Jesus in India ( Himalayas)

[old3bob]

5 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/reincarnation-the-transmigration-of-a-jewish-idea/

 

 

 

.Ok I thought you meant the more orthodox Rabbi's and Jews.

[Maddie]

3 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

.Ok I thought you meant the more orthodox Rabbi's and Jews.

 

I did. Unfortunately I can not give you any specific examples off the top of my head but I have heard them say such things over the years here and there. 

Edited January 12 by Maddie

[snowymountains]

1 hour ago, Maddie said:

 

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/reincarnation-the-transmigration-of-a-jewish-idea/

 

 

 

Question, in case you know, was the Kabbalah influenced by the Pythagoreans?

When I had looked into that, I was not able to neither confirm nor deny this view. What made it so difficult to confirm or deny is that they took their teachings to their graves.

[snowymountains]

2 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

 

The final anathema of the council names "Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, together with their impious, godless writings." Of those named persons, only Origen taught pre-existence of souls. In any case, many of Origen's writings continued to be copied and read by orthodox Christians, even though many more were lost. 

 

 

So the other names "Valentinus and Basilides of Alexandria" mentioned in that paper were not banned.

 

Then either that paper is drawing too general conclusions and reincarnation views were not banned in that council or there were more than the anathema that happened in the council.

[Maddie]

1 minute ago, snowymountains said:

 

Question, in case you know, was the Kabbalah influenced by the Pythagoreans?

When I had looked into that, I was not able to neither confirm nor deny this view. What made it so difficult to confirm or deny is that they took their teachings to their graves.

 

I do not know much about Judaism or Kabbalah. 

[SirPalomides]

24 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Question, in case you know, was the Kabbalah influenced by the Pythagoreans?

When I had looked into that, I was not able to neither confirm nor deny this view. What made it so difficult to confirm or deny is that they took their teachings to their graves.

 

No one really knows what the Pythagoreans were about since all the information we have about them was written down centuries later. But the Platonists claimed to heirs of Pythagoras and Kabbalah has a strong Platonist streak. 

[SirPalomides]

22 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

So the other names "Valentinus and Basilides of Alexandria" mentioned in that paper were not banned.

 

Then either that paper is drawing too general conclusions and reincarnation views were not banned in that council or there were more than the anathema that happened in the council.

 

Valentinus and Basilides had been firmly rejected by leading orthodox and proto-orthodox fathers, including Origen. I don't know if there was ever a conciliar condemnation of them- it might not have been thought necessary since their movements had died out or at least were separated from the mainstream Christian body. 

[snowymountains]

Just now, SirPalomides said:

 

No one really knows what the Pythagoreans were about since all the information we have about them was written down centuries later. But the Platonists claimed to heirs of Pythagoras and Kabbalah has a strong Platonist streak. 

 

Did the platonists have an experiental part in their teachings, or it was all philosophy for them?

The pythagorians are believed to had included an experiental part, about which we don't know anything about it.

[SirPalomides]

1 minute ago, snowymountains said:

 

Did the platonists have an experiental part in their teachings, or it was all philosophy for them?

The pythagorians are believed to had included an experiental part, about which we don't know anything about it.

 

They regarded philosophy as a way of life, something to be practiced, so of course it was experiential for them. What that looked like depended on what current/ era we were looking at. Certainly by late antiquity the main current of Platonism had elaborated a theory/practice of theurgy, ritual and meditative practice for uniting with gods or channeling divine influence. @Zhongyongdaoist has discussed this quite a lot on this forum, so you can peruse his posts if you're interested. For an excellent summary of this brand of Platonism check on Sallustius' short book On the Gods and the World https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sallust_On_the_Gods_and_the_World/Sallust_on_the_Gods_and_the_World

[Zhongyongdaoist]

4 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

They regarded philosophy as a way of life, something to be practiced, so of course it was experiential for them. What that looked like depended on what current/ era we were looking at. Certainly by late antiquity the main current of Platonism had elaborated a theory/practice of theurgy, ritual and meditative practice for uniting with gods or channeling divine influence. @Zhongyongdaoist has discussed this quite a lot on this forum, so you can peruse his posts if you're interested. For an excellent summary of this brand of Platonism check on Sallustius' short book On the Gods and the World https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sallust_On_the_Gods_and_the_World/Sallust_on_the_Gods_and_the_World

