What's the word?

[savagewind]

I'm pretty sure that giving birth to a child makes you its more regardless of any law.


I have no idea.

Of course she was his mother! A woman need not give birth to a child to be its mother.

@Tumah It is all about establishing God's Kingdom according to righteousness. The man Jesus Christ is a spiritual man. That he wasn't like us is because the law is his mother symbolically speaking. His mother was a Orthodox believer. Whatever she did she did respecting The Law. Like you. Right? Then her son was born out of that. He is not Orthodox, but you knew that.

 

[Tumah]

Of course she was his mother! A woman need not give birth to a child to be its mother.

I give up.

 

[savagewind]

I give up.

Does this mean I win?

 

[savagewind]

The leader (who is also a teacher) of God's people has to be human because God gave the Earth to humans, but humans stray. They always, always stray.
So the law was instituted so that it might cause to be born a human leader, but one who could not stray. They say it was possible for him to have strayed, but I do not believe them. The reason why is because the law, the word and God's spirit are all in this together. The union of the law, the word and the spirit cannot be broken. Jesus has all three and always has had them imo.

 

[savagewind]

I can see that it is natural to put the law first. But really Spirit is first, then the word, and then the law.

According to the NT God knew from the beginning that we should have God's son to lead us. If Jesus just popped into existence it would be magic, something that God does not want humans to do. It is against the law. So the Law was instituted so that Jesus could arrive the proper way. He is God's Word because God's word means God's promises and by Jesus all the promises of God are fulfilled.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Good post! I can see how logos when defined as "logic or reason" would be more appropriate. I wonder why the author didn't use sophia instead (which would make more sense to me), unless the author was referring to Philo's Hellenistic concept of logos that Augustus linked above.

It helps to consider that the context doesn't end in chapter 1 but John continues to allude to the Edenic story throughout half of the book. For example in chapter 3 Jesus says "Flesh gives birth to flesh but spirit gives birth to spirit" a clear allusion to the spirit hovering over the deep waters and as the opposite of the deep waters. I can probably find an allusion to logos in every chapter up to around chapter 9. After chapter 9 its a series of stories leading up to the crucifixion.

Christians in general don't have any idea what a Pharisee is which makes this book somewhat toxic for us. In this book they are simply the foil for Jesus in this story, like people made of cardboard. This book characterizes Jesus ministry as the creation of a world over their old formless world. There are numerous ideas I've heard to explain this, one being that John is an anti-semitic book. It may be. Its a mixed bag, because it helps to decode some common Christian phrases such as "From the beginning," "Alpha and omega," and "Author and finisher of our faith." In chapter 17 we have a very awesome prayer of Jesus asking that all his disciples be united in love. That verse has saved lives...but... After this there is the terrible passion play where he's convicted and crucified due to the charges of some riled up Jews who seem very irrational.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

I have no idea if that's what I wanted to know, because I have no idea what you're saying. I'm trying to get an understanding of John 1 over here. John says the word was with god and the word was god, etc. A word is something that is spoken. If it wasn't spoken, then its not a word, its a thought, right? So what is John saying?

@atanu has given a good Hindu intro re "the Word" and its four components or maybe iterations is a better term. When my (Hindu) teacher was explaining John 1 to us, he clarified it by pointing out that "The Word" is not a scriptural text (of any religion) nor a man's body, but a transcendental sound, i.e., the "Sound of Creation." (By transcendental, we mean of that "God" Who transcends senses, mind, intellect and ego.) Is there a parallel concept (Sound of Creation) in Abrahamic teachings which you would be able to refer to with this explanation?

Although it would be utterly ludicrous (and untrue) to say that Hindus "own" that sound, in Hinduism, the Word is spelled AUM (3 Sanskrit letters, each with a corresponding sound Ahh-Uuu-Mmm), a symbol which represents the electron, proton, and neutron (among other triads ), the building blocks of the manifested universe. There is a fourth sound symbol in the written representation of this transcendental sound (the dot) which is the "bindu," roughly meaning Source, a pointer if you will to God Itself. (The first definition online is only speaking about an ornamental dot placed on the forehead, a woefully inadequate definition.) The fourth sound trails the Mmmm sound when the lips are locked and is sounded at the top of the nasal passage. Sanskrit is not the language of Hinduism, it is the native language of every soul. And even though a human can intone the four sounds and in Hinduism is taught to do so, until a soul is AtOne with God, the human cannot duplicate the sound, only mimic it. Which does have its benefits. My teacher also says that the Name of a thing is also the thing itself. I'm still working on grokking that one! He was referring to mantra, so here might not be the place to go into that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This seems like an obvious question, but I don't see it having been asked.

The NT says that Jesus is the word made flesh. What's the word? And what's the purpose of pointing out that it was a word?
I mean, I know Psalms 33:6 says, "With the word of G-d, the heavens were made..." But obviously that's referring to all the times Genesis 1 says "And G-d said". "Let there be light" are the two words that created light, etc.
And Isa. 40:8 says "...and the word of G-d will stand forever." But on context, that's obviously referring to the prophecy of that chapter. As many prophecies have something along the lines of "and the word of G-d was to me (Jer. 1:4)" or "Hear the word of G-d (Jer. 2:4, Isa. 66:5)".
So we know that those "words" refer to things that G-d metaphorically spoke and we know what those words were.

So what's the other word meant to be?
I'm tempted to say, "Poof!", but...

inb4: the bird.

The NT says in that passage you quoted (John 1) that the Word which made the heavens is Jesus. Word = logos = mind. We have the very thoughts of God when we have Jesus. The divine Word, the originator of all words, of pure Hebrew, of all knowledge, is Jesus. He has incarnated in flesh to fulfill the requirements of the law which we cannot fulfill, being made like sinful flesh yet perfect, He condemned sin in the flesh as a sacrifice.

 

[Tumah]

The NT says in that passage you quoted (John 1) that the Word which made the heavens is Jesus. Word = logos = mind. We have the very thoughts of God when we have Jesus. The divine Word, the originator of all words, of pure Hebrew, of all knowledge, is Jesus. He has incarnated in flesh to fulfill the requirements of the law which we cannot fulfill, being made like sinful flesh yet perfect, He condemned sin in the flesh as a sacrifice.

Thanks but I've already gotten a better logos by logos who are more logos than you.
Because according to your response logos means anything you want it to.

 

[atanu]

Couldn't you say the same thing with action instead of speech? That is, starting from the initial thought to perform an action, until the action is performed?

I think yes. I pointed out in the previous post that the mode of action may vary. I repeat:

Within the pashyanti-vak exists the nature's iccha-shakti, or the power of will. Within the madhyama-vak exists the nature's jnana-shakti, or the power of knowledge. And within the vaikhari-vak exists the nature's kriya-shakti, or power of action.

 

[Shem Ben Noah]

Given that the word is 'Logos', a word from Greek culture its good to start with the Greek idea and see where it goes from there.

Exactly.

It's the Greek form of Pantheism repackaged by the Greek author of John.

 

[psychoslice]

The word is the same as the Hindu OM.

Aum or Om (in Devanagari ॐ) is one of the most sacred symbols in Hinduism. In Sanskrit known as praṇava (प्रणव) lit. " to sound out loudly" or oṃkāra (ओंकार) lit. " oṃ syllable") Hindus consider Aum to be the universal name of the Lord and that it encompasses all of creation.

 

[Estro Felino]

So we know that those "words" refer to things that G-d metaphorically spoke and we know what those words were.

.

I think that we Christians believe that the Creation has an intrinsic meaning, without which our existence would be meaningless. Sometimes I like thinking of God as a huge book, where all the things of the world are listed and where each thing has its own meaning, and by meaning I mean the reason why that thing was created.
We often don't understand this meaning, but this meaning is the Word (Logos or Dabar) the Gospel speaks of.
That's why God is considered "Eternal and Infinite Knowledge (and Wisdom)".

I strongly disagree with St. Paul when he says that the flesh is against the Spirit. Actually one thing doesn't exist without the other..so the flesh can be meaningless unless we give her a Meaning which transcends her.
That's just my personal interpretation.

Btw...is it true that Dabar means both "word" and "thing"?...because if it does, my speech makes sense, I guess.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thanks but I've already gotten a better logos by logos who are more logos than you.
Because according to your response logos means anything you want it to.

Your answer is not on point. Respectfully, I gave the evangelical classic line here. We both know what logos should mean in English. Mind/logic - Biology, Numerology, Egyptology, log-os, log-ic.

The person who trusts Jesus for salvation has the mind/logic God shares.

 

[Augustus]

That link is a good find! So John took may have taken inspiration from or was influenced by Hellenistic philosophy and not something directly coming out of Tanach.
Would you say its wrong then, to assume that instances of "word" in Tanach are synonymous with the logos?
I can see how someone might find the Pe****ta lacking in this respect. The word מילתא is a common Aramaic word, found often in the Talmud and it doesn't imply any of these things.

That's quite possible, Philo was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher after all. When Jewish teachings were translated into Greek it would be hard to avoid Greek Logos and Jewish 'Logos' becoming intertwined. I'm not going to claim to have anything other than a superficial understanding of this issue though.

A bit more on the topic:


Logos has traditionally been defined as "word." This translation is misleading for it does not convey the full extent of its meaning. With regards to a "word," it is so in the sense that it is able to convey a meaning. As philosophy evolved, it is from this definition that Logos also developed. Logos became understood as the perceivable meaning of the universe that permeated and governed the natural world. Governing in the sense that it was "that which is rationally ordered, such as 'proportion' in mathematics or what we call 'law' in nature...

[Socratic] Logos became associated with rational discourse or a verifiable testimony {Phaedr. 61b; Tim. 26e). Socrates believed that the Logos was the internal discourse that took place in a person's mind as he/she spoke. Disregarding this form of reasoning was a misfortune in the mind of Plato {Phaedr. 89d). Logos however, was not able to reveal verifiable knowledge when it came to sensory perception (Theaet. 201c-210d). This form of reasoning was what Plato believed to be a more transcended form of being. The Logos played an important part in trying to discern the "idea of things, and could lead to real knowledge""

[Stoics] much like Heraclitus, identified the Logos with fire. Unlike his predecessor, Zeno expanded this concept to the point that the Logos acted as the fundamental element that pervaded all aspects of the universe and controlled its functions...The Logos was eventually likened to both God and nature since they were made of one essence.47 Consequently, the Logos could manifest itself in various ways throughout nature. But the Logos could only be traced to humans since they were the only creatures with a reasoning capability. Human rationality was innate for it was a marker of the imbedded reason that could be found in all areas of existence. Therefore, humankind's discernment was closely related to the relative order of nature. This school of thought eventually separated the Logos from the material world; the Logos became an aspect of the human soul...

Middle Platonism was the form of Platonism that developed between the First Century B.C.E. and the Third Century C.E. Concerning the Logos, Middle Platonism maintained a definition similar to that of Socrates and Plato. It differed on a cosmological level however. Unlike Stoics, Middle Platonists insisted on an immaterial realm (the KOOJKX; VOT|T6<. This realm, they believed, was made up of two divine realities. The first was the transcendent realm relative to the God(s). The second was an intermedial level between that realm and the natural world. It was occupied by a demiurgic figure who directed the order of the universe. (from The Johannine Jesus as the interpretive basis for the Johannine logos in light of Philo's logos)

and:

Following the Christian tradition of identifying pre-existing Christ with Wisdom and Logos, Origenes argues that „the first-born before all creation”- pre-existing Christ - involves in Himself throughout the intelligible world of the Father`s reasons as the Father`s Logos - almost in the same way that Plato's Demiurge contained ideas in his mind: "It may be called the Son as Word, because He transmits the secrets hidden in the Father, who is in a way intelligence (nous) whose word (logos) is the Son. For as in our case, a word is a transmitter (angelos) of ideas from mind, so the Word of God, who knew the Father, reveals to us the Father that He knew” (Logos Life - from Plato to early Christian doctrine)

The idea that the Divine Logos was the only way humans could understand an apophatic God does seem to fit Christian theology.

 

[Tumah]

That's quite possible, Philo was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher after all. When Jewish teachings were translated into Greek it would be hard to avoid Greek Logos and Jewish 'Logos' becoming intertwined. I'm not going to claim to have anything other than a superficial understanding of this issue though.

A bit more on the topic:


Logos has traditionally been defined as "word." This translation is misleading for it does not convey the full extent of its meaning. With regards to a "word," it is so in the sense that it is able to convey a meaning. As philosophy evolved, it is from this definition that Logos also developed. Logos became understood as the perceivable meaning of the universe that permeated and governed the natural world. Governing in the sense that it was "that which is rationally ordered, such as 'proportion' in mathematics or what we call 'law' in nature...

[Socratic] Logos became associated with rational discourse or a verifiable testimony {Phaedr. 61b; Tim. 26e). Socrates believed that the Logos was the internal discourse that took place in a person's mind as he/she spoke. Disregarding this form of reasoning was a misfortune in the mind of Plato {Phaedr. 89d). Logos however, was not able to reveal verifiable knowledge when it came to sensory perception (Theaet. 201c-210d). This form of reasoning was what Plato believed to be a more transcended form of being. The Logos played an important part in trying to discern the "idea of things, and could lead to real knowledge""

[Stoics] much like Heraclitus, identified the Logos with fire. Unlike his predecessor, Zeno expanded this concept to the point that the Logos acted as the fundamental element that pervaded all aspects of the universe and controlled its functions...The Logos was eventually likened to both God and nature since they were made of one essence.47 Consequently, the Logos could manifest itself in various ways throughout nature. But the Logos could only be traced to humans since they were the only creatures with a reasoning capability. Human rationality was innate for it was a marker of the imbedded reason that could be found in all areas of existence. Therefore, humankind's discernment was closely related to the relative order of nature. This school of thought eventually separated the Logos from the material world; the Logos became an aspect of the human soul...

Middle Platonism was the form of Platonism that developed between the First Century B.C.E. and the Third Century C.E. Concerning the Logos, Middle Platonism maintained a definition similar to that of Socrates and Plato. It differed on a cosmological level however. Unlike Stoics, Middle Platonists insisted on an immaterial realm (the KOOJKX; VOT|T6<. This realm, they believed, was made up of two divine realities. The first was the transcendent realm relative to the God(s). The second was an intermedial level between that realm and the natural world. It was occupied by a demiurgic figure who directed the order of the universe. (from The Johannine Jesus as the interpretive basis for the Johannine logos in light of Philo's logos)

and:

Following the Christian tradition of identifying pre-existing Christ with Wisdom and Logos, Origenes argues that „the first-born before all creation”- pre-existing Christ - involves in Himself throughout the intelligible world of the Father`s reasons as the Father`s Logos - almost in the same way that Plato's Demiurge contained ideas in his mind: "It may be called the Son as Word, because He transmits the secrets hidden in the Father, who is in a way intelligence (nous) whose word (logos) is the Son. For as in our case, a word is a transmitter (angelos) of ideas from mind, so the Word of God, who knew the Father, reveals to us the Father that He knew” (Logos Life - from Plato to early Christian doctrine)

The idea that the Divine Logos was the only way humans could understand an apophatic God does seem to fit Christian theology.

Very interesting. I kind of see John trying to appeal to Hellenic Jews by using concepts for his religion that they may have been familiar with from Philo's philosophy.

The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."...
The Logos is also designated as "high priest", in reference to the exalted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men: ἱκέτης,[19] and παράκλητος.[20]
- Philo's Logos on Wikipedia​

That piece is actually mind opening because you can really see some smilarities there and the timing isn't bad either.

 

[Orbit]

This seems like an obvious question, but I don't see it having been asked.

The NT says that Jesus is the word made flesh. What's the word? And what's the purpose of pointing out that it was a word?
I mean, I know Psalms 33:6 says, "With the word of G-d, the heavens were made..." But obviously that's referring to all the times Genesis 1 says "And G-d said". "Let there be light" are the two words that created light, etc.
And Isa. 40:8 says "...and the word of G-d will stand forever." But on context, that's obviously referring to the prophecy of that chapter. As many prophecies have something along the lines of "and the word of G-d was to me (Jer. 1:4)" or "Hear the word of G-d (Jer. 2:4, Isa. 66:5)".
So we know that those "words" refer to things that G-d metaphorically spoke and we know what those words were.

So what's the other word meant to be?
I'm tempted to say, "Poof!", but...

inb4: the bird.

The passage in written in Greek, and the word Logos is used, which can mean either Word literally or "reason" as in human intelligence. At least that was my understanding of how @lovemuffin explained it.

 

[2ndpillar]

This seems like an obvious question, but I don't see it having been asked.

The NT says that Jesus is the word made flesh. What's the word? And what's the purpose of pointing out that it was a word?
I mean, I know Psalms 33:6 says, "With the word of G-d, the heavens were made..." But obviously that's referring to all the times Genesis 1 says "And G-d said". "Let there be light" are the two words that created light, etc.
And Isa. 40:8 says "...and the word of G-d will stand forever." But on context, that's obviously referring to the prophecy of that chapter. As many prophecies have something along the lines of "and the word of G-d was to me (Jer. 1:4)" or "Hear the word of G-d (Jer. 2:4, Isa. 66:5)".
So we know that those "words" refer to things that G-d metaphorically spoke and we know what those words were.

So what's the other word meant to be?
I'm tempted to say, "Poof!", but...

inb4: the bird.

Tumah,
The "word" would refer to the "word of G-d". I don't know Hebrew, but I think the name for the 10 commandments of G-d, would be referred to as "words". The "law and the testimonies" (Is 8:20) would be a totality of the "word". That Yeshua was the "word made flesh" would refer to Yeshua coming to fulfill the word, and he is the "light" that can be used to understand what is written in the "word". If one truly believes in the "law and the testimonies", and actually heeds them, then they will be able to understand (have insight) from Daniel 12:10. The "wicked" (Dan 12:10) will not understand. That pretty much excludes most of the "Christian" community which has nailed the testimony of Yeshua to a pagan cross, and much of Judah which has yet to turn from their "wickedness" (Ez 33:15). The day of Hosea 6:1 has yet to come, when "Ephraim" and the "house of Judah" "return to the Lord". The "shepherds" of the "house of Judah" are in for a big surprise. (Ez 34:7-10) Ez 34:7-10 would also apply to Sim bar Jonas, who was told to "shepherd my sheep" (John 21:17). The shepherds were too interested in what they had to eat, and "devoured the flesh of the fat sheep" (Zech 11:16), and did "not care for the perishing".

 

[2ndpillar]

Are the Ten commandments "Laws"?

Because I know for a fact, that one of them is not being obeyed by anyone, because they do not know about it, because it has been changed. It being changed means the original did not last forever.

You don't believe me.

Dear savage,
The commandments weren't changed, it was the beast with two horns like a lamb (Rev 13:11), called "another beast", who is the same "another"/king, who will "arise after them", and will "intend to make alterations in times and in law" of Daniel 7:24-25. That king was Constantine, and it was his Roman church which was to "wear down the saints"/Inquistions. