Cain, Jesus and Plato

  • Thread starter Thread starter William777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

William777

Guest
There is a quote in Plato’s Meno which I have always wondered about. It is highlighted in the following text:
**
SOCRATES: I will tell you why: I have heard from certain wise men and women who spoke of things divine that—

MENO: What did they say?

SOCRATES: They spoke of a glorious truth, as I conceive.

MENO: What was it? and who were they?

SOCRATES: Some of them were priests and priestesses, who had studied how they might be able to give a reason of their profession: there have been poets also, who spoke of these things by inspiration, like Pindar, and many others who were inspired. And they say—mark, now, and see whether their words are true—they say that the soul of man is immortal, and at one time has an end, which is termed dying, and at another time is born again, but is never destroyed. And the moral is, that a man ought to live always in perfect holiness. ‘For in the ninth year Persephone sends the souls of those from whom she has received the penalty of ancient crime back again from beneath into the light of the sun above, and these are they who become noble kings and mighty men and great in wisdom and are called saintly heroes in after ages.’ The soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born again many times, and having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all; and it is no wonder that she should be able to call to remembrance all that she ever knew about virtue, and about everything; for as all nature is akin, and the soul has learned all things; there is no difficulty in her eliciting or as men say learning, out of a single recollection all the rest, if a man is strenuous and does not faint; for all enquiry and all learning is but recollection. And therefore we ought not to listen to this sophistical argument about the impossibility of enquiry: for it will make us idle; and is sweet only to the sluggard; but the other saying will make us active and inquisitive. In that confiding, I will gladly enquire with you into the nature of virtue. **

I realize Plato is pagan philosophy, so there may well be a divergence from Catholic teaching. But many Popes, Doctors and Saints have relied upon Ancient Greek thinking, including Plato’s, so let me see what we can derive from the statement above.

It has always intrigued me that Cain became a King after God’s exiled him to a life of slavery. My question is “why?”

I wonder if it has something to do with the highlighted comments Socrates made above.

Next, I do not think we cannot equate Jesus’ kingship with Cain’s in anyway, although it does seem like there are similarities. The principle difference is Cain wasn’t God, and, of course, Cain did something God saw as evil (although perhaps he was unaware killing Able was wrong, since he did not have any moral law beyond God forth and multiply). However, from Philipians 2:6, we read:

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
who, although He existed in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant,
and being made in the likeness of men.
Being found in appearance as a man,
He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death,
even death on a cross.
For this reason also, God highly exalted Him,
and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW,
of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

The kingship is supposed to come from the humility, hence, it says, God highly exalted him.

I guess I’m trying to figure out why it is that humility exalts us, and if it can be derived from the Socratic commentary as well.

When one is a prisoner or a slave it doesn’t exactly seem like one is being “exalted”; it’s drudgery, but somehow the quotes above suggest the opposite.

My question is - exactly how is it that the prisoner/slave is supposed to become a king? How it is one is supposed to find exaltation in something so lowly as being a slave? Why did Cain become a King when he was shamefully outcast? How is it supposed to make any sense at all? Or is it supposed to remain a mystery?
 
Immortality is not endless life. Immortality is in respect of who you are. For instance to become the Truth is immortal, to become the highest Virtue is immortal, to become omnibeneveloent is immortal. Only when man has achieved these things does he become immortal.

Jesus may have been a slave but he was body of truth regardless of his position in life. Use your judgment, right judgment, the truth is always exalted for the sake of the truth alone. The slave becomes the king.

In regards to Cain, who cares, use your judgment, right judgment, Cain is not the truth so what does it matter if he pretends to be a king or what not?

Do you think that “king” Cain will stand before the truth? probably not, so he probably never was a king but only got what he got through theft along with his murders.
 
Immortality is not endless life. Immortality is in respect of who you are. For instance to become the Truth is immortal, to become the highest Virtue is immortal, to become omnibeneveloent is immortal. Only when man has achieved these things does he become immortal.
References?
Jesus may have been a slave but he was body of truth regardless of his position in life. Use your judgment, right judgment, the truth is always exalted for the sake of the truth alone. The slave becomes the king.
Good point.
 
I have a reference of immortality for you according to the word of God. Whosoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. That was a quote from the living one. You have to become like the living one (Jesus) to have eternal life (immortality).
 
There is a quote in Plato’s Meno which I have always wondered about. It is highlighted in the following text:
**
SOCRATES: I will tell you why: I have heard from certain wise men and women who spoke of things divine that—

MENO: What did they say?

SOCRATES: They spoke of a glorious truth, as I conceive.

MENO: What was it? and who were they?

SOCRATES: Some of them were priests and priestesses, who had studied how they might be able to give a reason of their profession: there have been poets also, who spoke of these things by inspiration, like Pindar, and many others who were inspired. And they say—mark, now, and see whether their words are true—they say that the soul of man is immortal, and at one time has an end, which is termed dying, and at another time is born again, but is never destroyed. And the moral is, that a man ought to live always in perfect holiness. ‘For in the ninth year Persephone sends the souls of those from whom she has received the penalty of ancient crime back again from beneath into the light of the sun above, and these are they who become noble kings and mighty men and great in wisdom and are called saintly heroes in after ages.’** The soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born again many times, and having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all; and it is no wonder that she should be able to call to remembrance all that she ever knew about virtue, and about everything; for as all nature is akin, and the soul has learned all things; there is no difficulty in her eliciting or as men say learning, out of a single recollection all the rest, if a man is strenuous and does not faint; for all enquiry and all learning is but recollection. And therefore we ought not to listen to this sophistical argument about the impossibility of enquiry: for it will make us idle; and is sweet only to the sluggard; but the other saying will make us active and inquisitive. In that confiding, I will gladly enquire with you into the nature of virtue.

I realize Plato is pagan philosophy, so there may well be a divergence from Catholic teaching. But many Popes, Doctors and Saints have relied upon Ancient Greek thinking, including Plato’s, so let me see what we can derive from the statement above.

It has always intrigued me that Cain became a King after God’s exiled him to a life of slavery. My question is “why?”

I wonder if it has something to do with the highlighted comments Socrates made above.

Next, I do not think we cannot equate Jesus’ kingship with Cain’s in anyway, although it does seem like there are similarities. The principle difference is Cain wasn’t God, and, of course, Cain did something God saw as evil (although perhaps he was unaware killing Able was wrong, since he did not have any moral law beyond God forth and multiply). However, from Philipians 2:6, we read:

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
who, although He existed in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant,
and being made in the likeness of men.
Being found in appearance as a man,
He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death,
even death on a cross.
For this reason also, God highly exalted Him,
and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW,
of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

The kingship is supposed to come from the humility, hence, it says, God highly exalted him.

I guess I’m trying to figure out why it is that humility exalts us, and if it can be derived from the Socratic commentary as well.

When one is a prisoner or a slave it doesn’t exactly seem like one is being “exalted”; it’s drudgery, but somehow the quotes above suggest the opposite.

My question is - exactly how is it that the prisoner/slave is supposed to become a king? How it is one is supposed to find exaltation in something so lowly as being a slave? Why did Cain become a King when he was shamefully outcast? How is it supposed to make any sense at all? Or is it supposed to remain a mystery?
Because Christ, who is God become man, humbled Himself for us, who by our sins make ourselves lower than the dust of the earth. Therefore, if we seek only to imitate His lowly desires, we shall be greatly exalted in Heaven. That is how a slave comes to be a king.

God had mercy on Cain, and did not slay him. The mark of Cain was a promise that none would slay him.
 
God had mercy on Cain, and did not slay him. The mark of Cain was a promise that none would slay him.
That makes sense.

Cain said the punishment was too great to bear and wanted to die. But, since God is the God of the living, it makes sense that He would not let Cain die.

Now, if (through God’s mercy) someone cannot be killed, then doesn’t that give them a rather extraordinary (extraordinary in the sense of unusual) “power”? Perhaps it was enough for Cain to leverage Kingship?