 

I had originally thought I might comment in this thread but I have been busy and as I have watched it grow into an unwieldy pile of nonsense I have been less and less likely to do so, but since SirPalamedes has been generous enough to cite me as someone who might be able to shed light on Platonism in the period I will post something that I had thought of a while back as a possible contribution:

 

On 10/14/2017 at 9:51 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

The big question here is "Why didn't a group of high minded pious Jews of the period stone this demon obsessed carpenter to death as a false prophet, like the Law says they should?", who listened to him, and who took his words seriously and who would have protected him from the angry mob?  Cheshire Cat has his own answers, and which are probably that Jesus was a Zealot, and that he was protected by a gang of "Apostle thugs" who would be only to happy to kill anyone in the audience who disagreed with them.  My own answer is that assuming that any of this actually happened and in many ways that is a big assumption, that he had a very sympathetic audience of "God Fearers" and Hellenizing Jews who would have been only to happy to listen to some nice young itinerant preacher speaking Greek Philosophy, which the Greeks had stolen from the Jews anyway, or at least that is what they believed, in terms which had been made as Kosher sounding as they could be by a line thinkers including Aristobolus and the older and very prolific contemporary of any conceivable historical Jesus, the Apostles and Paul, Philo of Alexandria.  I have posted a little bit about this milieu in my posts on the religious background of the Renaissance Neoplatonist and author on magic Cornelius Agrippa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy here:

Agrippa Book One Introduction

(The Relevant posts are mostly on the first and second page, but the whole thread is short and worth a read.)

 

The upshot of which is that a tendency to synthesis Platonic and and Jewish thought existed possibly as early as the Third Century B.C.E. in Ptolemaic Egypt, and that it continues into the Patristic period starting with Justin Martyr, the first of the Church fathers, and running through such Church Fathers as Lactantius and Marius Victorinus, the teacher of St .Augustine.

 

Finally two things, it should be remembered that Joseph and Mary were supposed to have fled to Egypt with the baby Jesus in order to avoid Herod's slaughter of the innocents and if all of this interesting stuff was going on in Alexandria, there would have been no need for Jesus to go off to India for instruction from Hindus or Buddhists would there?  For those people who find the notion of Plato and the Gospels farfetched, I did post about the possible use of Plato's Gorgias in the "Sermon on the Mount" here:

 

Plato's Gorgias in Matthew

 

If you think finding Plato in the Gospel's is simply my own odd and eccentric hobby, you should find yourself a copy of:

 

Plato and the Christians by Adam Fox, Philosophical Library, 1957

 

On the title page the author is listed as Archdeacon of Wesminster, a title of some significance in the Anglican Church.  In this book he takes almost every commonplace among Christian thought that originates somewhere in the New Testament and traces it to some interesting section of Plato's dialogs.  There on p. 131 you will find under the heading, "Love your Enemies", a correlation of Matthew 5.43-45 with Plato's Republic 335B-E.

 

Finally for the sake of brevity I have had to engage in some real oversimplification, nonetheless I hope the above is helpful.

 

I have added emphasis to the above, the links in it are important and I also decided that I would also post an excerpt from a longer post in the same thread which deals in particular with Philo of Alexandria.  I will follow this post as quickly as possible.

 

ZYD

 

Edited January 13 by Zhongyongdaoist
hastily I had written "site" instead of "cite" that has been corrected

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Here is the longer post which I promised to post above:

 

On 10/14/2017 at 11:51 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

I was addressing where Jesus may have gotten these "higher doctrines", and how they may have related to the Old Testament.  Most people in general and especially around here have just about no idea what Greek philosophy or Plato is about and its connection with Hellenistic Spirituality and I have to say that the connection came as quit a surprise to me, as I have noted elsewhere on the Dao Bums.  I had read about and studied Western Magic, Qabalah, Tibetan Buddhism, Daoism and qigong for fifteen or so years before, in an effort to understand aspects of the Western tradition, I seriously turned my attention to Plato and the Platonists, so that I read these things with different eyes than the scholars whose works I was reading.  It would take too much time to recount both the reasons why I undertook this study and how much that it changed my attitude about a lot of things, but I will address at least some of how this affects the way that Hellenized Jews viewed what we not call "the Old Testament"

