Poor poor Christianity?

[zeek]

Here's an article arguing against the notion that Philo influenced the New Testament: http://www.equip.org/article/was-the...nced-by-philo/

Here's an article arguing for the notion https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.u...S-DOCUMENT.PDF

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's an article arguing against the notion that Philo influenced the New Testament: http://www.equip.org/article/was-the...nced-by-philo/

Here's an article arguing for the notion https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.u...S-DOCUMENT.PDF

Great find ; thanks ; Philo's logos didn't become flesh ; it wasn't a dying savior.

But what I find most interesting about Philo, not only that he was a contemporary with Jesus, but wasn't mention in any of the books of the New Testament, but that Philo never mentions Jesus.

The gospels depict Jesus as attracting whole towns of people, yet it's like Philo didn't know anything about it.

Philo led a group of Hellenistic Jews in Alexandria. He had dealings in Jerusalem, and had connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother Alexander financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple.

One of Alexander's sons, and Philo's nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, 39-40. After the exile of Herod Antipas around 41-44 AD Marcus ruled as King of the Jews.

Philo wrote extensively on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. Yet in none of his thirty manuscripts, and at least 850,000 words, does he mention Jesus, and nothing about Christianity, or any of the goings-on told in the gospels.

In the New Testament it's like Philo didn't exist. And to Philo none of Christianity existed.

Now isn't that an interesting puzzle ... let that marinate for awhile.

[awareness]

Okay, everyone has marinated long enough.

Let's all Christians today admit that it was a good thing the Judaizers lost out, and the Hellenizers won out. Else we'd likely not be Christians today. If the Judaizers won, it's likely Constantine wouldn't have happened. The west wouldn't be the same today at all.

That being said, all Christians today should be happy the Hellenizers won. But then we should be happy and admit that Christianity was influenced by Greek philosophy, culture, language, and education.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Christianity owes a debt of gratitude to the pagans. Without them we wouldn't be Christians today.

And Hellenism is not when Christianity was made poor.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, everyone has marinated long enough.

Let's all Christians today admit that it was a good thing the Judaizers lost out, and the Hellenizers won out. Else we'd likely not be Christians today. If the Judaizers won, it's likely Constantine wouldn't have happened. The west wouldn't be the same today at all.

That being said, all Christians today should be happy the Hellenizers won. But then we should be happy and admit that Christianity was influenced by Greek philosophy, culture, language, and education.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Christianity owes a debt of gratitude to the pagans. Without them we wouldn't be Christians today.

And Hellenism is not when Christianity was made poor.

Yes, even Nash, who argues against what he sees as various contemporary writers attempts to undermine the authority of the New Testament by affirming that some of its teachings were borrowed from pagan philosophical systems of the day, admits that Paul, the authors of John's gospel and of the book of Hebrews were schooled in Hellenism, using its terminology and reacting to it's concepts.

I don't expect LCD discussants to agree on exactly when the apostasy began. But as former members of the LCM, we were all taught that Christianity was apostate and that necessitated a recovery of the church as God's move on Earth. That conviction places the "Lord's Recovery" within the larger Christian restorationist movement. By the way, "apostasy" is an apt synonym for "Christianity" in the Witness Lee terminology.

To Igzy's question "does 'Baptist' mean to a Baptist what 'Recovery' means..." I would answer yes. Landmarkism is the Baptist equivalent to Lee's "Recovery". Many, Lee included, trace the apostasy back to Constantine. Some like perhaps Boxjobox may trace it back to when Tertullian formulated the doctrine of the Trinity. Many would probably agree that the apostasy began in the New Testament times and was what Paul was fighting against and described as "other gospels". Unfortunately, since he doesn't described what they believed in detail we can sometimes only guess what Paul was referring to from such clues as he provided.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, even Nash, who argues against what he sees as various contemporary writers attempts to undermine the authority of the New Testament by affirming that some of its teachings were borrowed from pagan philosophical systems of the day, admits that Paul, the authors of John's gospel and of the book of Hebrews were schooled in Hellenism, using its terminology and reacting to it's concepts.

Your whole post deserves responses. Books can be written on these matters.

I'll try to keep it short and sweet.

From what I understand Jesus was God's plan. So that means that God planned for Jesus' birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, AND -- the birth of the Christian movement, loosely stated -- all happened DURING the Hellenistic Age.

That means that God planned it all that way : that it would end up being Greek.

It was planned from the beginning. Those ancient Greek philosophers were planned by God ; Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, et al. all planned by God. Alexander the Great was planned by God (he was right, he was divinely inspired, coerce Delphi said he was "invincible").

