Author of John copied Philo ?

[Murad]

Quote from wiki:

Hymn to the Word

This prologue is intended to identify Jesus as the eternal Word (Logos) of God.[20] Thus John asserts Jesus' innate superiority over all divine messengers, whether angels or prophets.[7] Here John adapts the doctrine of the Logos, God's creative principle, from Philo, a 1st-century Hellenized Jew.[7]

Philo had adopted the term Logos from Greek philosophy, using it in place of the Hebrew concept of Wisdom (sophia) as the intermediary (angel) between the transcendent Creator and the material world.[7] Some scholars argue that the prologue was taken over from an existing hymn and added at a later stage in the gospel's composition.[20]


Logos

The Jewish philosopher Philo merged these two themes when he described the Logos as God's creator of and mediator with the material world. The evangelist adapted Philo's description of the Logos, applying it to Jesus, the incarnation of the Logos.[10]

We can see from here; the frequently quoted John 1:1-3, which says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
(John 1:1-3)

So we have a very, very serious question here; the author of John, copied the doctrine of logos from Philo; and presented it as "Inspired from God/Word of God"; which many Christians believe. But in fact; the idea of John 1:1-3 existed decades before the Gospel of John existed. And by the way; the doctrine of logos was originally created by a Jew(Philo), not a Christian, so it kinda debunks trinitarian claims.

Question for debate:
1) When one copies material and presents it as his own; thats what we call plagiarism; how is plagiarised material considered 'Word Of God' by Christians?

[mich]

Josephus's Discourse To The Greeks Concerning Hades

6. For all men, the just as well as the unjust, shall be brought before God the word: for to him hath the Father committed all judgment : and he, in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as Judge, whom we call Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus%2 ... ning_Hades

Josephus's Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades is a short work published in the translation of Josephus by William Whiston. Erroneously attributed to the Jewish historian since at least the 9th century, it is now believed to be (at least in its original form) the work of Hippolytus of Rome.

Hippolytus of Rome was 3rd century

The problem with the Hyppolitus hypothesis lies in the discourse as being non christian in essence.


3. For there is one descent into this region, at whose gate we believe there stands an archangel with an host; which gate when those pass through that are conducted down by the angels appointed over souls, they do not go the same way; but the just are guided to the right hand, and are led with hymns, sung by the angels appointed over that place, unto a region of light, in which the just have dwelt from the beginning of the world; not constrained by necessity, but ever enjoying the prospect of the good things they see, and rejoice in the expectation of those new enjoyments which will be peculiar to every one of them, and esteeming those things beyond what we have here; with whom there is no place of toil, no burning heat, no piercing cold, nor are any briers there; but the countenance of the and of the just, which they see, always smiles them, while they wait for that rest and eternal new life in heaven, which is to succeed this region. This place we call The Bosom of Abraham.

According to the christian doctrine, Heaven was now accessible.

Andre

[Goat]

Josephus's Discourse To The Greeks Concerning Hades

6. For all men, the just as well as the unjust, shall be brought before God the word: for to him hath the Father committed all judgment : and he, in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as Judge, whom we call Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus%2 ... ning_Hades

Josephus's Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades is a short work published in the translation of Josephus by William Whiston. Erroneously attributed to the Jewish historian since at least the 9th century, it is now believed to be (at least in its original form) the work of Hippolytus of Rome.

Hippolytus of Rome was 3rd century

The problem with the Hyppolitus hypothesis lies in the discourse as being non christian in essence.


3. For there is one descent into this region, at whose gate we believe there stands an archangel with an host; which gate when those pass through that are conducted down by the angels appointed over souls, they do not go the same way; but the just are guided to the right hand, and are led with hymns, sung by the angels appointed over that place, unto a region of light, in which the just have dwelt from the beginning of the world; not constrained by necessity, but ever enjoying the prospect of the good things they see, and rejoice in the expectation of those new enjoyments which will be peculiar to every one of them, and esteeming those things beyond what we have here; with whom there is no place of toil, no burning heat, no piercing cold, nor are any briers there; but the countenance of the and of the just, which they see, always smiles them, while they wait for that rest and eternal new life in heaven, which is to succeed this region. This place we call The Bosom of Abraham.

