Posts by peacefulpete

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

A little early but, ho ho ho

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

I'm guessing you found that cathartic. My comment stands. There is a lazy default consensus that there MUST (assumption) be evidence but none of it stands up upon examination. I'm not going to derail this thread. You go ahead and argue semantics about indefinite articles. The model of Christain origins that understands the hypostatic/emanation of God underlies the whole Christ movement makes sense of the lack of personal even didactic material in Paul and epistles, the entire abundant so-called Gnostic forms of Christianity and lack of non-Gospel references to him. The 'Logos brought wisdom and secret knowledge about The Most High God. Strangely the Gospel Mark keeps insisting knowledge be kept secret. John says another Paraclete would 'make all things known' after he leaves. This Holy Spirit is also another of the emanations of God described in mystic Judaism and early mystic Christianity. Every branch of Christianity in fact retains these concepts, which suggests this is the core, the common denominator of all of these sects. Some branches literalized or at least dramatized these stories and gave voice to the Logos through countless speeches and legends. A particular influential group of Christians trimmed down that body of work to just the 3 Synoptics (which are recensions of the same work) and G.John which they reworked and reordered. Eventually they adopted Marcion's approach and gathered an approved collection of works that included redacted and pseudonymous Pauline material.

The big picture is much more exciting than debating the significance of 2 Greek letters. (ho).

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

However, this view has been widely rejected by the majority of scholars, including secular historians, who affirm Jesus' historical existence.

Overturning widely held assumptions is always difficult. The operative question is why this assumption persists. There are many factors, cultural, religious and financial (fear of being perceived as an outlier, loss of credibility etc.) The general assumption is not based upon an informed assessment of facts. To be sure it is a complicated matter involving textual criticism and honest evaluation of positive evidence, more than most are willing to invest in a question that seems for many to be irrelevant.

However, a significant number of scholars have expressed doubt or agnosticism regarding an historical Jesus.:List of Historians Who Take Mythicism Seriously • Richard Carrier Blogs

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

You are an enigma Slim...That was an interesting article that laid a very good case for the mythic origins of the Christ. I nearly burst out when Sanders slipped this line in:

Among Palestinian Christians, as well as at Philippi, the historical counterparts of the mythic drama would have been the humble, obedient Jesus, on the one hand, and all those who failed to acknowledge him, on the other.

The entire piece was about the 'amalgam' of mythemes and 'historicization' of mythic characters, then suddenly perhaps without thinking assumes an historical Jesus. The author has skimmed the surface of material from that age that suggests a mythic Christ story. Yet he doesn't perceive that every element in the 'biography' of Jesus including his name are drawn from OT story and prophecy as well.

It might surprise you, but for this purpose it doesn't really matter if Paul wrote Colossians, in fact I am of the mind that all the Paulines are patchworks compositions. The issue is, the pervasive mythic nature of them, their complete lack of interest in the life of the Jesus of the Gospels and their influence in the formation of what we call Christianity.

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

Just how different from Philo's Logos was Paul's?

Col 1:16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Or as the Amplified Bible reads:

And He Himself existed and is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. [His is the controlling, cohesive force of the universe.]

Could not a reader understand his Christ as a intermediary, creative and pervasive force?

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

According to Philo, the two powers of God are separated by God himself who is standing above in the midst of them (Her. 166). Referring to Genesis 18: 2 Philo claims that God and his two Powers (Beneficent and Regent) are in reality one. To the human mind they appear as a Triad, with God above the powers that belong to him: “For this cannot be so keen of spirit that, it can see Him who is above the powers that belong to Him, (namely) God, distinct from everything else. For so soon as one sets eyes on God, there also appear together with His being, the ministering powers, so that in place of one he makes the appearance of a triad (QG 4.2).”

Philo of Alexandria | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (utm.edu)

This Philonic concept of powers of God identified as a triad and allegorically represented in Genesis 18 story is a bit coincidental again.

I've been reading about the book of Elchasai (65-114CE It rejects the Temple sacrifices, but our extant quotes are from a redacted form from the time of Trajan), what fragments we have described the Christ/Logos and Sophia/Wisdom/Holy Spirit as giant figures spanning from heaven to earth. The book also shares the mystic notion of Logos having been born and reborn as Prophets and figures from the Pentateuch. The lines between Jew and Christain are very short.

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

However, while some of Philo's language may bear resemblance to later Christian doctrines, there are significant differences that show why Philo's Logos is not the same as the Christian understanding of Christ as the divine Logos.

Of course, I said that. Philo had not developed the idea of the Logos himself dying, that seems to have been the innovation of the earliest Christians. Philo had taken the language and concepts of Jewish philosopher Aristobulus and expanded upon them, Aristobulus ran with the philosophy of his mentors including Aristotle etc. That's how it works in the real world.

Just how these earliest Christians arrived at their innovation is a matter of debate. Did they simply further the parallel mythotype drama which in some cases included a death and restoration? Had they drawn inferences from the OT stories of Jonah, the suffering servant, or perils of David, the curses of those hung on a tree? Had the group shared with the Qumran's Holy Ones in disavowing the Temple cult as corrupt?

All the above would seem to do it pretty well.

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

Sorry watching Tv and typing.

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

For Philo, the Logos did not become human; it remained a distant mediator, a non-personal force that facilitated the interaction between God and the material world.

