of course, the rome of late antiquity had many competing philosophies. in my view, christianity as it emerged in the fourth century only makes sense as part of a synthesis of early judaeo-christian belief and the arguments of antiquity.
once you read about neoplatonism, for instance, a lot of christian doctrine makes sense.
the logos of christianity echoes the argument of platonists who saw god as a form of pure goodness and energy, where aristotelians saw god as having a unique substance. christ reconciles these competing ideas - he crystallises as the word made flesh, yet remains pure and entirely good.
so he satisfies the needs of greek philosophers searching for a reconciliation of their own ideas.
hence the stark contrast between the early narrative gospels and the account drawn by the more philosophically inclined john. john is fitting the life of jesus into contemporary philosophy.
the mysterious trinity, which reconciles the three different divine elements of christianity, was necessary because the neoplatonic argument that the pure form of goodness is indivisible was widely accepted. how to blend the father, the son and the holy spirit? merge them into some sort of three-headed whole.
| 