According to the christian doctrine, Heaven was now accessible.

Andre

However, you quoted this as a point that the trinity was 'pre-christian', then you pointed to a source that was 3rd century.

Your source and your claim do not match up. What it says is totally irrelevant to the fact that you were making a source about the trinity was being 'pre-Christian', and then used a source 300 years later!.

[Mithrae]

However, you quoted this as a point that the trinity was 'pre-christian', then you pointed to a source that was 3rd century.

Your source and your claim do not match up. What it says is totally irrelevant to the fact that you were making a source about the trinity was being 'pre-Christian', and then used a source 300 years later!.

That doesn't answer his argument...

The problem with the Hyppolitus hypothesis lies in the discourse as being non christian in essence. . . . .

According to the christian doctrine, Heaven was now accessible.

Andre

Not according to Revelation 20 - the final judgement was yet to come.

[Goat]

However, you quoted this as a point that the trinity was 'pre-christian', then you pointed to a source that was 3rd century.

Your source and your claim do not match up. What it says is totally irrelevant to the fact that you were making a source about the trinity was being 'pre-Christian', and then used a source 300 years later!.

That doesn't answer his argument...

The problem with the Hyppolitus hypothesis lies in the discourse as being non christian in essence. . . . .

According to the christian doctrine, Heaven was now accessible.

Andre

Not according to Revelation 20 - the final judgement was yet to come.

Because he was making a claim that does not match up with his source.. he was claiming a source showed a concept was pre-CHristian.. yet he used a source that post dated the GOJ.

As for Revelation 20, I have yet to see how that is relevant to 'Did the author of John Copy Philo.

[mich]

Josephus's Discourse To The Greeks Concerning Hades

6. For all men, the just as well as the unjust, shall be brought before God the word: for to him hath the Father committed all judgment : and he, in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as Judge, whom we call Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus%2 ... ning_Hades

Josephus's Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades is a short work published in the translation of Josephus by William Whiston. Erroneously attributed to the Jewish historian since at least the 9th century, it is now believed to be (at least in its original form) the work of Hippolytus of Rome.

Hippolytus of Rome was 3rd century

The problem with the Hyppolitus hypothesis lies in the discourse as being non christian in essence.


3. For there is one descent into this region, at whose gate we believe there stands an archangel with an host; which gate when those pass through that are conducted down by the angels appointed over souls, they do not go the same way; but the just are guided to the right hand, and are led with hymns, sung by the angels appointed over that place, unto a region of light, in which the just have dwelt from the beginning of the world; not constrained by necessity, but ever enjoying the prospect of the good things they see, and rejoice in the expectation of those new enjoyments which will be peculiar to every one of them, and esteeming those things beyond what we have here; with whom there is no place of toil, no burning heat, no piercing cold, nor are any briers there; but the countenance of the and of the just, which they see, always smiles them, while they wait for that rest and eternal new life in heaven, which is to succeed this region. This place we call The Bosom of Abraham.

According to the christian doctrine, Heaven was now accessible.

Andre

However, you quoted this as a point that the trinity was 'pre-christian', then you pointed to a source that was 3rd century.

Your source and your claim do not match up. What it says is totally irrelevant to the fact that you were making a source about the trinity was being 'pre-Christian', and then used a source 300 years later!.

Again, goat, to claim it to be a third century document is theoretical at best, since the support of it being written by Hyppolitus is weak. Also, even if it was Josephus, the document would not be pre-christian. The "content" found in the discourse is jewish, not christian.Is it a Hellenized jewish teaching? Could be, but the argument lies in Abraham's bosom and the Logos as being pre christian jewish "concepts", unless you assume that christians, or Philo came up with the idea.

Andre

[mich]

However, you quoted this as a point that the trinity was 'pre-christian', then you pointed to a source that was 3rd century.

Your source and your claim do not match up. What it says is totally irrelevant to the fact that you were making a source about the trinity was being 'pre-Christian', and then used a source 300 years later!.

That doesn't answer his argument...

