Muthos and Logos

RabbiO · May 17, 2018

rrobs said:
I think you hit the nail on the head with your story. I guess that's the problem with theology. The scribes and Pharisees knew a lot of theology, but not much about God Himself.

I take it that you are presenting yourself as an expert on scribes and Pharisees. I know that it is sometimes annoying to see a thread derailed, so, when you have the chance, why don't you start a new thread and expound upon the subject and share your extensive knowledge.

rrobs · May 17, 2018

RabbiO said:
I take it that you are presenting yourself as an expert on scribes and Pharisees. I know that it is sometimes annoying to see a thread derailed, so, when you have the chance, why don't you start a new thread and expound upon the subject and share your extensive knowledge.

All I know about the Scribes and Pharisee is in the Bible. I understand you are coming from a Jewish tradition. Different from the Roman tradition to be sure. Nonetheless, tradition is tradition.

Matt 15:3,

But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye [Scribes & Pharisees. see v1] also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

If that means nothing to you then so would the extent of my knowledge on the subject. Still, maybe I'll write a little about them one of these days. Thanks for the idea. That was kind of you.

crossfire · May 17, 2018

rrobs said:
What did the triangle become when one of it's corners died?

But we're not talking about triangles. We are talking about a man, namely Jesus Christ. Only in pagan myths do man-gods exist. Such an aeration is not to be found in the scriptures.

Genesis 6, Samson, and Jesus himself are just 3 examples from the scriptures.

rrobs · May 17, 2018

qaz said:
the father or the son are not part of the trinity, they are the trinity entirely. a proper example would be a triangle whose corners measure 180° each , and whose sum still is 180°.
the only way out to "rationalize" the concept of trinty is using the set theory of cantor. but if you can it's unlikely you'll believe in something like the trinity.

Yes. you may "rationalize" [not prove] the trinity with set theory. But what set theory, nor the Bible itself, never aver is the existence of this thing theologians call "trinity." Trying to differentiate between being part of something and being that something is moot if there is no something to begin with.

crossfire · May 17, 2018

According to Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, mythos is based upon archetpes residing within the Collective Unconscious. Most successful stories and legends are successful because they employ these archetypes of the Collective Unconscious, which touches people on a deep unconscious psychological level.

Logos is that which brings unconscious content into consciousness, and explains it in psychological terms--the moral of the story. If you notice that it is stated in the scriptures that Jesus always used an illustration {mythos} to get his point across, and then employs logos to bring out the deeper psychological meaning into conscious understanding. Logos sheads light onto the dark mythos--it brings dark (unconscious) psychological content into consciousness (light.)

Your mileage may vary.

rrobs · May 17, 2018

RabbiO said:
I take it that you are presenting yourself as an expert on scribes and Pharisees. I know that it is sometimes annoying to see a thread derailed, so, when you have the chance, why don't you start a new thread and expound upon the subject and share your extensive knowledge.

I know there were some pretty nice Scribes & Pharisees. Besides, no person can go beyond what they are taught. If someone is taught tradition, then that is all they know. The problem lays with the institution, not any one sincere follower of that constitution's tradition.

rrobs · May 17, 2018

crossfire said:
According to Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, mythos is based upon archetpes residing within the Collective Unconscious. Most successful stories and legends are successful because they employ these archetypes of the Collective Unconscious, which touches people on a deep unconscious psychological level.

Logos is that which brings unconscious content into consciousness, and explains it in psychological terms--the moral of the story. If you notice that it is stated in the scriptures that Jesus always used an illustration {mythos} to get his point across, and then employs logos to bring out the deeper psychological meaning into conscious understanding. Logos sheads light onto the dark mythos--it brings dark (unconscious) psychological content into consciousness (light.)

Your mileage may vary.

I appreciate the info from Jung and Campbell. They are pretty insightful, to be sure.

However, since the Bible was written to an Eastern culture 2K years ago, wouldn't it be better to understand what popped in their minds when reading muthos or logos in the texts?

