Re Logos: For Biblical scholars and Classicists

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is a Bible studies forum.

Then your lack of response is probably you reaping some of what you have sown, becasue I suspect that most here immeidately look for a subtext when you start a thread on religion, as AA pointed out.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Then your lack of response is probably you reaping some of what you have sown, becasue I suspect that most here immeidately look for a subtext when you start a thread on religion, as AA pointed out.

I sympathize with Tex. My intent was not to start a thread about myself.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Becasue he got tired of somebody at FARMS kicking his butt on the topic?

LOL. Hardly. All the weight of the evidence and learned opinion are on my side. The Pope even says "Christianity" is the religion of the Logos.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I sympathize with Tex. My intent was not to start a thread about myself.

You should instead empathize with Tex, understand why it happens, and resolve to turn over a new leaf. I, somewhat similalrly, will resolve to stop talking about you.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

LOL. Hardly. All the weight of the evidence and learned opinion are on my side. The Pope even says "Christianity" is the religion of the Logos.

I knew this would get a rise out of you.


Dang, there goes my resolution.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Maybe the Hebrew christians loved Philo becasue he got it so right.

The Christians through the ages to today have seen the OT as a remarkable forcaster of the advent of Christ and the NT, rather than an inspiration and model for creators of the NT. Which is more logos, er, logical?

[Archaea]

Huh?

Your supposition believes there were no independent Hebrew influences and it was all linear. I don't believe the evidences support this.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Huh?

Your supposition believes there were no independent Hebrew influences and it was all linear. I don't believe the evidences support this.

Of course there were independent Hebrew incluences. The NT isn't just a text on Greek philosophy. On the contrary. My point doesn't depend on no independent Hebrew influences. But to deny overarching Greek influences in the NT, the seminal Christian document, is just plain ignorant.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Of course there were independent Hebrew incluences. The NT isn't just a text on Greek philosophy. On the contrary. My point doesn't depend on no independent Hebrew influences. But to deny overarching Greek influences in the NT, the seminal Christian document, is just plain ignorant.

And wherein would you find me denying Greek influence?

What I'm stating is the evidence is far from conclusive as to the origins of the Logos doctrine within John. It's possible and makes sense but so do other explanations.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

but so do other explanations.

What are they?