Greek Philosophy: The Source of Biblical Christology?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Over the years I have encountered various references to the importance of the "Logos" in first century Greek philosophy. It was central to the philosophy of the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo (ca. 30 BC - 50 AD). But I never paid it much attention to it's use outside of the Bible because I believed that the Bible was a divine revelation. It seemed impossible that the fundamental New Testament concepts of Christ such as "Firstborn Son of God" and "High Priest" and "Image of God" did not originate in the Christian revelation but were actually borrowed from a pre-existing Greek philosophy. I now see it as too obvious to ignore. Consider these words from G. R. Beasley-Murray's introduction to the Book of John in the Word Biblical Commentary:

The most significant point of contact between Philo and John lies in their use of the concept of the Logos. Philo borrowed from the Stoics the notion of Logos as the principle of reality. He interpreted the concept in the light of God as Creator; the Logos, like wisdom, was viewed as God’s medium of creation and governance of the world and of revelation to the world. As such the Logos is termed the image of God and the First-born Son of God. Since he is the medium through which the world approaches God, he is also termed the High Priest, the Paraclete for the forgiveness of sins and the bestowal of God’s blessings on man (De Vita Mos. 2:134). Philo also conjoins with the Logos the Platonic notion of the archetypal man, who is contrasted with the earthly man of Gen 2, in whom nous is mingled with earth (Leg. All. 1:31–32).[/URL] [URL="http://biblewheel.com/forum/#_ftnref1"] (http://biblewheel.com/forum/#_ftn1)What does this imply about the truth of the Biblical doctrines of Christ? Is there anything about the NT teachings that did not already exist in Greek philosophy?

[Gil]

Richard,

[ Philo also conjoins with the Logos the Platonic notion of the archetypal man, who is contrasted with the earthly man of Gen 2, in whom nous is mingled with earth (Leg. All. 1:31–32). ]


Who is being contrasted with who in the above.
Are you saying that the archetypal man Jesus Christ (who they say is the word)
is contrasted with the earthly man in whom nous is mingled with earth?
And Adam was the archetypal earthly man in the flesh.?

thanks Gil

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

[ Philo also conjoins with the Logos the Platonic notion of the archetypal man, who is contrasted with the earthly man of Gen 2, in whom nous is mingled with earth (Leg. All. 1:31–32). ]


Who is being contrasted with who in the above.
Are you saying that the archetypal man Jesus Christ (who they say is the word)
is contrasted with the earthly man in whom nous is mingled with earth?
And Adam was the archetypal earthly man in the flesh.?

thanks Gil
Hi Gil,

Those weren't my words. I was just quoting the commentator. But in answer to your question, I'm pretty sure he's saying that the Logos was the "Archetypal Man" and the "earthly man" (Adam) was made in the image of the archetypal, or heavenly, man (Christ).

Richard

[Gil]

Hi Richard,

Quote: Hi Gil,

Those weren't my words. I was just quoting the commentator. But in answer to your question, I'm pretty sure he's saying that the Logos was the "Archetypal Man" and the "earthly man" (Adam) was made in the image of the archetypal, or heavenly, man (Christ).

Richard
-------------------
Gil > I'm better at telling stories as they present a better picture, like a painting.
Something to remember as you guys and gals are wading through verse upon verse which only presents pieces of a puzzle that never seems to get assembled.


Well Richard,

The story of GOD and his relationship with his CREATION and MAN is intertwined within the Ideas, concepts of the earliest forms of man in the flesh through the present time and will continue on.

No ,that is not what he said, nor did any of the Greek Philosophers that carried man out of the Dark ages into the emerging light that was occurring at the time of Jesus > Christ.
The story of the Hebrews and the children of Israel was the story of man as they were emerging through the darkness of their times toward the Light that would turn the world of darkness upside down. The climactic event seen to be the interim period between the birth of Jesus in the flesh , through his resurrection and the revealing of the New Man to be within the plan and purpose that God had for this Earth which is but a speck within his creation. (Cosmos) .

All the terminology used such as Darkness/Light , Children of Darkness/ Children of Light and all the rest of these inferences are focused toward the biblical theme of Good and Evil.
The focal point in the beginning is darkness and evil.
And the focal point at the end is Light and Love.

The story is told within the bible through the Old and New Testament.
The path is from Darkness to Light.
Adam in the flesh , the father of all the generations that would in the end become Israel is the first part of the story.
The story of Darkness and Evil that is the Old Testament.
It is all shown and seen through the eyes of the Hebrews.

The story of Light would be shown as being along a parallel path to the Hebrews, but was not of the Hebrews.
It would be a story told by the other generations of man outside of the Hebrews.
All man in the flesh told their own story which followed the same pattern, but
Light was to emerge from their consciousness.

Darkness and Light were on a collision course with each other.
There would be an apocalyptic crash , as great as the (big bang in modern thought).
It would be an explosion of blinding light that would forever erase the darkness that at the first befell all man.

The New Testament is the story of that Light and the Love that was to ensue.

The story of Jesus > Christ is a reality that came of his Resurrection.
It is not myth or fable.

The Logos is not Archetypal Man . Neither the First (ADAM) from which
the (ADAM ) from which Adam and Eve would come that would be the parents
of the Hebrews ( the children of darkness) that in the end would become the children of Israel ; or the Last ( ADAM) which would be the Christ.

You mention but one philosopher. Philo.
The Word of God and what it meant to Philo;

logos > word :

"the expression of thought," (not the mere name of an object) as embodying a conception or idea, a saying or statement, by God and by (Jesus > Jesus Christ).
The revealed will of God is used of a direct revelation given by
( Jesus >Jesus Christ ). In this respect it is the message from the Lord (Father) of our Lord (Son) Jesus Christ, delivered with His authority and made effective by His power. Sometimes it is used as the sum of God's utterances.
It is used for discourse, speech, of instruction.

The Spirit of God and the Spirit of his Son are "of " the same Spirit.

That about covers all the bases.
It is the Word of God, spoken or made manifest by the Spirit which is God through Life .

The Creation was spoke into existence by the word of God.
A making manifest into existence , the entire concept which was within (His) the consciousness of GOD.

Modern science tells the same story using the logos/word language
that the various sciences employ.

Quote: Richard,
What does this imply about the truth of the Biblical doctrines of Christ? Is there anything about the NT teachings that did not already exist in Greek philosophy?

Gil > Light followed a parallel path as Darkness.
I'd say that it brought out the validity of the Biblical doctrines of Jesus > Jesus Christ.

"Christ" is not a doctrine.

Moses himself was a great Philosopher , Architect and Mathematician if I remember right. Senmut was seen to be Moses.

Acts 7:22. 'And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds.'

Moses, as the son of the greatest queen of Egypt , had all the learning of Egypt at his disposal, and the wisdom of Egypt was unrivaled anciently.

I Kings 4:30. And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt.

Philos was into numerology as well

Gil