Why Do People Like To Talk About Their Spiritual Beliefs?

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
Oooh, you're lucky @SufiPhilosophy's not here! He's be pointing out the straw man and ad hominem logical fallacies here, if not others!

It's not a "straw man".

When I mentioned the first church in Jerusalem in the first century, you replied:
"Well who knows what those crazy dudes got up to?"

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19662/page-3#post-343080

I would have thought it to be quite relevant to the subject.
You are arguing that the Christians had always believed in an incarnated logos. Nope!
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,639
Reaction score
2,761
Points
108
It's not a "straw man".
Actually it is. My opinion of the character of the early Christian community in Jerusalem has no bearing on the matter.

I would have thought it to be quite relevant to the subject.
No, it's an opinion, and therefore irrelevant. (In fact, it was a light-hearted comment).

You are arguing that the Christians had always believed in an incarnated logos. Nope
That's your opinion, and equally irrelevant.
 

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
That's your opinion, and equally irrelevant.

More than an opinion, I would have thought..
In any case, there is one more day of Ramadan,
and Eid-Al-Fitr is on Thursday.

Looking forward to the spread of food with family, God willing :)
I trust your neighbours have something delicious for you.
 

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
Mmm ... got any evidence?

I don't think I'm the one that needs evidence. That would be you.
The early Church used the OT.

You have your evidence in the form of Greek philosophy employed in the Gospel of John.
If the early Jewish Christians had such a philosophy, then why is it only mentioned by
one "well-loved" disciple who couldn't be named?
 

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
D'you not bother with it, then?

You're online late tonight.
Of course I bother with evidence.

I'm not the one that believes in a logos.
I don't see anywhere in the Bible or Qur'an that talks about a logos other than the Gospel of John.
..so why would "Jewish Christians" [ as were the disciples ] believe in it?
What evidence am I supposed to show you? :)
 
Last edited:

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
The early Church used the OT.
Nero was already murdering Eucharistic Christians in Rome in 60AD for their 'cannabilistic' beliefs. They were not called Yeshuans. He was not persecuting Jews. There was already a clear distinction. Tacitus' comments about that and the crucifixion have already been posted several times. That's historical evidence.

Paul was preaching the message of the resurrected Christ to gentiles. Peter had done away with kosher and circumcision as necessary for Christians. The gospels were being formed. The temple in Jerusalem was still intact.

Have a pleasant Eid tomorrow
 

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
_118444069_jerusalem_quarters_mapv22640-2x-nc.png


Can President Biden repair the damage done by Trump?
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,639
Reaction score
2,761
Points
108
I'm not the one that believes in a logos.
I don't need to 'prove' it, it's a given.

I don't see anywhere in the Bible or Qur'an that talks about a logos other than the Gospel of John.
Among many verses in the Septuagint prefiguring New Testament usage of the Logos is Psalms 33:6:
τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν
By the word (Gk: logos) of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the host of them by the spirit (Gk: pneuma) of his mouth

Or Luke 1:2:
"Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning (Gk: arche) were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word (Gk: logos)


-- wiki --


..so why would "Jewish Christians" [ as were the disciples ] believe in it?
Because it made sense?
 

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
Among many verses in the Septuagint prefiguring New Testament usage of the Logos is Psalms 33:6:
τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν
By the word (Gk: logos) of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the host of them by the spirit (Gk: pneuma) of his mouth

Playing with words here .. Clearly, the Psalms weren't originally written in Greek.
The concept of a logos in Gospel of John is different.

Because it made sense?

No .. there is nothing in the OT that says Jesus is a logos or God incarnate.
That would be the Gospel of John, which had not yet been written.
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,639
Reaction score
2,761
Points
108
Playing with words here ...
No, just correcting an error.

Clearly, the Psalms weren't originally written in Greek.
The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew.

The concept of a logos in Gospel of John is different.
Jesus as Logos, the Incarnate Word, is a fundamental element of Revelation.

No .. there is nothing in the OT that says Jesus is a logos or God incarnate.
That would be the Gospel of John, which had not yet been written.
Well you wouldn't expect it there, would you?

However, the idea of 'the incarnate word of God' (Hebrew Memra, Greek Logos) was not unknown. This article in the Jewish Encyclopedia covers a lot of ground, particularly the "Personification of the Word – In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature".

John's use of Logos would be received, by Jews, within the context of Jewish mystical speculation – that way it made sense.
 

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
John's use of Logos would be received, by Jews, within the context of Jewish mystical speculation – that way it made sense.

That has nothing to do with Jesus and his disciples. They were not "mystic Jews". That would be Philo's philosophy.
Philo did not run the temple in Jerusalem. :)

You didn't tell me why this "much loved" disciple was not named, or why the rest of the disciples did
not teach that Jesus was God incarnate.

They must have thought it wasn't particularly important..
Most Christians seem to think that it is VERY imporatant :)
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
You didn't tell me why this "much loved" disciple was not named,
None of the Gospel writers were named. They were not the names of the actual writers.
That has nothing to do with Jesus and his disciples. They were not "mystic Jews".
They were an entirely new religion in earliest formation. The crucifixion and the resurrection, and the coming of the Holy Spirit afterward, were still to happen.

Why do you ignore this post:
Nero was already murdering Eucharistic Christians in Rome in 60AD for their 'cannabilistic' beliefs. They were not called Yeshuans. He was not persecuting Jews. There was already a clear distinction. Tacitus' comments about that and the crucifixion have already been posted several times. That's historical evidence.

Paul was preaching the message of the resurrected Christ to gentiles. Peter had done away with kosher and circumcision as necessary for Christians. The gospels were being formed. The temple in Jerusalem was still intact.
 
Last edited:

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
None of the Gospel writers were named.

Yes they are :)
Matthew, Mark and Luke.

They were not the names of the actual writers.

Yes, well we know that now !
You know what I am saying .. it is the style of "John" .. harping on about an unnamed disciple all the time.

They were an entirely new religion in earliest formation.

Well why did they attend the temple in Jerusalem then? :D

Why do you ignore this post:

What's its relevance to the topic?
 

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
You disagree. You choose to ignore the evidence.

No .. there is no clear evidence that the disciples believed in Jesus being God incarnate,
as Gospel of John promotes.

Furthermore, I'm not alone in "ignoring the evidence" ;)
You ignore the Qur'an. That is your choice.
 
Top