The point is, it was all planned. Were Paul, John, and whoever wrote the book of Hebrews, influenced by Hellenism? If so, and if Jesus was planned, then yes, it was all planned by God.

So Hellenism wasn't bad in the beginning. Why then, and when, was it stamped out? And was that God's plan? Was Constantine and Theodosius I, who made Christianity the state religion, and stamped out Hellenism, God's plan?

Seems to me that when it stopped being God's plan is when Christianity became poor. Was that when Hellenism was removed?

[zeek]

Well, as it's often said, God's ways are mysterious. His relation to Christianity is no exception. Let's trace what happened in terms of the concept of authority.

Jesus envisioned a fully egalitarian society where people acknowledge no authority except that of God. During Paul's time authority was conferred by particular gifts bestowed on people by the Holy Spirit including preaching, teaching, prophecy and healing.

But a few individuals including Paul himself claimed special authority for themselves that was justified in terms of their direct contact with the risen Lord. Egalitarian, Spirit-lead forms of Christian community were challenged by those who believed that order and unity could only be achieved by means of hierarchical leadership.

Formal leadership roles developed that were reserved for men who claims some direct association with Jesus. When the original followers of Jesus died off, the idea of apostolic succession developed according to which authority was passed down a male line that could be traced back to Jesus and the apostles who had known him directly.

The process became formalized into a rite of priestly ordination. Leaders were considered to be ordained by God and set apart from the rest of humanity.

So power was concentrated in the hands of a few. Apostolic succession helped to secure uniformity of belief. The authority structure claimed apostolic succession and determinded what orthodoxy was and who were the heretics.

Like Judaism, Hellenism had a tradition of priesthood. The priests stood between humans and the god or gods to whom they sacrificed. The Eucharist was the Christian version of sacrificial practice. It was seen as a repetition of Jesus's once-for-all sacrifice. It could be conducted only by ordained priests who stood in a special relationship to Christ which was conferred on them by the hierarchical system of authority in the apostolic line.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well, as it's often said, God's ways are mysterious. His relation to Christianity is no exception. Let's trace what happened in terms of the concept of authority.

Let's.

Originally Posted by Z

Jesus envisioned a fully egalitarian society where people acknowledge no authority except that of God. During Paul's time authority was conferred by particular gifts bestowed on people by the Holy Spirit including preaching, teaching, prophecy and healing.

Only if 1st, and 2nd Timothy, and Titus, wasn't authored by Paul, as many respected scholars think today.

Originally Posted by Z

But a few individuals including Paul himself claimed special authority for themselves that was justified in terms of their direct contact with the risen Lord. Egalitarian, Spirit-lead forms of Christian community were challenged by those who believed that order and unity could only be achieved by means of hierarchical leadership.

Yes, in 1st and 2nd Timothy, and Titus.

Originally Posted by Z

Formal leadership roles developed that were reserved for men who claims some direct association with Jesus.

It may have developed from something totally innocent, like the literate ones, that could read to the 90% illiterate, being looked up to, like they had inside information, which they did.

Originally Posted by Z

When the original followers of Jesus died off, the idea of apostolic succession developed according to which authority was passed down a male line that could be traced back to Jesus and the apostles who had known him directly.

So is claimed, by many., except maybe the Restroationists. The Landmarkist's being just one example. And of course the RCC, who claim to go back to Peter ... of all the flaky disciples to want to hook your wagon too. No wonder the RCC went wacky.

Originally Posted by Z

The process became formalized into a rite of priestly ordination. Leaders were considered to be ordained by God and set apart from the rest of humanity.

So power was concentrated in the hands of a few. Apostolic succession helped to secure uniformity of belief. The authority structure claimed apostolic succession and determinded what orthodoxy was and who were the heretics.

And who say they are a higher authority than the Bible, because, they chose the books of the Bible. Why need the Bible? God's authority can be found in the holy mother church ... who literally hand feed the ignorant (read illiterate of a different sort) adherents.

Originally Posted by Z

Like Judaism, Hellenism had a tradition of priesthood. The priests stood between humans and the god or gods to whom they sacrificed. The Eucharist was the Christian version of sacrificial practice. It was seen as a repetition of Jesus's once-for-all sacrifice. It could be conducted only by ordained priests who stood in a special relationship to Christ which was conferred on them by the hierarchical system of authority in the apostolic line.

I see evidence that this may be inherent in human nature. Isn't there evidence that the special "priestcraft" existed going back into pre-history?

There's prolly always been those that claimed some special inside info on the unseen forces, and spirit realm personifications.