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..
Since the Hellenistic period was so short lived in Judaism, ....Judaism had a very brief Hellenistic period
But yet both of you have said that period was at least 300 years of cultural/political dominance and Hellenization. We all know it was much longer, but even at 300 years, that is hardly a brief/short period.
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..
Considering how quickly you put that together, I agree with most of it. There was an evolution of Satan from early to late Judaism to early Christianity to Catholicism. The same is true of the Logos concept.
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..
Philippians 2:6-11 explicitly describes Christ as existing in the morphē of God, a phrase that emphasizes His preexistent divine nature,
Yep. That is why Philo called Logos, God and creator and image of God and High Priest and Son and Light and eyes of God etc.
This is not the language of an emanation or a subordinate being but of one who shares fully in the divine essence.
An emanation is by definition a sharer in divine essence.
Philo's Logos functions more as an intermediary or instrument of creation, not as a fully animate being or a divine person in the Trinitarian sense.
You have repeated that line many times now. I agree. Of course, Philo did not have any Trinity doctrine in mind, neither did Paul et al. What I have said in reply is the transition from anthropomorphized emanation to being is already in evidence in Pre-Christian works and Philo. It is my position that the earliest Christians themselves walked that line. Christ was a revelation drawn from OT texts seen through the lens of Hellenized Judaism. He was believed as real as the God he came from. But it was the later generation stories that followed that really cemented the image of a guy walking around Palestine. Did the writer of Mark intend that, I personally don't think so. I believe it was a dramatization of a Christian message of separation from Judaism. Others followed suit, expanding this persona with additional logia (as Hart put it), more fully fleshing out the character.
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..
Regarding Phil 2, the message is that the Christ serves as a divine model of humility. That unlike the demiurge Yahweh of Marcionism, or the chief Archon in Gnosticism, he did not attempt to break from his given role as a servant of the Godhead. He voided himself and took the likeness of man. Understood in terms of an emanation of God, the passage makes perfect sense.
The lines between an extremely anthropomorphic emanation and a fully animate being have been crossed. Even in Philo's logos we sense an identity emerging, Ben Sira has the figure of Wisdom sitting of the throne on the mountaintop which sounds more like a person than a thing.
Christians were not therefore the first to have made this leap. Going back to the Neoplatonic concept of Emanationism, all things emanated from the Principle/Godhead. It was the objective of all to pursue a reconnection with that Principle, but many actively opposed it.
In Jewish Hellenism that included the concept of Satan. What was initially thought of as a servant of God, the accuser, in the heavenly court, morphed into a figure of rebellion. The chief archon was held to be such a figure in Gnostic circles and the ideas converged.
Eph 2:2 :As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the archon of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.
The Pauline writer in Philippians might well be drawing a contrast between the Archon of this world and his idea of Christ. Both were emanations of God, one did not seek more than his given role, the other did.
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..
Hart accurately described the earliest Christology. The emanation of God spoken of at times in angelic form. SBF, you latched onto that and focus upon the word 'angel'. I see you in some ways like the host of that interview, quick to conclude Jesus was not understood as God. The larger issue of second power theology was more than a branch of angelology, however. Around 44 minutes he refers to a notion of 'secondary God' that arose consequential the transcendence of God. I'm sure if given time or encouraged to expand upon his comments, he'd have included other aspects/faces given that second God concept. The "Glory" of God" the "Prescence of God" or "Word of God". carry no angelic connotation at all yet were merged into a single concept. This fuller sense of second power fits perfectly the descriptions found in the NT. All of these faces rolled into one. Focusing upon the face of the Great Angel, especially through the lens of modernity, gives a distorted impression of how Christ/Jesus was conceived of. Hart also uses expressions like "God entering time" and "face of God" as descriptors of the Christological message of the NT which shows he is not suggesting Jesus was believed less than an emanation of God. This not the Trinity, this is not the WT.
Again, as I have been saying, the NT reveals a picture of a developing concept of deity in human form. The writers are not consistent in detail, but they are in theme. (That is why these works were selected/edited and elevated as cannon.)
He makes a number of other observations worthy of discussion, but I'll stay on topic.
i posted on another thread what i thought was an interesting angle, seldom discussed regarding the role of god/logos in holding creation together and its maintenance.
most moderns think of the universe as a self-perpetuating machine, but ancients looked to the god/s to ensure order continued and fertility returned year after year.
we read, throughout the ot, of jews performing prescribed ritual and festivals to ensure god's blessing and providence.
Since you are here Kaleb, explain if you don't mind the Almidah. I found it interesting that it seems to yet include the idea that God is directly (providentially) involved in weather.
In summer say: He causes the dew to descend. In winter say: He causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall.
i posted on another thread what i thought was an interesting angle, seldom discussed regarding the role of god/logos in holding creation together and its maintenance.
most moderns think of the universe as a self-perpetuating machine, but ancients looked to the god/s to ensure order continued and fertility returned year after year.
we read, throughout the ot, of jews performing prescribed ritual and festivals to ensure god's blessing and providence.
What Philo wrote was not... representing wide stream Jewish through. There is no such thing.