There is no doubt Cain became a King, for scripture - which cannot be set aside - makes it clear that Cain did become a King. There is also nothing to say Cain committed any further sins beyond killing Abel. It would make sense that he did commit further sins, as people in his time did not know the full teachings of Christ, and - even we who know Christ’s redemption - still commit sins. But scripture does not mention any more sins beyond killing Abel.

Actually, Moses also killed someone of his own kind, and he was very much a leader. But I think that is getting away from the point somewhat because (ironically enough) Moses wasn’t punished for it. He just became resigned, and backed off of the situation.

But, again, if someone cannot be killed, then doesn’t that give them a rather extraordinary power? Perhaps it was enough for Cain to leverage Kingship? He could bear the work of a slave, but he also couldn’t be killed - so (to create a biological analogy) he would have been able to maintain himself without having any known predators.

Other than calling it “Nod” - The Bible is also quiet as to the quality of his Kingdom. It doesn’t mean Cain’s kingdom wouldn’t have had troubles with enemies, who might bother him, loot from him, or etc., but they just wouldn’t be able to kill him. It would be similar to a prisoner today. They live a hard life in prison, but they are sort of protected people at the same time. Hence, a suspected murderer might wear a bullet proof vest when taken into court, after conviction they get food, shelter and medical care while incarcerated, etc…
 
I’ve no idea where you got the notion that Cain became a king… It’s not mentioned in Genesis. The mark of Cain was not a promise that he (Cain) couldn’t die, but that his death would be avenged by God Himself.

I see no reason to mention Cain & Jesus together. Cain rightly bore the punishment for his own sin, whereas, with Jesus, He who was without sin took on the sins of Others. There’s no connection.

And as for Persphone… well, it’s one of my favourite Wishbone Ash tracks, but has no bearing on Christian scripture.

However, both Persephone & Cain are products of memories of pre-history that were/ are used by Man as models by which we seek to find meaning & explanation to our experience of life. We, the Judeo-Christian tradition, are used to seeing suffering as a consequence of Adam’s & Eve’s disobedience. In Cain (& Abel) we see the results of that sin being played out through the actions of jealousy, a sense of rejection, hate, and so on. All those thing which plague Man, both then & now.

I think there is often the temptation to over-intellectualize, and seeking to pull together too many loose threads that don’t belong together can lead to a distorded pattern that is unhelpful. While the Church has found (pagan) greek philiosophy helpful as a tool, it has nothing to teach us that comes close to what is given to us via Scripture & Church teachings.

May I ask, and please believe I ask with respect, but what is the point you are trying to make? What are you hoping to substantiate?
 
I’ve no idea where you got the notion that Cain became a king… It’s not mentioned in Genesis.
Gen 4:17

I guess it’s arguable whether he was a king. This thread at least assumes Cain was a King.

But I also don’t think there were formally kings back in Cain’s day. Kings didnt really come along until later in history. But the founder of a city seems close to a King to me.

Up until then he lived east of Eden in Nod, which in Hebrew literally means nomadic, so there was a wandering which took place before Cain settled down.
I see no reason to mention Cain & Jesus together. Cain rightly bore the punishment for his own sin, whereas, with Jesus, He who was without sin took on the sins of Others. There’s no connection.



May I ask, and please believe I ask with respect, but what is the point you are trying to make? What are you hoping to substantiate?
Your discernment is correct that Cain was bad, and Christ was good. I never doubted that… but the question of Kingship, and how or why a King rises to power is a different issue… and that’s what I derive from the Platonic quote - how Kings may come from people who are basically slaves or prisoners…

There will always be a greater contrast between Cain and Christ than a comparison, but a comparison does exist, as numbered below:

1.) Both were mentioned in the Bible. Cain in the Old Testament; Jesus in the New Testament.

2.) Both “moved about”. Cain was nomadic; Jesus was itinerant. The “moving about” is a unique issue in and of itself.

3.) Both were condemned. Cain was exiled for murder; Jesus was physically killed for blasphemy. Unlike people today, Christ’s adversaries most likely perceived him as nothing more than a troublemaker, so he wouldn’t have been so far removed from Cain in their eyes.

