Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4162Re: [John_Lit] Jesus Logos or God Himself

Expand Messages
  • Peter.Hofrichter
    Feb 7, 2004
      Am 06.02.2004 um 03:42 schrieb fmmccoy:

      > In this case, there is no exaltation of Jesus from the Logos to God
      > Himself
      > in Mark.
      >
      > Perhaps it's questionable whether this is the case in John either. Why
      > would the Johannine community keep the Prologue in John, where Jesus
      > is the
      > Logos of God as a personified divine being, if they later exalted him
      > from
      > the Logos to God Himself?
      >
      > Frank McCoy

      The same happend once more in the 4th century. After the
      Logos-christology was renewed be Justinus Martyr it was accepted by
      almost all theologians (except certain modalists especially in Asia
      Minor). But the Logos-Christology was and is incompatible with the full
      godhead of Christ. The Logos is concieved as a being between God and
      man, between God and his creature, mediator and word of creation.
      Arius, who was a famous preacher in Alexandria and a consequent
      montheist and platonist, claimed therefore that the Logos was
      subordinate to God and that he was created by him before all other
      creatures. Other theologians claimed that the Son wass of the same
      divine "substance" and eternal age as the Father. Also they referred
      the Gospel of John: Me and the Father are one, who sees Me sees the
      Father. At last the Council of Nicea (325) decided in its creed: We
      belive in him as "gennhqenta monogenh from the ousia of the Father,
      light from light ... homoousios tw patri", and so on. The term Logos is
      not to be found in this creed of Nicea and not even in it revised
      edition of Constantinople (381), which is used till today by all
      Curches. Also Arius and his friend Euzoius published a creed where the
      say at the same place: "gegennhmenon Logon Qeon". They bestowed on the
      term Logos. The controversy between Arians and Nicaenians as alredy
      before between Subordinationists and Modalists had its last reason in
      the contradiction between the Logos-Hymn and the Gospel reinterpreting
      it and de-cristoloigising the Logos and exalting Jesus to Jahwe himself
      in the oneness of God Father and Son. The most dazzeling enigma of the
      Gospel is this "contradiction", if one believes that it was written
      altogether by the same author. We are used to hear always again that
      the Logos concept is the crown and peak of all Christology. This was
      originally for ancient people definitely not at all the case. The Logos
      is clearly less than and subordinate to the one God of Israel and also
      less than and beneeth the transcendent God of Plato There the Logos is
      the soul of the cosmos. In Jewish or Christian terms he is the mediator
      of creation and revelation. And he is necessary because in Platonism
      the absolutely transcendent God himself has no relation whatsoever with
      the material world except through a mediator. Therfore Philo shows not
      God, but the Logos speaking in the burnig thorn bush, on the mount
      Sinai, and so on.

      As to Mark: The parable of the sawer is the only one, which is given an
      interpretation and an enigmatic question to the understanding of the
      disciples. Why? As referring to peple with more or less faith it is
      quite easy to be understood and does not deserve a special explanation.
      The emphasis in its undestanding must have another reason, it mus be
      because of the Logos terminology. The logical link between the Sawer,
      the seed and the problem of the Logos terminology is the concept of the
      Logos spermatikos. What the readers of the Gospel shall understand is
      exactly that Jesus is the sawer and his spoken word is the Logos as the
      logos spermatikos: the seed. One could object that Mark does not deal
      elsewhere with this problem. that is true. but if his model was the
      primitive "Gospel of John", he and his readers knew also this problem.

      The reason of the de-christologisation of the Logos by "John" (that
      means the later Hellenists) and by Mark may not have been only and on
      first line the exatation of Jesus from Logos to God himself, but also
      and even more the struggle against the beginning Gnostic spinneries
      about the preexisting divine World.

      Peter Hofrichter
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic