I've listened to many of Mr. Gore's lectures on UA-cam. I needed to learn about Philo today, and when I searched for Philo and found this in the results I was delighted to hear from Mr. Gore again. I wish I could attend his classes in person.
I came here via a different route than the readers below. I read Flatland and then Inferno. It's been some years but I'm here. This past week, for the first time, I grasped the gospel. It's fun to learn about God and history and what other guys thought but I always know that I do not know and that he can bear the inspection. That's why I like coming here... to delve.
I have reviewed Rabbi Lawrence Troster's lecture series of Philo of Alexandria as well as Dr. Henry Abramson's video. I do not share the Protestant doctrine antagonistic to the Epicurians, as a proxy for Green Philosophy. I mean, when Jesus asks that the cup should pass Him, He is referring to both Psalms and Socrates. For a Jew, Jesus died for our sins. For a Roman centurion like Cornelius, Jesus validates Socrates and justify's their faith in the rule of law. If I am forced to chose, I will go with the rule of law and deal with St. Peter when the time comes. My vocabulary describing 1st century Palestine is anachronistic by design: I am trying to unpack the psychology of the Roman military mind and the more I read Mark, the more apparent it becomes that we are eyebrow deep in the iNtuitive functions of Cornelius, as the presumed author of The Gospel of Mark, A centurion is a creature of the rule of law, He carried a warrant that gave him the power of arrest, which is how Simon of Cyrenian was recruited and Jesus' initial expectation in His encounter with the Centurion in Matthew and Luke: arrrested for walking while Jewish. Which is why He marvels "Not in all of Israel have I found such faith". The centurion is the social innovation that separates the warrior from the soldier , the Samurai from the Centurion, and Odysseus from Jesus and it is the leading edge of what will become the Masters of Trade essential for the industrial revolution and the US Constitution. The centurion would not be able to articulate what I am describing going on in his mind because things like "rule of law" wasn't something quite that stark at that moment, The one thing both Roman centurions and the Apostles understood was Divine Justice as it is associated with Romans 11:22 and the cross. And that's what the centurion meant by "authority". So, I am not misguided by either NT Wright's Angelicism nor Epicurianism, as a proxy for Greek Philosophy, Troster calls Philo's version of Plato "mid-Platonic", as opposed to "neo-Platonic" and he's got it just about right. I mean,he knows Philo, Plato, Moses and Paul better than me, but I am not compelled to declare him to be absolutely correct, simply on the basis that I wouldn't want to challenge his scholarship from which I would achieve a different synthesis. Legally, I stipulate to his version. If you think I am wrong, rely upon his version. The same with Bruce Gore, NT Wright and the associated extent of my scholarship, such as it is. From my perspective, the essence of Romans as I have come to understand it is not in the least antagonistic to Epicurianism, as a proxy for Greek Thought. Plato connects with the Protestant Bible at Genesis 15:5 and Aristotle connects with Jacob's Ladder. It's that simple. Jesus knows He has to die for the same reasons the Zippo Monks lit up Saigon and Socrates with his cup of hemlock. It is useful to remember that Socrates was a combat veteran of an Athenian defeat. Socrates trained callow young men like Tucker Carlson how to defeat any argument in debate. He was a Sophist who taught rhetoric. He called himself a Gadfly. I grew up around horses and Gadflys are the horseflys that show up around swimming pools in the South. He was doing to the powers-that-be in Athens over a 40 year period what Jesus did in 3 years. In cosmically necessary ways. Jesus validates the arguments Socrates puts forward in his defense, his Apology and the record of his Death. The paradigm shift represented by the difference between Odysseus and Socrates is the philosophical shift in self-government from the Aesthetics of the Heroic Age to the Ethics of the Hop Lite in the rising of the city-state. Socrates defended himself on the basis of good citizenship and Jesus not only validates Socrates martyrdom but endorses his argument. And, at some level, that's what the centurion meant by "authority". The fact that Jesus was worshiping the Jewish God was a matter of indifference to the centurion, generally, except as a target of idle ridicule. Everybody had their own god. It was the nature of authority as defined by duty that the centurion recognized in Jesus. But, in terms of Philo of Alexandria, my interest in him is how his mid-Platonism got imported into the Gospel of John and the answer tends to support my premise that Cornelius is the author of the Gospel of Mark and John Mark establishes the first Christian publishing house in Alexandria and begins pumping out manuscripts copied from the codex Cornelius produced for the Praetorium Guard. Mark is the name of the publishing house, John Mark, proprietor. John Mark was encouraged by the churches in Rome to collect his personal memories of Jesus and of his association with Peter, which he did and it became the Gospel of John (Mark), the author, not the publishing house with the Prologue ofJohn 1 purloined pretty much word for word from Philo of Alexandria which represented the leading edge of Jewish thought,and Greek philosophy at the time and continues to be unsurpassed as a cogent epistemology. Now, this is definitely above the centurion's pay grade, but his faith in the rule of law makes up the difference. The centurion and Jesus employ very similar decision making processes, the biggest difference, as it turns out, is nomeclature. Once they made the connection between Yaweh and Romans 11:22, it all falls into place, The centurion is a servant-leader, by profession and the mission, men, self priorities of the military servant-leader are the same priorities as Jesus and His example of Servant-Leadership as an expressed of Romans 3:21. And Troster's lectures on Philo of Alexander revealed this connection to my inquiies. One of the things the Holy Spirit has revealed to me in this fashion is that John Mark's body is supposed to be in Venice at St. Mark's Cathedral. I don't know if it is true or not, but it is totally possible that we have genuine artifacts dating from before Jesus' death. I love the story of how his body got to Venice: Mohammad didn't get the memo that abrogated all the Kosher laws, so Islam turned a blind eye from his remains concealed within a barrel of salted pork. It connects a bunch of dots in a very satisfying way.
I agree with you 100% that Philo's "Logos" is not the Logos of John 1:1. Having said that, yet it was the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers who took from Philo and formulated the doctrine of the Trinity. There is much historical evidence for that. I am the author of "Philo's Trinity."
Mr Gore does not mention one important fact. Philo, along with numerous other authors who were contemporary’s of the supposed Jesus did not mention him in any way. There may be a god but if I’m trying to sell the concept of a Jesus this serious omission casts a serious shadow. With the three religions of the area pushing Jesus’s existence they in turn are left with some serious questions to answer.
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. The seed of the woman is humanity(flesh and blood) and the seed of the serpent is temptations of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil(spiritual). Things like greed, selfishness, envy, lust, etc. these are evil inclinations which comes to you to go against God and your neighbor. Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Choose the good !
This is excellent presentation, however, I kind of disagree with the statement that "Philo found Platonic philosophy in the Tanah or Old Testament." He did not found the Platonic philosophy on the Old testament, what he did is he applied or accommodate Platonic philosophy to the Old Testament through metaphorical way. A metaphorical interpretation is an arbitrary and biased view. One can give whatever interpretation to any historical event, not necessary adjusted to reality.
I really enjoyed this overview of Philo. Though personally, I tend to interpret Hebrews 1 a bit differently, as this comparison of the ministry of the son to the ministry of angels to me seems a comparison of the covenants of Jesus and Moses. Angel is just a generic word for messenger, transliterated from the Greek. So the messengers that are initially referenced in verse 1 are “the prophets of old”. Not winged flying creatures or emanations. So I’m dubious this is an actual response to Philo.
Of course the real problem for Christians regarding Philo, glossed over @(08:20) is that the rock smashes and breaks against the hard place called ‘Embassy to Gaius’ (299, 304) in which the worst complaint made against Pilate is that he allowed his troops to display their shields within sight of the temple. The little matter of the trial and execution of a Rabbi, a self-styled Messiah, subsequently mocked as ‘King of the Jews’ during Passover and in violation of its strictures, curiously, does not seem to merit any mention whatsoever!
At the time, the crucifixion was just local news, spread by word of mouth. Crucifixions were not rare events. Philo might well not have heard of this particular crucifixion until long after the event, depending on how rapidly the gospel spread in Alexandria.
lol not merit any mention whatsover? So are we going to ignore Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, all the letters of the Apostles, and the subsequent writings around that time?
@@michaels4255 Philo was not fixed to the spot in Alexandria, indeed he was in Rome for this particular embassy whilst corresponding with the Roman authorities in Jerusalem. He was trying to preempt a rebellion there in order to avoid a reprisal massacre of his fellow Jews. In other words he was well motivated to master the minutiae of what was happening there especially as it pertained to the activities of Pilate. Unlikely therefore that he would have overlooked the execution of a popular Rabbi at the behest of the Sanhedrin during Passover.
@@Thedisciplemike since your struggling with this, let me clarify. Whilst it is neither surprising nor unexpected that evangelists for Jesus would mention Jesus or the core beliefs about him, here I'm suggesting that Philo whilst itemising the minor transgressions of Pilate against Jewish sensibilities would hardly overlook a fairly major one, unless of course the event never happened!
@@davesmith7528 Philo was on the other side of the Nile, clear in Alexandria while Christ was on Earth. If Philo was still alive during the crucifixion (scholars put his death around 50 CE), I'm sure he would have heard about it eventually, and might have wrote about it, might have not. Were you there at the time? Do you know his motivations? What does your assertion have anything to do with historical fact? It's claims like yours that give the historical method a bad wrap. Clearly you just don't WANT Christ to be historical. No scholar worth his salt denies the existence of Christ.