4.) The word slave was attached to each of their names. Once with respect to Cain and once with respect to Jesus. One was bad; one was good.

5.) At a foundational level - both were arguably Kings. Cain (imperfectly so from the Old Testament) as a founder, and Christ because he just is, was and will be King forever.

We are called upon to serve as Catholics, and yet these similarities bother me.
And as for Persphone… well, it’s one of my favourite Wishbone Ash tracks, but has no bearing on Christian scripture.

However, both Persephone & Cain are products of memories of pre-history that were/ are used by Man as models by which we seek to find meaning & explanation to our experience of life. We, the Judeo-Christian tradition, are used to seeing suffering as a consequence of Adam’s & Eve’s disobedience. In Cain (& Abel) we see the results of that sin being played out through the actions of jealousy, a sense of rejection, hate, and so on. All those thing which plague Man, both then & now.

I think there is often the temptation to over-intellectualize, and seeking to pull together too many loose threads that don’t belong together can lead to a distorded pattern that is unhelpful. While the Church has found (pagan) greek philiosophy helpful as a tool, it has nothing to teach us that comes close to what is given to us via Scripture & Church teachings.
Since this is a Philosophy forum, and not religion per se, it seemed reasonable that this would be the place to introduce pagan discussion, especially Plato.

I seriously doubt Wishbone Ash is a credible basis upon which to argue Plato, Socrates or Greek Mythology, or to hold a philosophical discussion. It’s no wonder you perceive the question as over intellectualized.

But you may be right. Since this is a Catholic website - regardless of how many Popes and Catholic Doctors have referred to Plato - I’m not sure if people are going to be open to holding an objective discussion of the subject matter. Perceptions will most likely jump immediately to Jesus, and - regardless of the fact that God’s eternal and transcendent Truths shine upon the good and the bad alike - everything else will be comparing apples and oranges.

At this point, I’m going to ask the Moderators to lock the thread due to misperceptions of the subject matter; it’s not going in the direction I had hoped, and I don’t think it is going to do there either. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but it’s too late in the dialogue to change that…
 
That makes sense.

Cain said the punishment was too great to bear and wanted to die. But, since God is the God of the living, it makes sense that He would not let Cain die.

Now, if (through God’s mercy) someone cannot be killed, then doesn’t that give them a rather extraordinary (extraordinary in the sense of unusual) “power”? Perhaps it was enough for Cain to leverage Kingship?

There is no doubt Cain became a King, for scripture - which cannot be set aside - makes it clear that Cain did become a King. There is also nothing to say Cain committed any further sins beyond killing Abel. It would make sense that he did commit further sins, as people in his time did not know the full teachings of Christ, and - even we who know Christ’s redemption - still commit sins. But scripture does not mention any more sins beyond killing Abel.

Actually, Moses also killed someone of his own kind, and he was very much a leader. But I think that is getting away from the point somewhat because (ironically enough) Moses wasn’t punished for it. He just became resigned, and backed off of the situation.

But, again, if someone cannot be killed, then doesn’t that give them a rather extraordinary power? Perhaps it was enough for Cain to leverage Kingship? He could bear the work of a slave, but he also couldn’t be killed - so (to create a biological analogy) he would have been able to maintain himself without having any known predators.

Other than calling it “Nod” - The Bible is also quiet as to the quality of his Kingdom. It doesn’t mean Cain’s kingdom wouldn’t have had troubles with enemies, who might bother him, loot from him, or etc., but they just wouldn’t be able to kill him. It would be similar to a prisoner today. They live a hard life in prison, but they are sort of protected people at the same time. Hence, a suspected murderer might wear a bullet proof vest when taken into court, after conviction they get food, shelter and medical care while incarcerated, etc…
It is not man’s power to be killed or not outright by God, but God’s power alone. For only God grants us life, therefore he can justly take it away. God’s mercy may have allowed Cain to live on, yes, but do not confuse mercy with commission and full backing. God hated the sin of Cain.

God Bless You!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top