Corinthian Stoicism vs. the Apostle Paul?? (w/Timothy Brookins)

[@DeepTalksTheology]

Can’t wait to listen to this!

🙌🙌

[@D.E.Metcalf]

20:30 “appropriation of stoicism” #SubversiveFulfillment Love this part of this conversation. Does he or any other thinker develop these distinctions well in regards to philosophy and theology? “Resonation with Christianity” Reminds me of Bavinck’s individuality/individualism distinction as it pertains to personality. “Preparatory for theology” Loved this conclusion! Seeing the 2024 Olympics open with a prayer for Zeus and Apollo means at least a part of our culture is being shaped by the pedagogy of creation that we hear of in Psalm 19. “Calvin on the stoics” YEAHHHH! Go for it! Also stumbled across his comments being reiterated in BB Warfield’s “The Emotional life of our Lord” and in a commentary.

[@AustinMFreeman]

This interview took place 50 feet from where my interview took place.

[@4yh2soda]

Holy cow dude

Is that a good or bad holy cow?

[@cougario6747]

I could be wrong, but I heard the philosophical reasoning behind early christian (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa) universalism was dependent on stoic philosophy.

[@CoranceLChandler]

" the God philosopher" 🤔 now that's something to think about

I love it!

[@DanSme1]

Suggestion: It would be helpful for those unfamiliar with the dynamic of “biblical scholarship” to explain the purpose behind the author’s book. Maybe the "telos" could be summarized. Does Timothy Brookins believe Paul’s Epistles are divinely "special,"-a genuinely supernatural-inspired revelation from a God who is "There/Other?” Curious minds might want to know the why behind Paul’s apparent “anti” Stoic discourse in 1 Cor. 1:19-31. Finally, in our milieu of social inclusivity, how does the professor explain to his students the philosophical essence of Paul’s message reference to “secret” and “hidden” wisdom that is exclusive to his Christian audience (1 Cor. 2:7)?

[@Two_Edged_Sword]

I don't know much about Stoicism - I'm starting to get into it. So for what it's worth, I think you might not have adequately represented Stoicism charitably. Amongst the many things that are different between Stoicism and Christianity, the Stoic ethics strike me as fundamentally different from Christian ethics. To take the example the guest made, if someone punches you in the face (under both Christian and Stoic ethics), that person sinned. The difference however is that the person sinned against you and God under Christian ethics. Under Stoic ethics, the person sinned against himself only. Some Christians will demand justice, perhaps by asking God to punish the aggressor in this life or the next. Other Christians, perhaps the more virtuous ones, might just say, "God forgive him for he knows not what he did". And thus the Christians forgives the aggressor and expresses his hope that just as he forgave, hopefully God too will forgive the aggressor. The Stoic on the other hand will recognize that another person's behavior was not up to him. And although his face might hurt and even be injured, (whose health is also not up to him), he rejects the thought/judgment that he has been hurt. A man may punch you in the face, but he only hurts "your face", not your soul or moral character. (I put quotation marks around "your face" because to a Stoic, your face and your body are only on loan from God, and so not actually YOURS. The only thing that IS YOURS is your soul and your free-will.) So external events like this cannot hurt YOU, only your body. On the other hand, the aggressor has hurt HIS moral character, HIS soul. And so, if this Stoic is a wiser one, he will try to find a way help the aggressor. This in turn might require the isolation of the aggressor away from society. And here a Stoic would condemn our modern American prison system, I would think. The Stoic, I think, would use prison the same way a parent uses a time out on a child: You help the child rethink and rehabilitate for the sole purpose of returning back into fellowship with his family. And for a Stoic, all of humanity is his family. And so, the only forgiving here will be the aggressor forgiving himself because he has actually wronged/hurt himself. Contrast that with Christian ethics, and the all parties - the aggressor himself, the person punched in the face, and God - will have to forgive the aggressor (I'm tempted to say) as if all parties were actually wronged/harmed. In other words, in Stoic ethics, people can't hurt or wrong or sin against God. In Christian ethics, people can at least sin against God. I feel like, if you really want to learn about Stoicism, you might benefit from ignoring what you read from Ryan Holiday on Stoicism, pause the your reading of Marcus Aurelius, and pick up the following: "The Discourses of Epictetus" (the Waterfield translation is superb); John Sellars' "Stoicism"; and Tad Brennan's "The Stoic Life". The reason you might consider pausing reading Marcus is that his book is was never meant to teach Stoicism. His book are notes to himself, and if you don't have the adequate Stoic theoretical background, you are likely to misread Marcus' notes. At any rate. I enjoy your podcast. Great work Parker. Keep it up!

