Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 08-11-2013, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Philo's use of the term "Logos" was NOT part of the early evolution of the Jesus story.

There is NOTHING of the "Logos" or NO reference to Jesus as the Logos in gMark.

Jesus as The Logos is DIRECTLY found in the LATER Gospel of gJohn.

In fact, Jesus is immediately introduced as the Logos in the very first verse of gJohn.

In gMark, it is AFTER the Baptism by John that the Jesus character began to act or display his Divine characteristics and there is no indication that the Markan Jesus was the Logos and God the Creator.

The earliest stories of Jesus, the Synoptics, show that Jesus as the Logos was a Later invention in the evolution of Jesus belief.

Can you trace this hypothesis of the synthesis of Jesus belief with Logos belief, flesh it out a bit more (no pun intended).

We have gJohn.

John 1

Quote:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made .

We have writings attributed to Justin and Hippolytus composed in the mid 2nd century or later.

Justin's First Apology 5

Quote:

For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ.

Hippolytus' Refutation Against all Heresies" 10

Quote:

The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.

The earliest stories of Jesus, gMark, and gMatthew do not claim Jesus was the Logos, God the Creator and equal to God.

It is in the Later gJohn, and the Pauline Corpus.

Philippians 2:6 KJV

Quote:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

Colossians 1

Quote:

16 For by him were all things created , that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

According to:

The Influence Of Greek Philosophy On The Development Of Christian Theology

Quote:

Early Christians were slow to develop a distinctly Christian philosophy.

When they did, their philosophical environment was Neo-Platonic.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 08-11-2013, 10:24 PM

What was the nature of the Jesus-belief which evolved?

The belief appears to have been extremely simplistic and without any deep philosophical underpinnings. It's almost tantamount to a "He Said, He Did" statement of dubiously historical facts mixed in with absurd claims of conception via a god, walking on water, raising the dead, turning water to wine, and ascension through the cloud-banks of the planet.

It would seem that the evolution of any philosophical beliefs associated with Jesus did not commence until the 4th century after the publication of what is today termed neoplatonist philosophy via Plotinus and his student Porphyry.

Strangely enough many of the so-called non canonical texts associated with Christianity, especially those found within the Nag Hammadi Codices, are also quite heavily concerned with the same philosophical system of (neo-) Platonism.

Grog has suggested a 'punctuated evolution' of belief. Has anyone considered it may instead have been a "Big Bang" evolution of belief?

To what extent did the author of gJohn simply "borrow" the Platonic and/or Hellenistic concept of Logos for his gospel? I am not aware that the Hebrews had developed any systems of logic, or indeed any system of healing arts which were supposedly practiced by Jesus and the Apostles.

Emperor Julian writes:

Quote:

.... as regards the constitution of the state and the fashion of the law-courts, the administration of cities and the excellence of the laws, progress in learning and the cultivation of the liberal arts, were not all these things in a miserable and barbarous state among the Hebrews?

And yet the wretched Eusebius will have it that poems in hexameters are to be found even among them, and sets up a claim that the study of logic exists among the Hebrews, since he has heard among the Hellenes the word they use for logic.

What kind of healing art has ever appeared among the Hebrews, like that of Hippocrates among the Hellenes, and of certain other schools that came after him?

The New Testament was written in the Greek language for the edification of the Greek speaking populace of the Roman empire, and it appears to have borrowed heavily from the Greek philosophical schools. It's appendage to the Greek LXX does not guarantee any form of Hebrew origins and/or any evolutionary pathway from the Hebrew heritage.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 08-11-2013, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...It would seem that the evolution of any philosophical beliefs associated with Jesus did not commence until the 4th century after the publication of what is today termed neoplatonist philosophy via Plotinus and his student Porphyry.

There is no real evidence to support the claim that the evolution of any philosophical beliefs associated with Jesus did not commence until the 4th century.

It is simple not logical at all that a 4th century Jesus cult would invent 2nd and 3rd century Jesus cult writers whose philosophical beliefs about Jesus contradict the very 4th century cult.

