Trinitarianism Christianity is rooted in Neo-Platonism which predates Nicaea and was the current philosophical doctrine at that time which influenced some of the Church Fathers Paul and the writer of John. You acknowledge this by the fact that there was an adoption of many Greek and Latin terms from Greek philosophy later incorporated in Church doctrine or theology prior to and after Nicaea.
peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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
-
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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
Quite clearly, when Justin was writing (second century), they had not yet received the clarification that we do not take the type-antitype approach except where the Bible provides a clear basis for doing so.
I'm guessing you said that tongue in cheek. lol.
Yes. My primary reason for quoting Justin was to show that when he read John 1:1, he understood that "the Word was god" referred to "another god" subject to ton theon, the Maker of all things.
Justin never mentions the Gospel John or for that matter any Gospel. (apart from an interpolation). He, like the writer of John, draws from a deep tradition of second power theology.
-
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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 early Christians, including Paul and John, did not see themselves as departing from monotheism but as expanding the understanding of God's nature to include the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, as fully God.
I agree. That was also true of Philo, Justin and the writer of the Ascension of Isaiah. They were adamant that Logos (or any of the names used) was an emanation of the Most High not a God apart or rival God.
Justin as a trained philosopher like Philo understood the provenance of these concepts, he had no problem with that, why do you? I think it is interesting his choice to use of Socratic dialogue, a literary mouthpiece (Trypho) to deliver his doctrinal thesis.
Since you expanded a smidge on the topic, I'll throw the door open and say the so-called Gnostic branches of what became called 'Christianity', all regarded themselves as monotheistic. They were attracted to the concept of emanations of The God as explanations for many things including the impermanence of the physical world. Some used passages that equated Yahweh with a second power, this one however did not resist the temptation to seek worship and so created an imperfect world, something not intended by the Most High. They drew from the same OT sources and 2nd Temple traditions as those who limited the emanations to just 2, (Logos and Holy Spirit).
You reference Philo's concept of the Logos as a bedrock for early Christian Christology, suggesting that the belief in a "second power" or intermediary influenced Christian beliefs about Christ.
My wording was unclear, I meant to say that his/their method of interpretation of passages featuring the second power concept was a bedrock upon which later writers like Paul and the writer of John stood.
While it is true that Philo's Logos concept had some influence on early Christian thought, especially in the Gospel of John, the Christian understanding of the Logos differs significantly from Philo's. Philo's Logos is an abstract, intermediary principle through which God interacts with the world, but it is not fully personal or incarnate in the way that Christ is presented in the New Testament....The inclusion of mundane details, such as the names of Jesus' family members (e.g., James, His brother) and his interactions with well-known historical figures, points to the Gospel writers’ intention to root their accounts in historical reality.
You must realize that is circular reasoning. You declare the Gospel to be different from works like the Bacchae because you see the characters and story to be different. I don't. That is the issue in discussion. Since we have touched on the Bacchae, note that Dionysius plays two roles, one as a lowly human and one role off set as a god. The characters all have names and family that are named. Their hometowns (real) and nationalities (real) are included. What identifies the story as a myth/dramatization are the supernatural aspects, Dionysus making it thunder for example.
Is it really outrageous to believe the writer of a play later transcribed as the Gospel Mark, ought to be regarded as myth/dramatization for the same reasons?
Of course a generation or three later were told the story was real and not allegory. That was also true for many lesser educated Greeks, who mistook the allegories as more than that.
-
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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
Earnest.... In Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Trypho first asks "show us that the spirit of prophecy admits another god besides the Maker of all things", and Justin answers "there is, and that there is said to be, another god and lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things (above whom there is no other god) wishes to announce to them.". Whatever you may argue about Justin, he is answering a question about another god.
If you read a little further, he makes clear he understands that Angel is the "God of Abraham" but not the Maker/Father of all things (aka the Most High).:
Have you perceived, sirs, that this very God whom Moses speaks of as an Angel that talked to him in the flame of fire, declares to Moses that He is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob?....this God who appeared to Abraham, and is minister to God the Maker of all things, being born of the Virgin, became man, of like passions with all, as you said previously.
I mentioned this verse earlier, as evidence of some regarded a second power as a substitute/stand-in for God. It is interesting that Justin identified that angel with God's name as his Christ but known by many other names.
I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following.......Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: ‘And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him.‘ Now understand that He who led your fathers into the land is called by this name Jesus, and first called Auses(Oshea, Joshua). For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, ‘for My name is in Him,’ was Jesus. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob’s name was changed to this also.
I find this last paragraph especially interesting as Justin insists the name "Jesus" was another of the many names this second power went by. He repeats a tradition that the 'Joshua' of the Exodus story was to be interpreted in Pesher style.
It is pretty clear that Philonic reading of the Pentateuch was a bedrock foundation of the belief in a Christ. A Christ who was a second power, an emanation of the Father of all. This not the teaching of the JWs nor the Trinity.
Sorry about the quotes, sometimes it does weird things for me.
-
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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
Even if there were remnants of earlier polytheistic or henotheistic beliefs in isolated Jewish communities, they were not representative of mainstream Jewish belief in the first century, ...
I would not have expected a new sect to arise from "mainstream Judaism". The disenfranchised and disillusioned are the creative ones.
You compare the understanding of Jesus with the way readers might understand the gods of Plato or the dramatizations in Greek mythology, implying that Jesus could be a fictionalized character. However, this comparison is flawed. The Gospels and early Christian writings are not presented as mythological allegories or philosophical treatises, but as historical accounts of events that occurred in specific times and places.
"Fictionalized" i not the word I would generally use. I understand for early believers, the Christ was just as 'real' as they believed his Father was. Or for that matter as real as Dionysus was for Greeks.
As you seem to acknowledging, the Gospels (first of which Mark was possibly a play) it seems were the key in the shift from an ethereal Christ to a guy walking around Judea. That was my point in my last comment. Euripides (and Homer of course) popularized religious concepts (gods) through dramatization. The effective representation of the god Dionysus (that to the philosopher represented freedom from oppression and conformity) through literature and plays cemented his image as a god of the people and endeared him to them. The power of myth. The sheer amount of such stories that were written and continued to be written for hundreds of years proves the popularity of such stories. You probably regard most of those stories as fictionalizations. I see them as dramatizations with an allegorical meaning or didactic motivation.
Earlier I posted an excerpt from the Asencion of Isaiah that stressed that the drama was invisible. That the Christ/Logos/Son took the appearance of flesh as part of his disguise as well as in anticipation of being crucified on a tree.
Ascension of Isaiah 9: 13. Nevertheless they see and know whose will be thrones, and whose the crowns when He has descended and been made in your form, and they will think that He is flesh and is a man.
14. And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.
15. And thus His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who He is.
16. And when He hath plundered the angel of death, He will ascend on the third day,It is only reasonable to question when this shift from an ethereal unrecognized Christ to a famous bloke doing miracles in Judea took place.
-
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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
One last thought on this, would a reader of Plato come away understanding his God/s were historical figures? How might a different conclusion be made by someone who had only known the Euripides' Bacchae dramatization?
-
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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 infor 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 infor 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 infor 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.