Not sure what you are saying. The concept predates Philo and his Alexandrian school by centuries, The anthropomorphized "Word" (Memra) for example was widely read in the Targums. Even early rabbinic writings include the concept, at times referring to it/them as Metatron. It would be surprising if not all Jews were at least familiar with it in some form. However, it would be incorrect to say all understood it identically, because as you said, there was 'no and never has been a single mainstream Jewish dogma'. We should expect that Christian origins were not located in the conservative Temple cult form of Judaism but among the disenfranchised or disillusioned, there certainly were many that fit that description long before Philo and his school.
I was not arguing simply for the concept of 'second power' that has been well established. I was describing a specific role as the agency of maintaining creation. It is self-evident from the texts that many Jews had assigned that role to the Logos/Wisdom etc. I don't think I am overstating that.
I understand that in later centuries Rabbinic Judaism renounced the second power theology in a sort of 'Restoration Movement' of their own. Much like the Restoration Movement within 19th century Christianity, it involved more than a little revisionism. But you know that of course.
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..
you know what "agent" means right? - YHWH is not the agent of creation... he was/ is the creator.
He was both. You are literalizing the concept of agency into subcontractor. The writer of the Wisdom Proverbs uses the notion of agency for Wisdom. Yet originally readers understood Yahweh is Wisdom, it was not literally a separate entity creating the world. In the same way Yahweh is Wisdom, Yahweh is also Logos. This neither a Trinitarian nor WT Christology. Unfortunately, a later generation of readers tended to literalize the anthropomorphized Wisdom/Logos. Even in Jewish circles Logos took on a tangibleness that could be easily mistaken for polytheism.
Combine the above with the distinction implied between Yahweh and the Most High in some texts. (Deut 32) and we have a recipe for a new way to conceive of Yahweh; as one of the titles of the agency of the Most High, as "God" of the Jews.
Your above statement that Yahweh was not the 'agent of creation' ignores that that is precisely how many understood it.
Taking it all quite literally, some gave Yahweh the title 'demiurge' (artisan) of the Most High, and divided the two as entities in a way not intended by the OT writer/redactors. The so-called Gnostics and Marcionism understood this 'Demiurge' (artisan) God to be the God of the Jews formerly known as Yahweh in some texts. Their unique (some would say heretical) idea was not this identification, but the idea that this demiurge was in some ways acting apart from the desires of the Most High. This offered an explanation for suffering of the material world.
NT writers, while sharing the same identification of creator with the Gnostics did not imagine that creator negatively. For them this agency of God was still working for their salvation. Unlike the Gnostics, they attempted to explain suffering in legalist terms. They thereby gave the agency of God (Wisdom/Word/Logos) a new role as a propitiating sacrifice drawing from passages like Is 53. The name Yahweh had by then become just another title, one seldom used. The Messianism of the later 2nd temple period also provided a new role for the Logos. The Daniel 7 'Son of Man' was merged with the Ancient of Days in the OG LXX. This meant the Son of Man/Son of God/Logos/Wisdom and the OT Yahweh were fused as agencies of the High God. These titles were all aspects of God. This why we find many OT references to Yahweh applied to Jesus.
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..
The desire is real, the object of the desire may not be. No one is questioning IF people believe in God, they are questioning whether God is real. You continue to suggest that by allowing for feelings and fantasies to be understood as real conditions/creations of the mind, God must be similarly regarded real. I grant you that God can also be allowed to be real as a condition/creation of the mind. But is that really what you wished to suggest?
If you simply mean as you lastly said, "...not all real things can be measured and quantified" then even this argument fails. With modern equipment we actually can quantify and isolate feelings and project them on a screen. We even know which parts of the brain are activated with anger, love and numinous thoughts of God. We have unwoven the rainbow and pulled its threads. This type of philosophical argumentation is antiquated.
i posted on another thread what i thought was an interesting angle, seldom discussed regarding the role of god/logos in holding creation together and its maintenance.
most moderns think of the universe as a self-perpetuating machine, but ancients looked to the god/s to ensure order continued and fertility returned year after year.
we read, throughout the ot, of jews performing prescribed ritual and festivals to ensure god's blessing and providence.
I posted on another thread what I thought was an interesting angle, seldom discussed regarding the role of God/Logos in holding creation together and its maintenance. Most moderns think of the universe as a self-perpetuating machine, but ancients looked to the God/s to ensure order continued and fertility returned year after year. We read, throughout the OT, of Jews performing prescribed ritual and festivals to ensure God's blessing and Providence. Before learning better, I always thought of that as requesting specific divine intervention in a natural order rather than ensuring God's continuing action preventing a descent into unpredictable chaos.
For example: Jeremiah 5:24: "They do not say to themselves, ‘Let us fear the Lord our God, who gives autumn and spring rains in season, who assures us of the regular weeks of harvest.’"
Unsurprisingly the role of holding together the natural world was attributed to Wisdom/Word/Logos. Wisdom dwelt with creation, kept the cycles in motion, the boundaries and limits in place. This concept flowed seamlessly through Philo's logos to the Christ.
Although she is but one, she can do all things, and while remaining in herself, she renews all things; Wisdom 7
"The Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated." Philo, On the Creation of the World
He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. Heb 1:3
And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Col 1
It all goes back to the ancient cosmic struggle against chaos. We often focus on the defeat of chaos at the moment of creation but forget creation required maintenance. It seems many of the Jews assign that role to the Logos.
