Duvduv

How would a GJohn writer have made the leap from a philosophical abstraction of the Philo Logos to the incarnation of a human person serving as the Logos for the purpose of salvation of believers??

judge

Johns gospel seems full of one metaphor after another.
The words becomes flesh, the light of the world, the bread of life, the vine, the door, god is his "father" etc etc etc
None of these are "real"

These all should be read metaphorically

Diogenes the Cynic

From reading Philo, or from already being familiar with Philo and applying it to an interpretation of the crucifixion.

GJohn is also very concerned with arguing for Jesus' pre-existence against the adoptionism of the synoptics, so the author (the one responsible for the logos material, anyway) may have looked to Philo for another example of a Jewish hypostasis. Philo's Logos is simpler and less abstract than his Greek sources. Philo took an abstract reference to divine interactions as a class and created a singular, tangible force out of them. GJohn then made a person out of the force, but before Philo, it's not even a singular force.

outhouse

exactly.

its all biblical jesus

Duvduv

However, out of all possible ways of allegorizing the Logos with a Jewish flavor as a human he chose "Jesus" who was the subject of writings of other sources (gospels), whose communities of adherents are unknown, including the other "branch," the "Paulist" Christ. He could have chosen something totally new without a Jewish flavor, or at least without a connection to this "Jesus". Something impelled the author(s) to stick with the Jesus storyline.

Diogenes the Cynic

All but the "flesh" part.

Diogenes the Cynic

Yes, and a Jewish origin to the story, with a genuine crucified Jew, would be one possible explanation.

He wasn't trying to turn the Logos into a human, he was to turn a person into the Logos.

Duvduv

OK, so we see this phenomenon of a human becoming the Logos (or vice versa), something unknown in the world of the other three gospels, BUT put together into a montage with ideas also found in those gospels, though not in the Pauline and other writings.
It's interesting that the montage that included some more Jewish ideas doesn't work in GLuke, who appears to be much more consistent in terms of a "low-key" Jewish Jesus (without a camel hair John, without viewing the heavens and dove, more of a Josephus history style, more humble), but who isn't cut and pasted with competing images.

The Jesus Christ motif was rather popular in a number of circles in differing styles that in itself may have attracted interest by Roman elites.

aa5874

Exactly, Exactly, Exactly!!! Jesus was not real. Jesus was a Metaphor.

Now, tell me what does the Metaphor in Matthew 1.18-20 mean when it states the mother of Jesus was with child of a Ghost???

Jesus was the Son of No--Body

Jesus was NO--BODY'S Son.

Jesus was a No--Body.


It is most hilarious when Ehrman uses the Bible for his historical Jesus and HJers claim parts of the Bible should be read metaphorically.

HJers do not even realize that the very claim in the Bible that Jesus LIVED must be read as a Metaphor.

Now, please take your own advice and STOP reading the Bible as literal history.

Jesus was Mythological NOT historical once the Bible is read metaphorically.

Duvduv

AA, so what and when was the turning point in your opinion that Christians started believing the NT texts referred to a physical being in history at the time of Tiberius and Pilate???