 

In my discussion of Jewish adaptations of Plato I mentioned Philo of Alexandria, and he is very important as a contemporary of all of the founders of Christianity, because of the possible influence of thinking like his on their own thought and action.  As moderns we tend to view the "Old Testament" in a certain way, and mostly thanks to the Protestant Reformation most of us tend to view it as something to be interpreted literally.  This is not how Hellenized Jews thought of it, they had no problems with doing the same type of thing to the Torah as Greeks routinely did to their mythology, they interpreted it as allegories of higher spiritual realities and not as something to be taken literally.  In short they did everything thy could to read Plato and Aristotle into the Torah to get something that they could be proud of, out of it.

 

Here are some excerpts from the Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy's article on Philo:

 

Quote

11. Doctrine of the Logos in Philo's Writings

The pivotal and the most developed doctrine in Philo's writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos. By developing this doctrine he fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought and provided the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of the Christian Pauline myth and speculations of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century. All other doctrines of Philo hinge on his interpretation of divine existence and action. The term Logos was widely used in the Greco-Roman culture and in Judaism. Through most schools of Greek philosophy, this term was used to designate a rational, intelligent and thus vivifying principle of the universe. This principle was deduced from an understanding of the universe as a living reality and by comparing it to a living creature. Ancient people did not have the dynamic concept of "function," therefore, every phenomenon had to have an underlying factor, agent, or principle responsible for its occurrence. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament the term logos (Hebrew davar) was used frequently to describe God's utterances (Gen. 1:3, 6,9; 3:9,11; Ps. 32:9), God's action (Zech. 5:1-4; Ps. 106:20; Ps. 147:15), and messages of prophets by means of which God communicated his will to his people (Jer. 1:4-19, 2:1-7; Ezek. 1:3; Amos 3:1). Logos is used here only as a figure of speech designating God's activity or action. In the so-called Jewish wisdom literature we find the concept of Wisdom (hokhmah and sophia) which could be to some degree interpreted as a separate personification or individualization (hypostatization), but it is contrasted often with human stupidity. In the Hebrew culture it was a part of the metaphorical and poetic language describing divine wisdom as God's attribute and it clearly refers to a human characteristic in the context of human earthly existence. The Greek, metaphysical concept of the Logos is in sharp contrast to the concept of a personal God described in anthropomorphic terms typical of Hebrew thought. Philo made a synthesis of the two systems and attempted to explain Hebrew thought in terms of Greek philosophy by introducing the Stoic concept of the Logos into Judaism. In the process the Logos became transformed from a metaphysical entity into an extension of a divine and transcendental anthropomorphic being and mediator between God and men. Philo offered various descriptions of the Logos.

 

f. Immanent Reason

The reasoning capacity of a human mind is but a portion of the all-pervading Divine Logos. Mind is a special gift to humans from God and it has divine essence, therefore, as such, it is imperishable. By receiving this humans received freedom and the power of spontaneous will free from necessity (Deus. 47). Philo emphasizes that man "has received this one extraordinary gift, intellect, which is accustomed to comprehend the nature of all bodies and of all things at the same time." Thus humanity resembles God in the sense of having free volition for unlike plants and other animals, the soul of man received from God the power of voluntary motion and in this respect resembles God (Deus. 48). This concept, that it is chiefly in the intellect and free volition that makes humans differ from other life forms, has a long history which can be traced to Anaxagoras and Aristotle.  Philo calls "men of God" those people who made God-inspired intellectual life their dominant issue. Such men "have entirely transcended the sensible sphere, and migrated to the intelligible world, and dwell there enrolled as citizens of the Commonwealth of Ideas, which are imperishable, and incorporeal ... those who are born of God are priests and prophets who have not thought fit to mix themselves up in the constitutions of this world...."(Gig. 61). Philo writes in reference to the Old Testament expression that God "breathed into" (equivalent of "inspired" or "gave life to") inanimate things that through this act God extended his spirit into humans (LA 1.37). Though his spirit is distributed among men it is not diminished (Gig. 27). The nature of the reasoning power in men is indivisible from the Divine Logos, but "though they are indivisible themselves, they divide an innumerable multitude of other things." Just as the Divine Logos divided and distributed everything in nature (that is, it gave qualities to undifferentiated, primordial matter), so the human mind by exertion of its intellect is able to divide everything and everybody into an infinite number of parts. And this is possible because it resembles the Logos of the Creator and Father of the universe: "So that, very naturally, the two things which thus resemble each other, both the mind which is in us and that which is above us, being without parts and invisible, will still be able in a powerful manner to divide and distribute [comprehend] all existing things" (Her. 234-236; Det. 90). Uninitiated minds are unable to apprehend the Existent by itself; they only perceive it through its actions. To them God appears as a Triad -- himself and his two Powers: Creative and Ruling. To the "purified soul," however, God appears as One.
 

Quote

“When, therefore, the soul is shone upon by God as if at noonday, and when it is wholly and entirely filled with that light which is appreciable only by the intellect, and by being wholly surrounded with its brilliancy is free from all shackle or darkness, it then perceives a threefold image of one subject, one image of the living God, and others of the other two, as if they were shadows irradiated by it .... but he claims that the term shadow is just a more vivid representation of the matter intended to be intimated. Since this is not the actual truth, but in order that one may when speaking keep as close to the truth as possible, the one in the middle is the Father of the universe, who in the sacred scripture is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his Creative Power, and the other his Royal Power. And the Creative Power is God, for it is by this that he made and arranged the universe; and the Royal Power is the Lord, for it is fitting that the Creator should lord it over and govern the creature. Therefore, the middle person of the three, being attended by each of his powers as by body-guard, presents to the mind, which is endowed with the faculty of sight, a vision at one time of one being, and at another time of three; of one when the soul being completely purified, and having surmounted not only the multitude of numbers, but also the number two, which is the neighbour of the unit, hastens onward to that idea which is devoid of mixture, free from all combination, and by itself in need of nothing else whatever; and of three, when, not being as yet made perfect as to the important virtues, it is still seeking for initiation in those of less consequence, and is not able to attain to a comprehension of the living God by its own unassisted faculties without the aid of something else, but can only do so by judging of his deeds, whether as creator or as governor. This then, as they say, is the second best thing; and it no less partakes in the opinion which is dear to and devoted to God. But the first-mentioned disposition has no such share, but is itself the very God-loving and God-beloved opinion itself, or rather it is truth which is older than opinion, and more valuable than any seeming (Abr. 119-123).”

 

The one category of enlightened people is able to comprehend God through a vision beyond the physical universe. It is as though they advanced on a heavenly ladder and conjectured the existence of God through an inference (Praem. 40). The other category apprehends him through himself, as light is seen by light. For God gave man such a perception "as should prove to him that God exists, and not to show him what God is." Philo believes that even the existence of God "cannot possibly be contemplated by any other being; because, in fact, it is not possible for God to be comprehended by any being but himself " (Praem. 39-40). Philo adds, "Only men who have raised themselves upward from below, so as, through the contemplation of his works, to form a conjectural conception of the Creator by a probable train of reasoning" (Praem. 43) are holy, and are his servants. Next Philo explains how such men have an impression of God's existence as revealed by God himself, by the similitude of the sun (Mut. 4-6) a concept which he borrowed from Plato.  As light is seen in consequence of its own presence so, "In the same manner God, being his own light, is perceived by himself alone, nothing and no other being co-operating with or assisting him, a being at all able to contribute to pure comprehension of his existence; But these men have arrived at the real truth, who form their ideas of God from God, of light from light" (Praem. 45-46). As Plato and Philo had done, Plotinus later used this image of the sun. Thus the Logos, eternally created (begotten), is an expression of the immanent powers of God, and at the same time, it emanates into everything in the world.  (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Here we see important ideas and images that appear in both orthodox and Gnostic thought, such as the Logos, Trinity, light etc., and this is hardly an single icicle from the tip of the iceberg.