That is an interesting topic. Philo seemingly allows for this as he does say:

Logos that is called God... For no name belongs rightly to the Absolute, who
is of a nature to exist simply, not to be described. There is an old legend that the deity at different times visits different cities in human form,
is an old legend that the deity at different times visits
different cities in human form, seeking out cases of unright-
eousness and lawlessness. Perhaps it is not true, but even
so it is profitable and expedient that it should be current.
And Scripture, though it employs more reverent conceptions
of the Absolute, does at the same time liken God to man,
speaking of his face, voice, anger, and so forth, for the profit
of the learner. Some are so dull that they cannot conceive of God at all without a body
of God at all without a body.

It seems Philo is suggesting that the Logos (the deity) may have actually appeared as flesh, but he was not sure of the literalness of the legends. What seems clear is that in at least some discussions he did personify the Logos to a high degree.

What is the man who was created? And how is that man distinguished who was made after the image of God? (#Ge 2:7). This man was created as perceptible to the senses, and in the similitude of a Being appreciable only by the intellect; but he who in respect of his form is intellectual and incorporeal, is the similitude of the archetypal model as to appearance, and he is the form of the principal character; but this is the word of God, the first beginning of all things, the original species or the archetypal idea, the first measure of the universe. ...

Notice he describes this 'word of God' as a incorporeal "being". I'm not sure just how literally he conceived of it (or more importantly his readers) but then as I said all of this is imagery of invisible stuff, (he like many understood the Primeval History as allegory) so where does metaphor start and end.

It seems relevant that within the larger Neoplatonic concept of Logos as a bridge between spirit and corporeal, we do find traditions that describe the Logos figure as sharing in the corporeal including having flesh. (Osiris/Dionysus).

So, while Philo unsurprisingly doesn't expressly say his Logos took on flesh he does see in Moses and Aaron and other human characters the 'internal Logos' and 'utterance Logos' embodied. He also leaves open the possibility that legends that say Logos/God did take human from may have happened.

Also parallel the Christ/Logos of Paul et.al. is the role as high priest.

For there are, it would seem, two temples of God — the

one, this world in which God's firstborn, the divine Logos,
is highpriest ; and the other the rational soul, whereof the
true man is priest, whose material image is he who performs the ancestral prayers and sacrifices,
the ancestral prayers and sacrifices, who is commanded to
put on the aforesaid coat (of finest linen), the counterpart of the whole
heaven, that the world may join with man and man with
the universe in the rite.

So, here we have Philo describing Logos as a High Priest whose rite affects the world. Of course, the writer of John or Paul had something new to add to the story. The propitiatory death (sacrifice) of the Logos/Christ. Philo (or his Alexandrian school) didn't come up with that one though I believe he, being fond of allegory, could have appreciated it. Paul, remember, claimed to have drawn his Christ from scripture typology in Philonic style.

Regarding your comment that Christianity especially since Nicaea have a distinct formulation of God. That is true. Yet there were steps along the way. Origen as you know mentions Philo as one of his predecessors and shared many notions of freewill and the divine. They later declared his ideas heretical. It is also interesting that the Nicene Creed includes the words,:

“God from God, Light from Light, True God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven.”

Which appears to be quoting Philo.

In the same manner God, being his own light, is perceived by himself alone, nothing and no other being co-operating with or assisting him, a being at all able to contribute to pure comprehension of his existence; But these men have arrived at the real truth, who form their ideas of God from God, of light from light.”(Praem. 45-46)

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

The idea that some ancient traditions viewed Yahweh as subordinate to El Elyon (The Most High) is rooted in speculative interpretations of early Hebrew texts. This theory often emerges from a misunderstanding of passages like Deuteronomy 32:8-9, where Yahweh is seen as receiving his inheritance from the Most High. However, within the broader biblical canon, especially in the prophetic and wisdom literature, Yahweh is clearly identified as the Most High God, Creator, and Sovereign of all (see Isaiah 45:5-7, Psalm 83:18).

You site precisely the texts (2nd Isa and some Psalms, Genesis/Ex examples= Redactor's interpolation combining El Shaddai and Yahweh traditions) that identify Yahweh as the Most High, however as you probably know many other texts do not, and many others obfuscate on the point. What you describe as a 'misunderstanding' was apparently a foundational tenet for some that lasted centuries. Yahweh was Israel's God but The Most High was The God of all. Monotheism of 2nd Isaiah never was universally adopted, a compromise was the second power concept reflected in many textual examples:

Ex 23:20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

Even as late as the Clementine Recognitions

For every nation has an angel, to whom God has committed the government of that nation; and when one of these appears, although he be thought and called God by those over whom he presides, yet, being asked, he does not give such testimony to himself. For the Most High God, who alone holds the power of all things, has divided all the nations of the earth into seventy-two parts, and over these he hath appointed angels as princes. But to the one among the archangels who is greatest, was committed the government of those who, before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High God (Rec. 2.42)

And Ascension of Isaiah:

35. And I saw the Lord (Christ) and the second Angel, and they were standing.
36. And the second whom I saw was on he left of my Lord. And I asked: "Who is this?" and he said unto me: "Worship Him, for He is the Angel of the Holy Spirit, who speaketh in thee and the rest of the righteous."...40. And I saw how my Lord and the Angel of the Spirit worshipped, and they both together praised God.

The idea that Yahweh had gone from a son of El who receives Israel to becoming The Great Angel of the Most High in charge of Israel, isn't a difficult leap. Somehow, though appreciating that process of other sons of El becoming recast as angels, I had not seen the potential for the same to have occurred for Yahweh, at least in circles that had not equated Yahweh with The Most High. (like 2nd Isaiah and a redactor of the J and P traditions). There is much more to this.

All of this emphasizes the diversity of theological outlooks preserved in the texts themselves.