1982, p. 216-217).
Dai / mwn means “god”, “goddess”, “destiny”, “demon”, “superhuman power”. Dai / mwn is a more general word than Qeo / j, although it is not precise. Then how? Qeo / d?,? Dai / mwn? it is also uncertain terminology. It is suggested that the word comes from dai / omai (=? Divide?,? Share?), Meaning? Tear?,? Separate ?, and therefore be linked to the concept of dai / mwn as the one that consumes the body. (See: Werner Foerster, dai / mwn: In: G. Friedrich; Gerhard Kittel, eds. Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 8. ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. , (reprinted) 1982 , v. 2, p. 2). “Could there be any connection to the idea of the god of the dead as the one who divides corpses?” (Cf. H. Bietenhard, Demon: In: Colin Brown, ed. Ger. The New International Dictionary of Theology of the New Testament, São Paulo: Vida Nova, 1981, v. 1, p. 594. See also, Werner Foerster , dai / mwn: In: G. Friedrich; Gerhard Kittel, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, v. 2, p. 2). Another explanation is found in Plato (427-347 BC), which one did he derive? Daimõn? of? Demon? (? Wise?,? Skillful?), From? Own wisdom? (Plato, Cratylus, 398b-c).
Socrates (469-399 BC) told his torturers that as a child he heard voices calling him on a mission and preventing him from performing certain tasks. Does this inspiration, Socrates say, come from a God or a genius?(Daimo / nion) (Platon, Defense of Socrates, 31 CDs), which he calls somewhere “good”, having been judged by few people (Platon, A Repeblica, 7 ed. Lisbon: Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian , (1993), 496c). In Emedocus (circa 450 a. C. ), the? Dai / mwn? Is he a spiritual being?Different from? Yuxh /? Or herself ?, who has accompanied the man since birth (Frag. , 115 See: H. Bietenhard, Demon: In: Colin Brown, editor, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, v. 1, p. 594; FE Peters, Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon, 2. ed. Lisbon: Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian, (1983), p. . 48; Kirk GS; JE Raven, The Presocratic Philosophers, p. 364-365). Plato also identified him as the soul (Platon, Timée, Sao Paulo: Hemus, (sd), 90a), being the?Dai / mwn? Some kind of angel? It retains us (Platon, Republic, 620d), but we chose it (Platon, Republic, 617d-e).
In Greek mythology, the? Daimo / nion? he is a lower god, an intermediary between gods and mortals. (Hesiod, Theogony, 120). In Homer? Dai / mwn? is used interchangeably with? Qeo / d? (The Iliad, Rio de Janeiro: Editora Tecnoprint, (s. f. ), XVII. 98. 99; Plato, Apology, 27d), although? Qeo / d? it was, as we have already mentioned, a more precise word than “dai / mwn”. Plato followed the concept of Hesiod, attributing to? Daimo / nion? the condition of intermediary, allowing the dialogue of the gods with men (Plato, Le banquet, 202e-203a). They are children of the gods (Qew ++ = n) (Plato, Defense of Socrates, 27 c-d), having been created by? Dhmiourgo / d? (? The creator of the world?), Who creates the lower beings responsible for the creation of living beings (Plato, Timaeus, 29d-30c; 41a-c; Plato, The Republic, 530a; Xenophon, words and memorable deeds of Socrates, São Paulo: Cultural April, (Os Pensadores, v. 2), 1972, I. 4. 7; IV. 3. 13). This design of? Dhmiourgo / d? it was assumed by the Gnostics. (See: Irineu, Against Heresies, I. 5. 2-3). Valentino considered it the last of the eons (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, IV. 13: In: Alexander Roberts; James Donaldson, eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ed. Peabody, Mass . : Hendrickson Publishers, 1995, v. 2 , pages 425-426). Plato also describes them like this: “Zeus, the great conductor of heaven, gets on his winged chariot, gives orders and takes care of everything. Do you follow the army of the gods (Qew ++ = n) and the demons (daimo / nion), divided between eleven tribes? (Plato, Phaedrus, 246e-247). Homer considered Zeus as an extremely powerful god, being the? Father of gods and men? and stronger than all the other gods combined. (Homer, The Iliad, VIII, p. 133 and following).
