In the begining.....

[tumbleweed41]

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God (or A God, or Divine). He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.
John 1:1-3

With the understanding that the above verses are taken from the reveled revelations on the Christian Bible, it is interesting to note the Greek Stoic influences of what John(?) said here.

To the Stoics, early Deistic type philosophers, the Logos was the active reason permeating and animating the universe. The Logos was Divine and Natural Law, without which, nothing would exist as it does.

Was John(?) influenced by these beliefs?
Did John(?) believe that, at the beginning of time, Natural Law came into existence? That this Natural Law was not only used by God, but also an aspect of God?
It does make sense that without the Logos, or Natural Law, nothing could be made, or even exist as it does.

Although it is obvious that John(?) believed Jesus to be the "Lamb of God", could it be that his Hellenistic background came through in the opening verses of the Gospel?

EDIT: Although I posted this in the Deism section, I welcome all reasonable discussion from anyone.

 

[Storm]

Was John(?) influenced by these beliefs?
Did John(?) believe that, at the beginning of time, Natural Law came into existence? That this Natural Law was not only used by God, but also an aspect of God?
It does make sense that without the Logos, or Natural Law, nothing could be made, or even exist as it does.

While I really like this interpretation, as it's rather close to pantheistic, I would be leery of attributing it to the author of John for the same reason.

Although it is obvious that John(?) believed Jesus to be the "Lamb of God", could it be that his Hellenistic background came through in the opening verses of the Gospel?

:yes:

 

[tumbleweed41]

I would be leery of attributing it to the author of John for the same reason.

Agreed, that is why I use "John(?)"

 

[Storm]

Agreed, that is why I use "John(?)"

Apologies, I thought that was merely an acknowledgement of the uncertainty of authorship.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Stoics were pantheistic... the Logos being in all things and unifying everything is an expression of that pantheism. BUT the Stoics were not the only philosophy to use "logos" in a cosmoligical way -- all of the popular philosophies had some iron in the fire on the definition of logos.

John is bringing the disscussion and debate over "logos" into a cosmological // monotheistic shell in an attempt to demonstrate how Greek philosophy and Christian theology can exist together... something that several Christian apologists tried to do (Justin Martyr, Irenaus, Tatian, etc).

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Was John(?) influenced by these beliefs?
Did John(?) believe that, at the beginning of time, Natural Law came into existence? That this Natural Law was not only used by God, but also an aspect of God?
It does make sense that without the Logos, or Natural Law, nothing could be made, or even exist as it does.

Hey TW, hope you are well.
I think the power of your reflection lies in the above underlined words.
And while I don't believe John wrote as such because of his background, certainly it is representative of the truth of Natural Law you speak of.

 

[Storm]

I think the power of your reflection lies in the above underlined words.

Could you elaborate on this?

 

[tumbleweed41]

The Stoics were pantheistic... the Logos being in all things and unifying everything is an expression of that pantheism. BUT the Stoics were not the only philosophy to use "logos" in a cosmoligical way -- all of the popular philosophies had some iron in the fire on the definition of logos.

True, many Hellenistic philosophies had there own version of the Logos.

John is bringing the disscussion and debate over "logos" into a cosmological // monotheistic shell in an attempt to demonstrate how Greek philosophy and Christian theology can exist together... something that several Christian apologists tried to do (Justin Martyr, Irenaus, Tatian, etc).

I think so to, as Greek philosophies were pervasive throughout the Western and Middle Eastern world at that time.

What I like is the underlying idea that without the Divine Reason, or Natural Law, or Creative Principle, nothing that exists could exist.

Whether one takes this to mean rules set forth by a divine Being, or an all encompassing pantheistic God , or the scientific laws that govern the universe, it works for the believer and unbeliever alike.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What I like is the underlying idea that without the Divine Reason, or Natural Law, or Creative Principle, nothing that exists could exist.

These three ideas are one in Stoicism... the pracitioner of Stoicism was "living according to nature" as a human being (= living according to reason) and participating in the divine law that pervades the cosmos.

They truly thought very highly of their philosophical system.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hey TW, hope you are well.

Thank you, right back at ya...

I think the power of your reflection lies in the above underlined words.

"came into existence", could you elaborate on what you see in this?

And while I don't believe John wrote as such because of his background, certainly it is representative of the truth of Natural Law you speak of.

Why would the authors background not influence his writing? As AE said, he may have been trying to reconcile the Hellenistic philosophies with the new Christian beliefs.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Could you elaborate on this?

I will try without off roading the thread.
I just found it curious that he used "came into", and then also used the idea of "aspect of God" rather than just used by God.

It is certainly deep into many philosophical approaches in that day. I am not aware of anyone who taught it was "used by" rather than "aspect of".
Point being, "came into" implies subservience to creator, which is why I said that is where the power of his reflection lies.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

"came into existence", could you elaborate on what you see in this?

I kind of answered this form Storm, so see that one.

Why would the authors background not influence his writing?

It doesn't if you read the writings as non-divine, but I don't so that is why I made the comment. Which is irrelevant to your threads main theme, so I will refrain from commenting more on that aspect.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I will try without off roading the thread.
I just found it curious that he used "came into", and then also used the idea of "aspect of God" rather than just used by God.

It is certainly deep into many philosophical approaches in that day. I am not aware of anyone who taught it was "used by" rather than "aspect of".
Point being, "came into" implies subservience to creator, which is why I said that is where the power of his reflection lies.

Ah, but I am a Deist.
To me, Natural Law is not only the all encompassing "rules" of the universe, but a part of, and therefor a limit to, God.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Ah, but I am a Deist.
To me, Natural Law is not only the all encompassing "rules" of the universe, but a part of, and therefor a limit to, God.

OK so if not for this thread, please do another that gives the basis for your limit on God. I would find that most interesting. Thanks

 

[tumbleweed41]

OK so if not for this thread, please do another that gives the basis for your limit on God. I would find that most interesting. Thanks

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/deism-2/83569-god-limited.html