The problem with the Hyppolitus hypothesis lies in the discourse as being non christian in essence. . . . .

According to the christian doctrine, Heaven was now accessible.

Andre

Not according to Revelation 20 - the final judgement was yet to come.

This would not concern the resurrection, but the access of the souls into Heaven. If you look at the discourse, Abraham's bosom lies in Hades, which is supported by Jesus' story of Lazarus and the rich man.

Andre

[Mithrae]

Because he was making a claim that does not match up with his source.. he was claiming a source showed a concept was pre-CHristian.. yet he used a source that post dated the GOJ.

As for Revelation 20, I have yet to see how that is relevant to 'Did the author of John Copy Philo.

Mich responded to your claim that the Discourse.. Concerning Hades was written by Hyppolitus by arguing that the theology in it was non-Christian - ie. that 'Hades' was not an issue for 3rd century Christians, so why would Hyppolitus write it?

Josephus wrote in the post-apostolic Christian era regardless; but I don't think your response answered Mich's argument. Revelation 20 suggests that Hades was indeed an issue for later Christian doctrine, since the final judgement (for non-Christians certainly, and arguably Christians also) was to occur in an unspecified future period.

Edit:

This would not concern the resurrection, but the access of the souls into Heaven. If you look at the discourse, Abraham's bosom lies in Hades, which is supported by Jesus' story of Lazarus and the rich man.

Andre

That appears to contradict your earlier claim:
"According to the christian doctrine, Heaven was now accessible."

But it's off-topic in any case, since as you admit, even Josephus' work was not pre-Christian.

[Goat]

Again, goat, to claim it to be a third century document is theoretical at best, since the support of it being written by Hyppolitus is weak. Also, even if it was Josephus, the document would not be pre-christian. The "content" found in the discourse is jewish, not christian.Is it a Hellenized jewish teaching? Could be, but the argument lies in Abraham's bosom and the Logos as being pre christian jewish "concepts", unless you assume that christians, or Philo came up with the idea.

Andre

It certainly isn't Josephus, no matter who it is attributed to..

The terminology is not Jewish at all.

I would say that is it much more Christian that Jewish.

You calim that 'the support is weak'.. yet it has more support than Josephus.

You see, Jospehus would not use the New testament.



There are many references to the New Testament throughout the "Discourse". For example, the division of the just and unjust to the right and left suggests Matthew 25:32-33; the reference to the Bosom of Abraham and the "chaos" clearly are related to the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31); the comparison of the body to seed that has been planted recalls 1Corinthians 15:37-38; and the committing of all judgment to Christ comes from John 5:22. Several of these references are mentioned by William Whiston in his dissertation attempting to prove Josephus was the author (see below).[2]


Sorry, but those reference show it is neither Jewish or 'Pre-Christian'
From the notes


William Whiston in "Dissertation 6", part of the appendix to his Josephus translation, printed the text of this "Discourse" in Greek and maintained that the piece was by Josephus, "preached or written when he was bishop of Jerusalem". [3]


Josephus wasn't a bishop of Jerusalem at all....

It's not jewish.. end of story.

Not only that, but the support for it being hippolytus is stronger than you claim, since it is an extract from a longer piece of work. This longer piece of work can be found at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tical.html

[Zzyzx]

.

Question for debate:
1) When one copies material and presents it as his own; thats what we call plagiarism; how is plagiarised material considered 'Word Of God' by Christians?

I suggest that a very important aspect of the issue is WHY would "John" (whoever that may have been) copy anything from anyone (if "John" was a credible recorder of events).

Is copying the work of others NOT an admission that one LACKS personal knowledge of that he reports?

Failure to credit sources (plagiarism) reduces credibility; changing the intent of a writing being presented (hijacking) is dishonorable; however, copying has greater implications regarding the veracity of what is presented as "truth".

[Mithrae]

Is copying the work of others NOT an admission that one LACKS personal knowledge of that he reports?

Well... no... it's not an admission that one lacks personal knowledge of that which he reports, it's just using the work of others. I imagine you already knew that, however. So is the above a claim that copying the work of others implies an admission that one lacks personal knowledge?