After death, the souls of men choose their “Dai / mwn” to protect their lives (A Repeblica, 617th; 620d); become the souls of “good men?”in the demon (Platon, Cratylus, 398b-c). Therefore, the good man, dead or alive, must be called a demon (Cratylus, 398c).
Plotin said that? Dai / mwn? Is it one?Image of God? And that the demons are in the second order, after the gods, men, and animals that follow them (Plotin, Enéads, VI. 7. 6; III. 2. 11. See Demon: In: Nicola Abbagnano , Dictionary of Philosophy, 2. ed Sao Paulo: Mestre Jou, 1982, p. 224).
[25] Empédocle, Fragments, 132-134 In: Gerd A. Bornheim, org. Pre-Socratic Philosophers, 3rd ed. Sao Paulo: Cultrix, 1977, p. 80-81.
[26] Werner Jaeger, Paideia: The Formation of the Greek Man, 2. ed. Sao Paulo; Brasilia, DF. : Martins Fontes; Universidad Editora de Brasilia, 1989, p. 236.
[27] Also known as the Greco-Persian Wars and the Persian Wars
[28] See the description of this battle in: Heredotus, Histaria, Rio de Janeiro: Ediouro, (s. d. ), VI. 93-120.
[29] Herodotus, History, VIII. 24-96.
[30] Herodotus, History, IX. 1-107, 115-121
[31] See Werner Jaeger, Paideia: The Formation of the Greek Man, p. 236.
[32] Apud Plato, Teeteto: En: Teeteto e Cretilo, Belém: Federal University of Paro, 1988, 152a; 160c. Also quoted in Plato, Cratylus, 385a. Aristotle (384-322 BC), says:?The beginning (?) Expressed by Protagoras, who pretended that man is the measure (me/tron) of all things (?), Something different from what each one thinks is certainly the But, if this is true, it is followed that the same is and is not at the same time and that he is good and bad at the same time, and therefore, in this way, brings together all opposites, because often something seems beautiful to some and ugly to others, and how should it be seen for everyone?(Aristotle, Metaphysics, XI, 6. 1. 062). (For a bilingual, Greek-Portuguese edition, see: Arist-teles, Metafsica, Sao Paulo: Loyola, 2002. Available at: https://moodle. ufsc. br/pluginfile. php/1332285/mod_resource/content/1 / Aristoteles-Metaphysics-Edicoes Loyola (2002) . pdf (recovered on 28/12/19). Plato, unlike Protagoras, understood that the measure of all things was in God. “In our eyes, will divinity be the measure of all things?to the highest degree? (Platon, Laws, Bauru, SP. : EDIPRO, 1999, IV, 716c. P. 189).
[33] Degenes de Laercio, Lives, opinions and phrases of the most illustrious philosophers, Buenos Aires: El Ateneo, (1947), X, p. 581-582. We also see it: also: Rodolfo Mondolfo, O Pensamento Antigo, 3 . Ed. Sao Paulo: Mestre Jou, 1971, vol. 1, p. 144-145.
[34] Melisso de Samos, Dox. 3. In: Gerd A. Bornheim, org. Presocratic philosophers, p. 66 See also the quotation from Cicero (Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, I. 1, 29, 63, 117).
[35] Joo Calvino, The Institutes, I. 5. 12. Then Calvin comments on the inadequacy of revelation in nature so that man acquires a solid and precious knowledge of God.
[36] Plato, The Republic, 7th ed. Lisbon: Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian, (1993), 338th-339a; 343c-344c.