Actually , the creation isn't a complex story in the Philo conception, and its both Aristotlian and Platonic. Read Plotnius,and you will understand as well as Proclus. Yes , they are later writers,but the basic idea is this : The One, with all its henads( divine participants), exists within the center. The One emanates out to create the divine Logos( or Divine Mind) and then goes to the material world. Its a very simple concept. Yet the thing is that the emanated Logos, according to Philo, created the universe and not The One.
``Philosophically the discussion of emanationism supposes the discussion of the whole problem of the nature of God, especially of His simplicity and infinity. The doctrine of the Catholic Church is contained in the definition of the dogma of the creatio ex nihilo by the Fourth Lateran Council and, especially, the Council of the Vatican. The latter expressly condemns emanationism (I. De Deo rerum omnium creatore, can. iv), and anathematizes those "asserting that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have "emanated from the Divine substance.`` -- www.newadvent.org/cathen/05397b.htm
Secondly, he said Philo said the methods of redemption were Noah, Abraham, and Issac, and then said "don't ask me why, he is out there". Letting me know this guy is clueless! The three methods that Philo said - were 1)Abraham - symbolic of learning or instruction, 2) Jacob - symbolic of wrestling, life experiences, and 3) Issac symbolic of natural endowment.
Dr Gore. ( I can call you this because of your JD). This might be your best lecture from my POV. But I'm interested which lecture/episode you see as most important in this series? Kant?, Hegel? Other? TK
Although it seems that thee book of Colossians was written as response to Philo's thoughts, *yet that book goes perfectly with Philo in Col **1:15**.* Jesus is not God in the sense of the christians would understand.
The word 'firstborn,' as used by Paul, must be understood in its Hebraic sense (status) rather that a hellenistic sense (origins), a point that has been convincingly and repeatedly demonstrated. Thanks for your interest.
@@brucegore4373 I'm sure that's not correct. Scripture speaks of the son begotten by God the Father as the first-born of all creation, the son then going on to create the rest of creation. It's not just status, it's ontological.
@@brendantannam499 why do you suppose it means Genesis creation. It's speaking of the New Creation, another very Hebraic idea of the New Heavens and New Earth, in which righteousness will dwell. He is making all things new through Jesus Christ. In this sense he is the beginning. In this sense he is the firstborn from the dead. In this sense he is head of the body. In this sense he has come to have first place in everything, as talked about in Colossians."And God said, "Look, I am making all things new!""
How did you come to the conclusion that was his mission (to “evangelize” to the Greeks)? I am just beginning to learn about Philo and am largely ignorant, but this conclusion of yours seems pivotal.
Jose Cordero I imagine he’s done quite a bit of reading. Do you know how he came to this conclusion? What specific text, passage that says this was what Philo was doing?
Isn't the exclusion of Roman influence rather stark 12:32? Yes, Stoicism originated in Greece, but Seneca, a Roman Stoic was writing around the time of Philo. Yes, Philo was Jewish, but was prominent in a Roman society that at that time was very heavy handed toward Judaism, and it must be considered that he was heavily influenced by Rome. He even ingratiated himself, obviously to keep his head, to the madman Caligula. He was present in Alexandria during the Jewish Riots there, and yet tolerated by the empire. I think of him akin to Josephus Flavius, who is often referred to as a Jewish historian, but was actually writing for Vespasian. Consider that the synthesis of those various influences into a singular idea is the essence of the Roman Empire and how it functioned, think of the fascia, the symbol of the empire.
Considering the age of his writings there should be a mention on the reliability of the existing text I would think. Christians it seems to me would have had reason to change the text to put the gnosticism in a bad light.
John 1:1. Is from Philo , john put his twist on it and attributed to Jesus. Isn't that obvious, you can make all the claim you want, Philo is the originator of the thought not the other way around .
Thanks for a good insight! Indeed it seems quite likely that John was aware of Philo, and Jewish Gnosticism generally. John however, is not borrowing from Philo, but correcting him. Philo never declared that the logos was in fact the true God, as John does. Philo was on the right track, but did not go far enough.
Hello Bruce, do you believe that John may have been inspired, derived or borrowed from Philo for the John 1:1? Is there anything I can type into google to further investigate this? Thank you!
John 1:1 builds on Philo's theology. Philo, using the Logos, solved an issue of the Middle Platonist challenge to a Perfect God that works in our world. John simily used it and said "no the Logos is God; God the father is unchangeable, and the Logos is." Philo points out the Logos is interpreted by the Prophets, so that is why we don't get such a perfect message as we do with Jesus who is Logos Incarnate. (Just for the record, I am not Christian but I do have a strong interest in theologies, and Christian theology interests me the most; I am dispassionate on the subject. I wouldn't say I am anywhere near a traditional atheist either - the idea of anti-theism is not at all my thought - I do believe God or gods are possibilities the same as no gods, or any number of definitions of gods I have never even considered - it's simply that I don't know nearly enough to even begin deducing the answer!).
Well, the book of John has Jesus say that the only true God is the Father in John 17:3 , which seems goes perfectly with Philo's thoughts about Emanation. John 1 also, has the idea that logos was the tool which God created all things *THROUGH* him not as the God who created.
im also confused you set the soul is virtuous the fact that isnt the ract that is imprisoned by the body suggest it is not as virtuous and that the body control and has weakness in the way that if someone is dictated by someone it shows a problem with that that they are to weak or allow people to take over which is character flaw
I'm sorry I'm not quite following your question. If you would like to contact me, feel free to do so at bruce@brucegore.com. I'll try to help out as best I can. Thanks!
The word you bring up at 21:48. If you could also give a layman's definition of the greek words theon and theos as found in John 1:1, that would be splendid.
from the horses mouth Ok, the word is 'uios theou' which is Greek for 'son of God.' My point is that Philo called the Logos the 'son of God,' sounding somewhat like John in John's Gospel. The word theos (or theon, accusative case) is the standard word for 'God' or 'god' in the Greek language. In the New Testament, it is the word for the true God, but it is also used to refer to pagan gods of polytheism. It is, in other words, pretty similar to the English word 'God' or 'god.'
Bruce, since I see that you reply to comments: I wonder your take on the documentary theory. I understand that the theory does not hold much weight today. I find that a theory which considers a blending of traditions into one appealing. Call it 'documentary', 'supplementary' or 'fragmentary' theory.
I think the documentary hypothesis has utility in some cases, but it has been commonly used as a weapon against the integrity of scripture, usually based on naturalistic assumptions that are not inherently part of the hypothesis.
amazing lectures ….. im a 7th day Adventist but I come here to learn about the historical context of certain things great work Bruce, but wasn't elegabalus (the cross dressing helios/nimrod worshiper, didn't he have a piece of the ark that he kept as a relic or was that shalmanesser?) the most insane and worst emperor?
@@jasonbourne5142 SDA is the remnant church of God having both the spirit of Prophecy, which is the testimony of Christ, the word = the law and the Prophets, you should study our bible more 2500 day prophecy 1260 years of littlehorn rule from justinian decree/538ad until 1798ad and the 70 weeks of Daniel Christ opened the sealed recording books in Heaven in the Most Holy (Heavenly) and begins an investigative judgement 1844
@@jasonbourne5142 they are called time prophecies and they are used as shadows of each other to show how God uses a pattern repeat and enlarge things that were once literal become spiritual
@@jasonbourne5142 and what has Ellen White ever said that goes against the KJV bible? nothing, so much so that her critics said she plagiarised the bible???? what??? how can u plagiarise the bible isn't that just quoting and elaborating on scripture by using scripture to show the links
@@jasonbourne5142 you need to watch some serious walter veith sermons and some great Stephen borh sermons id throw in a lot of Paul Godfrey here ill make it easy for u … btw Happy Sabbath ua-cam.com/video/e3hmw1qWT6Y/v-deo.html
@@jasonbourne5142 please watch this video if you dare to challenge your preconceptions my advice is ask for Holy Spirit to give insight and discernment before watching …..ua-cam.com/video/7CtdGm556gM/v-deo.html
how can a neutral soul come from perfect G-d if gd is supposed to hyptothetically be a perfect being why would emmit something neutral neutreal is other than perfect
Line by line he is refuting Philo. "In the beginning was the Word", meaning the Word was already there and not an emanation, "And the Word was with God", not an emanation underneath God, "And the Word was God", as in God Himself, not a second god.
I don't think Gore characterizes Aristotle correctly at all. Aristotle is more concerned about God as Actualization, not emanation, both pure act as an intellect and principle of motion and final end in nature.
Indeed, since no one can claim with any objectivity to know God, it is unlikely that the author of Colossians was in a position to “correct” Philo. If that author happened to be Paul we must remember that he too had some questionable theology such as belief in the existence of ‘third heaven’; 2 Corinthians [12;2]. Moreover, in the battle for ideas there are no prizes for coming second in the race to publish. So unless it can be established that some Christian writer wrote an account of the 'logos' prior to Philo it is quite reasonable to conclude what the ‘prof’ is in strenuous denial about @(23:35).
