- This topic is empty.
- Posts
It is said by many that the Gospel of John has a different Christology than the Synoptic Gospels. That is quite evident. But John's gospel — and the other writings attributed to him — are the only place we see “logos” in relation to Yeshua. Paul doesn't use it, nor do the other Gospel writers.
Another aspect is that John’s writings are said to be the latest of all the New Testament canon. Couple this with the fact the John’s writings are said to be Hellenistic and we see some elements of Greek philosophy couple with Jewish ideas.
Check out http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/philo.htm#H11 . It is a good summary of Philo’s ideas about Logos. It is much more expanded than anything John wrote but there may have been some influence in John 1 from Philo’s ideas of the Logos. I am going to quotes some parts of the page but not all because it is rather lengthy.
c. God's Transcendent Power
The Logos which God begat eternally because it is a manifestation of God's thinking-acting (Prov. 1.7; Sacr. 65; Mos. 1.283), is an agent that unites two powers of the transcendent God. Philo relates that in an inspiration his own soul told him:
…that in the one living and true God there were two supreme and primary powers, Goodness [or Creative Power] and Authority [or Regent Power]; and that by his Goodness he had created every thing; and that by his Authority he governed all that he had created; and that the third thing which was between the two, and had the effect of bringing them together was the Logos, for it was owing to the Logos that God was both a ruler and good (Cher. 1.27-28).
And further, Philo finds in the Bible indications of the operation of the Logos, e.g., the biblical cherubim are the symbols of the two powers of God but the flaming sword (Gen. 3.24) is the symbol of the Logos conceived before all things and before all manifest (Cher. 1.27-28; Sacr. 59; Abr. 124-125; Her. 166; QE 2.68). Philo's description of the Logos (the Mind of God) corresponds to the Greek concept of mind as hot and fiery. Philo obviously refers in these powers to the Unlimited (apeiron) and the Limited (peras) of Plato's Philebus and earlier Pythagorean tradition, and they will later reappear in Plotinus as Nous. In Plato these two principles or powers operate at the metaphysical, cosmic (cosmic soul) and human (human soul) levels. Philo considers these powers to be inherent in transcendental God, and that God himself may be thought of as multiplicity in unity. The Beneficent (Creative) and Regent (Authoritative) Powers are called God and Lord, respectively. Goodness is Boundless Power, Creative, and God. The Regent Power is also Punitive Power and Lord (Her. 166). Creative Power, moreover, permeates the world, the power by which God made and ordered all things. Philo follows the ideas of the Stoics that nous pervades every part of the universe as it does the soul in us. Therefore, Philo asserts that the aspect of God which transcends his powers (which we have to understand to be the Logos) cannot be conceived of in terms of place but as pure being, “but that power of his by which he made and ordered all things called God, in accordance with the etymology of that name, enfolds the whole and passes through the parts of the universe” (Conf. 136-137). According to Philo, the two powers of God are separated by God himself who is standing above in the midst of them (Her. 166). Referring to Genesis 18: 2 Philo claims that God and his two Powers are in reality one.To the human mind they appear as a Triad, with God above the powers that belong to him: “For this cannot be so keen of spirit that, it can see Him who is above the powers that belong to Him, (namely) God, distinct from everything else. For so soon as one sets eyes on God, there also appear together with His being, the ministering powers, so that in place of one he makes the appearance of a triad (QG 4.2).” In addition to these two main powers, there are other powers of the Father and his Logos, including merciful and legislative (Fug. 94-95).d. First-born Son of God
The Logos has an origin, but as God's thought it also has eternal generation. It exists as such before everything else all of which are secondary products of God's thought and therefore it is called the “first-born.” The Logos is thus more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an extension, to which Philo ascribes many names and functions. The Logos is the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father: “For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he [Moses] calls the first-born; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns” (Conf. 63). This picture is somewhat confusing because we learn that in the final analysis the Creative Power is also identified with the Logos. The Creative Power is logically prior to the Regent Power since it is conceptually older. Though the powers are of equal age, the creative is prior because one is king not of the nonexistent but of what has already come into being (QE 2.62). These two powers thus delimit the bounds of heaven and the world. The Creative Power is concerned that things that come into being through it should not be dissolved, and the Regent Power that nothing either exceeds or is robbed of its due, all being arbitrated by the laws of equality through which things continue eternally (QE 2.64). The positive properties of God may be subdivided into these two polar forces; therefore, the expression of the One is the Logos that constitutes the manifestation of God's thinking, acting (Prov. 1.7; Sacr. 65; Mos. 1.283). According to Philo these powers of the Logos can be grasped at various levels. Those who are at the summit level grasp them as constituting an indivisible unity. At the two lower levels, respectively, are those who know the Logos as the Creative Power and beneath them those who know it as the Regent Power (Fug. 94-95; Abr. 124-125). The next level down represents those limited to the sensible world, unable to perceive the intelligible realities (Gig. 20). At each successively lower level of divine knowledge the image of God's essence is increasingly more obscured. These two powers will appear again in Plotinus. Here Undefined or Unlimited Intelligible Matter proceeds from the One and then turns back to its source (Enneads 2.4.5; 5.4.2; 6.7.17)
g. Immanent Mediator of the Physical Universe
In certain places in his writings Philo accepts the Stoic theory of the immanent Logos as the power or Law binding the opposites in the universe and mediating between them, and directing the world. For example, Philo envisions that the world is suspended in a vacuum and asks, how is it that the world does not fall down since it is not held by any solid thing. Philo then gives the answer that the Logos extending himself from the center to its bounds and from its extremities to the center again, runs nature's course joining and binding fast all its parts. Likewise the Logos prevents the earth from being dissolved by all the water contained within. The Logos produces a harmony (a favorite expression of the Stoics) between various parts of the universe (Plant. 8-10). Thus Philo sees God as only indirectly the Creator of the world: God is the author of the invisible, intelligible world which served as a model for the Logos. Philo says Moses called this archetypal heavenly power by various names: “the beginning, the image, and the sight of God”(LA 1.43). Following the views of Plato
and the Stoics, Philo believed that in all existing things there must be an active cause, and a passive subject; and that the active cause Philo designates as the Logos. He gives the impression that he believed that the Logos functions like the Platonic “Soul of the World” (Aet. 84).h. The Angel of the Lord, Revealer of God
Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture (Gen. 31:13; 16:8; etc) by an angel of the Lord (Somn. 1.228-239; Cher. 1-3). The Logos is the first-born and the eldest and chief of the angels
l. “God”
In three passages Philo describes the Logos even as God:
a.) Commenting on Genesis 22:16 Philo explains that God could only swear by himself (LA 3.207).
b.) When the scripture uses the Greek term for God ho theos, it refers to the true God, but when it uses the term theos, without the article ho, it refers not to the God, but to his most ancient Logos (Somn. 1.229-230).
c.) Commenting on Genesis 9:6 Philo states the reference to creation of man after the image of God is to the second deity, the Divine Logos of the Supreme being and to the father himself, because it is only fitting that the rational soul of man cannot be in relation to the preeminent and transcendent Divinity (QG 2.62).
