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?

[Goat]

This isn't university. If it's true it is true. What matters is understanding your salvation. no Christian would be surprised to see elements of truth in other texts and works. The devil deceives best that way.

I challenge you to show that the 'devil deceives the best that way'. I would like to see evidence that 'the devil' even exists outside the imagination of man.

[Murad]

For purposes of discussion I'll agree that John copied Philo. Now, this only means hat a very small part of the Gospel was copied, only the first chapter. The rest of the Gospel is unaccounted for. Where did the information in the Gospel come from if it was not written by an eyewitness?

Two words; Oral Tradition.
If all 4 canonical Gospels were "Inspired" by God; why did God purposely differ in what the Cross said?

And above His head they put up the charge against Him which read, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
"Matthew 27:37

The inscription of the charge against Him read, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
"Mark 15:26

Now there was also an inscription above Him, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
"Luke 23:38

Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written, JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
"John 19:19

As a general side note, I'd like to point out that copying was very common in the ancient world.

Agreed.

The explanation that the eyewitness John wrote the Gospel of John is supported by the text itself. How If it was not an eye witness, then how was the information about Jesus Christ recieved by the writer?

Like all the other Gnostic Gospels; they were written by historians.
By the way; do you have any evidence to prove your belief that John wrote "The Gospel According to John"... You do realise many modern day scholars believe "Mark, Mathhew, Luke, John" were Pen-Names dont you?

If an eye witness did not write the Gospel, then what were there sources of information? Unless a better rival explanation can be proposed, then the explanation of John writing the Book that bearrs his name stands.

The bible itself explains this; its from hearsay & Oral Tradition.
Let me give you a biblical example.
In the most crucial juncture of Jesus' life; all the disciples forsook Jesus & fled:

Then everyone deserted him and fled.
(Mark 14:50)

The disciples heard from hearsay that Jesus died on the cross
So when Jesus appeared to the disciples; you could imagine their reaction.

They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.
(Luke 24:37)

Matthew and Luke only quoted partly from Mark, not wholly.

No one claimed Mark was quoted "wholly"(In Matthew & Luke); but the writer did not credit the source(Mark); so again another sign of plagiarism.

[Murad]

So from what I can gather is that there are sources that exist that support the Christian view of God. How is that a bad thing for Christianity again?

Unless you believe Philo was "God Al-Mighty"; the introduction of John was not "Inspired by God". Well... it could be inspired by God; i guess it comes down to whether you believe plagiarised material can be called 'Gods Word'

If we reduce the argument to ridiculousness, the argument is that because someone, somewhere, sometime said X someone else, somewhere else, and sometime else can't say it. That is ridiculous.

No. You missed the point.
If you take someone elses idea; and present it as yours WITHOUT crediting the source; thats what we call 'plagiarism'; thats what society frowns upon.
If i come up with an idea; and you copy it from me; then rephrase it; does that become the "Word of God"; or was that my idea that you stole from me?

This isn't university. If it's true it is true. What matters is understanding your salvation. no Christian would be surprised to see elements of truth in other texts and works. The devil deceives best that way.

Argumentum ad hominem

[Wootah]

This isn't university. If it's true it is true. What matters is understanding your salvation. no Christian would be surprised to see elements of truth in other texts and works. The devil deceives best that way.

I challenge you to show that the 'devil deceives the best that way'. I would like to see evidence that 'the devil' even exists outside the imagination of man.

If you wish but how can you even begin unless you take the Christian premises as true and then proceed from there? But hey do we even need to?

I said the devil deceives best that way. Deception is specifically about imitating one thing but pretending to be another. At best you can get me to drop the 'best that way'. Even then are you going to do the analysis to prove how best the devil deceives?

Accepting the devil exists is just on faith. I decline in general but I find knowing that devil is real is a far better way to live. I would definitely argue that believing in the devil produces better results for the individual and for humans. And yes I do think the general data indicates that more Christians make better life choices once they believe the devil is real. I would be interested to see, maybe we need a reality show, where Atheists take on the Christian faith for a series and see what happens.

[Wootah]

So from what I can gather is that there are sources that exist that support the Christian view of God. How is that a bad thing for Christianity again?

Unless you believe Philo was "God Al-Mighty"; the introduction of John was not "Inspired by God". Well... it could be inspired by God; i guess it comes down to whether you believe plagiarised material can be called 'Gods Word'

If we reduce the argument to ridiculousness, the argument is that because someone, somewhere, sometime said X someone else, somewhere else, and sometime else can't say it. That is ridiculous.

No. You missed the point.
If you take someone elses idea; and present it as yours WITHOUT crediting the source; thats what we call 'plagiarism'; thats what society frowns upon.
If i come up with an idea; and you copy it from me; then rephrase it; does that become the "Word of God"; or was that my idea that you stole from me?

This isn't university. If it's true it is true. What matters is understanding your salvation. no Christian would be surprised to see elements of truth in other texts and works. The devil deceives best that way.

Argumentum ad hominem

Huh? Are you saying I am attacking you personally because I accept the truth no matter what the source?

[Murad]

So from what I can gather is that there are sources that exist that support the Christian view of God. How is that a bad thing for Christianity again?

Unless you believe Philo was "God Al-Mighty"; the introduction of John was not "Inspired by God". Well... it could be inspired by God; i guess it comes down to whether you believe plagiarised material can be called 'Gods Word'

If we reduce the argument to ridiculousness, the argument is that because someone, somewhere, sometime said X someone else, somewhere else, and sometime else can't say it. That is ridiculous.

No. You missed the point.
If you take someone elses idea; and present it as yours WITHOUT crediting the source; thats what we call 'plagiarism'; thats what society frowns upon.
If i come up with an idea; and you copy it from me; then rephrase it; does that become the "Word of God"; or was that my idea that you stole from me?

This isn't university. If it's true it is true. What matters is understanding your salvation. no Christian would be surprised to see elements of truth in other texts and works. The devil deceives best that way.

Argumentum ad hominem

Huh? Are you saying I am attacking you personally because I accept the truth no matter what the source?

You obviously dont know the rules of this forum; so i'll be kind.

You can claim to know the truth; there are pagans here that claim to know the truth; but you cannot make offensive remarks by implying others worship the devil because they dont share your same view-point.

no Christian would be surprised to see elements of truth in other texts and works. The devil deceives best that way.

Trust me, you wont last long here if you continue like that.

[Wootah]

You obviously dont know the rules of this forum; so i'll be kind.

You can claim to know the truth; there are pagans here that claim to know the truth; but you cannot make offensive remarks by implying others worship the devil because they dont share your same view-point.

no Christian would be surprised to see elements of truth in other texts and works. The devil deceives best that way.

Trust me, you wont last long here if you continue like that.

Fair enough. I'll tone it down.

[Mithrae]

You obviously dont know the rules of this forum; so i'll be kind.

You can claim to know the truth; there are pagans here that claim to know the truth; but you cannot make offensive remarks by implying others worship the devil because they dont share your same view-point.

no Christian would be surprised to see elements of truth in other texts and works. The devil deceives best that way.

Trust me, you wont last long here if you continue like that.

Fair enough. I'll tone it down.

Not that I'm an expert on them, but I'm pretty sure that mentioning a Christian belief that the devil works in the world to deceive doesn't violate forum rules, and nor is it any more offensive than some views non-Christians express about biblical texts. Whether it's a compelling argument is a different question, of course

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?

If you KNOW from personal knowledge that something is true, do you copy the work of someone else and present it as though it was your own thinking?

If someone in debate copies the work of others (without acknowledgment) rather than presenting their own thinking and evidence, do you recognize the poster as being knowledgeable of the issue discussed?

That's not an answer, it's just two more questions. Nevertheless..

Your first question is loaded; where did John claim that the concept of the Logos was his own original idea? I'd also suggest that not many Christians claim his ideas about the Logos were "personal knowledge" in any case, so your point seems irrelevant.

More broadly, I've seen any number of cases in which posters in a debate forum draw on each other's ideas and methods of argument for their own posts. If someone copies a page or a paragraph, or even a sentence word for word, that's an issue. But I don't think anyone has said that John copied a page or a paragraph or a sentence from Philo. He used the concept of the Logos, which was around long before Philo, in a new context. I don't see you referencing Socrates or Aristotle or Descartes or Hume every time you ask someone to justify their claims; by your reasoning, your posts are therefore without knowledge.

[Zzyzx]

.

Your first question is loaded; where did John claim that the concept of the Logos was his own original idea?

One need not make a specific claim in presenting an idea as their own. All they need do is "borrow" the idea or copy the text without acknowledging its true source.

I'd also suggest that not many Christians claim his ideas about the Logos were "personal knowledge" in any case, so your point seems irrelevant.

