The Logos vs The Word

[robrecht]

That notion was invented to explain the ridiculous Trinity concept that Constantine forced down Christianity's throat for his own self-aggrandizement.

Bishop Spong makes that clear in this clip.

That belief has led to modern Christians on the right to read their bible literally and IMO, stupidly.

Regards
DL

I listened to this video but missed the part about Constantine forcing the ridiculous Trinity concept down Christianity's throat for his own self-aggrandizement. At what time stamped is this discussed?

[Pytharchimedes]

I've broken some houses; does that count?

Back on topic, though, my only problem with translating λόγος as "word" is that it doesn't really capture the lexical range of the Greek. The word λόγος has connotations which are not addressed by the English "word." The English "word" doesn't carry the same connotations of "logic" or "reason" which are expressed by λόγος, and the English "word" is applicable to numerous different communicative symbols, while λόγος tends to specifically connote the spoken word (as opposed to, say, γραφος which indicates the written word).

This is the lynch-pin. The Logos itself is the common understanding, it is what brings us all together in the Logos(Reason/Intellect/Forethought) of God. In my humble thoughts I ask myself; How can we use the morphed idea of what a "Word" is to us in our modern age to describe the Logos of God? It seems to me that without a new modern day inspiration of the Logos, that God will be elusive to the modern Christian Church. God forbid that we should continue in such practices.

[shunyadragon]

Constantine was not the originator of the concept of the Trinity. That ascribes far too much theological sophistication to Constantine. The simple fact that he was emperor at the time when the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine was being formalized does not make him responsible for it.

This is a yes and no proposition. It was under Constantine's authority, and his chosen inner circle of Church Fathers that the first NT was made orthodox, and the doctrine of the Trinity was established. It is not as much theological sophistication, but Roman theology that became doctrine under Constantine's rule.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

This is a yes and no proposition. It was under Constantine's authority

Constantine may have been Emperor, but he had no authority to establish or dictate Church doctrine. He pushed for the Council of Nicaea to settle disputes within the Church, but he did not have a voice in the Council. It gives Constantine far too much theological credit to suppose that he had a pony in that race. Honestly, he would have been just as happy if Arianism had won the day, just so long as the result was some measure of unity throughout the Church.

and his chosen inner circle of Church Fathers

Constantine didn't choose the participants for the Council of Nicaea.

that the first NT was made orthodox

The New Testament was not "made orthodox" at Nicaea. There was no discussion of the Biblical canon at that particular ecumenical council-- nor at any ecumenical council until Trent, over 1000 years later.

and the doctrine of the Trinity was established.

The now-orthodox concept of the Doctrine of the Trinity had existed prior to Nicaea. All Nicaea did was to formalize that it was the orthodox position.

[Soyeong]

The "Memra" or "Word" was not a concept that was created by John. Rather, the Memra appears throughout the OT in the Aramaic translation (Targum) of the Bible, which was read out loud in the Sabbath every week. The Jews thought that the Memra had six characteristics, all of which are mentioned in the first chapter of John, so John was definitely making an allusion to the concept and by identifying the Memra is Jesus, has was essentially claiming that where the Memra appeared in the OT was also Jesus. For instance, John identified Jesus as the giver of the Ten Commandments:

Targum Exodus 20:1 - And the Word of the Lord spoke all these words.

http://www.bibleword.org/wp/the-memra-the-word/2132

[Cerebrum123]

The "Memra" or "Word" was not a concept that was created by John. Rather, the Memra appears throughout the OT in the Aramaic translation (Targum) of the Bible, which was read out loud in the Sabbath every week. The Jews thought that the Memra had six characteristics, all of which are mentioned in the first chapter of John, so John was definitely making an allusion to the concept and by identifying the Memra is Jesus, has was essentially claiming that where the Memra appeared in the OT was also Jesus. For instance, John identified Jesus as the giver of the Ten Commandments:

Targum Exodus 20:1 - And the Word of the Lord spoke all these words.

http://www.bibleword.org/wp/the-memra-the-word/2132

IIRC Philo had his own version of "Logos" too.