Thanks for this, yes I know about the back story on the meditations, read it 3 or 4 times so too late to pause haha. I'm reading Epictetus and Seneca. I haven't read anything by Ryan Holiday on Stoicism yet actually. What was uncharitable in how I represented Stoicism though?

[@Two_Edged_Sword]

​@1:11:38 The passivity you describe there. Yeah even acknowledged that what you were about to say might be uncharitable. The guest also misrepresents the Stoic response to getting punched in the face as being passive. And hopefully I've explained why passivity isn't the Stoic response. And after he did this, I'm more cautious with what the guest says on Greco-Roman philosophy, especially Stoicism. And you said "getting punched in the face isn't great". And a Stoic would say: Yes, it's not great for 'my face', but it's done nothing to my moral character. And like I said before, I put quotes around 'my face' because it's not really my face or my body, it's on loan from God.

[@DanSme1]

As a grumpy old man today 🤣 (in intractable pain, unwilling to be "stoic"), I'll be the "uncharitable" one, "Two-Edged Sword." You say "I don't know much," but then think your comments deserve an audience? What is this? "Diversity, equity, and inclusion?" Oddly, your statements are contradictory, and any rational person should be somewhat embarrassed after rereading what they typed and then editing it. Most younger men today are struggling with where to acquire some masculinity/manliness. This was Parker's brief reference to "Broism," (Joe Rogan, Jocko Willink, etc.) not being classical Stoicism. Understandably, young men are drawn to peers ("bros") who throw around sophisticated-sounding terms like "Stoic" and "Stoicism" without anyone in the crowd doing some significant homework. The data proves...young men don't or can't READ books. That's what this channel is about. Learning with no immediate embarrassment. 😉

[@Two_Edged_Sword]

@@DanSme1 Thank you for your feedback 😊

[@DanSme1]

Given your "good" lengthy expansion of thought(s), particularly regarding Stoic morality and ethics, I submit the following quotes. "The Stoics, like the Epicureans, were materialists (similar to widespread contemporary Materialism), teaching that only physical objects were real. Everything happens by [natural] law, so the Stoics took a fatalistic attitude toward life. So the Stoics sought to act in accord with nature. They sought to be resigned to their fate. Their ethic was one of learning to want what one gets, rather than of getting what one wants. But they did not advocate passivity...they sought involvement in public life. Stoicism is one major source, after Aristotle, of natural-law thinking in ethics. Again, I ask David Hume's question: how does one reason from the facts of nature to conclusions about ethical obligations? The lack of a true theistic position made the answer to this question, for the Stoics as for Aristotle, impossible." John Frame, THE HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY.

[@hoover8699]

Good timing. I have a co-worker who is into Stoicism, so I'm looking for anything that will give us common ground for dialogue. Is there anything else you or Timothy Brookins recommend besides his book?

These other 2 episodes would be a great start. The Stoicism for dummies book is actually really great. And Marcus Aurelius's meditations and Epictetus's Discourses kzbin.info/www/bejne/q3qpkoGmd9Bnebs kzbin.info/www/bejne/hICWZnmNic2biNk

[@DanSme1]

I took Parker's recommendation and purchased J. Frame's A HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY. That's often all I practically need.

[@Okaydokie001]

Your comment on Gnosticism being 2nd century is theoretical,some scholars date it earlier..you should mention that.

[@DanSme1]

1 Corinthians 2:6-16 wasn’t gnostic. It was a sovereign illumination, a spiritual epistemology, driven by God the Holy Spirit. And we learn how that heavenly ‘wisdom’ intersected with the “sub-Stoic” culture of the day. Excellent guest!

Nice

[@DanSme1]

The question(s) are often asked by academics about what might be influencing factors upon a canonical/inspired writer of Scripture, in this case, the Apostle Paul. Obviously, Paul encounters Hellenistic philosophies, sociological conditions, local customs, and whatever regional ethos might present itself. From what I've read and been told, Corinthian and "Gold Coast" Corpus Christi, Texas (at the height of the oil boom) had much in common. Commerce and loose morality were widespread. What's unique about the supernatural power behind Paul's teaching and preaching ("wisdom & mysteries - 1 Cor. 2:6-10) is that it can displace what mentally existed, such that even the bawdy Corinthians were, for a time, left viewing reality with "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor.2:16).

[@godkingcthulhu138]

🦑

🫡

[@DanSme1]

⛵🏹☠