The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1 (page 6)

zen nudist

in the beginning was the dream and the dream was in GOD
and GOD was the dreamer
all things were made by dreaming
and finally the Dream itself was made flesh.

hamsterbait

Do some research and you will discover that the gospel of John, the Epistles and the Revelation are not considered by all to be by the same man. So certain religious arguments are not credible.

The use of greek in Revelation, is more like that of an educated man living in Greece than an ignorant fisherman who grew up in Galilee, and according to language experts is very different from the Gospel.

Church tradition ascribed the Revelation to the friend of Jesus. It is not likely that a man of nearly a hundred years of age could have survived more than a few days in a penal colony, let alone live to be released and then write it down.

Prisoners were treated abominably and were not given paper ink and leisure time to record their starvation induced hallucinations.

HB

Narkissos

The memra' is already in the Targums -- less speculative than Philo's logos, in many cases a substitution word for God or Yhwh.

Here's an interesting summary on logos:

http://www.bridgewater.edu/philo/philo96/shonk.html

-- although it is wrong on memra', which is not part of the Hebrew Bible. Another older yet valuable article in the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm

Ianone

People here are reading Polytheism into the Torah. Lets be careful and stick with what we know.
Elohim in the Septuagint: theos — the standard Greek word for god, "a transcendent being who exercises extraordinary control in human affairs or is responsible for bestowal of unusual benefits" (BDAG). It specifically refers to the monotheistic God of Israel. Meaning and Derivation: Elohim is translated as "God." The derivation of the name Elohim is debatable to most scholars. Some believe it derived from 'êl which, in turn, originates from the root word, 'wl (which means "strong"). Others think that Elohim is derived from another two roots: 'lh (which means "god") in conjunction with 'elôah (which means "fear"). And still others presume that both 'êl and Elohim come from 'eloah.
I would say that it is not 100% conclusive that the Masoretic text is using "Elohim" in a pluralistic form. As for the Septuagint, there is no indication of plurality for theos. Lets be careful here.

Ianone

Modalistic Monarchianism

This form of monarchianism existed side-by-side Dynamic Monarchianism, but took a different route. This form of Monarchianism embraced a strict monotheism, and opposed the Subordination doctrine of the day, particularly the logos doctrine espoused by the Greek Apologists. It maintained that God is absolutely one in number, and not one in unity; He is one being, one person. The terms, "Father," "Son," and "Spirit" are three titles for the one God as He reveals Himself to mankind relationally and functionally. There is a three-fold mode of revelation of God, but not a tripersonality within His being.3

The Son is not eternal, but is the Father manifest in flesh for the purpose of redemption. The Holy Spirit is not another personality in the Godhead, nor is He an impersonal force, but is the Father as He works among men for the purpose of sanctification.

The major names attached with this teaching are Noetus, Praxeas, and Sabellius. The latter held to a form of Monarchianism which maintained that the divine monad projected Himself through expansion in successive modes.4 God was known as Father in creation, as Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in bestowing grace on man. This form of Monarchianism became the prominent modalistic view, and thus the belief in Modalism became identified as Sabellianism.

Modalistic Monarchianism is sometimes referred to as Patripassianism, meaning that the Father suffered, because the Modalists said that the Son was the Father, and since the Son suffered on the cross, the Father suffered likewise.

The historic position of Modalism is very similar to the doctrinal position of modern Oneness theology.

Chemosh

Leolaia,
Philo’s Logos appears to be an apology for “son of God” passages like Deuteronomy 32:7-9 where Yahweh is portrayed as one of El’s sons.
Have you considered the possibility that GJohn subscribed to this same paradigm?
What I mean is … it looks to me like GJohn’s Jesus character is Yahweh incarnate, and Jesus/Yahweh’s father is El.
Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the unique one, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. Squint your eyes …

Now Yahweh became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the unique one, full of grace and truth, who came from El. I am not suggesting that this view was widespread among early Christians; only that it was vivid in the imagination of GJohn.

Any comments?

Narkissos

Welcome Chemosh,

I don't think your proposal is likely as a direct, conscious interpretative pattern either for Philo or the author of GJohn. There are too many generations of thought and intermediary representations between them and ancient Israelite polytheism as reflected in Deuteronomy 32:8f. For instance, the subsuming of independent Wisdom tradition into the Philonic logos, "Son of God," is a more likely background for the proto-Gnostic Johannine thought.

However, I think your suggestion is way more plausible for the Christ figure in general rather than particular texts, as the unconscious reduplication of a consciously "forgotten" pattern. It has often been shown that the 2nd-century BC vision in Daniel 7 reproduces the Levantine El / Baal-Yhwh imagery in the depiction of the Ancient of days / Son of Man, which will be essential in 1 Enoch and then in the Synoptics.

I would rather suggest that the rise of henotheism and monotheism, by making Yhwh increasingly distant (first as El, then as "God"), created a popular longing for someone to occupy the empty space of the "young," "living," closer god which Yhwh once was. And this would contribute to make 1st-century christologies attractive at a popular level.

Chemosh

Narkissos,

Maybe you are right – but I would like to kick this idea around a little more.
I certainly agree with your assessment of Philo; that Philo was probably unaware of the El (the Father) and Yahweh (the Son of God) thing, and was unconsciously trying to reconcile things he found contradictory and/ or confusing. But GJohn seems to know the difference between the two gods. Afaik, every time he equates Jesus as a god he equates him as Yahweh, but when he equates Jesus as a son of god he equates him as a son of El.
Afaik, it is never the other way around. (i.e. “Jesus is El” or “Jesus is the son of Yahweh.”)
Here is an example of GJohn equating Jesus with Yahweh. GJohn tells us that Yahweh had a father.

John 1:14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the unique one, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.
Compare …
Isaiah 40:5 And the glory of Yahweh will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the Yahweh has spoken.
John 1:14 emphasizes that Jesus was a unique son of god. Psalm 89 emphasizes that Yahweh was a unique son of god.
Psalm 89:6 Who among the sons of El is like Yahweh?
Here’s a example of GJohn identifying Jesus as a son of El:

John 10:34~36 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken), do you say about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Note above that the Jesus character does not claim to be the “I” in “I said you are gods.” Instead he identifies himself as one of the “sons of the Most High” in Psalm 82:6.

I’m no expert and that’s why I’m asking questions. It looks to me like GJohn’s Jesus character is Yahweh incarnate, who is sent to earth on a mission from El per Psalm 82.

Can you point to a verse where GJohn equates Jesus with El?

Leolaia

For most of the OT, Yahweh is not distinguished from El...such that whatever attributes and epithets that originated with El (i.e. such as father, aged one, creator, stone/rock, etc.) were also applied to Yahweh, and we find a mixture of attributes in some texts, with traditional Baal/Yahweh language being mixed with traditional El language, and the earlier view that Yahweh was a "son of El" and a member of the divine council was displaced by the view that Yahweh himself had oversight over the divine council (like El in earlier Canaanite belief). The idea that Yahweh's consort was Asherah depends, for instance, on the conflation of Yahweh with El (since Asherah was El's consort originally), and eventually Asherah herself became absorbed into God under monotheism as his "presence" or "face" (cf. the "Holy Spirit").

AuldSoul

Is God a freemason? Think long and hard when you ask yourselves these questions.

Just to be fair, I tried really, really hard to think long and hard about whether God is a freemason. I just couldn't keep myself from laughing, though. Must be the bastard in me.

AuldSoul

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

Share this