Source: Tektonics

This concept, Young continues, did not challenge God's "ultimate originality and sovereignty" at all. Hence, the idea of Christianity identifying an actual person in such a way is not problematic for monotheism in any sense. Nor is a trinitarian concept entirely foreign to Judaism. O'Neill [JCO.WD, 94] records the words of the Jewish historian Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, who laid out this exposition upon the three men who came to visit Abraham in Genesis 18:2, and were presumed to be divine figures:

...the one in the middle is the Father of the Universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power.
No one would question that Philo was a Jewish monotheist; yet here we have an exposition perfectly compatible with the Trinity: the Father, The Creative Power (the Son, or the Word), and the Royal Power (the Holy Spirit).

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

[shunyadragon]

IIRC Philo had his own version of "Logos" too.

Source: Tektonics

This concept, Young continues, did not challenge God's "ultimate originality and sovereignty" at all. Hence, the idea of Christianity identifying an actual person in such a way is not problematic for monotheism in any sense. Nor is a trinitarian concept entirely foreign to Judaism. O'Neill [JCO.WD, 94] records the words of the Jewish historian Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, who laid out this exposition upon the three men who came to visit Abraham in Genesis 18:2, and were presumed to be divine figures:

...the one in the middle is the Father of the Universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power.
No one would question that Philo was a Jewish monotheist; yet here we have an exposition perfectly compatible with the Trinity: the Father, The Creative Power (the Son, or the Word), and the Royal Power (the Holy Spirit).

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

These represents an interpretation not accepted by Judaism. The concept of the Trinity is indeed foreign to Judaism. Like Paul, Philo is a late Hellenistic philosopher not reflecting Judaism

[Boxing Pythagoras]

These represents an interpretation not accepted by Judaism. The concept of the Trinity is indeed foreign to Judaism. Like Paul, Philo is a late Hellenistic philosopher not reflecting Judaism

This is an overly simplistic view. Philo was certainly influenced by Hellenistic philosophy, and it is certainly true that we have no reason to think his particular views were widely held amongst Judaean Jews; however, it is not reasonable to claim that Philo's work is "not reflecting Judaism." Philo's writing is thoroughly Jewish, as even a cursory reading of his work will demonstrate. He was extremely well-respected amongst Alexandrian Jews, even to the point of representing them before the Emperor in Rome.

[robrecht]

These represents an interpretation not accepted by Judaism. The concept of the Trinity is indeed foreign to Judaism. Like Paul, Philo is a late Hellenistic philosopher not reflecting Judaism

Sounds like your view of Judaism is much too narrow. There have long been, and always will be, many different Judaisms, which have a very profound and rich tradition with a great deal of flexibility for continued growth, contrary to the Bahá’u’lláh's view that the Jews are cursed or your view that the Jews have cursed themselves.

[JonathanL]

Sounds like your view of Judaism is much too narrow. There have long been, and always will be, many different Judaisms, which have a very profound and rich tradition with a great deal of flexibility for continued growth, contrary to the Bahá’u’lláh's view that the Jews are cursed or your view that the Jews have cursed themselves.

My understanding is that the view that there was a sharp distinction between the Judaism of Israel and the Judaism of the diaspora in terms of hellenization is also misguided, seeing as Judaism in Palestine had undergone hellenization even before the time of Antiochus IV. If I've understood correctly what Oskar Skarsaune writes in his book "In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity" Jewish culture and religious thought started to undergo significant hellenization from the point of Alexander's conquest of the orient and onwards (although he stresses that "Judaism was able to absorb Hellenistic ideas without losing it's own identity or compromising its essential principles."*). Some examples of this hellenization in Judaistic thought that Skarsaune mentions are:

1. Jewish sages adopted the greek concept of divine reason, logos, and applied it to the Torah so that it began to be viewed as the pattern by which God created the world, as opposed to Plato's world of Ideas.

2. The seven rules of Hillel on how to interpret biblical texts corresponds to Greek methods of exegesis on codes of law that were taught in Greek schools of law and rhetoric.

3. The concept of the "tradition of elders" has roots in Greek schools of philosophy (and by derivation the concept of the oral Torah). As Skarsaune writes:

Source: Skarsaune, Oskar. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002. Print. p.37

These schools [I.e the Greek schools of philosophy] had developed a strong sense of tradition, and it became customary to substantiate the doctrine of the school by citing the chain of famous teachers who had transmitted this doctrine all the way from it's authorative beginning. This way of giving authority to a doctrine was later adopted by the rabbis.

© Copyright Original Source

4. The pharisaic-rabbinical idea that all Jews should become students of the Torah finds it origins in the Greek ideal that everyone should be study philosophy.



All of these points can be found in the first chapter of the book which I've cited, if anyone is interested in reading more.

