JoyJuice

The OT touches on it, Heracitus expounds on it, Philo embraces it, the author of John adopts the ideas of Philo.

Philo. -- "The Logos is the Son of God" (De Profugis).
John. -- '"This [the Word] is the Son of God" (i, 34).

Philo. -- "The Logos is considered the same as God" (De Somniis).
John. -- "The Word was God" (i, 1).

Philo. -- "He [the Logos] was before all things" (De Leg. Allegor.).
John. -- "The same [the Word] was in the beginning with God" (i, 2).

Philo. -- "The Logos is the agent by whom the world was made" (De Leg. Allegor.).
John. -- "All things were made by him [the Word]" (i, 3).

Philo. -- "The Logos is the light of the world" (De Somniis).
John. -- "The Word was the true light" (i, 9).

Philo. -- "The Logos only can see God" (De Confus. Ling.).
John. -- "No man hath seen God.... He [the Word] hath declared him" (i, 18).

Excerpts from The Christ by John Remsburg, Prometheus Books, 1994

All the paralell to Greek Philosphy does is emphasize their rather Hellenistic environment.

guy_683930

One interesting thing to note about Philo is he makes a distinction between God itself and the Logos by referring to the one true god to him as "The God" or "ho theos" and he refers to the Logos simply as "God" or "theos" without the definite article (Somn. 1.229-230).

That's also what the writer of the gospel of John does in John 1:1-2.

motorhead

You're joking, right? The all powerful God of the universe, who apparently inspired this book to be written on Earth as a final communication to all mankind, can't even get scientific facts correct, even though allegedly this God created the universe?

I imagine God saying: "Yeah, I know how the whole universe was created, since I did it, and I could probably at least give a general overview of it for Moses to write in my one and only message to mankind. And I'm sure I could put it in terms the people of his generation would understand. But screw it, I'll let him write whatever he wants about it.

Yeah, I know I created the universe 15 billion years ago but it's not important. Sure, when this book is read and studied 4000 years from the time it's put together, the people on Earth will have figured out this view put down by Moses is wrong, and then they'll go on to question if this book can be true if there's falsehoods in it but whatever.

I know people's eternal destination is based on their acceptance of me, which is done through this book I inspired to mankind, so it should be of utmost importance for me to make sure it's correct in all ways, and is applicable across the generations but nah I'll let it fly as is."

motorhead

The Roman Catholic Church did not even get started until into the 2nd century, at least. The first followers of Jesus were Jews, who continued to practice their Jewish faith even after Jesus died. Paul went out into the world and made Gentile converts and he's the one who invented the major doctrines of Christianity which are with us today. Even these Gentile churches were just independent churches, nothing like the Roman Catholic Church that wouldn't get started until many years later.

Orthodox_Freethinker

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

John
1 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.

Where is the distinction made between "God" and "the God".

Orthodox_Freethinker

Your questions imply that Genesis must be literal.

Claim CH102.1:
Genesis must be literal; it is straightforward narrative.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1998. The literal week of creation. Back to Genesis 113a (May). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...on=view&ID=838

Response:

Straightforward narrative does not imply literalness. Aesop's fables are also straightforward narrative, but they are not literal.

It is far from clear that Genesis is straightforward narrative. Genesis 1 has a formulaic and poetic structure.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102_1.html

Young earth creationism is the conclusion if one is to understand Genesis literally. However, this need not be the case. In fact, many fathers of the church did just the opposite.

Please consider the following...

Justin Martyr
"For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus
"And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin" (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria
"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

"The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days" (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).

"And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the ‘days of creation’ ground of accusation—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these we shall only make this observation, that Moses must have forgotten that he had said a little before ‘that in six days the creation of the world had been finished’ and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: ‘This is the book of the creation of man in the day when God made the heaven and the earth [Gen. 2:4]’" (Against Celsus 6:51 [A.D. 248]).

"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world" (ibid., 6:60).

"For he [the pagan Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep the festival with God who have done all their work in their six days" (ibid., 6:61).

Cyprian
"The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years" (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250])

Augustine
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" (ibid., 2:9).

"Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (ibid., 4:27).

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).

"For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

"We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it" (ibid., 11:7).