4 Answers

  1. I will tell you my opinion, sorry if it does not coincide with the academic one. In my opinion, Aristotle profaned Plato's teaching. He combined the concepts of Eternity and time. Previously, everything had its own time, but everyone has one Eternity. By making time infinite, he removed the concept of allotted time. Previously, everyone was born in due time and left in due time, there was a concept of predestination. In Aristotle, everything is random.
    The Bible contains remnants of Plato's teaching. Therefore, time in the Bible is not identified with Eternity.

  2. Because the Abrahamic religions are based on the revelation of the One God, and not on the ancient Greek (or any other) philosophical system. Although Aristotle's philosophy was actively used by medieval theologians.

  3. it is very difficult for a person living in our world , thoroughly imbued with Greek philosophy, to understand that Judaism has never needed and will never need any Greek philosophical schools and their “discoveries”

  4. Aristotle's” eternity ” is represented as an infinite series of moments (quanta of time) with no beginning or end. It seemed that the most important “concept of God” in any religion is precisely this: God is beginningless and infinite.

    However, this is not as wonderful as it seems at first glance. Since God in religion must be “not of this world “(fluid, changeable, contradictory, evolving in time and space). The simplest solution is to make “not this world” the exact opposite of “this world” (absolute, ideal, unchangeable, consistent, creationist “given” once and for all). Although in the texts of the Bible there are no such words (absolute, ideal, etc.) at all (and by” immutability “of God was meant only the impossibility of God to cease to be God or, in other words, to change from “good” to “evil”).

    For the same reason, God and “not this world” should be completely abstract to “this world”, i.e. any of His “intervention” (providence) in “this world” should look like a ” miracle “(violating all the “laws of physics”). As a bonus to this, priests of any religion get a unique opportunity to say “on behalf of God” whatever they want (without caring that what they say “corresponds to reality”, and after all, the truth according to Aristotle is the identity of consciousness with its being in “this world”).

    Therefore, the philosophy of Aristotle is not “suitable” as the basis of any religion. Another thing is Plato with his “eidos” that have an independent existence from “this world “(ideal, absolute, not subject to changes and time). This is precisely why Plato's philosophy (or rather the “neo-Platonists”) had a huge impact on the development of dogmatic theology (this is why Plato and his philosophy are often called the “pagan forerunner” of their religion by theologians and religious philosophers).

    However, as soon as a practical question arose that required a theological justification (for example, the dogma of the Trinity), it was Aristotle who was sought for “inspiration” (the” idea ” of hypostatic being is taken from the writings of Aristotle, and with direct references to Aristotle in the holy Fathers). It was Aristotle who was the “authority” for which all new “ideas” (scientific, everyday, life) about “this world”were tested. But as soon as it came to the “divine” (not of this world), then Aristotle was “forgotten” (he was not “fit”for this).

Leave a Reply