The belief of Jesus was Hijacked in the 4th century and was manipulated by the Romans who were the very persecutors of the Believers in the 2nd-4th century.

The Nicene Creed was NOT an early Creed of the Jesus cult.

The early Jesus cult BELIEVED the Kingdom of God was at hand. See Mark 1

aa5874 · 08-12-2013, 12:52 AM

The earliest Gospel was that the Kingdom of God was at hand--NOT Paul's Gospel.

In the very Canon, the Pauline writers admitted or claimed they persecuted the believers.

In gMark, the Jesus character preached the Good News of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God which is found in the book of Daniel.

Mark 1

Quote:

14 But after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

15 that the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand: Repent and believe in the gospel.

The advent of the Kingdom of God is based on the supposed prophecies in the Septuagint but there is NO gospel--No Good News-- that Jesus would resurrect and that without the resurrection there would be No salvation.

The Pauline Gospel EVOLVED After the Gospel of God--the Good News that the time is fulfilled and that the Kingdom of God was at hand.

In the NT, Jesus preached the Gospel of God BEFORE the Pauline writers Preached the Faith.

1. Jesus preached his Gospel of God BEFORE the resurrection.

2. The Pauline writers preached the Faith AFTER the resurrection.

Grog · 08-12-2013, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

From the Odes of Solomon 11.5:

The Odes also late 1st Century probably, don't seem to have any mithraic elements. I think it is possible for the rock imagery to not be dependent on Mithraism.

From Numbers 20:8

I would prefer myself to date the Odes of Solomon to the 2nd century CE, but I agree that there is no evidence of mithraic elements in this work.

The reason why I think the Apocalypse of Adam is influenced by the Mithras cult is that it seems to have the saviour figure himself being born from a rock.

I agree that references to water (physical and/or spiritual) proceeding from a rock are widespread in Jewish and Christian writings, but the Apocalypse of Adam seems to be saying something rather different.

Andrew Criddle

Also, wisdom can come from the rock. I think the Apocalypse of Adam reflects that. However, it could well be that there is influence from Mithras, I don't think that is too late to still influence the development of Christianity.

aa5874 · 08-12-2013, 08:42 AM

The Gospel of the earliest Jesus character was that the Kingdom of God was at hand.

In the earliest story of Jesus the character was also called the Son of Man who was Coming[ with the clouds of heaven.

The phrase that Son of man is to come with the clouds of heaven is found ONLY in the book of Daniel.

In Daniel 7, one like the Son of man was given an everlasting Kingdom and all people would worship him.

Daniel 7.13-14

Quote:

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away , and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed .

Josephus who wrote Antiquities of the Jews c 93 CE would also claim Daniel was a prophet of GOOD NEWS.

The earliest Gospel--the earliest Good News--that the Kingdom of God was at hand is based on the book of Daniel.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7

Quote:

.......we believe that Daniel conversed with God; for he did not only prophesy of future events, as did the other prophets, but he also determined the time of their accomplishment. And while prophets used to foretell misfortunes, and on that account were disagreeable both to the kings and to the multitude, Daniel was to them a prophet of good things, and this to such a degree, that by the agreeable nature of his predictions, he procured the goodwill of all men; and by the accomplishment of them, he procured the belief of their truth, and the opinion of [a sort of] divinity for himself, among the multitude. He also wrote and left behind him what made manifest the accuracy and undeniable veracity of his predictions...

Josephus continues and claims Daniel accurately predicted the desolation of Jerusalem by the Romans.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7

Quote:

And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass.

....In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel...

The Pauline Gospel was composed AFTER Antiquities of the Jews. It was expected that there would be a PHYSICAL Messianic ruler--One Like the Son of a Man--Not a heavenly Jesus.

Grog · 08-12-2013, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Gospel of the earliest Jesus character was that the Kingdom of God was at hand.

In the earliest story of Jesus the character was also called the Son of Man who was Coming[ with the clouds of heaven.

The phrase that Son of man is to come with the clouds of heaven is found ONLY in the book of Daniel.

In Daniel 7, one like the Son of man was given an everlasting Kingdom and all people would worship him.

