1) Did “Greek intellectuals” have a problem with it? No. The idea of gods having or acquiring bodies, even mortal ones, was inherent to paganism. The opposite of their being against it.

2) Plotinus was a Neoplatonist. That was an esoteric sect, not representative of the ancient world as a whole (least of all the masses; but not even the elite at the time: more common was Stoicism, Aristotelianism, and Epicureanism, in that order, or most commonly, eclectic mixes of these). His position reflects a very popular denigration of the flesh as inferior, but adds the extreme position of Neoplatonism that the supreme Godhead would never debase himself with it.

So, you’d have to say this is the view “of Neoplatonists,” not “of Greek intellectuals generally.”

Plotinus was also responding to late Christian ideology, which had equated Jesus with the supreme Godhead. That did not exist in Paul’s day. Then, Christians taught Jesus was a subordinate intersessory being, effectively an archangel, and that his assumption of inferior flesh was a deliberate debasement for a particular objective, which is why it was only temporary: Paul, under influence from Platonist thought himself, taught the flesh was too inferior for Jesus to have been resurrected in it, so he wasn’t—he rose in a superior angelic (as Paul says, “pneumatic”) body.

This was entirely in line with even Neoplatonic philosophy, which had its own doctrines of intercessory divine beings assuming or entering the world of flesh for temporary purposes precisely so that the Supreme Godhead did not have to stoop to that indignity Himself. This is evident, for example, in the Middle Platonist writings of Plutarch and Philo (see my discussion in Chapter 5 of On the Historicity of Jesus; elements in the high 30s there cover it).

Quote:
Indeed the adherents of Plotinus condemned the Incarnation as being unfitting of the Highest God-

-(known to them as the Árritos Arkhí (Ἄρρητος Ἀρχή), or ‘Unutterable Principle’)

///
I was under the impression that greek philosophers had no problem with god incarnate?

You are correct. France is acting like a typical naive Christian apologist, who doesn’t notice Jesus is not being depicted here as particularly brilliant (nor are his opponents).

The quoted material is in response to my original remark:

An example: Jesus simply dismisses the charge that he was an agent of the devil by appealing to his exorcisms and the argument that “a house divided against itself cannot stand” (Mark 3:20-26; Matthew 12:22-26; Luke 11:14-18). But that is a fallacy. Just because the Parthian king wages war on one of his satraps does not mean Parthia will fall, nor does it mean the Parthian king is not the enemy of Rome. In contrast to what Jesus says, this is called setting one’s house in order. In like fashion, a diabolist could certainly take power from Satan and use it against the minions of Satan, not only to fulfill Satan’s will (like the king ousting his satrap), but to gain strategic advantages among his peers (the obvious one: deceiving witnesses into thinking you aren’t working for Satan, by using clever-sounding but ultimately fallacious arguments against that very charge). To make matters worse, Jesus proclaims that belief in him will set father against son, mother against daughter, and everyone against everyone else (Luke 12:51-53; Matthew 10:34-36). In other words, he will divide his own house. By his own reasoning, doesn’t that mean his own house is doomed to fall?

If Jesus really did care about logic and argument, he would have engaged these issues and resolved them. But he does not.

In:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/commentary_Carrier.html

https://www.richardcarrier.info/McFallRebuttal1.html

…you wrote:

The example at issue above was this: McFall claims that “Jesus was not suggesting that when a minor element, such as a subordinate ‘satrap’ has gone awry, [then] the whole house folds” but rather that, for example, if “the ‘Parthian king’ is at irreconcilable odds on serious matters with his top Royal Officials, the empire is likely to collapse or be overthrown.” But this misses the point. The problem is this: if that is what Jesus meant, then he didn’t understand the charge against him, and his response completely fails to address it. Thus, McFall’s own point proves my case. The charge was that Jesus was expelling demons because he was carrying out the will of a higher ranking demon (Beelzebul, equivalent to “Baal,” the God of the Philistines). In other words, the claim is that Jesus, like the Parthian King, is expelling or removing his satraps, i.e. exercising the power of Satan, which entailed that Jesus was an agent of Satan. How does Jesus defend himself against that charge?

How can Satan cast out Satan? (Mk. 3:23; Mt. 12:26; cf. Lk. 11:18)

Does that work as a defense? No. He is not accused of expelling Satan. To the contrary, he is accused of being Satan, or otherwise serving Satan’s will (Mk. 3:22; Mt. 12:24; Lk. 11:15), to expell subordinates of Satan. So Jesus tries to end the debate by asking a fallacious question. He never even denies being possessed by or serving Satan! Nor does he present any evidence that he is not, nor does he present any logical reason why he could not be. If this is philosophy, it’s sham philosophy.

comment: can you explain what do you mean? do you mean that since the charge was that jesus was possessed by the master of demons , jesus strawmans the charge?

R. T. France says in his commentary on Mark (Eerdmans, 2002): “These parabolic sayings all develop the same basic theme, that since strength depends on unity, an attack on any part of Satan’s domain is a sign not of collusion with him but of threat to his power. Jesus thus ridicules the strange notion expressed in v. 22b that the ruler of demons might allow his power to be used against his own forces. If that suggestion depended on a hierarchical concept of demonic power, Jesus will have none of it…The point is made hypothetically: if Satan acted in this way, it would be suicidal; therefore it may be concluded that he is not doing so, and that his kingdom will not thus be destroyed by civil war” (pp. 171-172)

comment : the question is, if satan wants to “clean up” his own house or remove the weaker links , how is that strange? do not mafia bosses use their own powers to remove the weaker workers?

His expertise is in Blake, Tolkien and the Bible in English and English literature. “The Bible as Literature” is a major field, in case you didn’t know.

How is Randel Helms a Professor of Biblical Literature?

He’s a Professor of English Literature.

Thank you very much for your response Dr. Carrier and the resources you have directed me towards.

I apologize for the irrelevant content of my comment.

That’s not relevant to this article. You should have posted this comment on one of my articles about epistemology (see the categories drop-down list on the right margin of this blog). But the most relevant article is on my old blog: Epistemological End Game. Which refers to my more thorough discussion in Sense and Goodness without God. In short, there is no circularity required. Everything is probabilistic induction from a basement of raw sensory data arriving at probabilities rather than certainties. But to understand why, follow the resources I just directed you to.

The best starter kit is Randel Helms, professor of Biblical Literature, Gospel Fictions. Very affordable and a short and easy read. The entire book is dedicated to the best examples of that very thing. If you want more examples, Thomas Brodie, Ph.D., a renowned Catholic scholar, has the largest collection (even still not complete) in Birthing of the New Testament. I give several select examples in Chapter 10 of my own book On the Historicity of Jesus.

The most famous examples are the Nativity (based on Moses) and the Jairus/Nain episodes (based on Elijah/Elisha).

I would like to ask your thoughts concerning human reasoning and senses, what i mean is that

” is human reasoning and human senses ultimately
circular and thus invalid?”

Because for one, you cannot justifiy your own reasoning or senses without presupposing them.

Although one could say that circular reasoning only applies to things that could have a justification outside of itself and is not required for us to function.

What do you think Dr. Carrier?

Cheers.