Posts by peacefulpete

407

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

Two Powers in Heaven - Dr. Michael Heiser

Here is an article with some good references for further reading.

407

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

I think this is the particular view of Margaret Barker and of Mormons...

And the writers of the NT.

407

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

Do you not think that those Jews familiar with Philo's Logos philosophy would have associated the Logos of John with the angel of the Lord who lead the Israelites through the wilderness, appeared to Abraham, etc etc.

Yes, certainly that was the Philonic understanding. That is why I disagree with aqwsed that Philo's Logos was merely an abstraction. He is refuting the Platonic Logos and ignoring it's adaptation by Jewish theologians.

As to the JW use of the term archangel for a prehuman Logos. It gets complicated. The 'angel' of God introduced into some OT scenes as an intermediary represented a particular school's approach to protecting the transcendence/immanence of God. Others used other means such as the Word, Glory, Spirit or Name as stand-ins/placeholders for God. While not likely intended, the sum of these efforts resulted in the 'second power' concept in late 2nd temple Judaism. The LXX cemented a connection with the Greek Logos.

Different readers took away many different variations on this theme. While some might have equated the 'Great Angel' with the Logos others did not. Some understood the Holy Spirit as the same as the Logos others saw them as separate emanations. Angels, as sons, are a big topic, but it might help to think of them as replacements for the council of gods/sons under El on one hand and at the same time as the hands, mouth and eyes of God on the other. They served two roles. It provided the Most High with a council to sit with and also separated him from material, profane, earthly things. Kaleb made some good comments regarding that. I wish it were simpler, but we are discussing a collection of writings from diverse schools of thought being reinterpreted centuries later by equally diverse sects.

I have mentioned that there is no question some understood Christ as the Great Angel or Michael through these connections. Revelation uses theophoric descriptions of various great angels and Michael all of which are separate scenes of divinity in action. It is also true that Yahweh was rolled into that mess of second power ideas. Remember the OG forms of Daniel 7 equate the Son of Man/Michael with the Ancient of days. That is the form the NT writers would have read. This explains why many OT allusions to Yahweh were identified with Christ in the NT

The JW understanding however ignores that all these names and characters were regarded as projections of the Most High and the complexity of the history of these expressions.

The question of identification of the Most High with Yahweh is another topic, but suffice to say some, like 2nd Isaiah, did and that has dominated JW understanding; but was not universally believed. Many still held that Yahweh was the God/son assigned to Israel by the Most High and therefore a second power like the Logos.

407

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

Really this is getting tiresome again. The objective was to demonstrate, in the most basic of outlines, differing views of Christ and God, and that the WT Christology was not held by any known ancient sect.

Most all, if not all, assumed the Christ/Logos was an aspect of divinity. The most Gnostic (technically that is gibberish I know) groups had such unfamiliar concepts of deity and Pleroma that comparing them with more traditional Judeo-Christian views is pointless. It is very doubtful that the WT would use Gnostic theology as support for their own.

407

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

deleted

407

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

I'm having issues pasting again, but the distinction some are drawing is semantic. When some refer to the "Christ" they mean Jesus Christ and others are referring to the Spirit/Logos that inhabited Jesus.

Adolf von Harnack, the competing views were that:
"Jesus was either [a] regarded as the man whom God had chosen, in whom the Deity or the Spirit of God dwelt, and who, after being tested, was adopted by God and invested with dominion; or [b] Jesus was regarded as a heavenly spiritual being (the highest after God) who took flesh, and again returned to heaven after the completion of his work on earth."[1]
Adoptionism - New World Encyclopedia

The first known exponent of Adoptionism in the second century is Theodotus of Byzantium. He taught, according to Hippolytus of Rome, that Jesus was a man born of a virgin, that he lived like other men, and was most pious. At his baptism in the Jordan the Christ came down upon him in the likeness of a dove. Only after this could he perform miracles.[2] The belief was declared heretical by Pope Victor I (last decade of the second century C.E.)

Jesus, Gnosis and Dogma: Roukema, Riemer, Deventer-Metz, Saskia: 9780567466426: Amazon.com: Books

407

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

I mentioned Tatian before as possibly an adoptionist, seems that depends who you asked. In the Address to the Greeks attributed to Tatian he says:

We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations.

This would suggest he was not Adoptionist. It is an interesting theological argument being made, the Greeks should have no problem with gods being incarnate as they had a number of such stories in their 'mythical accounts'. Clearly that was not a good strategy, as it opened the Jesus story to the same charge of being mythical by association and parallelism.

407

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

Adoptionism denies the preexistence of Christ and contradicts clear biblical passages affirming His eternal nature and divinity

Generally, Adoptionism held an eternal Christ inhabited a human Jesus from baptism till moments before death.

The virgin birth narratives (Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:35) and other Gospel accounts were not “additions” to refute Adoptionism...

Yes, the two contradictory birth narratives are additions to Mark using OT typology and a popular cultural topos.

407

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.

407

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.

I still submit that pre-Gospel 'Christians' did not concern themselves with questions. I suspect that even when the earliest Gospel was written it was understood allegorically as was popular in Hellenized Judaism.