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback! It is quite certain that no Christian writer relied on the notion of 'logos' prior to Philo, because Philo himself comes before any known Christian writings. Logos was a well-established idea in the Hellenistic tradition. Christian writers, and especially John, co-opted the term hoping to make the message of Christ accessible to a Greek oriented world.
***** I'm sure your "fine scholars" are paid by Christians. 500 prophets rising from the dead and not one historian mentions it, yeah I'll buy that. Like I said, Philo and Josephus had relatives who were Pharisees in 30CE. Obviously didn't happen. Don't let the truth interfere with your wishful thinking
@@brucegore4373 Socrates left no writings of his own. Neither did many other historical figures in antiquity. For example, Confucius seems to have been a strictly oral teacher, with his sayings being written down from memory by his disciples.
Typically Christian. Critical of Philo. I didn't realize that there WAS a right and a wrong philosophy. But of course the Christian view is the RIGHT one. Stick to teaching not editorializing.
If one accepts the idea that the Bible really is allegory and takes the time to examine it as such, then it is possible to find a hidden history in its pages. However, it is helpful to first read the works of Plato (particularly Cratylus) which are referred to as the "wide" (G: platys) "gate" in Matthew 7:13 and whose "Academy" is referred to as "Aceldama" (or field of blood) in Acts 1:19. Philo's archetype is found in Plato's Ion. Ion was a false interpreter of Homer from Ephesus and thus we should should not be surprised when Philo is assigned the name of "John" in the Gospel accounts. The opening verses of the Gospel of John are intended to be an allegoric interpretation of the opening verses of Genesis and this is intended as an allusion to Philo's work and it is designed to identify Philo with the "disciple whom Christ loved". (This does not mean Philo wrote the Gospel of John. The author is simply playing the role of Philo.) But Philo was two faced. He told some truth (male) about allegoric interpretation along with lies (female). The name "Philo" means "friend" in Greek and this idea can be represented as "merea'" in Hebrew, thus Philo was also "Mary". In other words, he was a hermaphrodite drawing on the hermetics of Hermes and the "love" of Aphrodite (the name Aphrodite is thought to be derived from the Greek word "aphros" which means "foam"). This serves to explain Da Vinci's ambiguous treatment of the Apostle John in his Last Supper painting which means that the so the so-called "Da Vinci Code" actually predated Da Vinci by centuries. (The word "grail" is thought to be derived from the Latin "cratalis" which serves to emphasize the importance of Plato's Cratylus.) I have determined through numerous observations that "water" serves as a metaphor for "writings", "walking" serves as a metaphor for "interpretation", and "wine" is a metaphor for "philosophy". Since Philo only did superficial interpretations of writings, he "walked on water" and since he also converted the writings associated with Moses to a type of philosophy he also changed "water into wine". The "salvation" offered by Christ is the salvation of literal lies. Of course, Josephus, who is portrayed as the pretended father of Jesus and the "empty" tomb maker, provided the other half of the Gospel stories with his hidden history of Christianity's origins.
The difficulty with an allegorical hermeneutic comes down to its inherent subjectivism. Allegorical interpretation gives rise to remarkable speculation, but little certainty, as witnessed by the radically differing perspectives through history of those who have taken this approach. Thanks for the feedback.
We have been fooled into believing that metaphors can have multiple meanings which naturally leads to the assumption that any interpretation is subjective. We are actually dealing with a standardized system in which each real world idea can have multiple metaphors but each metaphor has only one real world meaning. In Kabbalah and all other forms esoteric wisdom, everything that is openly defined and described nearly entirely in metaphor. A secret oral tradition contains the key. In Kabbalah, this is known as Da'at. A secret is only a real secret if it any be proven, otherwise it belongs to the realm of rumor and conjecture. So, all those esoteric groups that claim some ancient secret are either lying about having a real secret or they hold knowledge that is provable. And if you try to imagine what kind of ancient secret could be provable and also have sustained value (making the secret worth keeping), only an ancient code employed for centuries fits the bill. All other forms of evidence can be brushed aside as forgeries or inconclusive. Of course, it is possible to misidentify the real meaning of a metaphor, but eventually any error will be exposed as other metaphors are correctly identified. We have been told a multitude of times that we are being deceived and yet we still ignore the obvious. In Mark 4:10-12 we are informed that: 10 When he (Christ) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, “ ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’” If you accept that God is real, then I suppose you might think that this is just the way God plays his game with humans, but if you reject religion, then this appears to be an admission that knowledge is being suppressed to keep outsiders in distress. Also, if we are willing to open our eyes and view the above as an obvious allusion to what Socrates said about the Sophist Protagoras, then we must realize that secrets are being placed in front of us, but we are too stupid to see them: "In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples." Plato's Theaetetus Now, you can argue all you want about allegoric interpretation as being subjective, but if actions by a fictional Christ can easily be recognized as an allusion to the actions of a prominent Sophist, then it is difficult to come up with any interpretation other than there being a definite link between Sophism and Christianity. It should be obvious to any reasonable person.
None of the Logos understand The "CHRIST" he thought them as children, and Christianity to the Hellenistic mean more power for Arianism Christologic, There was real multitudes of War in 330 b.c.e and the modern clergy is claiming these systems of thought that are 100% contrary to the spiritual there essence v. physical fact, as Gerald Massey Lectures, unraveled the thought as "Faith v. Fact, and led us down a conversation which ones narrow knowledge has to be payd for rather than earned as an initiation by a measly 4 years of knowledge and education. We know real knowledge is by the True Priest. Not Converts, To this day In my opinion the closet priest is the little old Librarian has more knowledge than any professor or so called Theologian.
Then why were there prophesies almost 500 years before the life of Jesus, from the book of Daniel, which predicted that Jesus would come to earth at the exact year that he did? Or the 5000 year old book of Enoch, that gave a 7000 year timeline prophecy, which pinpointed the first coming of Messiah (Jesus) in the year 4,000? People like you are absolutely clueless and have no truth in yourselves.
Shouldn't you use Chronologic order in this narrow lecture. Since the history of all these Gnostiics were NOT the original authors of anything. Specially of there Education. In my naïve opinion. In Alexandria at this time, who? or What Power controlled the trade of Commerce along that nile valley and who was the Masters of ALL Knowledge. Book, Dr. Gerald Massey Lectures, he ponders the "Faith" v. "Fact," I think people that teach about these lectures should surrender to the fact that all this misguided history is in a quandary that according to the authors of history we have only recovered 1% of Greek and Roman history? adding in a few vowels of education has propagated and Superimposed on the real "OUR-STORY." Philo was a born Jew? of a Hellenistic Converts not even close to traditions of the Hebrews of Ancient Kemet. book, Stolen Legacy" Author George M James, 1954 Greek Philosophy.3 Points..Are there "J" in the Hebrew language? Are there "J" in the Greek.If Cairo museum has the earliest picture of "THE" "CHRIST" I think that should mean something to the unlearned. Alexandria is "Arius" Christological Arianism, Alexander the Great was a thief and a Tyrant taught by a Arianist Classism who never had a true God or Spirituality as non have never in Alexandria that fell as fast as they built it up,
He cannot use chronological order when speaking of Philo, because NOONE actually knows the years that Philo lived, or the years in which any of Philos writings were completed. Its literally all guesswork. Noone even attempts to label any of Philos writings to a timeframe on a timeline. Noone has the slightest clue. It's also very possible that Philo wasnt the author of many of the writings attributed to him.