Philo himself, however, explains that to call the Logos “God” is not a correct appellation (Somn.1.230). Also, through this Logos, which men share with God, men know God and are able to perceive Him (LA 1.37-38).m. Summary of Philo's Concept of the Logos
Philo's doctrine of the Logos is blurred by his mystical and religious vision, but his Logos is clearly the second individual in one God as a hypostatization of God's Creative Power – Wisdom. The supreme being is God and the next is Wisdom or the Logos of God (Op. 24). Logos has many names as did Zeus (LA 1.43,45,46), and multiple functions. Earthly wisdom is but a copy of this celestial Wisdom. It was represented in historical times by the tabernacle through which God sent an image of divine excellence as a representation and copy of Wisdom (Lev. 16:16; Her. 112-113). The Divine Logos never mixes with the things which are created and thus destined to perish, but attends the One alone. This Logos is apportioned into an infinite number of parts in humans, thus we impart the Divine Logos. As a result we acquire some likeness to the Father and the Creator of all (Her. 234-236). The Logos is the Bond of the universe and mediator extended in nature. The Father eternally begat the Logos and constituted it as an unbreakable bond of the universe that produces harmony (Plant. 9-10). The Logos, mediating between God and the world, is neither uncreated as God nor created as men. So in Philo's view the Father is the Supreme Being and the Logos, as his chief messenger, stands between Creator and creature. The Logos is an ambassador and suppliant, neither unbegotten nor begotten as are sensible things (Her. 205). Wisdom, the Daughter of God, is in reality masculine because powers have truly masculine descriptions, whereas virtues are feminine. That which is in the second place after the masculine Creator was called feminine, according to Philo, but her priority is masculine; so the Wisdom of God is both masculine and feminine (Fug. 50-52). Wisdom flows from the Divine Logos (Fug. 137-138). The Logos is the Cupbearer of God. He pours himself into happy souls (Somn. 2.249). The immortal part of the soul comes from the divine breath of the Father/Ruler as a part of his Logos.
Did you note one very suprising concept? I'll repeat it here:
Referring to Genesis 18: 2 Philo claims that God and his two Powers are in reality one.To the human mind they appear as a Triad, with God above the powers that belong to him:
So what do you all think about this? Was John influenced by Philo?
One important note here. Philo spoke of the Logos as the Son of God but Philo did not speak of Yeshua in his writings. However, John uses Logos to apply to the earthly Son. The transition is plain.
Seems John was not the only one influenced by Philo.
a. Philo's Model of Creation
Though Philo's model of creation comes from Plato's Timaeus, the direct agent of creation is not God himself (described in Plato as Demiurge, Maker, Artificer), but the Logos. Philo believes that the Logos is “the man of God” (Conf. 41) or the shadow of God that was used as an instrument and a pattern of all creation (LA 3.96). The Logos converted unqualified, unshaped preexistent matter, which Philo describes as “destitute of arrangement, of quality, of animation, of distinctive character and full of disorder and confusion,” (Op. 22) into four primordial elements:
For it is out of that essence that God created everything, without indeed touching it himself, for it was not lawful for the all-wise and all-blessed God to touch materials which were all misshapen and confused, but he created them by the agency of his incorporeal powers, of which the proper name is Ideas, which he so exerted that every genus received its proper form (LA 1.329).According to Philo, Moses anticipated Plato by teaching that water, darkness, and chaos existed before the world came into being (Op. 22). Moses, having reached the philosophy summit, recognized that there are two fundamental principles of being, one, “an active cause, the intellect of the universe.” The other is passive, “inanimate and incapable of motion by any intrinsic power of its own” (Op. 8-9), matter, lifeless and motionless. But Philo is ambiguous in such statements as these: “God, who created all things, not only brought them all to light, but he has even created what before had no existence, not only being their maker, but also their founder” (Somn. 1.76; Op. 81); “God who created the whole universe out of things that had no previous existence…” (LA 3.10). It seems that Philo does not refer here to God's creation of the visible world ex nihilo but to his creation of the intelligible Forms prior to the formation of the sensible world (Spec. leg. 1.328). Philo reasons that by analogy to the biblical version of the creation of man in the image of God, so the visible world as such must have been created in the image of its archetype present in the mind of God. “It is manifest also, that that archetypal seal, which we call that world which is perceptible only to the intellect, must itself be the archetypal model, the Idea of Ideas, the Logos of God” (Op. 25). In his doctrine of God Philo interprets the