Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 07-02-2003, 03:11 AM

Celsus, That was good moderation. I hope this discussion can continue with more light.

Quote:

In all seriousness, the logos was not a "who", but a "what." That "what" became a "who" at the birth of Christ - and having done so, it was no longer the "word" simpliciter. It was, in fact, something entirely different; the word made flesh.

If it was a what, what was it before it became a who and in what form was it at its earliest - what are the earlist references we have of the word? What was the purpose of the what and where was it at the beginning? (at least as per the beliefs of the ancients).

Now lets look at what you posted:

Quote:

Patristic theology of whatever school abused these texts by taking them out of context and giving them a meaning which John never intended.

At this point, its not clear to one reading your post what texts the author was referring to.
This does not set good grounds for your ideas to be understood.

Quote:

Functional language about the Son and the Spirit being sent into the world by the Father was transposed into that of eternal and internal relationships between Persons in the Godhead and words like "generation" and "procession" made into technical terms, which New Testament usage simply will not substantiate�

Its unclear whether this trasposition is manifest in the NT/OT, and how it takes place especially vis-a-vis eternal and internal relationships.
Could you show how: (a) the Son and the Spirit were sent into the world by the Father and (b) how (a) is trasnposed with "that of eternal and internal relationships between Persons in the Godhead"?
That would be very helpful.

Quote:

John is a typical representative of the New Testament, not the anomalous exception, with one foot in the world of Greek philosophy, that he is so often presented.

The significance and relevance of this is unclear in the context of this discussion. And its unclear what "typical representative of the NT" means given the huge differences in the origins, content and theological and philosophical underpinnings of the Gospels, vis a vis the epistles etc on many subject areas. When does a writing qualify to be a "typical representative of the NT"? In fact, the writings in the NT are what Doherty would say display "riotous diversity" - its exactly because of that that the historicity of Jesus (outside the synoptics) is indefensible. And the reliability of the gospels, as historical documents is zero.
Whats your standard of comparison?

Quote:

Therefore we should not argue from Philo's meaning of "word" as a hypostasis that John also meant by "word" a pre-existing personality.

John says in the beginning was the word and the word was with God. Therefore John believed the word was a pre-existing personality. How can anyone argue against something so obvious? We don't have to use Philo to support the idea that John "believed the word was a pre-existing personality". It's self-evident from the writings attributed to John.
John 1:1-4

Quote:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men

Your author says:

Quote:

In the remainder of the Gospel and in I John, "word" is never to be understood in a personal sense...

Then he is forced to admit:

Quote:

The slightly personifying way in which the word is spoken of as into the world (1:9-14) is typical of the personifying style of the Old Testament references to the word (Isa. 55:11; Psa. 107:20; 147:15. cp. 2 Thess. 3:1.)

Slightly personifying? Please! This is a tortured argument Ev.
Then he says:

Quote:

It cannot be proved that the author of the prologue thought of the word as a real person. Only the historical Jesus and not the original word is said to be the Son (John 1:14, 18.) But in this Son there dwelt and worked the eternal revelation of God.

It cannot be proved? This seems like apologetics masquerading as scholarship.
Mowinckel says:

Quote:

This attribution of pre-existence indicates religious importance of the highest order.

Then later says:

Quote:

This does not mean that either the nation Israel or its ancestor existed long ago in heaven, but that the community Israel, the people of God, had been from all eternity in the mind of God, as a factor in His purpose.

So, which is it? pre-existence confers something greatest importance (to the writer or God?) or means something was in the mind of God from the get-go?
This, dear Ev, is very unconvincing and convoluted.

Quote:

In contrast, the too quick resort to the 'obvious' or 'plain' meaning actually becomes in some cases a resort to a form of bitheism or tritheism.

And what is wrong with tritheism and bitheism? This is another false dilemma besides the one above that "forces" the reader into admitting that either the word was fortuitous, or was an expression of Gods divine being.
The word could have been a figment of the imagination of the ancients. So one is not limited to tri,mono or bitheism. And as we have seen, the "word" was a concept that was borrowed and evolved over time - misogynistic and patriarchial cultures exculpated the feminine sophia and replaced her with a male deity - Jesus, Mithras etc and the virgin took a backseat as a mere vessel that the protagonist came through. In the Gospels, Jesus treats his mother with contempt and all Mary can claim as a personal quality/ attribute is being a virgin that caught Gods eye. She is not blessed, but is blessed because she is the mother of Jesus while the Logos is wise, brave, strong, forceful, powerful (excorcism, and miracles) and even conquers death. As soon as Jesus comes out, Mary becomes a shadowy character and is almost totally forgotten.

