Posts by peacefulpete

12

JW Vaccine mandate: The contrast between voices of reason and confusion

by ukpimo in

i was reading an intriguing post on the exjw reddit, a forum i do not with to sign up for, as i'm not interested in the internal politics of reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/1hwlja8/the_governing_bodys_letter_that_shook_bethel_and/.

another post counteracted this one, driven by the "conspiracy theory" card.

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

Not sure if you still want to engage Kaleb but regarding the evolution of the Devil/Satan figure, your objection to my comment seems to be in the suggestion that some Jewish circles had included a rebellious angel element in the concept. I'm not as fully read on the topic as I'd like but the Enochic tradition certainly included the idea of rebellious angels and a leader called Satanail, and the Tobit story with its Ashmedai prince of the demons sound very much like the Devil figure in the NT. The Ezekiel 28 Protective cherub that became wicked and the falling star of Isaiah 14 were connected in late nonrabbinic Judaism. Again, I go back to the Gospel and Revelation themselves, the descriptions of the Devil within are not presented as if a new revelation, the readers are assumed to be aware of the characters, it's the action that is the focus. Paul's (and G,John's) use of archon suggests some connection to early Gnostic ideation. That really is not controversial. I think it demonstrates the composite character of the tradition of Satan. I hesitated to include the Jewish Mysticism traditions but they often featured the 'Samael' Great Demon as a live character of rebellion. Probably only secondarily connected but in some Gnostic traditions the Devil was actually an earlier son of God than Christ. The whole idea of losing great position and rank by rebellion runs through much of these traditions.

Specifically what part of my comments are incorrect? I post some speculative stuff to be sure, but it is always with the motive of brainstorming with more experienced posters. Be free to respond to error without concern for my feelings. I consider myself lucky to have had your ear.

405

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

Well Kaleb lets agree that from among Jews that had adapted to Hellenism, Christianity arose.

405

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

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.

405

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

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.

405

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

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.

405

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

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.

405

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

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.

26

Jesus the Maintenance Man

by peacefulpete in

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.

peacefulpete

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.

Translation of the Weekday Amidah - Chabad.org

26

Jesus the Maintenance Man

by peacefulpete in

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.

peacefulpete

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.