Logos, which is the Divine Mind as the Form of Forms (Platonic), the Idea of Ideas or the sum total of Forms or Ideas (Det. 75-76). The Logos is an indestructible Form of wisdom. Interpreting the garment of the high priest (Exod. 28:34; 36) Philo states: “But the seal is an Idea of Ideas, according to which God fashioned the world, being an incorporeal Idea, comprehensible only by the intellect” (Mig. 103). The invisible intelligible world which was used by the Logos as a model for creation or rather formation of the visible world from the (preexisting) unformed matter was created in the mind of God: “The incorporeal world then was already completed, having its seat in the Divine Logos and the world, perceptible by the external senses, was made on the model of it” (Op. 36). Describing Moses' account of the creation of man, Philo states also that Moses calls the invisible Divine Logos the Image of God (Op. 24; 31; LA 1.9). Forms, though inapprehensible in essence, leave an impress and a copy and procure qualities and shapes to shapeless things and unorganized matter. Mind can grasp the Forms by longing for wisdom. “The desire for wisdom alone is continual and incessant, and it fills all its pupils and disciples with famous and most beautiful doctrines” (Spec. leg. 1-45-50). Creation thus took place from preexistent shapeless matter (Plato's Receptacle) which is “the nurse of all becoming and change” and for this creation God used the Forms which are his powers (Spec. leg. 1.327-329). This may seem a controversial point whether the primordial matter was preexistent or was created ex nihilo. Philo's view is not clearly stated and there are seemingly contradictory statements. In some places Philo states, “for as nothing is generated out of nothing, so neither can anything which exists be destroyed as to become non-existence” (Aet. 5-6). The same is repeated in his De Specialibus legibus: “Being made of us when you were born, you will again be dissolved into us when you come to die; for it is not the nature of any thing to be destroyed so as to become nonexistent, but the end brings it back to those elements from which its beginnings come” (Spec. 1.266). The resolution of this seeming controversy is to be found in Philo's theory of eternal creation, which is described next in connection with the Logos as the agent of creation. Philo, being a strict monist, could not accept the existence of independent and eternal preexistent matter (however disorganized and chaotic) as Plato did.
“Describing Moses' account of the creation of man, Philo states also that Moses calls the invisible Divine Logos the Image of God“
“The Logos is the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father: 'For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he [Moses] calls the first-born; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns” (Conf. 63). “
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Another quote from the site listed (and this is getting weird now):
Closely connected with Philo's doctrine of creation is his doctrine of miracles. His favorite statement is that “everything is possible with God.”
Compare this to
Mat 19:26 And looking at {them} Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Mar 10:27 Looking at them, Jesus said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”
Luk 18:27 But He said, “The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.”Yet another interesting quote from Philo. This time directly from one of Philo's writings ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT
(1.215) For there are, as it seems, two temples belonging to God; one being this world, in which the high priest is the divine word, his own firstborn son. The other is the rational soul, the priest of which is the real true man, the copy of whom, perceptible to the senses, is he who performs his paternal vows and sacrifices, to whom it is enjoined to put on the aforesaid tunic, the representation of the universal heaven, in order that the world may join with the man in offering sacrifice, and that the man may likewise co-operate with the universe.
Hbr 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
1Cr 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
Now don't get me wrong. Philo was a Jew, not a Christian. There is no indication that Philo even knew who Yeshua was. But Philo was supposed to be working under divine inspiration so it is likely that God placed the the same inspirational thoughts in others as he did Philo. In trying to understand the Logos of God, I had already come up with some of the ideas that Philo espoused without ever having read any Philo. But now that I am, I see that the Holy Spirit led me to many of the same conclusions on the Word (Logos) that Philo was inspired to write. God is truly amazing in that way.
kejonn I hate to ask a dumb Question, but who is philo? And when did he live? I read all three article, but I am not sure what philo is exactly saying. Don't care much for Philosophers, I think they are to smart for their own good and want to take every word of God apart and put their own interpretation into, just like Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullian.
