There's a difference between utilizing Neo-Platonic thought and actually speaking of a Neo-Platonic god. I was asking for an example of a church father text you thought portrayed a neo-platonic god.
the (neo-)Platonic god in many Patristic writings and EO "spirituality" Can you give us an example?
What do you mean by an example? If you asking for some third source suggesting that many of the Church Fathers drew heavily upon (neo)Platonic thought, then the most lazy of google searches will give you thousands if not millions of hits.
It ain't like this is some "secret". Nor am I suggesting it wrong (see full quote).
Not to quibble, didn't say "portrayed" the (neo)Platonic god, but that the (neo)Platonic god "working in", by which I mean the conception of how the line of (neo)Platonic thought understanding god came to inform the Church Fathers.
Is this less "scandalous"? It was not meant to be a scandalous statement.
A few of the (neo)Platonic elements picked up along the way. Some have more Scriptural precedence than others.
Apophatic theology. (Over-emphasized with some Scriptural basis, but not to the extent it gets played up.)
God not the author of evil. (Disagree here, this ain't the God of the Hebrews, if you let that statement stand like that.)
God is unchanging. (Disagree here for above reason, but not without Scriptural basis, even if the bulk of Scripture speaks to a living God who does change.)
The difference between essence and energies. (Should an inquirer even be discussing such things in a catechetical class?)
Should I attach names associated with the development of such thought?
Could go on.
I doubt most EOs would argue these ideas are not important to their theology and they find their way into EO theology if not completely then systematically through (neo)Platonic thought.
Do I think anyone here would disagree? No.
Do I think it is a "bad" thing that (neo)Platonism informed the EO theology? No.
Do I observe these elements being emphasized at the ground level, especially among inquirers and catechumens and "educated laity" at the expense of more basic Scriptural understanding of Christianity? Yes.
More than a few Priests I know would agree.
EDIT: Of course, please disabuse me of my misunderstandings.