In the last quote above, the author states that if one resorts to stating the meaning is obvious, then one will be resorting to bitheism or tritheism. What makes monotheism any better than bitheism or polytheism? The author seems to construct a false reductio ad absurdum to discourage certain ways of thinking that do not jell with his pet theological agenda.

Quote:

The conclusion which seems to emerge from our analysis thus far is that it is only with verse 14 that we can begin to speak of the personal logos. The poem uses rather impersonal language (�became flesh�), but no Christian would fail to recognize here a reference to Jesus � the word became not flesh in general but Jesus the Christ.

Like the author has said, "no Christian would fail to recognize...". So he is appealing to christians, he is preaching. The quotation does not merit any further examination.

So Evangelion, your apologetic quotations are asking us to believe, against the preponderant facts, that (1) pre-existent does not mean pre-existent and (2) "became flesh" means Jesus in flesh.

I have spent enough time on Kata sarka (in the flesh/according to the flesh) and kata pneuma and will not spend time debating (2) with you (you can read Dohertys site about the Platonic mindset and and if you disagree, I am ready to accept that). About (1), well, all I can see are tortured arguments against something so obvious.

GakuseiDon · 07-02-2003, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IronMonkey
No I did not.

IronMonkey, you are right, I misread. The mistake was mine. I got confused by the posts.

Ted Hoffman · 07-03-2003, 01:23 AM

So, in summary,
Evangelion claimed that the word was a what and not a who. But that the word became a who when Jesus was born (ie the word became flesh)

He then posted some citations that claimed that:

(1) Patristic theology abused some unnamed texts by taking them out of context and that functional language about the Son and the Spirit being sent into the world by the Father was transposed into that of eternal and internal relationships between Persons in the Godhead and words like "generation" and "procession" made into [unspecified] technical terms, which New Testament usage does not substantiate.
How the transposition is done, what the texts are, what tecfhnical terms are used are left unmentioned.

(2) Philo's meaning of the "word" is "revelation" and it cannot be proved that the word was a real person.

(3) The words' pre-existence means God had the word in his mind from the beginning before the creation of the world, meaning the word was not fortuitous. The attribution of pre-existence means the word is of highest religious importance.

(4) The word did not become flesh in General, but Jesus Christ.

(5) "Prior to verse 14" (whatever this means), we are dealing with personifications rather than persons.

From (1)(2)(3) (4) and (5), its clear that:

(a) The authors do not say the same thing about the word, its meaning and evolution.

(b) The authors do not talk about the same thing: one is assigning blame to "patristic theology", another talking about Philo, another about Philo and John, another about "happenstance" (or lack thereof), another about revelation, another about transposition, another about personifications.

Conclusion:
Evangelion arbitrarily selected the quotes, does not understand them, or has no clear idea about the point he would like to make.

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

07-03-2003, 01:23 AM	#53
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	So, in summary, Evangelion claimed that the word was a what and not a who. But that the word became a who when Jesus was born (ie the word became flesh) He then posted some citations that claimed that: (1) Patristic theology abused some unnamed texts by taking them out of context and that functional language about the Son and the Spirit being sent into the world by the Father was transposed into that of eternal and internal relationships between Persons in the Godhead and words like "generation" and "procession" made into [unspecified] technical terms, which New Testament usage does not substantiate. How the transposition is done, what the texts are, what tecfhnical terms are used are left unmentioned. (2) Philo's meaning of the "word" is "revelation" and it cannot be proved that the word was a real person. (3) The words' pre-existence means God had the word in his mind from the beginning before the creation of the world, meaning the word was not fortuitous. The attribution of pre-existence means the word is of highest religious importance. (4) The word did not become flesh in General, but Jesus Christ. (5) "Prior to verse 14" (whatever this means), we are dealing with personifications rather than persons. From (1)(2)(3) (4) and (5), its clear that: (a) The authors do not say the same thing about the word, its meaning and evolution. (b) The authors do not talk about the same thing: one is assigning blame to "patristic theology", another talking about Philo, another about Philo and John, another about "happenstance" (or lack thereof), another about revelation, another about transposition, another about personifications. Conclusion: Evangelion arbitrarily selected the quotes, does not understand them, or has no clear idea about the point he would like to make.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.