A Tale of Two Christianities--Christian Genesis, part 2

[GakuseiDon]

Who thought that? I'd appreciate references. Early Christians like Justin Martyr referred to the Logos as Reason, Word, things like that. Anyone calling it the sun?

https://books.google.com/books?id=qA2vC ... os&f=false

I think Plutarch also referred to Helios as the Logos as well, but I can't remember. I'll see if I can find that and check back.

Thanks. The Logos was like an emissary or emanation from God, the Word or Reason being transmitted to me. The Old Testament itself was called 'Logos' IIRC. I think Hermes was also called 'Logos', since he was the messenger of Zeus. Logos could also be used to describe any reasoned discourse between men.

Also worth noting is the comparison between Genesis 1:3-5 and John

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." ~ Gen 1:3-5

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." ~ John 1:1-5

The light created by God's reason in Genesis is conceived as Logos in John.

Yes, the light; but not the sun. The sun wasn't created until Gen 1:16.

The reason I'm interested in this is because in ancient pagan thought, the sun was often considered a god. But in Genesis, the sun was a created item, not a god at all. It is an interesting alternative to pagans who had the sun as a living God.

Having Christians thinking that the sun was 'Logos' is possible, in that the sun could be considered an intermediary to God, but I'm just not aware of anyone making that connection.

Justin's understanding of Logos is much more nuanced.

"... is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens...

Here Justin emphatically compares Logos to fire and the sun.

No he doesn't, at least not in the way you are suggesting. The analogy is that the light from the Sun can be considered part of the Sun, even though it has separated from the Sun. But it isn't saying the Sun is the Logos. It's an analogy showing that Christ, even though sent out by God, was indivisible from God. Note that Justin writes "they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men". That is the sense of the definition of 'Logos', there translated as 'Word'.

It's not that I'm sure you are wrong. It's just that I'm interested in ancient thinking, and having early Christians calling the Sun 'Logos' doesn't seem to match what I understand from reading early Christian texts (in English translation only I should add!) So I'd be interested in anything you can find on the topic that shows my understanding is not correct or improves my understanding of the topic.

[Joseph D. L.]

Thanks. The Logos was like an emissary or emanation from God, the Word or Reason being transmitted to me. The Old Testament itself was called 'Logos' IIRC. I think Hermes was also called 'Logos', since he was the messenger of Zeus. Logos could also be used to describe any reasoned discourse between men.

The solar Logos is more prominent in Stoicism, but at least by Justin Martyr's time it had been incorporated into Platonism. (First Apology, chapter 60). It could be understood that the form--Platonic--of light emanates from God.

Yes, the light; but not the sun. The sun wasn't created until Gen 1:16.

The reason I'm interested in this is because in ancient pagan thought, the sun was often considered a god. But in Genesis, the sun was a created item, not a god at all. It is an interesting alternative to pagans who had the sun as a living God.

But, as you know, light cannot precede the sun.

I don't think such a dichotomy existed when Christianity was emerging. 1 Enoch describes the sun in anthropomorphic terms so there must have different understandings at work.

There's also evidence that the metatron was itself viewed as a solar deity, as well as YHWH.

https://www.amazon.com/Yahweh-Sun-Bibli ... 1850752729

Having Christians thinking that the sun was 'Logos' is possible, in that the sun could be considered an intermediary to God, but I'm just not aware of anyone making that connection.

The connection is made by how Christians use the terms Word, light and fire as being synonymous with each other. There is and will only ever be one light and one fire: the sun.

No he doesn't, at least not in the way you are suggesting. The analogy is that the light from the Sun can be considered part of the Sun, even though it has separated from the Sun. But it isn't saying the Sun is the Logos. It's an analogy showing that Christ, even though sent out by God, was indivisible from God. Note that Justin writes "they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men". That is the sense of the definition of 'Logos', there translated as 'Word'.

Justin indeed is comparing the light from the sun, and the Angel who appeared in the burning bush, to Logos. He doesn't have to explicitly call either of them Logos, because it was understood long before Justin that fire and light were comparable to Logos. This is made abundantly clear in Johannine texts, where the Logos is used synonymously for the light in Genesis.

It's not that I'm sure you are wrong. It's just that I'm interested in ancient thinking, and having early Christians calling the Sun 'Logos' doesn't seem to match what I understand from reading early Christian texts (in English translation only I should add!) So I'd be interested in anything you can find on the topic that shows my understanding is not correct or improves my understanding of the topic.

I understand and respect that.

[Joseph D. L.]

The illustration by Robert Fludd might help explain it:

https://www.google.com/search?client=sa ... iJYceOjVmM:

[DCHindley]

The illustration by Robert Fludd might help explain it:

https://www.google.com/search?client=sa ... iJYceOjVmM:

So, you had to open the Fludd gate?

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

The illustration by Robert Fludd might help explain it:

https://www.google.com/search?client=sa ... iJYceOjVmM:

So, you had to opened the Fludd gate?

Come on, Hindley. Try to keep it together here.

[DCHindley]

The illustration by Robert Fludd might help explain it:

https://www.google.com/search?client=sa ... iJYceOjVmM:

So, you had to opened the Fludd gate?

Come on, Hindley. Try to keep it together here.

More .... coffee ...