- This topic is empty.
- Posts
To whomever it may concern,
Since we are discussing the idea of the logos according to Christian-Jewish thought of the First Century I felt that it is appropriate to point to Philo the Philosopher who is an actual Jew of the First Century. There is no evidence he converted but we do know his theology from what he wrote of his Philosophies. This Philosophy thus was known among some of the Jews of Jesus time including Jews such as John, Peter, Jesus, James, etc. I do not know if they practiced the exact version as Philo but the tradition they did practice most like shared some thing in common with that of Philo so Philo's writings can help us with the context of what they wrote.
Here is an introduction to the ideas of Philo.
Edited to correct spelling.
To all,
Rob Bradshaw, Webmaster earlychurch.org.uk reads:
Quote Philo's works were treasured by Christian writers who seized upon his concept of the Logos, thinking that it was the same as the Logos of the prologue of John's Gospel. 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”.However, Philo's Logos is not Divine, nor is it a person and it has no existence apart from the role it performs
My question is does Philo's concept of the word fit the wording of John 1?
If your answer is yes then why?
If your answer is no then why?
Kerwin……….From what i have read so far i would agree with Philo a word is just a word it is not a person it is the expression of a persons thoughts , a word in and of it self in not divine at all. It is intellect when uttered it is being transfered from one to another, It has effect in the reasonings of a person and can influence that persons total understandings and cause him to respond accordingly to the degree of influence it is having on him. A spoken word is simply a thought from ones intellect being Uttered to another, no more no less. But it is the POWER behind the WORDS that is what really counts. Power is Force, and GOD the FATHER is the (ALL MIGHTY) Power or force behind HIS Words. IMO
peace and love…………………….gene
Here is how Hippolytus (ca. 230 A.D) puts it.
The first and Only, both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself… He was One, Alone in Himself…. this Solitary and Supreme Deity, by an act of reflection, brought forth the Word first, not the Word in the sense of being expressed by voice, but as a Reason of the cosmos, conceived and residing in the Divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things, for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Word was in the Father Himself, bearing the will of his Progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. For simultaneously with his procession from His Progenitor, inasmuch as he is this Progenitor’s firstborn, he has, as a voice in himself, the concepts conceived in the Father. And so it was, that when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Word one by one completed each object of creation, thus pleasing God…. God, who is the source of all authority, wished that the Word might render assistance in accomplishing a production of this kind…. The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Logos is God [that is, “deity,” in the sense of nature of substance], being the substance of God….
t8,
“Hippolytus, 230AD”?
You do know that by that time, the trinity was developed or was developing, don't you?
So what you are saying is that everything was corrupt at that time and shouldn't quote anyone from 3rd-century period.
But if you read what he says, he completely contradicts the Trinity Doctrine.
t8,
The trinity was developing from about Irenaeus/Justin Martyr. They were inconsistent in their Christology. One minute they say that God alone created, and that God's Logos was His spoken word, but next minute they say that the Logos was another being. They are too confusing, I found.I don't find them confusing if you understand that theos can be applied to God and to his nature. Many of these guys understood Greek while we do not. So they knew the rule that theos can apply to nature while THE Theos is identifying a particular being.
Thus The God is usually the Father and theos/elohim can be rightly applied to Jesus, man, angel, etc.
It is when lost sight of the fact that a being can be theos in nature and only one can be the true Theos in identity that it got confusing.
According to the Hippolytus quote he understood the difference clearly because he said, “The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Logos is God [that is, “deity,” in the sense of nature of substance], being the substance of God….”.
