Posts by peacefulpete

406

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

peacefulpete

The concept of the Logos in Christianity is fundamentally different from Philo’s philosophical Logos. John’s Gospel identifies the Logos as fully divine and incarnate in Jesus Christ... not abstract intermediary...

Many would disagree with that.

When the LXX used 'logos' as the translation of Hebrew 'dubar' the meaning of the OT was changed in the minds of anyone schooled in Greek philosophy. The linking of the Jewish notion of Word, Glory, Name and the Greek concept of Logos implies that the Logos was on earth in patriarchal times leading the Israelites through the wilderness and dwelling in the tabernacle. In the same manner Philo conceived of the Word, Glory, Name and angel in the OT stories, that is how he conceived the Logos. Now while Philo interpreted aspects of the scriptures allegorically as subtext, he at the same time understood aspects of it literally. It would be a mistake to believe he thought of the pillar of fire or cloud in the most holy as merely abstractions. As was said before Philo also entertained the idea that the Logos had actually materialized to walk on earth.

It seems more than coincidental that John 1:14 use of the (doxa) Glory is the same as was used in LXX for the cloud in the Tabernacle/temple. The author was making explicit he, like Philo, equated Christ with the OT Glory of God.

I'll also repeat that the so-called Christ Myth model of Christian origins proposes an incarnation of the Logos in a mystic sense, something that was believed to have happened but known only through revelation/vision and OT typology. The incarnation in the Ascension of Isaiah (and it's likely pre-Christain source) belongs to that type of Christology. The book of Hebrews also would fit that. Whether you find that model persuasive or not, it's impossible to not see a continuity/influence between Philonic conceptions of Logos and early Christian.

406

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

peacefulpete

Comparing 1rst-3rd century fragments leads back to what I said earlier, in some form every early sect had some understanding that God/divinity was on earth. Yet this was potentially blasphemous if the naive thought God actually became a human.

1. The Logos concept as exemplified in the writings of Philo insulated the Most High from his creation by his producing an emanation of himself in a form which was fully divine but yet somehow sufficiently distinct to interact directly with matter. One of God's powers was 'being'. Self-manifestation. The Logos was always within the Father until he/it was manifested. I think of a 'mini me' version of God, a genetic clone made separate. The Holy Spirit was sometimes regarded a separate emanation sometimes equated/conflated with the Logos. This concept was often combined with the following other ideations.

2.Some dealt with the potentially blasphemous implications by separating Jesus the man from the divinity (Logos/Holy spirit) that possessed him from baptism ("today I have begotten you") through what is now called 'adoptionism'. A new person was born. A number of subtle and no-so-subtle alterations were made in the Gospel text to 'refute' this. It is the suspected motivation of adding virgin birth narratives and the childhood miracles of the Infancy Gospel for overt examples.

3.Others understood Jesus was, like the OT stories, a materialized spirit, able to eat and interact but not truly flesh and able to dematerialize at will, this was 'Docetism'. from the Greek word for 'seem'. This prevented God from literally becoming a human. This was often combined with the Logos concept, ie. the Logos was the agent of divinity that materialized. Many proto-orthodox adjustments were made to the texts to refute Docetism, such as the Thomas (holes in hands/eating) scene. Famously the pseudonymous 2 John was written (2:17) labeling such teachers as the 'antichrist'.

4.The so-called Gnostic branches understood Jesus as being exceptional by being in touch (and empowered thereby) with his true divine essence that dwells in all of us. While Gnostics by definition were secretive regarding details, they still identified Christ with divinity. They also used the Logos language and concept in modified way.

5. Marcionism was a hybrid Christology. The agent of creation aka, the God of the Jews was a 'son' of the Most High in the same 'second power' sense. This creator God became vested in the Jewish system he created so the Father sent another new emanation in the figure of Christ. The nature of Christ wasn't a focus, but they seemed to lean towards Docetism.

6. For hundreds of years Adoptionist, Gnostics and Docetist Christians simply ignored additions the proto-orthodoxy made in their forms of the Gospel, (easy to do since they had their own versions and harmonizations that did not include them). The 4th century Roman Church in contrast had to create a philosophy capable of accounting for them The Trinity doctrine developed as a harmonization of all the anti-Docetic, anti-Adoptionist pieces, the virgin birth etc. This in the end left the story sounding blasphemous for Jews.

Fast forward 1200 years and Christian reformers intellectually broke from the Church. Growing aware of older conceptions of God through the new availability of printed material, some arrived at new nontrinitarian Christologies. Bound by tradition, they retained the Catholic texts but simply explained away parts that didn't fit the new formulation.

The WT take fits that description.

SeaBreeze, ...you and aqwsed have eruditely and thoroughly refuted the JW angelology/christology. I agree with your conclusion that all ancient witnesses shared some type of belief that Christ was God.

However, it is also true that none of the ancient witnesses shared an identical formulation of that belief, and that even the texts favored by the proto-orthodoxy likewise betray a confusing blend of subordinationism and divinity. As I said, it is self-evident that the ambiguity of the Gospels stories were the very source of many of the divisions.

I am also certain the Logos/second power concept is an overlooked foundation of Christianity and the key to understanding Pauline and Gospel descriptions, and I don't think that is terribly surprising or controversial.

While naturally Christians might prefer a supernatural spontaneous origin, the actual evidence shows a very human story of developing theology centuries in the making.

406

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

peacefulpete

The whole debate is the result of third or 4th generation (of mostly Gentile) 'Christians' mistaking Gospel narratives as history. Once they went down that path, controversy exploded. Various rationalizations emerged, varying forms of Docetism, Adoptionism and Dyophysitism (and 50 other isms) each offered alternatives for how an ineffable God could also be a man. All of these forms however referred to 'Christ' as God. Even the Arianism that JWs like to point at understood Christ, as Logos, as an emanation of God. Writers like Eusebius often resorted to semantics and even red herring arguments to misrepresent that belief, but that is the nature of sectarianism.

The Second Power concept and the related Logos theology is the keystone to all of this.

Marcionism for example seems a radical departure, but it wasn't really. The central distinction between Marcion's view and Justin Martyr's was the roles assigned the High God and his emanations, Yahweh and Christ. Almost all the theological detail is lost to us, as all we have are snippets from his detractors. However, in the end Marcion too, thought of 'Christ' as God in a sense similar to Justin, or Tatian, or Valentinus, or Eusebius or the author of John. None of these writers agreed in detail but they were all attempting to make sense of the idea of God becoming man.

406

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

peacefulpete

edit

406

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

peacefulpete

Dismissing 2nd century extrabiblical evidence that passed though 4th century hands, has a certain logic, but given that the biblical texts that started all this debate have the very same history, doing so sounds rather prejudicial.

The only way to formulate an objective modern opinion is to understand the ancient issues and players. Tatian, was according to ancient sources, an Adoptionist (nontrinitarian). Adoptionism was a very clever theological solution to what were perceived as logical contradictions. The brilliant solution was that Jesus was a man adopted by God through the Logos aka holy spirit possessing him at his baptism. So, by this Christology, Jesus the man was not God, but the Logos inhabiting him was, brilliant.

Effectively it (and Docetism and many other theories) was Logos theology struggling to literalize the Gospel stories that 'fleshed out' the earlier conceptions of Christ. It was not the only solution offered of course, and passions raged between them.