Whatever can be inferred regarding the usefulness of muthos must be balanced against the verses that actually include the word. I listed all five. It is clear as could be in all five that Christians are to avoid them like the plague.

Jung is interesting. I owned a kung fu school for 20 years and I often brought him up. He was pretty taoist as is kung fu. However, he is not my source for truth. That would be the scriptures.

crossfire · May 17, 2018

rrobs said:
I appreciate the info from Jung and Campbell. They are pretty insightful, to be sure.

However, since the Bible was written to an Eastern culture 2K years ago, wouldn't it be better to understand what popped in their minds when reading muthos or logos in the texts?

Whatever can be inferred regarding the usefulness of muthos must be balanced against the verses that actually include the word. I listed all five. It is clear as could be in all five that Christians are to avoid them like the plague.

Jung is interesting. I owned a kung fu school for 20 years and I often brought him up. He was pretty taoist as is kung fu. However, he is not my source for truth. That would be the scriptures.

2k years ago...Logos was associated with Hermes, messenger of Zeus and the other gods, as well as animus, the spark of life (zoe.) (compare to the Greeks words from John 1.) Hermes was also psychopomp who conducted souls to and from Hades. Mythos referred to the body of oral tradition and legend, which was the realm of Mnemosyne (memory,) of which Hermes was a student and follower.

crossfire · May 17, 2018

crossfire said:
2k years ago...Logos was associated with Hermes, messenger of Zeus and the other gods, as well as animus, the spark of life (zoe.) (compare to the Greeks words from John 1.) Hermes was also psychopomp who conducted souls to and from Hades. Mythos referred to the body of oral tradition and legend, which was the realm of Mnemosyne (memory,) of which Hermes was a student and follower.

To add to this: mythos was associated with waters, Mnemosyne's pool. So when Jesus spoke of "living waters," it could be interpreted as bringing the spark of life and understanding to the dark and misunderstood waters of mythos.

syo · May 18, 2018

qaz said:
the father or the son are not part of the trinity, they are the trinity entirely.

this is where we disagree. i think they are part. and i also think the trinity is undivided.

syo · May 18, 2018

rrobs said:
What did the triangle become when one of it's corners died?

human jesus died, not god jesus. so the triangle remained intact.

qaz · May 18, 2018

syo said:
this is where we disagree. i think they are part. and i also think the trinity is undivided.

then you're officially an heretic.

Sabellianism | Christianity

sealchan · May 18, 2018

rrobs said:
In researching the Greek word "muthos" I have noticed that it is usually presented as a way to pass on truth. At least that is what most scholars seem to say. But what does the Bible say about muthos?

1Tim 1:4,

Neither give heed to fables [muthos] and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].

1Tim 4:7,

But refuse profane and old wives' fables [muthos], and exercise thyself [rather] unto godliness.

2Tim 4:4,

And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables [muthos].

Titus 1:14,

Not giving heed to Jewish fables [muthos], and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

2Pet 1:16,

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables [muthos], when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Clearly God has a low opinion of muthos. Logos, usually translated "word," on the other hand is the essence of truth. It is used over 300 times in the NT, virtually always in a positive light. I could list many, but I'll leave it up to the reader to look them up.

As opposed to avoiding muthos, we are told to follow the logos as our sole rule of faith and practice. Muthos is where we get the English word "myth" while logos is where we get the word "logic." According to the scriptures, God is a strong supporter of logic, but condemns myths. Is a son being his own father [i.e. the trinity] logical or mythic?

Mythic

syo · May 18, 2018

qaz said:
then you're officially an heretic.

Sabellianism | Christianity

no i'm not. father is not son, and son is not father.

rrobs · May 18, 2018

syo said:
human jesus died, not god jesus. so the triangle remained intact.

The Bible ever mentions a human Jesus nor a god Jesus. If the trinity was so important, it seems God would have been clear on it. John then would read something like:

John 19:30,

When the man-god (?) Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the human Jesus ghost, while keeping the god Jesus alive.

Anyway, that's what the churches want us to believe. The reality is that the words "human Jesus" and "god Jesus" are nowhere to be found outside of church doctrine. It's certainly not in the Bible.