Philo wasnt a hebrew/jew by birth, he was a Greek by birth. He became a hellenistic jew, meaning a Greek Jew who became a convert and not an original hebrew by blood. Philo was one of the first Greek Hellinistic Jewish scholars to mix greek mythology with hebrew teachings. Josephus, the historian of the Jews who also lived in the 1st century, says that Philo’s family surpassed all others in the nobility of its lineage. His father had apparently played a prominent role in Palestine before moving to Alexandria. Philo’s brother Alexander Lysimachus, who was a general tax administrator in charge of customs in Alexandria, was the richest man in the city and indeed must have been one of the richest men in the Hellenistic world, because Josephus says that he gave a huge loan to the wife of the Jewish king Agrippa I, also known as King Harod, and that he contributed the gold and silver with which nine huge gates of the Temple in Jerusalem were overlaid. Alexander was also extremely influential in Roman imperial circles, being an old friend of the emperor Claudius and having acted as guardian for the emperor’s mother. Alexander had two sons, Tiberius Julius Alexander and Marcus Julius Alexander. After 41 AD, Alexander and Agrippa I arranged for their children to be married. Alexander's second son Marcus Julius was wed to princess Berenice. (Antiquities 19.276-277) Marcus Julius died prematurely without producing any children with Berenice.[1][2] Tiberius Julius was the Procurator of Judea from 46 to 48 and the Prefect of Egypt from 66 to 69. In 70, he participated in the Siege of Jerusalem as Titus' second-in-command. So as you can see, these are fake jews, who ultimately fought with Rome, against the real jews. Just as Jesus said, "they are not jews, who say they are jews". Philo was a pharasee, Jesus exposed the pharasees as following oral tradition of babylon over tue written Torah. Philo was no different. Matter of fact, itsbelieved, and seemingly recorded, that Philo never even went on the pilgrimage feasts to jerusalem. See, Philos dad sided with Palestine. Philo sided with the Greeks, Plato, and philosophy through astrology, and his brother Alexander sided with Tome, while Alexander's son fought as Titus right hand man in the siege of Jerusalem. These are NOT real jews. More on King Agrippa 1: Herod Agrippa, also known as Herod II or Agrippa I (Hebrew: אגריפס; 11 BC - AD 44), was a King of Judea from AD 41 to 44 and of Philip's tetrarchy from 39. He was the last ruler with the royal title reigning over Judea and the father of Herod Agrippa II, the last king from the Herodian dynasty. The grandson of Herod the Great and son of Aristobulus IV and Berenice,[1] he is the king named Herod in the Acts of the Apostles 12:1: "Herod (Agrippa)" (Ἡρῴδης Ἀγρίππας). Agrippa governed Judea to the satisfaction of the Jews. His zeal, private and public, for Judaism is recorded by Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and the rabbis.[5] Perhaps because of this, his passage through Alexandria in AD 38[7] instigated anti-Jewish riots.[4] At the risk of his own life, or at least of his liberty, he interceded with Caligula on behalf of the Jews, when that emperor was attempting to set up his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem shortly before his death in AD 41. Agrippa's efforts bore fruit and he persuaded Caligula to temporarily rescind his order, thus preventing the Temple's desecration.[8] However, Philo of Alexandria recounts that Caligula issued a second order to have his statue erected in the Temple,[9] which was only prevented by Caligula's death. The Acts of the Apostles, chapter 12 (Acts 12:1-23), where Herod Agrippa is called "King Herod",[10] reports that he persecuted the Jerusalem church, having James son of Zebedee killed and imprisoning Peter around the time of a Passover. Blastus is mentioned in Acts as Herod's chamberlain (Acts 12:20). After Passover in AD 44, Agrippa went to Caesarea, where he had games performed in honour of Claudius. In the midst of his speech to the public a cry went out that he was a god, and Agrippa did not publicly react
@@-kepha8828 thanks for the correction, as you said , so eloquently ," no one know's who wrote it" my mistake is said "born jew" which i meant convert. Be honest i don't remember writing on this post i didn't realize it was 4 years ago.. Thank's for your reply good to see people still read books..
@@spiritualwarriorhealer6154 lol, I was actually reading a book composed of Philos writings, because Philo testifies only of a luni solar sabbath. So I figured I'd do a search on Philo on youtube. I wasnt trying to correct you, you were pretty spot on with your comment, I was more trying to side with you, and not correct you. It's my belief that Philo was a jew in name only, and that while he had good understanding of the old testament, he was clueless in how to apply it, which is why he was unaware of Messiah, and leaned more on Greek beliefs than Hebrew ones. As I stated, its believed that Philo did not even make the pilgrimage feasts to Jerusalem 3 times per year. Which apparently many false converts rejected. Although they claimed these beliefs with their lips, their hearts were far from the walk. Anyways, Philo writes that the MOON determines the periods of seven days, according to the 4 lunar phases of the month, which he says do not start until AFTER the conjunction new moon day. The hebrew word for week is "shabua" and is defined as "a period of seven days". That's important, because Philo literally writes that the MOON determines the "periods of seven days" (the week) starting AFTER the conjunction new moon day, according to the light the moon receives from the sun. So where was Philo getting this concept? From the book of 1st Enoch! Enoch 73 tells us that the sun gives its light to the moon, in PERIODS OF SEVEN DAYS (which is the hebrew definition of a WEEK). The solar weekly cycle, invented by Rome, was not implemented u till 321AD under evil Emperor Constantine. And this solar cycling planetary week, that names its days after false planetary gods, and the days they were to be worshiped and honored, was not enforced on the jews until 358AD. This is why 2nd century "church father" (their words, not mine) Iranaeus and Ckement of Alexander BOTH wrote that the "week was changed by Rome". Clement even wrote that the biblical week was determined by the 4 lunar phases of the moon, each lasting 7 days. They all seems to know fully well that the true sabbathrequired the use of BOTH the two great luminary witnesses, the sun AND THE MOON, as Genesis 1:14 commands. Daniel 7:25 said that the 4th beast (which 4 Ezra says was Rome) would think to change Gods holy days and law. The 7th day sabbath was one of Gids holy days, which Leviticus 23 twice states is a MOEDIM. Jubilees 50:13 also states that the 7th day sabbath is a Moedim. Psalm 104:19 and Ecclesiasticus 43:6-8 state that the MOON must appoint the MOEDIM. Which is EXACTLY what Enoch, Philo, Josephus, Iranaeus, Clement, etc testified to, until Rome fulfilled Daniel 7:25's warning, and changed the week to a solar only week, a solar only sababth.
@@-kepha8828 thanks ,Drop that book info breda.. You far wiser on the subject my memory has been beat up pretty bad from all the different information. I would like to know your favorite one of all time book collection of course..
Sorry sir, Philo was not Jewish by birth. He was born Greek, and converted to Hellinistic Pharasuitical judaism, with a minor in kabbalistic thought, spacificly gemmantria, and philosophy. Yes indeed he was a hybrid, of many different beliefs, and he idolized Plato, who played a rather priestly role in Alexander the great's life, through the passed on teachings of Aristotle. which is why Philo grew up greek, and only converted to the hybrid hellinized form of judaism at the time. Anyone who says that Philo greatly influenced the new testament, is making this claim on zero fact, a ton of assumption, and misguided "history". You lose all credibility with me. You dont just get to add to his story, based on things that make sence to you, with no fact to back it up. That's not how "history" is supposed to work. No wonder people keep getting up and leaving. You claimed "Philo probably never met any of the apostles, and the apostles probably never met him". Why on earth do you keep making statements, that you have absolutely zero clue about? It's as if you just inject words to fill space, while acknowledging that your just creating assumption with no facts to base them upon. WHY?
@@-kepha8828 what does that have anything to do with it? I agree that Philo didn't influence the NT, as what Gore is saying as well. On the contrary, they were most definitely arguing against the Gnostic heresies, which were indeed influenced by Philo
@@Thedisciplemike no, you dont get to keep making up crap. Philo was NOT a gnostic and no scholars accuse him of being one. Yes NT authors spoke of gnostics, but AGAIN, you do not get to then say "the NT authors wrote about Philo". It is scary deceitful how both you amd this video maker take these liberties of tossing Philo in those categories. And in pretty sure you recognize your ignorance in doing this but wont admit to it.
@@-kepha8828 holy crap dude, you have such an accusative spirit. Philo absolutely laid the ground work for what became Gnostic ideas. It's extremely clear that John's Logos ideas had Philos in mind, as with Paul. It doesn't mean they looked up to him. But they simply expounded on the ideas. It's incredibly dishonest of you to deny this fact. Most scholars agree with me on this, but what many of the scholars get wrong was that John was writing AGAINST Philo, not in favor of him.
I've listened to many of Mr. Gore's lectures on UA-cam. I needed to learn about Philo today, and when I searched for Philo and found this in the results I was delighted to hear from Mr. Gore again. I wish I could attend his classes in person.
A big thanks to the professor.!
Thank you for posting these lectures online.
Thank you for sharing this lecture on line. I have gained a greater understanding of Philo and his influence.
I came here via a different route than the readers below. I read Flatland and then Inferno. It's been some years but I'm here. This past week, for the first time, I grasped the gospel. It's fun to learn about God and history and what other guys thought but I always know that I do not know and that he can bear the inspection. That's why I like coming here... to delve.
Thank you! Nice to have you along!
His words are so wise and so so high, i am in love with his view of world. He is a very great thinker.
I have reviewed Rabbi Lawrence Troster's lecture series of Philo of Alexandria as well as Dr. Henry Abramson's video.
I do not share the Protestant doctrine antagonistic to the Epicurians, as a proxy for Green Philosophy. I mean, when Jesus asks that the cup should pass Him, He is referring to both Psalms and Socrates. For a Jew, Jesus died for our sins. For a Roman centurion like Cornelius, Jesus validates Socrates and justify's their faith in the rule of law. If I am forced to chose, I will go with the rule of law and deal with St. Peter when the time comes. My vocabulary describing 1st century Palestine is anachronistic by design: I am trying to unpack the psychology of the Roman military mind and the more I read Mark, the more apparent it becomes that we are eyebrow deep in the iNtuitive functions of Cornelius, as the presumed author of The Gospel of Mark,
A centurion is a creature of the rule of law, He carried a warrant that gave him the power of arrest, which is how Simon of Cyrenian was recruited and Jesus' initial expectation in His encounter with the Centurion in Matthew and Luke: arrrested for walking while Jewish.
Which is why He marvels "Not in all of Israel have I found such faith".
The centurion is the social innovation that separates the warrior from the soldier , the Samurai from the Centurion, and Odysseus from Jesus and it is the leading edge of what will become the Masters of Trade essential for the industrial revolution and the US Constitution. The centurion would not be able to articulate what I am describing going on in his mind because things like "rule of law" wasn't something quite that stark at that moment, The one thing both Roman centurions and the Apostles understood was Divine Justice as it is associated with Romans 11:22 and the cross. And that's what the centurion meant by "authority".
So, I am not misguided by either NT Wright's Angelicism nor Epicurianism, as a proxy for Greek Philosophy,
Troster calls Philo's version of Plato "mid-Platonic", as opposed to "neo-Platonic" and he's got it just about right. I mean,he knows Philo, Plato, Moses and Paul better than me, but I am not compelled to declare him to be absolutely correct, simply on the basis that I wouldn't want to challenge his scholarship from which I would achieve a different synthesis. Legally, I stipulate to his version. If you think I am wrong, rely upon his version. The same with Bruce Gore, NT Wright and the associated extent of my scholarship, such as it is. From my perspective, the essence of Romans as I have come to understand it is not in the least antagonistic to Epicurianism, as a proxy for Greek Thought.
Plato connects with the Protestant Bible at Genesis 15:5 and Aristotle connects with Jacob's Ladder. It's that simple. Jesus knows He has to die for the same reasons the Zippo Monks lit up Saigon and Socrates with his cup of hemlock. It is useful to remember that Socrates was a combat veteran of an Athenian defeat. Socrates trained callow young men like Tucker Carlson how to defeat any argument in debate. He was a Sophist who taught rhetoric. He called himself a Gadfly. I grew up around horses and Gadflys are the horseflys that show up around swimming pools in the South. He was doing to the powers-that-be in Athens over a 40 year period what Jesus did in 3 years. In cosmically necessary ways. Jesus validates the arguments Socrates puts forward in his defense, his Apology and the record of his Death. The paradigm shift represented by the difference between Odysseus and Socrates is the philosophical shift in self-government from the Aesthetics of the Heroic Age to the Ethics of the Hop Lite in the rising of the city-state. Socrates defended himself on the basis of good citizenship and Jesus not only validates Socrates martyrdom but endorses his argument. And, at some level, that's what the centurion meant by "authority".
The fact that Jesus was worshiping the Jewish God was a matter of indifference to the centurion, generally, except as a target of idle ridicule. Everybody had their own god. It was the nature of authority as defined by duty that the centurion recognized in Jesus.
But, in terms of Philo of Alexandria, my interest in him is how his mid-Platonism got imported into the Gospel of John and the answer tends to support my premise that Cornelius is the author of the Gospel of Mark and John Mark establishes the first Christian publishing house in Alexandria and begins pumping out manuscripts copied from the codex Cornelius produced for the Praetorium Guard. Mark is the name of the publishing house, John Mark, proprietor. John Mark was encouraged by the churches in Rome to collect his personal memories of Jesus and of his association with Peter, which he did and it became the Gospel of John (Mark), the author, not the publishing house with the Prologue ofJohn 1 purloined pretty much word for word from Philo of Alexandria which represented the leading edge of Jewish thought,and Greek philosophy at the time and continues to be unsurpassed as a cogent epistemology. Now, this is definitely above the centurion's pay grade, but his faith in the rule of law makes up the difference. The centurion and Jesus employ very similar decision making processes, the biggest difference, as it turns out, is nomeclature. Once they made the connection between Yaweh and Romans 11:22, it all falls into place, The centurion is a servant-leader, by profession and the mission, men, self priorities of the military servant-leader are the same priorities as Jesus and His example of Servant-Leadership as an expressed of Romans 3:21.
And Troster's lectures on Philo of Alexander revealed this connection to my inquiies.
One of the things the Holy Spirit has revealed to me in this fashion is that John Mark's body is supposed to be in Venice at St. Mark's Cathedral. I don't know if it is true or not, but it is totally possible that we have genuine artifacts dating from before Jesus' death. I love the story of how his body got to Venice: Mohammad didn't get the memo that abrogated all the Kosher laws, so Islam turned a blind eye from his remains concealed within a barrel of salted pork. It connects a bunch of dots in a very satisfying way.
Thanks for the video, very informative))
Thank you!
Great lecture! Appreciate you putting this out there.
Thank you.
I agree with you 100% that Philo's "Logos" is not the Logos of John 1:1. Having said that, yet it was the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers who took from Philo and formulated the doctrine of the Trinity. There is much historical evidence for that. I am the author of "Philo's Trinity."
Yeepp im following ur channel sir
Just keep telling the truth and give em the evidence 😇😇
@@endingwithoutbeginning1683
Why thank you sir! Sometimes I need encouragement.
what is the historical evidence for this?
this is great
can you make playlist on your channel so we can watch the videos in order?
Thanks for the video!
Mr Gore does not mention one important fact. Philo, along with numerous other authors who were contemporary’s of the supposed Jesus did not mention him in any way. There may be a god but if I’m trying to sell the concept of a Jesus this serious omission casts a serious shadow. With the three religions of the area pushing Jesus’s existence they in turn are left with some serious questions to answer.
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
The seed of the woman is humanity(flesh and blood) and the seed of the serpent is temptations of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil(spiritual). Things like greed, selfishness, envy, lust, etc. these are evil inclinations which comes to you to go against God and your neighbor.
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Choose the good !
Did Philo write “Against Flaccus”?
If so, I see a lot of similarities with the New Testament the mocking of Christ and Barabbas being released.
This is excellent presentation, however, I kind of disagree with the statement that "Philo found Platonic philosophy in the Tanah or Old Testament." He did not found the Platonic philosophy on the Old testament, what he did is he applied or accommodate Platonic philosophy to the Old Testament through metaphorical way. A metaphorical interpretation is an arbitrary and biased view. One can give whatever interpretation to any historical event, not necessary adjusted to reality.
I really enjoyed this overview of Philo. Though personally, I tend to interpret Hebrews 1 a bit differently, as this comparison of the ministry of the son to the ministry of angels to me seems a comparison of the covenants of Jesus and Moses.
Angel is just a generic word for messenger, transliterated from the Greek. So the messengers that are initially referenced in verse 1 are “the prophets of old”. Not winged flying creatures or emanations. So I’m dubious this is an actual response to Philo.
Of course the real problem for Christians regarding Philo, glossed over @(08:20) is that the rock smashes and breaks against the hard place called ‘Embassy to Gaius’ (299, 304) in which the worst complaint made against Pilate is that he allowed his troops to display their shields within sight of the temple. The little matter of the trial and execution of a Rabbi, a self-styled Messiah, subsequently mocked as ‘King of the Jews’ during Passover and in violation of its strictures, curiously, does not seem to merit any mention whatsoever!
At the time, the crucifixion was just local news, spread by word of mouth. Crucifixions were not rare events. Philo might well not have heard of this particular crucifixion until long after the event, depending on how rapidly the gospel spread in Alexandria.
lol not merit any mention whatsover? So are we going to ignore Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, all the letters of the Apostles, and the subsequent writings around that time?
@@michaels4255 Philo was not fixed to the spot in Alexandria, indeed he was in Rome for this particular embassy whilst corresponding with the Roman authorities in Jerusalem. He was trying to preempt a rebellion there in order to avoid a reprisal massacre of his fellow Jews. In other words he was well motivated to master the minutiae of what was happening there especially as it pertained to the activities of Pilate. Unlikely therefore that he would have overlooked the execution of a popular Rabbi at the behest of the Sanhedrin during Passover.
@@Thedisciplemike since your struggling with this, let me clarify. Whilst it is neither surprising nor unexpected that evangelists for Jesus would mention Jesus or the core beliefs about him, here I'm suggesting that Philo whilst itemising the minor transgressions of Pilate against Jewish sensibilities would hardly overlook a fairly major one, unless of course the event never happened!
@@davesmith7528 Philo was on the other side of the Nile, clear in Alexandria while Christ was on Earth. If Philo was still alive during the crucifixion (scholars put his death around 50 CE), I'm sure he would have heard about it eventually, and might have wrote about it, might have not. Were you there at the time? Do you know his motivations? What does your assertion have anything to do with historical fact? It's claims like yours that give the historical method a bad wrap. Clearly you just don't WANT Christ to be historical. No scholar worth his salt denies the existence of Christ.
Actually , the creation isn't a complex story in the Philo conception, and its both Aristotlian and Platonic. Read Plotnius,and you will understand as well as Proclus. Yes , they are later writers,but the basic idea is this :
The One, with all its henads( divine participants), exists within the center. The One emanates out to create the divine Logos( or Divine Mind) and then goes to the material world. Its a very simple concept. Yet the thing is that the emanated Logos, according to Philo, created the universe and not The One.
``Philosophically the discussion of emanationism supposes the discussion of the whole problem of the nature of God, especially of His simplicity and infinity. The doctrine of the Catholic Church is contained in the definition of the dogma of the creatio ex nihilo by the Fourth Lateran Council and, especially, the Council of the Vatican. The latter expressly condemns emanationism (I. De Deo rerum omnium creatore, can. iv), and anathematizes those "asserting that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have "emanated from the Divine substance.`` -- www.newadvent.org/cathen/05397b.htm
..........n., ...@@shanejohns7901
Secondly, he said Philo said the methods of redemption were Noah, Abraham, and Issac, and then said "don't ask me why, he is out there". Letting me know this guy is clueless! The three methods that Philo said - were 1)Abraham - symbolic of learning or instruction, 2) Jacob - symbolic of wrestling, life experiences, and 3) Issac symbolic of natural endowment.
Gospel of John is a product of Alexandria
yep
More like a product of the Holy Spirit
@@JR-zp7lw your sacred spirit is a familiar lmao
Dr Gore. ( I can call you this because of your JD). This might be your best lecture from my POV. But I'm interested which lecture/episode you see as most important in this series? Kant?, Hegel? Other? TK
Wow - tough question. I always like the one I'm working on at the moment!
Best translation of Philo?
Although it seems that thee book of Colossians was written as response to Philo's thoughts, *yet that book goes perfectly with Philo in Col **1:15**.* Jesus is not God in the sense of the christians would understand.
The word 'firstborn,' as used by Paul, must be understood in its Hebraic sense (status) rather that a hellenistic sense (origins), a point that has been convincingly and repeatedly demonstrated. Thanks for your interest.
@@brucegore4373 I'm sure that's not correct. Scripture speaks of the son begotten by God the Father as the first-born of all creation, the son then going on to create the rest of creation. It's not just status, it's ontological.
@@brendantannam499 why do you suppose it means Genesis creation. It's speaking of the New Creation, another very Hebraic idea of the New Heavens and New Earth, in which righteousness will dwell. He is making all things new through Jesus Christ. In this sense he is the beginning. In this sense he is the firstborn from the dead. In this sense he is head of the body. In this sense he has come to have first place in everything, as talked about in Colossians."And God said, "Look, I am making all things new!""
Getting school flashbacks, lol.
How did you come to the conclusion that was his mission (to “evangelize” to the Greeks)? I am just beginning to learn about Philo and am largely ignorant, but this conclusion of yours seems pivotal.
Jose Cordero I imagine he’s done quite a bit of reading. Do you know how he came to this conclusion? What specific text, passage that says this was what Philo was doing?
Why is there no mention of Philo and his teaching on the trinity? Did you miss this most crucial information?
He didn't teach the Trinity, that's why. His ideas were more akin to subordinationism and that of Arius
@@Thedisciplemike
What are you talking about? I am the author of "Philo's Trinity" the truth of where the Trinity doctrine came from.
@@r.e.jr.1152 Then you should be aware of his ideas on the emanations. Tell me, from where does the first emanation, the logos, emanate from?
@@r.e.jr.1152YEA
Isn't the exclusion of Roman influence rather stark 12:32? Yes, Stoicism originated in Greece, but Seneca, a Roman Stoic was writing around the time of Philo. Yes, Philo was Jewish, but was prominent in a Roman society that at that time was very heavy handed toward Judaism, and it must be considered that he was heavily influenced by Rome. He even ingratiated himself, obviously to keep his head, to the madman Caligula. He was present in Alexandria during the Jewish Riots there, and yet tolerated by the empire. I think of him akin to Josephus Flavius, who is often referred to as a Jewish historian, but was actually writing for Vespasian. Consider that the synthesis of those various influences into a singular idea is the essence of the Roman Empire and how it functioned, think of the fascia, the symbol of the empire.
This is my takeaway basically, and so far. Inasmuch as I'm only a hobby learner i thank you for your elucidation
Considering the age of his writings there should be a mention on the reliability of the existing text I would think. Christians it seems to me would have had reason to change the text to put the gnosticism in a bad light.
the problem with that though is that it is pure conjecture, based on no evidence, plus reading ill will into the minds of the early Christians
great video coming from a Jewish person
John 1:1. Is from Philo , john put his twist on it and attributed to Jesus. Isn't that obvious, you can make all the claim you want, Philo is the originator of the thought not the other way around .
Thanks for a good insight! Indeed it seems quite likely that John was aware of Philo, and Jewish Gnosticism generally. John however, is not borrowing from Philo, but correcting him. Philo never declared that the logos was in fact the true God, as John does. Philo was on the right track, but did not go far enough.
I certainly grant that Philo came first. John seems to be engaged in a critique of Philo, while establishing a foundational Christian doctrine.
Hello Bruce, do you believe that John may have been inspired, derived or borrowed from Philo for the John 1:1? Is there anything I can type into google to further investigate this? Thank you!
John 1:1 builds on Philo's theology. Philo, using the Logos, solved an issue of the Middle Platonist challenge to a Perfect God that works in our world. John simily used it and said "no the Logos is God; God the father is unchangeable, and the Logos is." Philo points out the Logos is interpreted by the Prophets, so that is why we don't get such a perfect message as we do with Jesus who is Logos Incarnate.
(Just for the record, I am not Christian but I do have a strong interest in theologies, and Christian theology interests me the most; I am dispassionate on the subject. I wouldn't say I am anywhere near a traditional atheist either - the idea of anti-theism is not at all my thought - I do believe God or gods are possibilities the same as no gods, or any number of definitions of gods I have never even considered - it's simply that I don't know nearly enough to even begin deducing the answer!).
Well, the book of John has Jesus say that the only true God is the Father in John 17:3 , which seems goes perfectly with Philo's thoughts about Emanation. John 1 also, has the idea that logos was the tool which God created all things *THROUGH* him not as the God who created.
2 books in new testatment in response to philo??.....that rules out bible as literal words of God
About Philo’s birth is also claimed to be at around 25 b.c.e
im also confused you set the soul is virtuous the fact that isnt the ract that is imprisoned by the body suggest it is not as virtuous and that the body control and has weakness in the way that if someone is dictated by someone it shows a problem with that that they are to weak or allow people to take over which is character flaw
I conjecture that The Letter to The Hebrews was a joint effort by Apollos and Prisillia. TK
Could be!
Or a letter written in Hebrew by Paul then translated into Greek by Luke
The word that was originally know before Logos weotho, or whatever.... could you give me more information please
I'm sorry I'm not quite following your question. If you would like to contact me, feel free to do so at bruce@brucegore.com. I'll try to help out as best I can. Thanks!
The word you bring up at 21:48. If you could also give a layman's definition of the greek words theon and theos as found in John 1:1, that would be splendid.
from the horses mouth
Ok, the word is 'uios theou' which is Greek for 'son of God.' My point is that Philo called the Logos the 'son of God,' sounding somewhat like John in John's Gospel. The word theos (or theon, accusative case) is the standard word for 'God' or 'god' in the Greek language. In the New Testament, it is the word for the true God, but it is also used to refer to pagan gods of polytheism. It is, in other words, pretty similar to the English word 'God' or 'god.'
Thanks.
Bruce, since I see that you reply to comments: I wonder your take on the documentary theory. I understand that the theory does not hold much weight today. I find that a theory which considers a blending of traditions into one appealing. Call it 'documentary', 'supplementary' or 'fragmentary' theory.
I think the documentary hypothesis has utility in some cases, but it has been commonly used as a weapon against the integrity of scripture, usually based on naturalistic assumptions that are not inherently part of the hypothesis.
Thank you Bruce. Do you believe the hypothesis is true: that the Talmud is a composition from varied traditions into one?
I'm not an expert on the Talmud, but it strikes me as probable that the Talmud was compiled from more than one strand. Thanks again.
amazing lectures ….. im a 7th day Adventist but I come here to learn about the historical context of certain things great work Bruce, but wasn't elegabalus (the cross dressing helios/nimrod worshiper, didn't he have a piece of the ark that he kept as a relic or was that shalmanesser?) the most insane and worst emperor?
@@jasonbourne5142 SDA is the remnant church of God having both the spirit of Prophecy, which is the testimony of Christ, the word = the law and the Prophets, you should study our bible more 2500 day prophecy 1260 years of littlehorn rule from justinian decree/538ad until 1798ad and the 70 weeks of Daniel Christ opened the sealed recording books in Heaven in the Most Holy (Heavenly) and begins an investigative judgement 1844
@@jasonbourne5142 they are called time prophecies and they are used as shadows of each other to show how God uses a pattern repeat and enlarge things that were once literal become spiritual
@@jasonbourne5142 and what has Ellen White ever said that goes against the KJV bible? nothing, so much so that her critics said she plagiarised the bible???? what??? how can u plagiarise the bible isn't that just quoting and elaborating on scripture by using scripture to show the links
@@jasonbourne5142 you need to watch some serious walter veith sermons and some great Stephen borh sermons id throw in a lot of Paul Godfrey here ill make it easy for u … btw Happy Sabbath ua-cam.com/video/e3hmw1qWT6Y/v-deo.html
@@jasonbourne5142 please watch this video if you dare to challenge your preconceptions my advice is ask for Holy Spirit to give insight and discernment before watching …..ua-cam.com/video/7CtdGm556gM/v-deo.html
how can a neutral soul come from perfect G-d if gd is supposed to hyptothetically be a perfect being why would emmit something neutral neutreal is other than perfect
Philo judeaus was PHD GOD AND VERY IMPORTANT TO THE OLD TESTAMENT !!!!!
It’s really hard to read John and not say he’s being influenced by Philo.
Line by line he is refuting Philo. "In the beginning was the Word", meaning the Word was already there and not an emanation, "And the Word was with God", not an emanation underneath God, "And the Word was God", as in God Himself, not a second god.
@Disciple Mike you everywhere 😅
@@faithfultheologygot to be exhausting
@@tactlacker kamala laugh 😃
I don't think Gore characterizes Aristotle correctly at all. Aristotle is more concerned about God as Actualization, not emanation, both pure act as an intellect and principle of motion and final end in nature.
Are these high school students?
1 John is a response to Jewish Gnosticism
well the what is as clean animals and food is still coming from the old covenant and is still binding today, it was not taken away
The law is still binding no matter what idol worshippers say
Did these kids seriously not know what an allegory was?
Indeed, since no one can claim with any objectivity to know God, it is unlikely that the author of Colossians was in a position to “correct” Philo. If that author happened to be Paul we must remember that he too had some questionable theology such as belief in the existence of ‘third heaven’; 2 Corinthians [12;2]. Moreover, in the battle for ideas there are no prizes for coming second in the race to publish. So unless it can be established that some Christian writer wrote an account of the 'logos' prior to Philo it is quite reasonable to conclude what the ‘prof’ is in strenuous denial about @(23:35).
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback! It is quite certain that no Christian writer relied on the notion of 'logos' prior to Philo, because Philo himself comes before any known Christian writings. Logos was a well-established idea in the Hellenistic tradition. Christian writers, and especially John, co-opted the term hoping to make the message of Christ accessible to a Greek oriented world.
Philo is conclusive proof that the gospels are a fiction. His Uncle was a Pharisee in 30CE. Philo says nothing about any claims.
Thanks for your perspective. Needless to say, some very fine scholars would question your 'conclusive proof,' as I'm sure you are aware.
***** I'm sure your "fine scholars" are paid by Christians. 500 prophets rising from the dead and not one historian mentions it, yeah I'll buy that. Like I said, Philo and Josephus had relatives who were Pharisees in 30CE. Obviously didn't happen. Don't let the truth interfere with your wishful thinking
Fair enough. I'll keep that in mind!
Plato writes about Socrates, but people quote them as Plato’s so is Socrates a fictional figure?
Best evidence is that Socrates was a historical figure, but he never wrote much. Plato is his biographer and interpreter.
@@brucegore4373 Socrates left no writings of his own. Neither did many other historical figures in antiquity. For example, Confucius seems to have been a strictly oral teacher, with his sayings being written down from memory by his disciples.
pronounced feelo [means friend] thats not his name
You really need to brush up on Philo and his logos contribution to Christianity.
Is this a High School class?
These are high school seniors.
Typically Christian. Critical of Philo. I didn't realize that there WAS a right and a wrong philosophy. But of course the Christian view is the RIGHT one. Stick to teaching not editorializing.
If one accepts the idea that the Bible really is allegory and takes the time to examine it as such, then it is possible to find a hidden history in its pages. However, it is helpful to first read the works of Plato (particularly Cratylus) which are referred to as the "wide" (G: platys) "gate" in Matthew 7:13 and whose "Academy" is referred to as "Aceldama" (or field of blood) in Acts 1:19.
Philo's archetype is found in Plato's Ion. Ion was a false interpreter of Homer from Ephesus and thus we should should not be surprised when Philo is assigned the name of "John" in the Gospel accounts. The opening verses of the Gospel of John are intended to be an allegoric interpretation of the opening verses of Genesis and this is intended as an allusion to Philo's work and it is designed to identify Philo with the "disciple whom Christ loved". (This does not mean Philo wrote the Gospel of John. The author is simply playing the role of Philo.)
But Philo was two faced. He told some truth (male) about allegoric interpretation along with lies (female). The name "Philo" means "friend" in Greek and this idea can be represented as "merea'" in Hebrew, thus Philo was also "Mary". In other words, he was a hermaphrodite drawing on the hermetics of Hermes and the "love" of Aphrodite (the name Aphrodite is thought to be derived from the Greek word "aphros" which means "foam"). This serves to explain Da Vinci's ambiguous treatment of the Apostle John in his Last Supper painting which means that the so the so-called "Da Vinci Code" actually predated Da Vinci by centuries. (The word "grail" is thought to be derived from the Latin "cratalis" which serves to emphasize the importance of Plato's Cratylus.)
I have determined through numerous observations that "water" serves as a metaphor for "writings", "walking" serves as a metaphor for "interpretation", and "wine" is a metaphor for "philosophy". Since Philo only did superficial interpretations of writings, he "walked on water" and since he also converted the writings associated with Moses to a type of philosophy he also changed "water into wine". The "salvation" offered by Christ is the salvation of literal lies.
Of course, Josephus, who is portrayed as the pretended father of Jesus and the "empty" tomb maker, provided the other half of the Gospel stories with his hidden history of Christianity's origins.
The difficulty with an allegorical hermeneutic comes down to its inherent subjectivism. Allegorical interpretation gives rise to remarkable speculation, but little certainty, as witnessed by the radically differing perspectives through history of those who have taken this approach. Thanks for the feedback.
We have been fooled into believing that metaphors can have multiple meanings which naturally leads to the assumption that any interpretation is subjective. We are actually dealing with a standardized system in which each real world idea can have multiple metaphors but each metaphor has only one real world meaning. In Kabbalah and all other forms esoteric wisdom, everything that is openly defined and described nearly entirely in metaphor. A secret oral tradition contains the key. In Kabbalah, this is known as Da'at.
A secret is only a real secret if it any be proven, otherwise it belongs to the realm of rumor and conjecture. So, all those esoteric groups that claim some ancient secret are either lying about having a real secret or they hold knowledge that is provable. And if you try to imagine what kind of ancient secret could be provable and also have sustained value (making the secret worth keeping), only an ancient code employed for centuries fits the bill. All other forms of evidence can be brushed aside as forgeries or inconclusive.
Of course, it is possible to misidentify the real meaning of a metaphor, but eventually any error will be exposed as other metaphors are correctly identified. We have been told a multitude of times that we are being deceived and yet we still ignore the obvious.
In Mark 4:10-12 we are informed that:
10 When he (Christ) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,
“ ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”
If you accept that God is real, then I suppose you might think that this is just the way God plays his game with humans, but if you reject religion, then this appears to be an admission that knowledge is being suppressed to keep outsiders in distress.
Also, if we are willing to open our eyes and view the above as an obvious allusion to what Socrates said about the Sophist Protagoras, then we must realize that secrets are being placed in front of us, but we are too stupid to see them:
"In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples." Plato's Theaetetus
Now, you can argue all you want about allegoric interpretation as being subjective, but if actions by a fictional Christ can easily be recognized as an allusion to the actions of a prominent Sophist, then it is difficult to come up with any interpretation other than there being a definite link between Sophism and Christianity. It should be obvious to any reasonable person.
None of the Logos understand The "CHRIST" he thought them as children, and Christianity to the Hellenistic mean more power for Arianism Christologic, There was real multitudes of War in 330 b.c.e and the modern clergy is claiming these systems of thought that are 100% contrary to the spiritual there essence v. physical fact, as Gerald Massey Lectures, unraveled the thought as "Faith v. Fact, and led us down a conversation which ones narrow knowledge has to be payd for rather than earned as an initiation by a measly 4 years of knowledge and education. We know real knowledge is by the True Priest. Not Converts, To this day In my opinion the closet priest is the little old Librarian has more knowledge than any professor or so called Theologian.
Philo and the Roman’s wrote the gospels and created Jesus. If this isn’t obvious why not?
You really believe that Jesuit heretic?
Lol no respected historian believes that nonsense.
Then why were there prophesies almost 500 years before the life of Jesus, from the book of Daniel, which predicted that Jesus would come to earth at the exact year that he did? Or the 5000 year old book of Enoch, that gave a 7000 year timeline prophecy, which pinpointed the first coming of Messiah (Jesus) in the year 4,000?
People like you are absolutely clueless and have no truth in yourselves.
yep
@@-kepha8828 ua-cam.com/play/PL3eyDZDmL7Yi-xhxOxtAq94wCYSInEbyY.html
Galatians 4:24
Shouldn't you use Chronologic order in this narrow lecture. Since the history of all these Gnostiics were NOT the original authors of anything. Specially of there Education. In my naïve opinion. In Alexandria at this time, who? or What Power controlled the trade of Commerce along that nile valley and who was the Masters of ALL Knowledge. Book, Dr. Gerald Massey Lectures, he ponders the "Faith" v. "Fact," I think people that teach about these lectures should surrender to the fact that all this misguided history is in a quandary that according to the authors of history we have only recovered 1% of Greek and Roman history? adding in a few vowels of education has propagated and Superimposed on the real "OUR-STORY." Philo was a born Jew? of a Hellenistic Converts not even close to traditions of the Hebrews of Ancient Kemet. book, Stolen Legacy" Author George M James, 1954 Greek Philosophy.3 Points..Are there "J" in the Hebrew language? Are there "J" in the Greek.If Cairo museum has the earliest picture of "THE" "CHRIST" I think that should mean something to the unlearned. Alexandria is "Arius" Christological Arianism, Alexander the Great was a thief and a Tyrant taught by a Arianist Classism who never had a true God or Spirituality as non have never in Alexandria that fell as fast as they built it up,
He cannot use chronological order when speaking of Philo, because NOONE actually knows the years that Philo lived, or the years in which any of Philos writings were completed. Its literally all guesswork. Noone even attempts to label any of Philos writings to a timeframe on a timeline. Noone has the slightest clue. It's also very possible that Philo wasnt the author of many of the writings attributed to him.