Daniel 7.13-14

Quote:

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away , and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed .

Josephus who wrote Antiquities of the Jews c 93 CE would also claim Daniel was a prophet of GOOD NEWS.

The earliest Gospel--the earliest Good News--that the Kingdom of God was at hand is based on the book of Daniel.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7

Josephus continues and claims Daniel accurately predicted the desolation of Jerusalem by the Romans.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7

Quote:

And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass.

....In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel...

The Pauline Gospel was composed AFTER Antiquities of the Jews. It was expected that there would be a PHYSICAL Messianic ruler--One Like the Son of a Man--Not a heavenly Jesus.

I do not share with you the certainty regarding Jewish messianic expectations. I do not believe they were as unified or as coherent as you suggest.

This is from William Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, p. 108:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horbury

Ancient Jewish presentation of the messiah as a glorious mortal king with spiritual and superhuman aspects is then not necessarily far removed from the contemporary New Testament and early Christian depictions of a crucified but spiritual and glorious 'Christ'.

And this earlier:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horbury

It is true that the superhuman and spiritual aspects of the descriptions do not abolish the humanity of the messiah; but it is also true that the messiah is widely, not just exceptionally, depicted with emphasis on his superhuman and spiritual aspect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horbury

The messiah as king is close to the 'gods' in the form of angels, as is repeatedly shown by the 'spiritual' strand in the messianic depictions just noted...

Consider (referenced by Horbury):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isaiah 9

For a child has been born to us,
a son has been given to us.
He shoulders responsibility
and is called:
Extraordinary Strategist,
Mighty God,
Everlasting Father,
Prince of Peace.
7 His dominion will be vast
and he will bring immeasurable prosperity.
He will rule on David’s throne
and over David’s kingdom,
establishing it and strengthening it
by promoting justice and fairness,
from this time forward and forevermore.
The Lord’s intense devotion to his people will accomplish this.

In Micah 5, the messiah will be from the distant past:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micah 5

As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah—
from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf,
one whose origins are in the distant past.

Here's another factor to consider, as well:

While it was usual, common, to view heavenly entities as descending to Earth, the idea of a human considered or thought of as God was anathema:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horbury

Philo comments that changing a man into a god and pretending that corruptible nature is incorruptible is the most grievous impiety towards the true divine benefactor...(p.75)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philo

but in this case what was put in motion was not a trifle, but a thing of the very greatest importance, namely, the erecting the created and perishable nature of a man, as far at least as appearance went, into the uncreated and imperishable nature of God, which the nation correctly judged to be the most terrible of all impieties (Embassy to Gaius, 118)

I think it is more likely that Jesus-belief evolved from the idea of heavenly Messiah/Logos figure descending to Earth than, following the Jesus to Christ hypothesis, that a human Jesus from Nazareth, itinerant, illiterate woodworker, became viewed as one with God.

andrewcriddle · 08-12-2013, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Perhaps the author of the Apocalypse of Adam was influenced by Chaldean Oracles-like attempts to introduce theurgy into Neo-Platonism?

DCH

Some of the 'Sethian' texts from Nag Hammadi clearly have been influenced by theurgy and the Chaldaean Oracles.

I can't see any clear evidence that this is true of the Apocalypse of Adam.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 08-12-2013, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...It would seem that the evolution of any philosophical beliefs associated with Jesus did not commence until the 4th century after the publication of what is today termed neoplatonist philosophy via Plotinus and his student Porphyry.

There is no real evidence to support the claim that the evolution of any philosophical beliefs associated with Jesus did not commence until the 4th century.

A study of the Evolution of Jesus-belief must involve Christology

Quote:

Christology (from Greek Χριστός Khristós and -λογία, -logia) is the field of study within Christian theology which is primarily concerned with the nature and person of Jesus Christ as recorded in the canonical Gospels and the epistles of the New Testament.[2] Primary considerations include the relationship of Jesus' nature and person with the nature and person of God the Father. As such, Christology is concerned with the details of Jesus' ministry, his acts and teachings, to arrive at a clearer understanding of who he is in his person, and his role in salvation.[3] A major component of the Christology of the Apostolic Age was that of Paul the Apostle. His central themes were the notion of the pre-existence of Christ and the worship of Christ as Kyrios (Greek: Lord).[4]

Following the Apostolic Age, there was fierce and often politicized debate in the early church on many interrelated issues. Christology was a major focus of these debates, and was addressed at every one of the first seven ecumenical councils. The second through fourth of these councils are generally entitled "Christological councils," with the latter three mainly elucidating what was taught in them and condemning incorrect interpretations.[5] The Council of Chalcedon in 451 issued a formulation of the being of Christ — that of two natures, one human and one divine, "united with neither confusion nor division."[5] This is called the doctrine of the hypostatic union,[5] which is still held today amongst most Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, referred to as Chalcedonian Christianity. Due to politically charged differences in the 4th century, schisms developed, and the first denominations (from the Latin, "to take a new name") formed.[5]

Above I cited a source which claimed the following:

Quote:

Early Christians were slow to develop a distinctly Christian philosophy.

When they did, their philosophical environment was Neo-Platonic.

Quote:

It is simple not logical at all that a 4th century Jesus cult would invent 2nd and 3rd century Jesus cult writers whose philosophical beliefs about Jesus contradict the very 4th century cult.

Evolution of belief, whether utterly simplistic or rigorously philosophical, requires time. It would appear that the 2nd and 3rd century Jesus cult writers were very interested in Plato, and Greek philosophical thought.

Was Philo a misappropriated Platonist? Grog has not addressed this question.

Quote:

The Nicene Creed was NOT an early Creed of the Jesus cult.

The earliest Nicaean Creed incorporated a disclaimer against the heretics but it is certainly not an expression of any great profound and rigorous philosophical belief, rather a collection of simplistic statements that were contrasted with the statements of heretical belief.

Quote:

The early Jesus cult BELIEVED the Kingdom of God was at hand. See Mark 1

So did the pagans of the 4th century. A new Kingdom of God had arrived and they were being forced into it. Belief and unbelief were highly contrasted at Nicaea. Christology blossomed like never before.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 08-12-2013, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

...I think it is more likely that Jesus-belief evolved from the idea of heavenly Messiah/Logos figure descending to Earth than, following the Jesus to Christ hypothesis, that a human Jesus from Nazareth, itinerant, illiterate woodworker, became viewed as one with God.

I have not argued at all that Jesus was actually human. I argue that Jesus was a Myth character invented fundamentally from the Septuagint using the words of the Lord found in the books of the Prophets.

We can also see that in the earliest story of Jesus he was UNKNOWN as the Messiah and did NOT want any one to know who he was.

There is NO evolution of Belief from a Heavenly Messiah to an Earthly Messiah.

We have the Codices with the earliest stories of Jesus.

We have Codices with the Later Jesus story in gJohn.

We have the EVOLUTION.

Jesus as The Logos is the Later EVOLUTUION of the Jesus Belief.

Only in gJohn, is Jesus directly claimed to be the Logos and God the Creator

Sinaiticus gMark 8

Quote:

29 And he asked them: But you, who say you that I am? Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ.

30 And he charged them to tell no one concerning him.

Mark 8:30 KJV

Quote:

And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

Matthew 16:20 KJV

Quote:

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. ]

Luke 9:21 KJV

Quote:

And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing

It is the Later Jesus who claimed he was EQUAL to God--NOT the early Jesus in gMark.

John 10:30 KJV

Quote:

I and my Father are one.

The Pauline Jesus is compatible with the LATE Jesus of gJohn.

Philippians 2

Quote:

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God..

It is clear that the Pauline writers preached the Resurrected Jesus was the Christ after the author of gMark claimed Jesus was REJECTED as the Christ by the Jews and betrayed, abandoned or denied by his own disciples.

Peter did NOT preach that Jesus was the Christ in gMark--He denied knowing Jesus.

The Pauline Jesus is the Last Jesus in the Canon.

The earliest Jesus did NOT WANT people to be converted and did NOT and the populace to know he was the Christ.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.