If God came down to save us from sins, why didn't He do it right after Adam sinned? Instead of covering them with animal skins, He could have just shed His blood (God has blood?) and covered them right then and there.

The reason He didn't do that is because He is a just God. He gave us free will. When He created Adam He gave him dominion. Adam was in charge of the earth (Gen 1:26), not God. God's hands were tied when Adam sinned. The only way mankind could be redeemed was by the death of a sheep of the flock, that flock being human beings. He had to wait until a woman said, "Be it done unto me according to thy word" and for a man to obey the scriptures to the letter, including giving up his life for sinners. That took some planning which only God could have done. That plan is what John 1:1 calls the logos.

Corinthians is clear that since death came by man so did resurrection from the dead come by a man. Otherwise it would read:

1Cor 15:21,

For since by an actual man [came] death, by a god man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.

syo · May 19, 2018

rrobs said:
The Bible ever mentions a human Jesus nor a god Jesus. If the trinity was so important, it seems God would have been clear on it. John then would read something like:

John 19:30,

When the man-god (?) Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the human Jesus ghost, while keeping the god Jesus alive.

Anyway, that's what the churches want us to believe. The reality is that the words "human Jesus" and "god Jesus" are nowhere to be found outside of church doctrine. It's certainly not in the Bible.

If God came down to save us from sins, why didn't He do it right after Adam sinned? Instead of covering them with animal skins, He could have just shed His blood (God has blood?) and covered them right then and there.

The reason He didn't do that is because He is a just God. He gave us free will. When He created Adam He gave him dominion. Adam was in charge of the earth (Gen 1:26), not God. God's hands were tied when Adam sinned. The only way mankind could be redeemed was by the death of a sheep of the flock, that flock being human beings. He had to wait until a woman said, "Be it done unto me according to thy word" and for a man to obey the scriptures to the letter, including giving up his life for sinners. That took some planning which only God could have done. That plan is what John 1:1 calls the logos.

Corinthians is clear that since death came by man so did resurrection from the dead come by a man. Otherwise it would read:

1Cor 15:21,

For since by an actual man [came] death, by a god man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.

The trinity is an understanding, that's all.

rrobs · May 19, 2018

syo said:
The trinity is an understanding, that's all.

I can appreciate your thinking, but if we are to believe in the trinity shouldn't it be scriptural as well as an understanding? There is nowhere in the Bible that explicatively mentions a trinity. Almost all "evidence" used by the church is at best an inference. In and of itself, inference is not necessarily bad, but when it flies in the face of many clear verses that say straight out that Jesus was a man we have a problem.

Heb 2:6-9,

6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him [man, see v6] a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing [that is] not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Jesus was made just like all other men, a little lower than the angels. You couldn't say that about God.

Rom 5:15,

But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

When read as written, this verse clearly calls Jesus a man.

Rom 5:17,

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

This verse echoes the verse 15 with added emphasis by using the figure of speech of elipsis. "...by one man's offence..." death reigned. Here "one man" is explicitly stated. However in the second part of the verse it says, "...righteousness shall reign by one..." One what? Going back to the beginning you can see that it was another man that did that. It would by like saying, "That man is tall, but this one is short." We know that the short one is a man, not a dog, cat, or cow. Figures of speech are used for emphasis. Rom 5:17 therefore emphasizes the humanity of Jesus.

1Cor 15:47,

The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.

Jesus is called the second man, not the second person of the trinity.

Acts 2:22,

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Jesus is called "the son of man" many times. I've not counted them, but there are plenty. That must be balanced with:

Num 23:19,

God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

If Numbers is correct, then Jesus can not be God.

There are many more very clear verses on who Jesus is. On the other hand there are no clear verses that state he is God. I know trinitarians like to use this verse to prove Jesus is God;

John 10:30,

I and [my] Father are one.

If that makes God and Jesus literately one being then we have a huge problem.