Philo wasnt a hebrew/jew by birth, he was a Greek by birth. He became a hellenistic jew, meaning a Greek Jew who became a convert and not an original hebrew by blood.
Philo was one of the first Greek Hellinistic Jewish scholars to mix greek mythology with hebrew teachings.
Josephus, the historian of the Jews who also lived in the 1st century, says that Philo’s family surpassed all others in the nobility of its lineage. His father had apparently played a prominent role in Palestine before moving to Alexandria. Philo’s brother Alexander Lysimachus, who was a general tax administrator in charge of customs in Alexandria, was the richest man in the city and indeed must have been one of the richest men in the Hellenistic world, because Josephus says that he gave a huge loan to the wife of the Jewish king Agrippa I, also known as King Harod, and that he contributed the gold and silver with which nine huge gates of the Temple in Jerusalem were overlaid. Alexander was also extremely influential in Roman imperial circles, being an old friend of the emperor Claudius and having acted as guardian for the emperor’s mother.
Alexander had two sons, Tiberius Julius Alexander and Marcus Julius Alexander. After 41 AD, Alexander and Agrippa I arranged for their children to be married. Alexander's second son Marcus Julius was wed to princess Berenice. (Antiquities 19.276-277) Marcus Julius died prematurely without producing any children with Berenice.[1][2] Tiberius Julius was the Procurator of Judea from 46 to 48 and the Prefect of Egypt from 66 to 69. In 70, he participated in the Siege of Jerusalem as Titus' second-in-command.
So as you can see, these are fake jews, who ultimately fought with Rome, against the real jews. Just as Jesus said, "they are not jews, who say they are jews". Philo was a pharasee, Jesus exposed the pharasees as following oral tradition of babylon over tue written Torah. Philo was no different. Matter of fact, itsbelieved, and seemingly recorded, that Philo never even went on the pilgrimage feasts to jerusalem.
See, Philos dad sided with Palestine. Philo sided with the Greeks, Plato, and philosophy through astrology, and his brother Alexander sided with Tome, while Alexander's son fought as Titus right hand man in the siege of Jerusalem. These are NOT real jews.
More on King Agrippa 1:
Herod Agrippa, also known as Herod II or Agrippa I (Hebrew: אגריפס; 11 BC - AD 44), was a King of Judea from AD 41 to 44 and of Philip's tetrarchy from 39. He was the last ruler with the royal title reigning over Judea and the father of Herod Agrippa II, the last king from the Herodian dynasty. The grandson of Herod the Great and son of Aristobulus IV and Berenice,[1] he is the king named Herod in the Acts of the Apostles 12:1: "Herod (Agrippa)" (Ἡρῴδης Ἀγρίππας).
Agrippa governed Judea to the satisfaction of the Jews. His zeal, private and public, for Judaism is recorded by Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and the rabbis.[5] Perhaps because of this, his passage through Alexandria in AD 38[7] instigated anti-Jewish riots.[4] At the risk of his own life, or at least of his liberty, he interceded with Caligula on behalf of the Jews, when that emperor was attempting to set up his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem shortly before his death in AD 41. Agrippa's efforts bore fruit and he persuaded Caligula to temporarily rescind his order, thus preventing the Temple's desecration.[8] However, Philo of Alexandria recounts that Caligula issued a second order to have his statue erected in the Temple,[9] which was only prevented by Caligula's death.
The Acts of the Apostles, chapter 12 (Acts 12:1-23), where Herod Agrippa is called "King Herod",[10] reports that he persecuted the Jerusalem church, having James son of Zebedee killed and imprisoning Peter around the time of a Passover. Blastus is mentioned in Acts as Herod's chamberlain (Acts 12:20).
After Passover in AD 44, Agrippa went to Caesarea, where he had games performed in honour of Claudius. In the midst of his speech to the public a cry went out that he was a god, and Agrippa did not publicly react
@@-kepha8828 thanks for the correction, as you said , so eloquently ," no one know's who wrote it" my mistake is said "born jew" which i meant convert. Be honest i don't remember writing on this post i didn't realize it was 4 years ago.. Thank's for your reply good to see people still read books..
@@spiritualwarriorhealer6154 lol, I was actually reading a book composed of Philos writings, because Philo testifies only of a luni solar sabbath. So I figured I'd do a search on Philo on youtube.
I wasnt trying to correct you, you were pretty spot on with your comment, I was more trying to side with you, and not correct you.
It's my belief that Philo was a jew in name only, and that while he had good understanding of the old testament, he was clueless in how to apply it, which is why he was unaware of Messiah, and leaned more on Greek beliefs than Hebrew ones. As I stated, its believed that Philo did not even make the pilgrimage feasts to Jerusalem 3 times per year. Which apparently many false converts rejected. Although they claimed these beliefs with their lips, their hearts were far from the walk.
Anyways, Philo writes that the MOON determines the periods of seven days, according to the 4 lunar phases of the month, which he says do not start until AFTER the conjunction new moon day.
The hebrew word for week is "shabua" and is defined as "a period of seven days". That's important, because Philo literally writes that the MOON determines the "periods of seven days" (the week) starting AFTER the conjunction new moon day, according to the light the moon receives from the sun.
So where was Philo getting this concept? From the book of 1st Enoch! Enoch 73 tells us that the sun gives its light to the moon, in PERIODS OF SEVEN DAYS (which is the hebrew definition of a WEEK).
The solar weekly cycle, invented by Rome, was not implemented u till 321AD under evil Emperor Constantine. And this solar cycling planetary week, that names its days after false planetary gods, and the days they were to be worshiped and honored, was not enforced on the jews until 358AD.
This is why 2nd century "church father" (their words, not mine) Iranaeus and Ckement of Alexander BOTH wrote that the "week was changed by Rome". Clement even wrote that the biblical week was determined by the 4 lunar phases of the moon, each lasting 7 days.
They all seems to know fully well that the true sabbathrequired the use of BOTH the two great luminary witnesses, the sun AND THE MOON, as Genesis 1:14 commands.
Daniel 7:25 said that the 4th beast (which 4 Ezra says was Rome) would think to change Gods holy days and law.
The 7th day sabbath was one of Gids holy days, which Leviticus 23 twice states is a MOEDIM. Jubilees 50:13 also states that the 7th day sabbath is a Moedim.
Psalm 104:19 and Ecclesiasticus 43:6-8 state that the MOON must appoint the MOEDIM.
Which is EXACTLY what Enoch, Philo, Josephus, Iranaeus, Clement, etc testified to, until Rome fulfilled Daniel 7:25's warning, and changed the week to a solar only week, a solar only sababth.
@@-kepha8828 thanks ,Drop that book info breda.. You far wiser on the subject my memory has been beat up pretty bad from all the different information. I would like to know your favorite one of all time book collection of course..
you look so sad when the people are living before you're done
at least on youtube people watch because they want to
A mean tone. Narcissistic?
Philo created the trinity christians took the idea from him
Jewish gnosticism stew from Egypt = palatable Christian syncretism
Seems more like indoctrination than education.
Sorry sir, Philo was not Jewish by birth. He was born Greek, and converted to Hellinistic Pharasuitical judaism, with a minor in kabbalistic thought, spacificly gemmantria, and philosophy. Yes indeed he was a hybrid, of many different beliefs, and he idolized Plato, who played a rather priestly role in Alexander the great's life, through the passed on teachings of Aristotle. which is why Philo grew up greek, and only converted to the hybrid hellinized form of judaism at the time.
Anyone who says that Philo greatly influenced the new testament, is making this claim on zero fact, a ton of assumption, and misguided "history". You lose all credibility with me. You dont just get to add to his story, based on things that make sence to you, with no fact to back it up. That's not how "history" is supposed to work. No wonder people keep getting up and leaving.
You claimed "Philo probably never met any of the apostles, and the apostles probably never met him".
Why on earth do you keep making statements, that you have absolutely zero clue about? It's as if you just inject words to fill space, while acknowledging that your just creating assumption with no facts to base them upon. WHY?
finish watching the video. He specifically states that the NT authors wrote AGAINST Philo
@@Thedisciplemike NT authors never mention Philo. If you want to pretend they do, that's a deceitful error on your part.
@@-kepha8828 what does that have anything to do with it? I agree that Philo didn't influence the NT, as what Gore is saying as well. On the contrary, they were most definitely arguing against the Gnostic heresies, which were indeed influenced by Philo
@@Thedisciplemike no, you dont get to keep making up crap. Philo was NOT a gnostic and no scholars accuse him of being one.
Yes NT authors spoke of gnostics, but AGAIN, you do not get to then say "the NT authors wrote about Philo". It is scary deceitful how both you amd this video maker take these liberties of tossing Philo in those categories. And in pretty sure you recognize your ignorance in doing this but wont admit to it.
@@-kepha8828 holy crap dude, you have such an accusative spirit. Philo absolutely laid the ground work for what became Gnostic ideas. It's extremely clear that John's Logos ideas had Philos in mind, as with Paul. It doesn't mean they looked up to him. But they simply expounded on the ideas. It's incredibly dishonest of you to deny this fact. Most scholars agree with me on this, but what many of the scholars get wrong was that John was writing AGAINST Philo, not in favor of him.