I give you credit to write it all down, tho
Peace to you Mrs.IM4TruthMrs.IM,
Yes, scripture is always our first refuge but sometimes it helps to look to other sources to help gain an understanding of obscure passages. John 1 is unique in all of the Bible, so it stands apart and has many people speculating on it. But if you read the work of Philo, much of what was written in the Gospel of John becomes uncannily clearer. About Philo, from WikipediaPhilo (20 BC – 50 AD), known also as Philo of Alexandria and as Philo Judaeus And as Yedidia, was a Hellenized Jewish philosopher born in Alexandria, Egypt.
Philo used allegory to fuse and harmonize Greek philosophy and Judaism. His method followed the practices of both Jewish exegesis and Stoic philosophy. His work was not widely accepted. “The sophists of literalness,” as he calls them, “opened their eyes superciliously” when he explained to them the marvels of his exegesis. Philo's works were enthusiastically received by the early Christians, some of whom saw in him a cryptic Christian. His concept of the Logos as God's creative principle apparently influenced early Christology. To him Logos was God's “blueprint for the world”, a governing plan.
As you can see, Philo died before the first canonized book of the NT was said to be written. So his concept of Logos (Word) in relation to the God of Israel was developed well ahead of the Gospel of John. There is no telling if the writer of GofJ was influenced by Philo's work or if God inspired both to use the same concept of Logos. But one thing is certain: the other 3 Gospels make no mention of Logos.
Hey Kejonn Your mummy must be proud of you
or that might be mommy?
Thankyou so much for your posts
Truly I perceiveing your report on philo as good merchandise. Worth the price of the shipment
selah
charity
Heres some more.
Jhn 6:31 “Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.' “
Jhn 6:32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.
Jhn 6:33 “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”
Jhn 6:34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”
Jhn 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.Now check out what Philo wrote in WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS
(79) for the one raises his eyes to the sky, beholding the manna, the divine word, the heavenly, incorruptible food of the soul, which is food of contemplation: but the others fix the eye on garlic and onions, food which causes pain to the eyes, and troubles the sight, and makes men wink, and on other unsavoury food, of leeks, and dead fish, the appropriate provender of Egypt. (80) “For,” says the scripture, “we remembered the fish which we ate in Egypt without payment, and the gourds, and the cucumbers, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; but now our soul is dry and our eyes behold nothing but Manna.”
Phew…from The Special Laws III
(58) Then the law proceeds to say, the priest, having taken an earthen vessel, shall pour forth pure water, having drawn it from a fountain, and shall also bring a lump of clay from the ground of the temple, which also I think has in it a symbolical reference to the search after truth; for the earthenware vessel is appropriate to the commission of adultery because it is easily broken, and death is the punishment appointed for adulterers; but the earth and the water are appropriate to the purging of the accusation, since the origin, and increase, and perfection of all things, take place by them: (59) on which account it was very proper for the law-giver to set them both off by epithets, saying, that the water which the priest was to take must be pure and living water, since blameless woman is pure as to her life, and deserves to live; and the earth too is to be taken, not from any chance spot, but from the soil of the ground of the temple, which must, of necessity, be most excellent, just as a modest woman is.
Compare to
Jhn 4:9 Therefore the Samaritan woman *said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)
Jhn 4:10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.“
Jhn 4:11 She *said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
Jhn 4:12 “You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?”
Jhn 4:13 Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
Jhn 4:14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”
Jhn 4:15 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw.”
Jhn 4:16 He *said to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.”
Jhn 4:17 The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus *said to her, “You have correctly said, 'I have no husband';
Jhn 4:18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.”More…The Special Laws I
(81) For if it was necessary to examine the mortal body of the priest that it ought not be imperfect through any misfortune, much more was it necessary to look into his immortal soul, which they say is fashioned in the form of the living God. Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made.
