Posts by Chemosh

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Hey Narkissos and Leolaia,

Thanks for your posts. Your words were not in vein. I have come to agree that the author of GJohn was probably unaware of the Deut 32:8 paradigm.

The deathblow to my hypothesis comes in verses like John 5:43…

I have come in my Father’s name …

Yahweh (saves) says he has his dad’s name.

Ditto 10:25.

I guess I am just frustrated hearing time after time about how the “son of God” stuff originates from “pagan sources” or from “Philo” or from “Hellenized Jews.” I would like to know more about this “Hellenization” process. In light of verses like Deut 32:8-9 what exactly is Helen bringing new to the table?

Doesn’t it seem absurd to think that all this “son of God” stuff faded away and was completely forgotten, and then one day (just out of shear coincidence) a similar idea popped into Philo’s little creative imagination?

Doesn’t this seem more like an evolutionary type of thing?

Does any non-Christian religion have an agenda do blame all this stuff on Philo?

Are Christians the only ones who believe Yahweh is a real g_d?

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Here the subject, the "character," is the logos (not really a dionysian keyword btw), and the "son" image works as a comparison...

Why are you arguing that this is a “comparison” and not a “description,” when a “description” seems simpler and answers more questions than it asks?

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Nobody "rewinds": this is a mistake (anachronism) we are prone to do because we look back (or imagine we can do so). We can put the Ugaritic texts in front of the Gospels and find interesting correspondences, but the question is: what was available to the author?

It looks like the Bacchantes was available to GJohn.

That story is about a god (who is also the son of another god) who becomes human.

Are you asking us to believe that GJohn kept the “wine” part but discarded the “son of god becomes human” part?

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

First, show me the "son of god incarnate" in GJohn.

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.

The “Word” exhibited Yahweh’s “glory”. Yahweh does not share his glory with anyone else.

Isaiah 42:8

I am Yahweh! That is my name!

I will not share my glory with anyone else …

GJohn is telling us that a prophecy has been fulfilled.

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.

There are of course billions of explanations for this. We can make up stuff all day. But the good explanations are the ones that answer more questions than they ask.

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Is Yhwh in Deutero-Isaiah still a son of El? I don't think so. The most obvious characteristic of Deutero-Isaiah is that Yhwh is the only god (actually, "God," probably for the very first time) and that other gods do not exist.

This type of thinking seems very narrow minded. I think you’re overlooking something big.

Here in late 2005 there are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Mormons (who btw, believe that Yahweh was a son of El), and all kinds of religions who hold an opinion about Yahweh.

Why do you think things were any different back in GJohn’s day or Deutero-Isaiah’s day?

Deutero-Isaiah wrote polemics against El and emphasized that other gods do not exist.

Why was this necessary?

Why did he write this stuff?

Who were these El-worshippers he was talking about?

Why did he single out El?

Why not criticize other gods?

These polemics indicate the presence of different opinions about Yahweh.

Your arguments appear to be based on the premise that at any single instance in time there can only be ONE unified way of looking at Yahweh.

How did you arrive at your conclusion?

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Hey Narkissos and Leolaia,
I think you guys are smart. I’d like to solicit your comments on the following verses:

The Bacchantes Lo! I am come to this land of Thebes, Dionysus the son of Zeus … I have put off the god and taken human shape ...

Psalm 89:6 Who among the sons of El is like Yahweh?
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. Isaiah 42:8 I am Yahweh! That is my name! I will not share my glory with anyone else …

Matthew 1:21

She will give birth to a son and you will name him Yahweh (saves), because he will save his people from their sins.

Matthew 27:46 At about three o’clock Yahweh (saves) shouted with a loud voice, “El, El, why have you forsaken me? … Why is it reasonable to think GJohn borrowed the “wine” stuff from Dionysus, but not the “son of god incarnate” stuff?
Who told you GJohn needs Philo?
How come GJohn is allowed to rewind 400 years to borrow from a Greek Son of God, but not allowed to rewind 400 years to borrow from a Hebrew Son of God?
Are Christians the only religious group whose god(s) are in question?
And just where did Philo and the Hellenistic Jews get THEIR material?

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Okay. Thanks to both of you.

I did some googling. Now I see that "2nd Isaiah" is "Deutero-Isaiah". My mistake was that I assumed "Deutero-Isaiah" was the “non-2nd Isaiah” part.

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Hey Narkissos.

I guess I am all confused over here. I always thought Deutero-Isaiah was the author of verses 1-39, and that 2nd-Isaiah was the author of 40-66 (or perhaps just 40-55).

It looks to me like Deutero-Isaiah knew who Shachar and El were.

Isaiah 14:12-13

Look how you have fallen from the sky,

O shining one, son of Shachar!

You have been cut down to the ground,

O conqueror of the nations!

You said to yourself,

“I will climb up to the sky.

Above the stars of El

I will set up my throne.

I will rule on the mountain of assembly

on the remote slopes of Zaphon.

I will climb up to the tops of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High!”

Shachar was the god of the dawn and twin brother of Shalim, Right?

El was their dad. Right?

Does this sound monotheistic to you?

It looks to me like 2nd-Isaiah was the ‘poster child for modern monotheism’ that you are thinking of.

Isaiah 43:10

… El was not formed before me, and after me, there will not be.

In any case, thanks again for your comments. I am still looking for a verse where GJohn equates Jesus with El.

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

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?

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

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?