Origen (pron.: /ˈɒrɪdʒən/; Greek: Ὠριγένης Ōrigénēs), or Origen Adamantius (184/185 – 253/254),[1] was a scholar and theologian of early Christian interest in Alexandria, and one of the writers regarding the early Church. During the fifth and sixth centuries, his orthodoxy was questioned, largely because he believed in the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, and apokatastasis, or universal reconciliation, ideas which were discussed among some patristic writers but which were later rejected as heretical.[2] The Council of Constantinople in 453 CE posthumously excommunicated Origen, and the 2nd Council of Constantinople in 553 CE declared apokatastasis as heresy.[3] However, in recent years the idea has found some reconsideration[4] especially among Restorationist Christian groups. His writings are included in the general collection of early Church Fathers.[5][6]
Origen was a prolific writer in multiple branches of theology, including textual criticism, biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, philosophical theology, preaching, and spirituality. Some of his teachings, however, quickly became controversial. Notably, he frequently referred to his hypothesis of the pre-existence of souls. As in the beginning all intelligent beings were united to God, Origen also held out the possibility, though he did not assert so definitively, that in the end all beings, perhaps even the arch-fiend Satan,[7] would be reconciled to God in what is called the apokatastasis (“restitution”). Origen's views on the Trinity, in which he saw the Son of God as subordinate to God the Father, became controversial during the Arian controversy of the fourth century, though a subordinationist view was common among the ante-Nicene Fathers. A group who came to be known as Origenists, and who firmly believed in the preexistence of souls and the apokatastasis, were declared anathema in the 6th century. This condemnation is attributed to the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, though it does not appear in the council's official minutes.[8] Few scholars today believe that Origen should be blamed, as he commonly was in the past, for tentatively putting forward hypotheses, later judged heretical, on certain philosophical problems during a time when Christian doctrine was somewhat unclear on said problems.this was also the time of ORIGEN and many have called him a supporter of the trinity what was a lie ,
2besee, it is our lack of Greek that makes us think these guys were double minded. But most seem to know the difference between identity and nature, while we seem to lack that understanding.
Yes Origen was a brilliant scholar and he had a good grasp of the Greek tongue. He is probably guilty of letting his imagination run wild, however, most of his ideas outside the Bible cannot be proven to be true or false IMO.
2besee, it is the same in English to a degree.
If I say to you, THE man, then I am talking about a specific man.
If I say, 'man', then I am talking of mankind, thus I am talking about a nature.
e.g., The man used tools to carve the rock.
verses
Man used tools to carve the rock.That is why Adam is the first man.
Adam means man and THE ADAM is a particular man, while Eve can rightly be called adam/man. As it is written, God created man/adam male and female.
They understood Greek and we do not. So it is us who are confused.
The funny thing his ,that God said that he will call to him people with strange languages ,
I feel like one of those
Yeah, even though I speak English, I am from New Zealand, so our English is different. All our vowels seem to have moved along one space.
Fish becomes Fush
Sex becomes Six
Advantage becomes AdvuntageTrue story, but then we are on the edge of the world. Maybe even not of this Earth.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 12 2013,16:51) 2besee, it is our lack of Greek that makes us think these guys were double minded. But most seem to know the difference between identity and nature, while we seem to lack that understanding.
In my search for understanding I did read most of the anti-nicene writings and it left me feeling quite complexed compared to the “simplicity in Christ” which comes with the spirit of truth if it hits you in the beginning.You know the difference.
It makes me wonder though where people go off track. I believe it is because they follow man, either individuals or in a church setting or through the ability today to read all of those ancient writings other than scripture, plus other books, etc.
From experience, when you are on the right track, it is less about doctrinal belief as such but more about spirit and prayer and a relationship with God with faith and also with power.
I found the early church writers said too much, there was too much “mans mind” in it. Excluding Shepherd of Hermas which had spirit in it
and was called canon by the ECF, from what i am learning.I know nothing much of Greek but I use bible.cc to search word meanings.
That is interesting!Quote (t8 @ Feb. 12 2013,16:54) 2besee, it is the same in English to a degree. If I say to you, THE man, then I am talking about a specific man.
If I say, 'man', then I am talking of mankind, thus I am talking about a nature.
e.g., The man used tools to carve the rock.
verses
Man used tools to carve the rock.That is why Adam is the first man.
Adam means man and THE ADAM is a particular man, while Eve can rightly be called adam/man. As it is written, God created man/adam male and female.
They understood Greek and we do not. So it is us who are confused.
Possibly.2besee, my view is that like any generation, they take what they have inherited and take it to the next level or explore it further. But the danger in that is that they can not only stray from the path, but can be more easily misquoted.
I think the Trinity Doctrine developed from the original understanding that theos was also divine nature (The Word was theos) and once they lost sight of that, then The Word became God himself and then once that was accepted, Mary became the Mother of God and so on.
I think some of these early Fathers as they are called had some very good insights into scripture. But Greek Philosophy and Pagan ideas crept in once the Greeks and other pagans became Believers.
We already had a prelude of that with the circumcision debate with Peter and Paul regarding non-Jews.
But yeah, like any book, you read it and test it. And the authors of these letters and writings were not perfect. They were just like us.
So of course they would have made mistakes just like we do. But I am sure that they also had great insights too.
Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 12 2013,18:49) The funny thing his ,that God said that he will call to him people with strange languages , I feel like one of those
T, don't worry, you are not alone in that, me too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