Compare
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.Hi Kejonn
Just my thoughts on philo, his nature and towards his up bringing
In observation of the writings of philo and John, they focus on building the throne by Moses Laws, Also observation that, philo was heavily influence having been raised in what he thought to be the perfect manner of the Law, which was enforced by Babylon, As further offence on Gods people, on return to their own Land
Accomplished by Nehemiah the King of Babylon’s cup bearer, a Jew, who would rebuild the foundations entering the exiles into a curse, after the carrying away
So FROM THE CARYING AWAY to the carrying away, until Christ Mat 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] fourteen generations.
Christ came to set again the foundations of the Kingdom of his father’s throne, in which I find John working a confused battle, to avoid giving the roots of Christ any acknowledgement or reward of faithfulness.
Basically they believed David was the problem and he had not obeyed God in his Kingdom, the tribes could sacrifice if they still did not have faith, and those that followed David new God was full of sacrifice and offering, and desired only now a heart towards him.Law had voided the true meaning of its purpose,becoming a ritua,l habit of no meaning Hbr 10:4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. :5 ¶ Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure.Please don't be distracted to answer this post, keep your track
I am praying you recieve some rest in beween alsothanks and God bless you
(102) The candlestick was placed on the southern side of the tabernacle, since by it the maker intimates, in a figurative manner, the motions of the stars which give light; for the sun, and the moon, and the rest of the stars, being all at a great distance from the northern parts of the universe, make all their revolutions in the south. And from this candlestick there proceeded six branches, three on each side, projecting from the candlestick in the centre, so as altogether to complete the number of seven; (103) and in all the seven there were seven candles and seven lights, being symbols of those seven stars which are called planets by those men who are versed in natural philosophy; for the sun, like the candlestick, being placed in the middle of the other six, in the fourth rank, gives light to the three planets which are above him, and to those of equal number which are below him, adapting to circumstances the musical and truly divine instrument.
From Revelation
Rev 1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
Rev 1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;
Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
Rev 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance [was] as the sun shineth in his strength.Rev 1:18 I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given *the key of the bottomless pit*.
Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
Rev 1:20 The *mystery of the seven stars* which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
Rev 2:1 ¶ Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them *which say they are apostles,*and are not, and hast *found them liars*:
Rev 2:3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
for..Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;… Peter.. Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them *which say they are apostles,*and are not, and hast *found them liars*:found unworthy, removing the key..Luk 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.Well, I may have stumbled upon another source of JWs believing that Yeshua is an archangel. From ON THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES
(146) And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel. (147) For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, “We are all one man's Sons.”{#ge 42:11.} For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word.
Did we ever see “God the Father” until the New Testament? Well, it appears that Philo and perhaps some of his contempories used the term before the NT was ever authored. And this was by a Jew who did not know Yeshua!
I will not list links or titles but the quotes are pulled from many of Philo's 40+ writings.
(74) Now it was a very appropriate task for God the Father of all to create by himself alone, those things which were wholly good, on account of their kindred with himself. And it was not inconsistent with his dignity to create those which were indifferent since they too are devoid of evil, which is hateful to him. To create the beings of a mixed nature, was partly consistent and partly inconsistent with his dignity; consistent by reason of the more excellent idea which is mingled in them; inconsistent because of the opposite and worse one. (75) It is on this account that Moses says, at the creation of man alone that God said, “Let us make man,” which expression shows an assumption of other beings to himself as assistants, in order that God, the governor of all things, might have all the blameless intentions and actions of man, when he does right attributed to him; and that his other assistants might bear the imputation of his contrary actions. For it was fitting that the Father should in the eyes of his children be free from all imputation of evil; and vice and energy in accordance with vice are evil.
