<\/p>
The church fathers went to great lengths to prove that Moses was both more antique than Greek sages, and also to show that the Greek sages were dependent on Moses. While historically plausible, these efforts a form of Christian apologetics done within the confines of pagan thought. The assumption is that earlier is better, that the late-coming Jesus cannot be better than Plato, that the origin is always superior to the supplement and the cause greater than its effects. But this is precisely the tragic metaphysics and historical vision that the gospel challenges. The earlier is not necessarily the better, and the origin is not necessarily more important than or even more originary than its supplement. \u201cBefore Abraham was, I am,\u201d said Jesus, showing that the son is \u201cprior to\u201d the Father. <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The church fathers went to great lengths to prove that Moses was both more antique than Greek sages, and also to show that the Greek sages were dependent on Moses. While historically plausible, these efforts a form of Christian apologetics done within the confines of pagan thought. The assumption is that earlier is better, that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-532","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-theology"],"yoast_head":"\n