spamandham

Jesus is currently believed to be the Messiah by about 1 billion people. This had to have started at some point in history, and certainly by about the middle of the 2nd century this seems to be well established.

The question is not whether people long ago believed Jesus to be the Messiah, but whether the originators of Christianity believed this.

spin

Hopefully I didn't imply anything to the contrary, though I think the notion of messiah has been filtered through the mystery cult dying saviour. The Jewish messiah was to accomplish through embodying divine might the restitution of the Hebrew god's people to their rightful place in the universe. It has nothing to do with dying for one's wrongdoings.

The christian messiah figure has absorbed numerous influences, including that of wisdom coming down to the world, walking amongst men, and speaking at street corners.


spin

k_smith123

Given the context in which Christianity was supposedly born (during the time when Philo was arguing that the writings of Moses could be understood allegorically), it seems reasonable to suspect that John’s reference to the “Logos” is a reference to allegory and Christ is a metaphor that has been given “life” through allegoric writings.

When I read the writings of Philo, who spent considerable time discussing the Logos, I find myself reminded of the title character of Plato’s Ion who claimed the ability to interpret the writings of Homer and of whom Socrates says:

"But, indeed, Ion, if you are correct in saying that by art and knowledge you are able to praise Homer, you do not deal fairly with me, and after all your professions of knowing many, glorious things about Homer, and promises that you would exhibit them, you are only a deceiver, and so far from exhibiting the art of which you are a master, will not, even after my repeated entreaties, explain to me the nature of it.”

In Plato’s Cratylus, Socrates argues that there is a “correctness” to names and he explains:

"…a king will often be the son of a king, the good son or the noble son of a good or noble sire; and similarly the offspring of every kind, in the regular course of nature, is like the parent, and therefore has the same name. Yet the syllables may be disguised until they appear different to the ignorant person, and he may not recognize them, although they are the same, just as any one of us would not recognize the same drugs under different disguises of colour and smell, although to the physician, who regards the power of them, they are the same, and he is not put out by the addition; and in like manner the etymologist is not put out by the addition or transposition or subtraction of a letter or two, or indeed by the change of all the letters, for this need not interfere with the meaning. As was just now said, the names of Hector and Astyanax have only one letter alike, which is tau, and yet they have the same meaning. And how little in common with the letters of their names has Archepolis (ruler of the city)--and yet the meaning is the same. And there are many other names which just mean 'king.' Again, there are several names for a general, as, for example, Agis (leader) and Polemarchus (chief in war) and Eupolemus (good warrior); and others which denote a physician, as Iatrocles (famous healer) and Acesimbrotus (curer of mortals); and there are many others which might be cited, differing in their syllables and letters, but having the same meaning." (Italics added)

Thus Plato’s “Ion” can be identified with the name “John” (G. Ioannes) and if there is “correctness”, such as Socrates claims, then Philo could also rightly be called “John”. It is also interesting to note that the name “Philo” means “friend” in Greek and this idea can be expressed in Hebrew as “merea’” and thus Philo can also be called “Maria”. It is furthermore worth noting the Plato’s Ion came from the city of Ephesus, which is precisely where “tradition” places the Virgin Mary and the Apostle John after the crucifixion of Christ.

The Old Testament character Sampson had thirty “merea’” that he was forced to provide with new “clothes” after his wife betrayed him by giving them the solution to a “puzzle”. (Judges Chapter 14) The author of the Book of Judges does not say what happened to the old clothes but perhaps they were the ones that the prophet Jeremiah used to “hang” himself (with the help of thirty men) in the “potters field” at the bottom of the cistern that had served as his prison. (Jeremiah Chapter 38). In Greek, the name Jeremiah is expressed as “Hieremias” which then can be linked to the name “Hermes” and thus there also seems to be correctness in regards to this “prophet”.

Since all allegory consists of “cover” and “hidden” meanings an “apocalypse” (from the Greek meaning “to uncover”) represents the uncovering of hidden meanings. In Hebrew this idea can be expressed as “galah” and thus “Galilee” is the correct location for Christ’s early teachings.

The implications are that Christianity began as an interpretive sect that went too far and revealed too much about Hebrew and Greek allegory to the common masses. Philo then came along and used false interpretations (female) mixed with some truth (male) in order to “put the genie back in the bottle”.

Nope, no signs of allegory here!

Malachi151

Adding to this again, in Sirach 24 it also reads:

Chili

Because it is just backwords to think that our understanding of God comes via scripures.

The "word" of Paul is werein essence precedes existence and finds form in the material world according to the spoken word. It is where truth (the 'einai') of the image comes to rest in the appearance of the being (there is truth in appearances but appearances are not truth.

Malachi151

Umm.... and where else would it come from?

Chili

Understanding God must be prior to us by nature and posterior to us in the bible where the written word will testify to that which is prior to us by nature [thusfar] (Jn.5:39-40).

spamandham

This thread has nothing to do with understanding gods. It's about what the writers of the NT had in mind.

Chili

Huh? Darkness did not understand it?

That must be a Disneyfied bible you got that from because darkness does not have a mind of its own or light would have an opposite in dark and that just is not true. If you don't believe this just go to Gen.1 where evening follows each day except on the seventh day and thus is why there is no need for lamps in Rev.22:5.

Only the word that came to be is God himself and there is no argument there.

The reason why Jewish scripture is not the word of God is because the word of God is the essence of existence after which the being is formed (the 'einai' of 'on' or of 'ta onta' in the plural with only one einai for each). So while a logos must look to the being for its truth, it must declare the being as its essence which in Buddhism would the suchness of the thatness and say no more because the insight becomes clear on the basis of perception (aisthesis) and that will declare its ousia from truth (and thus not from th bible).

I have no objection to say that Jewish scripture is the inspired word of God but that is not the same as to say that scripture is the word of God, and please note that God never said a word after Gen.1 (I hope).

spamandham

You seem to be trying to make some point about what you think the Bible means. That's fine and all, but it has nothing to do with the question I posed. Again, this thread is about what the authors of the NT believed, not about you're beliefs.