————————————————-
(67) For the external sense, being really shameless and impudent, though considered as nothing by God the father, in comparison of him who was faithful in all his house, to whom God himself united the Ethiopian woman, that is to say, unchangeable and well-satisfied opinion, dared to speak against Moses and to accuse him, for the very actions for which he deserved to be praised; for this is his greatest praise, that he received the Ethiopian woman, the unchangeable nature, tried in the fire and found honest; for as in the eye, the part which sees is black, so also the part of the soul which sees is what is meant by the Ethiopian woman.
————————————————-
(107) and the cause of this, I imagine, is as follows: The nature of one's parents appears to be something on the confines between immortal and mortal essences. Of mortal essence, on account of their relationship to men and also to other animals, and likewise of the perishable nature of the body. And of immortal essence, by reason of the similarity of the act of generation to God the Father of the universe.
————————————————-
(1.70) Very properly, therefore, when he has arrived at the external sense, he is represented no longer as meeting God, but only the divine word, just as his grandfather Abraham, the model of wisdom, did; for the scripture tells us, “The Lord departed when he had finished conversing with Abraham, and Abraham returned to his Place.”{#ge 18:33.} From which expression it is inferred, that he also met with the sacred words from which God, the father of the universe, had previously departed, no longer displaying visions from himself but only those which proceed from his subordinate powers.
————————————————-
(90) “Will you then, without shame call upon God, the father and sovereign of the world, to give his testimony in favour of those things, to witness which you will not venture even to bring your friend? And if you do so, will you do it knowing that he sees everything and hears everything, or not knowing this fact?Hi KJ,
There appears to be some spurious works accredited to Philo floating around:http://books.google.com/books?i….A160,M1
Have to checked whether the writing you have quoted are legit? Assuming that they are it's still unwarranted to assert that John borrowed concepts from Philo.
Though they were not preserved by the Jews,[16] Philo's works were treasured by Christian writers[17] who seized upon his concept of the Logos, thinking that it was the same as the Logos of the prologue of John's Gospel.[18] To Philo the Logos was “the instrument by which God makes the world and the intermediary by which the human intelligence as it is purified ascends to God again”[19] .However, Philo's Logos is not Divine, nor is it a person and it has no existence apart from the role it performs.[20] Although it was once generally accepted among scholars that there was some dependence by John on Philo's concept of the Logos, it seems more likely that both were drawing on a common Jewish background, into which Philo imported Platonic concepts.[21] So important was Philo to the early church writers that some, such as Eusebius and Jerome even went so far as to claim that he was a Christian. Eusebius records a legendary meeting between Philo and Peter in Rome[22] and both writers argue that Philo's work concerning Jewish ascetics (On the Contemplative Life) is a first hand report of the church (and monasteries!) founded by Mark in Alexandria.[23] It is true to say that by the fourth century “Pious legend would allow no writer so influential on early Christian exegesis to remain unconverted.”[24]
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/philo.phpBlessings
IS,
Thanks for the links. I will check them out and if I see any on the list I will do my best to make corrections to the posts I've made already.
I'm not strongly supporting that John was influenced by Philo, because I think it is entirely possible that similar divine inspiration could be given to more than one writer. If God inspired Philo (and most resources make this claim), then God can also inspire John in like manner. Yet there are many similarities wouldn't you say?
Thanks again!
Hey IS,
I checked several sources and none of the writings I cite are listed in the spurious works. All of the writings I have (I made one large pdf of them) come from Yonge's translations.
As far as the Philo's Logos not being divine, that is matter of the age old “God” opinion (like “My Lord and My God”). Philo does call the Logos a deity but also says the the Father is the Living God, the one God.
(62) Why is it that he speaks as if of some other god, saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after his own image? (#Ge 9:6). Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it the type of the divine Word; since in his first Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature. But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself? Nevertheless he also wished to intimate this fact, that God does rightly and correctly require vengeance, in order to the defence of virtuous and consistent men, because such bear in themselves a familiar acquaintance with his Word, of which the human mind is the similitude and form.
Now we just have to figure out what he means by deity here, right? He speaks against polyheism in his works.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
