Skip to main content
2 of 2
edited tags; edited title
curiousdannii
  • 20.8k
  • 14
  • 62
  • 130

Why did Christianity not follow Philo of Alexandria's definition of logos?

Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God." Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."

So why did the Christian view not follow this definition and instead make the leap to describing logos as part of God?

Darryl
  • 385
  • 1
  • 5
  • 13