Posts Tagged logos

Church Fathers on Universalism

‘Fire and Brimestone’ has not always been a part of Christianity. Deep inside, I suspect that many today remain hopeful for universalism, but hold to the doctrines of Hell. It is interesting to note that as part and parcel with the development of the Logos Christology of Justin Martyr, and the 3rd century Alexandrians, that the idea of an eventual restoration of all things developed as well.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

, , , ,

121 Comments

In the Mail, Gorgeous from Gorgias

I would like to thank the kind folks at Gorgias press for this review copy,

Click to Order

Click to Order

If, as Origen believed, humanity’s hope for salvation has been answered by a divine Word, whose coming into the world has unfolded history according to a messianic intrigue, Origen’s messianic reading of world history as a soteriological discourse should not come as a surprise. How does Origen refer to this discourse? As a speech that spells the coming Word, this discourse would have to be soteriological in its very wording, it would have to happen soteriologically. The Word’s historical unfolding would have to be approached as a gospel, a good-news or a revelatory speech event, which, literally, spells salvation. Receiving this messianic Word would necessarily imply the believer’s application to the study of the Bible as Gospel. The task of this study is twofold. In addition to offering a detailed analysis of Origen’s understanding of exegesis as a liturgical attending to the Word’s evangelic advent in the Bible (a sort of textual redoubling of the incarnation), it also addresses a recent concern regarding the totalizing potential of Origen’s Logos-centered reading of history as evangelic or Christian. One may indeed wonder whether Origen’s exegetical spelling of the Word as universal Gospel can prevent the silencing of the speech of, let us say, the Greek or the Jew outside of Christianity? Ultimately, one may wonder whether it is possible to dissociate Origen’s Christian understanding of the Bible-incarnate Word from the totalizing rigor of a universalist metaphysics and what would be the consequences of such an attempt.

Author Information

 

,

1 Comment

Latin Features in Bibleworks 8

The English language is nothing without the Latin backdrop. Indeed, our theological language is nothing without Latin, so in a recent conversation about the ‘Incarnation,’ in which someone tried to separate manifestation from Incarnation, claiming that it was not biblical:

The Baha’i concept of Manifestation would match this perfectly, one doesn’t need incarnation which is unbiblical.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

, , , , , , , , ,

6 Comments

BibleWorks 8 in the Classroom

Due to my recent technological troubles, I’ve had a difficult time in getting back to reviewing BibleWorks.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

The Search Feature with BibleWorks 8

This is part of a rolling review of BibleWorks 8.

One of the features of BW8 is the search function. You can limit your search function to just one translation, or several translations, or the entire library of that language.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Patristic Interaction with Logos and Sophia

Continuing our discussion on John’s Prologue (which originally started on the topic of gender in translation, but I have taken the oppurtunity to move into the discussion of Logos and Sophia), we make a brief side step into the Patristic Interaction in which it was a common thought to united Word and Wisdom (Logos and Sophia) into the Incarnation.

Wisdom

Origen, himself a root of heresies, states ‘and they call this Word and Wisdom and the very Power of God’ when speaking about the ‘second substance (ousia)’ (PE VII 12.1.2) (See John 1.1; Wisdom 7.26)

In Alexander’s letter to all the bishops regarding Arius, he calls Christ the Word and Wisdom of God (asking of Arius that if Christ is such, how could there be a time when He did not exist). In the letter, he quotes John 1.1, 3; Ps 45.2 (lxx), 110. 3 (lxx); Wisdom 7.26, Colossians 1.15; ebrews 1.3, and Malachi 3.6 (lxx).

In the creed promulgated at the Council of Serdica, the Western Bishops used Wisdom 7.22 (feminine), connecting it to John 1.3 (neuter, masculine?).

Baruch

In Athanasius’ defense of the Nicene Definition, he quotes Baruch 3.12, allowing him to call Christ Wisdom and Life, connecting it to the Father as source of the Son.

Ambrose (18.222) quoted Baruch 3.37 to promote the idea that Christ did indeed take on human flesh.

I intended for this to be brief because there are more important things to do, and many do not take the Deuterocanon as worth studying – yet, we know from the Christological controversies in the 3rd and 4the century, both Wisdom and Baruch played a part along side of John in defending the deity of Christ. While the defenses were, for the most part solid, it shows us these many years later that the early Church Fathers had no qualms in combining the feminine Sophia (Wisdom) to the masculine Logos (Word.) It further shows us that the wisdom tradition found in the Old Testament was co-opted into the New with the use of Logos.

Why is this important to a conversation started about grammer?

Perhaps, just perhaps, it shows that the Church Fathers regarded the Logos in John’s prologue as an ‘it’, or at the very least, found the feminine compatible with the masculine. For another excellent post, please see here.

 

, ,

3 Comments

I know that I’m going to pay for this, but…The Flesh Became Word

James McGrath has posted a unique translation of the prologue of John. I would consider it a fitting commentary in several ways. I would love to post it, but instead, go here:

Exploring Our Matrix: The Flesh Became Word.

 

, , , , , ,

No Comments