John 17:22,

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

If Jesus is God, then so are we. To be one with God doesn't mean Jesus nor we are actually God. Paul said that he and Apollos were one in 1 Corinthians.

1Cor 3:8,

Now he that planteth [Paul, see v6] and he that watereth [Apollos, see v6] are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

To be one with someone simply means to be one in purpose or goal. Certainly Jesus's purpose always aligned perfectly with God's purpose, as was Paul's purpose aligned with that of Apollos. There is no need to introduce myth and make Jesus a god-man.

The main thing is that, as I stated above, there are no clear verses that come out and say, "Jesus is God" or that "God is three persons in one" or any of the phrases used by the church in their description of the trinity. Such clear evidence is not to be found anywhere outside of church tradition. All the clear verses that describe the nature of Jesus say he was a man.

tayla · May 19, 2018

rrobs said:
According to the scriptures, God is a strong supporter of logic, but condemns myths. Is a son being his own father [i.e. the trinity] logical or mythic?

Sadly to report, the Bible is fiction. You can't find out subtle details about God and his nature from it.

rrobs · May 19, 2018

dmap said:
Sadly to report, the Bible is fiction. You can't find out subtle details about God and his nature from it.

If true, that is sad indeed. I appreciate your sentiment, but I hope you are wrong

1Cor 15:19,

If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

syo · May 20, 2018

rrobs said:
I can appreciate your thinking, but if we are to believe in the trinity shouldn't it be scriptural as well as an understanding? There is nowhere in the Bible that explicatively mentions a trinity. Almost all "evidence" used by the church is at best an inference. In and of itself, inference is not necessarily bad, but when it flies in the face of many clear verses that say straight out that Jesus was a man we have a problem.

Heb 2:6-9,

6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him [man, see v6] a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing [that is] not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Jesus was made just like all other men, a little lower than the angels. You couldn't say that about God.

Rom 5:15,

But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

When read as written, this verse clearly calls Jesus a man.

Rom 5:17,

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

This verse echoes the verse 15 with added emphasis by using the figure of speech of elipsis. "...by one man's offence..." death reigned. Here "one man" is explicitly stated. However in the second part of the verse it says, "...righteousness shall reign by one..." One what? Going back to the beginning you can see that it was another man that did that. It would by like saying, "That man is tall, but this one is short." We know that the short one is a man, not a dog, cat, or cow. Figures of speech are used for emphasis. Rom 5:17 therefore emphasizes the humanity of Jesus.

1Cor 15:47,

The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.

Jesus is called the second man, not the second person of the trinity.

Acts 2:22,

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Jesus is called "the son of man" many times. I've not counted them, but there are plenty. That must be balanced with:

Num 23:19,

God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

If Numbers is correct, then Jesus can not be God.

There are many more very clear verses on who Jesus is. On the other hand there are no clear verses that state he is God. I know trinitarians like to use this verse to prove Jesus is God;

John 10:30,

I and [my] Father are one.

If that makes God and Jesus literately one being then we have a huge problem.

John 17:22,

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

If Jesus is God, then so are we. To be one with God doesn't mean Jesus nor we are actually God. Paul said that he and Apollos were one in 1 Corinthians.

1Cor 3:8,

Now he that planteth [Paul, see v6] and he that watereth [Apollos, see v6] are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

To be one with someone simply means to be one in purpose or goal. Certainly Jesus's purpose always aligned perfectly with God's purpose, as was Paul's purpose aligned with that of Apollos. There is no need to introduce myth and make Jesus a god-man.

The main thing is that, as I stated above, there are no clear verses that come out and say, "Jesus is God" or that "God is three persons in one" or any of the phrases used by the church in their description of the trinity. Such clear evidence is not to be found anywhere outside of church tradition. All the clear verses that describe the nature of Jesus say he was a man.

thank you for the reply. i don't see why i should reject the trinity. i don't mind it's not stated exactly in the bible. it's the understanding that counts

shouldn't we all understand the bible?

Muthos and Logos

הרב יונה בן זכריה

Well-Known Member

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿

Well-Known Member

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

My dog's name is Tayla

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member