Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon
I think SU's post is clearly and well reasoned. Greek philosophy and Jewish tradition produced the Jesus-as-Logos introduction to the gospel of John.
The assertion of the "logos" as the principal guiding force for all creation is older than Plato and Aristotle, however: it is among the oldest concepts in presocratic Greek philosophy. Fragments from a 6th-5th century (BCE) Greek philosopher named Heraclitus (aptly called "the obscure") characterized the universe as being in a state of constant change or flux. His most famous maxim asserted that one could not step into the same river twice (the water having flowed on). [See Plato, Cratylus 402a for the quote.].
Governing the universe through all this change was the LOGOS: Heraclitus' Fragment 1 declares that all things happen (literally "come to be") according to the logos (γινομένων γὰρ πάντων κατὰ τὸν λόγον), but laments that men are always clueless about this logos (δὲ λόγου τοῦδ’ ἐόντος ἀεὶ ἀξύνετοι γίνονται ἄνθρωποι).
The author of John's gospel, in my opinion, was directly alluding to Heraclitus in his famous beginning. (esp. John 1.3: πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο)
The ensuing drivel in this thread over the "hellenization" of Christianity is both ill-informed and a red herring. I would be more mystified as to why this remains a debate if I wasn't already so well aware of a tendency to argue despite facts, not with them. It all reminds me of Rodney Stark's ridiculous claims in The Victory of Reason, where Stark asserts that Christianity is directly responsible for the west's notions of progress and enlightenment. Kind of like Hitler was responsible for the creation of the modern state of Israel.
|
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.