Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
WHile your rhteroic is sweeping your conlcusion is very limited. Is anyone in this thread disagreeing with the conlcusion you set forth (which appears to be limited to the Jesus as Logos introduciton to John)? My problem was trying to understand why this was signficiant to me apart from as a very interesting bit of hisotry. By this I do not mean to minimize it's hisotrical import, nor its interest, but I doubted that SU was starting the thread for such a limited prupose and I wanted to discern his larger claim, which I think he eventually set out. GOing back to your post, do you literally mean that all else other than the conlcusion you stated was drivel, or are you being more selective than that.
Btw, I am glad you showed up on this, I was wondering what had happened to you.
|
I was referring to the back-and-forth about when Greek philosophy entered Christianity and what the impact was (apostasy or impetus). For whatever reason, it was painful for me to read. Maybe because it's come up so many times before.
I think you're right to ask for the overall point and for an assessment of the overall significance, especially since I think it's fairly easily demonstrated that those who wrote the NT were well versed in Greek philosophical language (which, to me, is the overall point). The beginning of John is just one of many examples.
To what extent the writers of the NT were adopting Greek philosophical concepts or just using the terminology and language to advance their own (or Jesus') novel ideas is for the biblical scholars and theologians (not me) to decide. I suspect both forces are at work.
I've been relaxing at the in-laws' for a few weeks, a land where computers cannot function. . . They've never owned a computer, but they have a $4,000 television. Go figure.