Do Christians (who are aware of "John's logos doctrine") attribute the idea to John?

More broadly, I've seen any number of cases in which posters in a debate forum draw on each other's ideas and methods of argument for their own posts.

If I adopt a concept originated by others, would it be appropriate for it to be referred to as "the Zzyzx doctrine" (or idea, or plan)?

If someone copies a page or a paragraph, or even a sentence word for word, that's an issue.

I agree. Therefore, if it can be demonstrated that bible gospels are word-for-word identical, IS that "an issue"?

But I don't think anyone has said that John copied a page or a paragraph or a sentence from Philo. He used the concept of the Logos, which was around long before Philo, in a new context. I don't see you referencing Socrates or Aristotle or Descartes or Hume every time you ask someone to justify their claims; by your reasoning, your posts are therefore without knowledge.

EXACTLY what CLAIM have I made when I ask for justification?

Those who make claims of knowledge often PROJECT their actions onto those who QUESTION their claims.

[WinePusher]

For purposes of discussion I'll agree that John copied Philo. Now, this only means hat a very small part of the Gospel was copied, only the first chapter. The rest of the Gospel is unaccounted for. Where did the information in the Gospel come from if it was not written by an eyewitness?

Two words; Oral Tradition.

If you want to ascribe the contents of the Gospels to oral tradition then you will have to admit that Jesus Christ actually existed and rose from the dead. Remember that a community of people would not orally pass on stories or events if they were not of great magnitude and if they did not actually happen. An event would generally not be orally transmitted if it was fiction and if it was not of great magnitude.

If all 4 canonical Gospels were "Inspired" by God; why did God purposely differ in what the Cross said?

And above His head they put up the charge against Him which read, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
"Matthew 27:37

The inscription of the charge against Him read, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
"Mark 15:26

Now there was also an inscription above Him, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
"Luke 23:38

Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written, JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
"John 19:19

Very, very, very minor discrepencies. Every single Cross says "The King of the Jews." Luke and Mark are identical and Matthew and John are also identical. Also notice that these are omitted discrepencies. Since Mark wrote first and his inscription is the most basic his is the correct one that was on the cross verbatim.

The explanation that the eyewitness John wrote the Gospel of John is supported by the text itself. How If it was not an eye witness, then how was the information about Jesus Christ recieved by the writer?

Like all the other Gnostic Gospels; they were written by historians. By the way; do you have any evidence to prove your belief that John wrote "The Gospel According to John"... You do realise many modern day scholars believe "Mark, Mathhew, Luke, John" were Pen-Names dont you?

Modern scholars also believe that eyewitnesses and the evangelists wrote the accounts. But the explanations that "historians" wrote the Gospels doesn't explain anything. Unless you can give a name or a specific person then your explanation fails because it is simply inadequate. But here's my evidence:

Point A: John did not use the other Synoptic Gospels as a source.
Point B: John's Gospel is significantly different from the Synoptics in areas such as style, emphasis and demeanor, but agrees with the synoptics on major events in Christ's ministry.
Point C: Since John did not copy from the Synoptics, but lists many events of Jesus' life that agree with the Synoptics (such as the passion narratives), it is reasonable to assume that John wrote from the perspective as an eye-witness.

If an eye witness did not write the Gospel, then what were there sources of information? Unless a better rival explanation can be proposed, then the explanation of John writing the Book that bears his name stands.

The bible itself explains this; its from hearsay & Oral Tradition. Let me give you a biblical example. In the most crucial juncture of Jesus' life; all the disciples forsook Jesus & fled:

Then everyone deserted him and fled.(Mark 14:50)

The disciples heard from hearsay that Jesus died on the cross. So when Jesus appeared to the disciples; you could imagine their reaction.

Actually, The beloved disciple (the one whom I believe wrote John's Gospel) was at the foot of the Cross. I understand your argument, but it is not what eyewitness testimony is. Eyewitness testimony does not mean that eyewitness observed with their own eyes every single step of Jesus, rather it means that they lived in the same time period as Jesus and were physically close to the events.

Matthew and Luke only quoted partly from Mark, not wholly.

No one claimed Mark was quoted "wholly"(In Matthew & Luke); but the writer did not credit the source(Mark); so again another sign of plagiarism.

What need is their to credit the source? You're applying modern theft laws to the ancient world which isn't productive. The ancient world did not operate by the same laws that the 21st century does.