As usual, my reaction is different, but my reaction to Philo is "heathen intellectual". My reaction John and Paul? Believers who explain to me what I am experiencing as a reborn sprit-filled believer in Yeshua Messiah. By the Holy Spirit, through John and Paul I understand what Jesus did much better. They explain how I live, day to day. That's what I miss in so much of today's teaching about the Lord. I desire the reality I experience day to day. It's rarely mentioned, or it's poo-pahed.
Bravo. Read John as an independant christian writer, inspired by the Spirit of Christ, not Philo. It is easily demonstrated from the OT that the Word, of whom John writes, is able to be sourced from the OT alone, e.g. (and definitely not only) Gen 15. The attraction of basing John in Philo destroys looking for such links, or even being open to them, because, they would say, he didn't draw the Logos from the OT.
Thank you, David. Yes, that is very much what I was exploring. I would only gently like to add that I read John as a Jewish witness writing from within that Hebrew scriptural world that he knew so well, Genesis, Moses, the feasts, temple, shepherd, kingship, death, and restoration are references he reaches back for throughout his writing; they are the landscape through which he understands and presents Jesus, his Messiah.
And yes, Genesis 15 is a fascinating place to explore further. When Philo is allowed to become the governing lens, John’s own world is not fully heard independently.
As usual, my reaction is different, but my reaction to Philo is "heathen intellectual". My reaction John and Paul? Believers who explain to me what I am experiencing as a reborn sprit-filled believer in Yeshua Messiah. By the Holy Spirit, through John and Paul I understand what Jesus did much better. They explain how I live, day to day. That's what I miss in so much of today's teaching about the Lord. I desire the reality I experience day to day. It's rarely mentioned, or it's poo-pahed.
Bravo. Read John as an independant christian writer, inspired by the Spirit of Christ, not Philo. It is easily demonstrated from the OT that the Word, of whom John writes, is able to be sourced from the OT alone, e.g. (and definitely not only) Gen 15. The attraction of basing John in Philo destroys looking for such links, or even being open to them, because, they would say, he didn't draw the Logos from the OT.
But he most likely did.
Thank you, David. Yes, that is very much what I was exploring. I would only gently like to add that I read John as a Jewish witness writing from within that Hebrew scriptural world that he knew so well, Genesis, Moses, the feasts, temple, shepherd, kingship, death, and restoration are references he reaches back for throughout his writing; they are the landscape through which he understands and presents Jesus, his Messiah.
And yes, Genesis 15 is a fascinating place to explore further. When Philo is allowed to become the governing lens, John’s own world is not fully heard independently.