Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 05-10-2012, 05:07 PM

Remember The Logos ....the Word ....From Philo to GJohn!!

aa5874 · 05-10-2012, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Remember The Logos ....the Word ....From Philo to GJohn!!

Remember that Philo claimed there is NOT yet any who is worthy to be called the Son of God. Please, please, please, Philo's Logos is NOT Jesus the Son of God in gJohn.

"On the Confusion of Tongues

Quote:

..... And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names...

And further, the use of the term 'Logos' may predate Philo.

The mis-use of 'interpolations' is out of control.

OVER FORTY books are attributed to Philo and none of them mentioned anything about the Jesus stories whatsoever yet it is claimed that they were interpolated because they mention the word 'LOGOS' which may have been used long before Philo.

maryhelena · 05-10-2012, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Maryhelena, who's to say that everything cited as the words of Philo are anymore his words than are everything stated in the name of Irenaeus in his book on Heresies?! So perhaps we do have interpolations after all.......the idea of the Logos/Word-Son within any Jewish context makes no sense at all.

I'm never happy debating *words* - who said what, where and when. Who wrote what, where and when etc...that, it seems to me, is to forever go around in circles. Words are very often inadequate vehicles for conveying our thoughts. And time, of course, conditions our thinking anyway...

So, whether Philo was interpolated or not - I've no idea. I'm interested in the Jewish/Hasmonean history - as far as it can be ascertained. I don't think we can get to an understanding of early christian origins from reading words written either by Josephus, Philo or the NT writers. The primary source has to be historically verified sources. Coins, archaeology etc. When the historical social/political landscape has been laid out - then - one can come back to the stories that have been written about it....

Quote:

So perhaps the piece in On the Confusion of Tongues
(146) IS in fact an interpolation:

"And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel."

And maybe this in Who is the Heir of Divine Things? 42.205-6:"And the Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Word a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separated that which had been created from the Creator.

And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race.

And the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of it, saying, 'And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and You; neither being uncreated as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities ... For I will proclaim peaceful intelligence to the creation from him who has determined to destroy wars, namely God, who is ever the guardian of peace.'

When Eusebius claims that Philo had contact with Peter in Rome, maybe he was offering a good coverup of nonsense for some interesting interpolations in Philo's writings.:

"It seems likely [Philo] wrote this after listening to their expositions of the Holy Scriptures, and it is very probable that what he calls short works by their early writers were the gospels, the apostolic writings, and in all probability passages interpreting the old prophets, such as one contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews and several others of Paul's epistles.

It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs."

– Eusebius, The History of the Church, p50,52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Maryhelena, you are addressing a very good point since for so long Josephus has been accepted as a reliable source with integrity, and that he was even relied on by the people who wrote the gospels (though not the authors of the epistles).

And if there are good reasons to really question the integrity of Josephus, there must be equally good reasons to investigate Philo (in addition to the mystery of why no one interpolated a Jesus story into Philo's writings).

So far there are reasons to discount what's in Josephus not only regarding Jesus and the Baptist (who gets more coverage that the Savior himself), but regarding Miriamne and to top it off, regarding Massada. And who knows what else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

aa - I don't believe I just read this...??

People wrote words about JC - and methinks you don't believe JC existed as a human being...............so what gives here??

Yep, Josephus is as great at writing pseudo-history as those gospel writers.............:banghead:

Duvduv · 05-11-2012, 05:57 AM

I never said that Philo's statements about the Logos explicitly related to the Jesus Son. All I have suggested that they do not appear to be the writings of an otherwise believing Jew, and that the ideas were convenient supports for underlying ideas of later Christianity.

What you are saying is like arguing that the Testimonium in Josephus cannot be an interpolation because it doesn't mention any ideas of Christianity regarding the one guy Jesus, or the description of the Baptist cannot be an interpolation for the same reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Remember The Logos ....the Word ....From Philo to GJohn!!

Remember that Philo claimed there is NOT yet any who is worthy to be called the Son of God. Please, please, please, Philo's Logos is NOT Jesus the Son of God in gJohn.

"On the Confusion of Tongues

Quote:

..... And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names...

And further, the use of the term 'Logos' may predate Philo.

The mis-use of 'interpolations' is out of control.

OVER FORTY books are attributed to Philo and none of them mentioned anything about the Jesus stories whatsoever yet it is claimed that they were interpolated because they mention the word 'LOGOS' which may have been used long before Philo.

Duvduv · 05-11-2012, 09:23 AM

Has ANY historian EVER questioned these references in Philo as not fitting into a Jewish context and therefore are questionable in terms of authorship? Why is Philo immune to questioning when others are not in this way?!

aa5874 · 05-11-2012, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I never said that Philo's statements about the Logos explicitly related to the Jesus Son. All I have suggested that they do not appear to be the writings of an otherwise believing Jew, and that the ideas were convenient supports for underlying ideas of later Christianity...

Philo's FORTY-FIVE books do NOT support the Jesus story so you are just making stuff up. Philo claimed that there is NO-ONE that can be called the Son of God.

'On the Confusion of Tongues'

Quote:

.... there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God...

Philo's Logos was NOT, NOT, the Son of God as found in the NT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What you are saying is like arguing that the Testimonium in Josephus cannot be an interpolation because it doesn't mention any ideas of Christianity regarding the one guy Jesus, or the description of the Baptist cannot be an interpolation for the same reason...

What absurd STRAWMAN you present!!!! The TF is a most blatant forgery and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with your unsubstantiated claims about Philo.

Everything that Eusebius claimed about Philo in relation to the Jesus story turned out to be fiction.

You need to investigate Eusebius since it was in his writings we find A LOT of the Lies about Philo.

Eusebius claimed Philo wrote about a character called Mark and recorded the preaching and churches of the Jesus cult in Alexandria but NOTHING at all can be found in the forty five books of Philo.

Investigate Eusebius--may be there was NO Council of Nicaea or what he claim happened is a BIG LIE.

There are ACTUAL LIES in the writings of Eusebius.

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

05-10-2012, 05:07 PM	#21
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Remember The Logos ....the Word ....From Philo to GJohn!!

05-11-2012, 09:23 AM	#25
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Has ANY historian EVER questioned these references in Philo as not fitting into a Jewish context and therefore are questionable in terms of authorship? Why is Philo immune to questioning when others are not in this way?!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.