*Skarsaune, Oskar. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002. Print. p.38

[shunyadragon]

Sounds like your view of Judaism is much too narrow. There have long been, and always will be, many different Judaisms, which have a very profound and rich tradition with a great deal of flexibility for continued growth, contrary to the Bahá’u’lláh's view that the Jews are cursed or your view that the Jews have cursed themselves.

No, not too narrow. Yes there were different Judaisms some worshiped multiple Gods including a Goddess, but that is not an excuse to assert that there is a basis for the Trinity in the Torah and traditional Judaism. There is none. Jewish Orthodoxy is purely Monotheistic, no Trinity.

[shunyadragon]

My understanding is that the view that there was a sharp distinction between the Judaism of Israel and the Judaism of the diaspora in terms of hellenization is also misguided, seeing as Judaism in Palestine had undergone hellenization even before the time of Antiochus IV. If I've understood correctly what Oskar Skarsaune writes in his book "In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity" Jewish culture and religious thought started to undergo significant hellenization from the point of Alexander's conquest of the orient and onwards (although he stresses that "Judaism was able to absorb Hellenistic ideas without losing it's own identity or compromising its essential principles."*). Some examples of this hellenization in Judaistic thought that Skarsaune mentions are:

1. Jewish sages adopted the greek concept of divine reason, logos, and applied it to the Torah so that it began to be viewed as the pattern by which God created the world, as opposed to Plato's world of Ideas.

2. The seven rules of Hillel on how to interpret biblical texts corresponds to Greek methods of exegesis on codes of law that were taught in Greek schools of law and rhetoric.

3. The concept of the "tradition of elders" has roots in Greek schools of philosophy (and by derivation the concept of the oral Torah). As Skarsaune writes:

Source: Skarsaune, Oskar. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002. Print. p.37

These schools [I.e the Greek schools of philosophy] had developed a strong sense of tradition, and it became customary to substantiate the doctrine of the school by citing the chain of famous teachers who had transmitted this doctrine all the way from it's authorative beginning. This way of giving authority to a doctrine was later adopted by the rabbis.

© Copyright Original Source

4. The pharisaic-rabbinical idea that all Jews should become students of the Torah finds it origins in the Greek ideal that everyone should be study philosophy.



All of these points can be found in the first chapter of the book which I've cited, if anyone is interested in reading more.

*Skarsaune, Oskar. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002. Print. p.38

I do not think this offers anything significant. Hellenized Jews never represented an Orthodoxy in Judaism

[JonathanL]

I do not think this offers anything significant. Hellenized Jews never represented an Orthodoxy in Judaism

My point was that there didn't exist any such thing as an "unhellenized" Jew. Judaism had become "hellenized" even in Palestine hundreds of years before Jesus was born.

[robrecht]

No, not too narrow. Yes there were different Judaisms some worshiped multiple Gods including a Goddess, but that is not an excuse to assert that there is a basis for the Trinity in the Torah and traditional Judaism. There is none. Jewish Orthodoxy is purely Monotheistic, no Trinity.

I need no such excuse. I never asserted that there was a basis for the Trinity in the Torah. There is however a basis for speaking of an incarnational God, which is much more important and profound than your incomplete understanding of the Christian conception of the Trinity.

Second, you claim that your view of Judaism as self-cursed is not too narrow. That is hard to believe. You concede that Jews themselves would not agree with your despicable characterization of them as having cursed themselves. If Jews would not agree with your hateful characterization of them, then your view is indeed too narrow, by definition.

[Omniskeptical]

The gnostic heretic Valentinus is the obvious developer of the trinity doctrine. He adapted it from the 3 attributes of the Egyptian sun god Amon-Re-Ptah, and from the logos equivalence of the thrice-great Hermes with a logos or the logos. He is the first to have called the christ a statement/logos, having seen such a thing by smoking marijuana, something which Rogue should do. Since I don't like twitching and jitters, I don't smoke it.

Valentinus' version of the trinity like the Egyptian one is weird. Jesus is own father; and he raised himself from the dead to spite Cerinthus' contention that a god cannot die, and thus Jesus just died. Cerinthus was just as notoriously lustful as Valentinus.

Polycarp of Smyrna and Justin Martyr (i.e. the witness) confused everyone. Justin affirmed Jesus was a firey Logos. Polycarp state how different the Most High was from his son. Philo thought the logos was angel that delivered gods power through Anthropomorphism.