.
Jesus answers the proto-trinitarians: ... This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only
broke the Sabbath but he was also saying the-god to be his own Father, thus making himself equal to the-god.
Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son is not able to do anything
from himself except what he sees the Father doing; for what things that one is doing, that the Son does likewise ...
I do not receive glory from men, but I know that you do not have the love of the-god in yourselves. I have come in
the name of the Father of me, and you do not receive me; but if another comes in his own name, that one you will
receive. How are you able to believe, receiving glory from one another, and the glory from the only God you do not
seek?" -- John 5:18-19, 41-44 / Prophet Version
.
] In 'How Ancient is the Trinity Doctrine?' Wesley P. Walters sayeth: <snip> To Philo, therefore, the Word of God
] is the eternal, uncreated Word containing all the fullness of God and bearing His image. That divine image which
] the Word bears is the image in which man was created. The Word is further the sustainer, upholder and ruler of
] the world, carrying on the governing of all things, as God's viceroy, and containing all God's fullness. While the 
] Word is not a created thing and carries on all the functions of God, Philo is clear that there are not two gods
.
wurm say: Right. And this is because Philo, like the Egyptian prophet who wrote the gospel of John, is a monotheist.
.
] WW: -- although he does not attempt to explain how this can be.
.
It can be easily explained on the basis that there is only one god: the-god, being the one and only true God!
.
] WW: Philo's teaching is, therefore, very close to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
.
Actually, Philo's teaching is not at all close to the post-biblical doctrine of the Trinity. The Logos-theology, in fact,
goes back for centuries, all the way to Heraclitus; and when allied to it's twin, the wisdom-theology (eg. Sophia),
goes back for thousands of years deep into the history of Israel and ancient Egypt. This long and LONG tradition
obviously did not spring full-blown into the minds of those forward-looking Jewish theologians at Alexandria working
around the beginnings of the common-era.
.
So how is it, then, that anyone can consider that the Logos-theology of Philo and John is in any way a step toward
the trinitarian theology? ... Clearly, it is nothing of the kind. Indeed, it is not even a step AWAY from monotheism!
This is what the trinitarians can't seem to grasp. To cross over the line between 'divine' to 'divinity' seems like a
simple and easy step for foolish believers; and perhaps it even has some slight logical appeal. Why, even the almost-
wise Justin Martyr succumbed to this temptation, and openly declared that Jesus is "God and man".
.
But this was a serious mistake on his part; and one that was picked up by almost everyone eventually. Nevertheless,
this is a line that should never be crossed by any theology claiming to have its roots within the ancient traditions
of monotheistic thought. Let me therefore emphasize once again that the Logos-theology is NOT a violation of the
principle of 'the-one-god'. Think of it this way: the cosmic-father is like a star, and the Logos is like the star-light
(JC=son=light) that radiates away from that star. Is there then any reason to confuse the sun with the sunlight that
travels from its source to us here on Earth?
.
Of course, ignorant theologians can certainly confuse themselves by thinking about it overmuch, but no sane and
responsible theology could ever part company with reality to the extent that the trinitarians do. So all that WW's
(rather biased) review of the texts show is that the prophet John was obviously a fascinated and attentive student
of Philo's writings. John's position is accordingly the same as Philo's; namely, that the Logos is divine, as the prophet
John clearly stated in verse 1:1c ... BEFORE some trinitarian-editor came along and changed 'divine' to 'god' (by
simply dropping the iota), thereby making the prophet seem a liar to his own theology!
.
] Philo reached his conclusions without the aid of the New Testament
] and certainly without deriving his ideas from pagan notions of deity.
.
Here we see WW's ignorance laid bare for all to see. Philo did in fact derive much of the basic substance of the
concept of the Logos from the older greek-philosophy (which WW foolishly calls pagan-notions).
.
] WW: The Old Testament teaching that the Angel of Yahweh is really the presence of Yahweh
] Himself seems to have strongly influenced Philo's ideas.
.
Not as strongly as the philosophical concept of the Logos; which, once adopted, he then systematically
applied to the scriptures; with rather amazing results.
.
] WW: To relegate the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, to a fourth-century adaptation of paganism
.
whatever that means ...
.
] is to ignore the conclusions that several Jewish theologians and teachers had reached four centuries
] earlier, from God's revelations given to Israel before the time of the coming of Christ.
.
And not just to Israel, but *also* to the early Greek philosophers and sages; in order to further prepare the way
for the coming of the Christos, *and* the understanding of this same Anointed-One by means of the Logos-
theology as developed by Philo and John.
.
] At the very time that the Word was becoming flesh (John 1:1,14), Jewish writers were already beginning 
] to see that God's Word could in some way be distinguished from God the Father Himself, yet have all the
] fullness of God contained in Him.
.
The 'fullness of deity' when applied to the Logos does NOT demand 'equality with god', as you slyly suggest
that it does. On the contrary, the use of 'son' and 'father' to describe the relationship between god and Logos
naturally implies that the Son is subordinate to the Father. And this is indeed what the prophet John (and
indeed the NT as a whole) consistently teaches us.
.
Philo and John *and* the ancient greek philosophers are *all* in agreement that the Logos is divine. It is only
silly theologians (like Mr Walters here) who boldly ASSUME that 'divine' can *only* mean 'equality with god'.
What a bogus argument this is! The only thing that WW has proved in this essay is that the Trinity is NOT a
biblical doctrine after all, and, in fact, is contrary to both the spirit and letter of the *entire* Logos tradition.
.
Well done, Wesley! :D
.