 

I hope that these rather long excerpts are helpful.

 

I hope that this and the post above it are helpful

 

ZYD

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Finally, I will add this short discussion of Plato's quasi Tantric doctrine of Liberation through Eros:

 

On 6/21/2016 at 3:20 PM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

First in regard to Plato, elsewhere on the Dao Bums I have said about the studies which I undertook in the late seventies to understand Plato and his influence on Renaissance Occult Philosophy, which involved my reading a great deal of the secondary scholarly literature on Plato and classical philosophy before turning to read the dialogues themselves:
 

On 8/26/2015 at 9:38 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

Nothing in the secondary literature really prepared me for all the details of the dialogues themselves, many of which were very interesting from an esoteric point of view, but I will get to that later in this series.

 

Of particular relevance to this thread are the dialogues which contain concepts which can only be described as “proto-tantric” in the sense of harnessing Eros to the task of spiritual development. To go back to another quote from ralis:
 

 

On 6/14/2016 at 5:31 PM, ralis said:

When I took my first so called initiation way back in 1987, Lama Rinchen said that I was guaranteed full enlightenment in seven lifetimes.

 

Well, Plato gives teachings which he claims will liberate one from rebirth in three lifetimes. Who would have thought? Certainly not 99.44% of the people to whom I bring up the idea of Plato as a source of “mystical” doctrines.  Of course it is possible that the "full enlightenment" mentioned above may not be the same as freedom from rebirth.  By the way, I don't necessarily accept or reject either claim.  Claims of freedom from rebirth like like those of immortality, which end when you die, end when you are reborn, and there really is no way to evaluate them.

 

I have added the emphasis above which is not in the original.

 

ZYD

[Zhongyongdaoist]

This post of mine should be read in the light of the previous three, and then the following article link which I found looking for things which might make some of this clearer should be followed it gives some insight into Plato's influence which even survives into the present day, such as St. Valentine's Day, and its medieval precursor Courtly Love:

The Ancient Story at the Origin of Modern Romantic Love

The famous "Ladder of Love" is the crowning glory of Plato’s Symposium.

" Jesus may have spoken Greek and might have come under the direct or indirect influence of Platonism. But even if he did not, the later Church sought to align Christian theology with classical philosophy—and Christian love, more properly called charity, and originally directed at God, began to blur with something much more individualistic."

 

Ideas like these occurred to me in the early 80s after I first read Plato's Symposium and his Phaedrus.

 

I hope this gives some insight into Plato's long lasting influence, which certainly influenced Hellenistic Judaism.

 

ZYD

[Nungali]

On 12/01/2024 at 5:03 PM, oak said:

No and no. You both re-read my posts.

All I did was to confront Bob with his ignorance towards the text that he quotes with such certainty. 

Usually my posts are concise and to the point so I find it strange that such a smart individual like you may misunderstand them

 

 

 

and  usually when someone quotes me there is text in the quote box .

 

 

On 12/01/2024 at 5:03 PM, oak said:

 

 

🤔

Anyway this could go on forever, which won't because I have better things to do with my time. What was written is written for anyone who wants to read it.

Cheers.

 

[old3bob]

Oak, you got it all wrong , no one is ignorant if they don't agree with someone else's notions, opinions, interpretations,  or subjective experience's! As for the many so called facts out there, especially "spiritual" ones  many of those may not be so clear or agreed upon either (x10,000),  for instance most religions or ways  end up  with lots of variations!   Sure there are some agreed upon, long standing mundane facts that apply to the physical world which are hard for anyone to argue about...like the earth is no longer flat and ships will not sail off the flat ends which was what some people believed for awhile.  Anyway stuff your freaking and presumed insults towards me they are so shallow and juvenile its pitiful!

Edited January 14 by old3bob

[snowymountains]

On 1/12/2024 at 6:58 PM, SirPalomides said:

 

The final anathema of the council names "Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, together with their impious, godless writings." Of those named persons, only Origen taught pre-existence of souls. In any case, many of Origen's writings continued to be copied and read by orthodox Christians, even though many more were lost. 

 

 

I looked this up a bit more, Rebirth is present in several non Canon texts this link has refrences: Reincarnation in Gnosticism, Let the Gnostics Be Gnostic, by James Bean | by SantMat | Sant Mat Meditation and Spirituality | Medium

 

During early Christianity, before Constantine unified it, it looks like there were diverse ideas on this topic.

 

Something that struct me as being essentially the same as in Buddhism, was

 

Quote

Reincarnation in the Book of Thomas the Contender:

“In it the Saviour tells his disciple Thomas that after death those who were once believers but have remained attached to things of ‘transitory beauty’ will be consumed ‘in their concern about life’ and ‘will be brought back to the visible realm.’[1] At the end of the Book of Thomas, Jesus says: ‘Watch and pray that you may not be born in the flesh, but that you may leave the bitter bondage of this life.’[2] In other words, pray that you are not reborn on earth but that you return to higher realms.”

 

 

[SirPalomides]

15 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

I looked this up a bit more, Rebirth is present in several non Canon texts this link has refrences: Reincarnation in Gnosticism, Let the Gnostics Be Gnostic, by James Bean | by SantMat | Sant Mat Meditation and Spirituality | Medium

 

During early Christianity, before Constantine unified it, it looks like there were diverse ideas on this topic.

 

Something that struct me as being essentially the same as in Buddhism, was

 

 

 

 

There is the comparable aspect of avoiding evil rebirth through attachment, but I think there are major differences too. The gnostic metaphysics and cosmology were completely different from the Buddhists'. The quoted passage is more in line with Platonism- for example, see the chariot allegory in the Phaedrus or Diotima's discourse on love in Symposium.

[snowymountains]

On 08/03/2024 at 3:14 PM, SirPalomides said:

 

There is the comparable aspect of avoiding evil rebirth through attachment, but I think there are major differences too. The gnostic metaphysics and cosmology were completely different from the Buddhists'. The quoted passage is more in line with Platonism- for example, see the chariot allegory in the Phaedrus or Diotima's discourse on love in Symposium.

 

Hey

 

There are differences in cosmology, they're different religions.

 

But parallels too, eg in Theravada, at each creation moment ( assumption is cyclical life of the universe ) there exists an entity ( at the first Jhana plane ) that mistakenly believes it's the creator of everything, unaware of entities in higher planes.

 

This has similarities to a Gnostic demiurge entity that's unaware of Sophia, other higher aeons and the creator God.

 

The cosmologies are different ofc, ie Jhana planes linked to meditative states are not part of Gnosticism, there's no God in Buddhism etc.

 

I want to have a look at how Plato worked around the epicurean paradox on God, if you have pointers on that, let me know ! ( Will look at Diotima's discourse on love )

[SirPalomides]

5 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

Hey

 

There are differences in cosmology, they're different religions.

 

But parallels too, eg in Theravada, at each creation moment ( assumption is cyclical life of the universe ) there exists an entity ( at the first Jhana plane ) that mistakenly believes it's the creator of everything, unaware of entities in higher planes.

 

This has similarities to a Gnostic demiurge entity that's unaware of Sophia, other higher aeons and the creator God.

 

The cosmologies are different ofc, ie Jhana planes linked to meditative states are not part of Gnosticism, there's no God in Buddhism etc.

 

I want to have a look at how Plato worked around the epicurean paradox on God, if you have pointers on that, let me know ! ( Will look at Diotima's discourse on love )

Plato predates Epicurus but we could probably see some of the arguments anticipated in the Republic. The one instance I’m aware of, of Platonists directly addressing Epicurean arguments against divine providence, is Plutarch’s very interesting essay On the Lateness of Divine Judgment. The problem of evil, its relation to matter, and other questions are given considerable attention by Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus, etc with varying solutions. The goodness of the Demiurge as assumed in the Timaeus is never in doubt but these thinkers are certainly attentive to the problems raised by the gnostics. I have a hunch the developed Platonic concept of the gods as impassive and effortlessly ordering the cosmos, showing neither favor nor wrath, arose partly in response to Epicurean theology though I’m sure they would indignantly deny this.

Edited March 23 by SirPalomides