[37] Plato, The Republic, 336b; 338c. /Plato, Lois, 889th
[38] See: Xenophon, the memorable words and deeds of Socrates, I. 4. 10ss; Plato, Laws, 885b, 888c. Plato, The Republic, 365d-e
[39] Prodicus, Das Horas, Fragment, 2. See: also: Xénophon, Socrates’ Memorable Sayings and Deeds, II. 1. 28; Plato, Protagoras, 315c. Barclay (1907-1978) writes: “For the Greek mind, the first characteristic of God was apathy. This word means more than apathy: it means a total inability to feel. The Greeks held that God could not feel. If he could feel joy or sadness, disgust or pity, it meant that at that moment someone had affected him. If so, it meant that man had influenced God; therefore, it was more powerful than him. Therefore, they argue that God must be incapable of feeling every feeling and that nothing can affect it. Was a God in pain a contradiction to the Greeks? (William Barclay, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Buenos Aires: La Aurora, 1973, p. 30-31). In fact, this characteristic developed more widely with Stoicism. See: S. Lilla, Apátheia: In: Ângelo Di Berardino, org. Dictionary of Patristic and Christian Antiquities, Petrópolis, RJ . ; São Paulo: Voice; Paulinas, 2002, p. 125-126; Apátheia: In: F. E. Peters, Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon, 2nd ed. Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, (1983), p. 31-32. For a classic study of the sophists and their contributions, see: Eduard Zeller, Sócrates y los Sofistas, Buenos Aires: Editorial Nova, 1955).
[40] See: Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, I. 118; W. K. C. Guthrie, The Sophists, Sao Paulo: Paulus, 1995, p. 221-224.
[41] Plato, The Republic, 364c-e
[42] Plato, The Republic, 377d; 382a-383a; 388b-d. Behind this criticism of Plato lies the current concept of the word “theology”.
The word? That does not appear in the scriptures, is the result of the union of two Greek terms:?Qeo/j? God? And
The word?Theology ?, seems to have been incorporated into the Christian language in the 4th and 5th centuries, referring to the true understanding of the Sacred Scriptures (see for example the form used by Eusebio of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Madrid: La Editorial Catolica, SA , (Library of Christian Authors), 1973, I. 2. 3; II, prologue 1; III. 24. 13) . The evangelist John was appointed by him?Fathers of the Church? The ‘theologian’, because he discussed in more detail the ‘internal relations of the people of the Trinity’ (AHStrong, Systematic Theology, 35. ed. , Valley Forge, PA. : The Judson Press, 1993, p. 1). Subsequently, this same title will be given to Gregory of Nazianzo (c. 330-389), in particular because of his defense of the divinity of Christ (distinction approved in Chalcedon, 451) (see Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996, v. 8, p. 26). During the Reformation, Melanchthon would categorically call Calvin the “theologian” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, c. 8, p. 260; Philip Schaff, The Creeds OF Christendom, 6. Ed. Revised and Enlarged, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, (1931), v. 1, p. 446)
[43] Plato, The Republic, 377a
[44] Plato, The Republic, 378th.
[45] Plato, Timeu, 28. See also, Rudolf Otto, O Sagrado, Sao Bernardo do Campo, SP: Methodist Press; Postgraduate Ecumenical Program in Religious Sciences, 1985, p. 96.
[46] Plato, Timeo, 29-30. Agustín raises the possibility that Plato may have contact with the scriptures (Agustín, The City of God, 2. Ed. Petrapolis, RJ. : Voices, 1990, (v. 1), VIII . 11). He believes plato may have known the prophet Jeremiah in Egypt (St. Augustine, The Christian Doctrine, Sao Paulo: Paulinas, 1991, II. 29. P. 135). Arist-bulo (circa 150 BC) seeks to demonstrate that Plato and Pythagoras may have had contact with Old Testament writings (see Nicola Abbagnano, History of Philosophy, 3. ed. Lisbon: Editorial Presenca, (1984), v. . 2, 119, p. 78).
[47] See: Etienne Gilson, The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy, Sao Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2006, p. 54ss.
[48] Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, I. 32. Ver: W. K. C. Guthrie, The Sophists, p. 230-231.
[49] Cfr. Michael Green, Evangelization in the Early Church, Sao Paulo: Vida Nova, 1984, p. Sixteen.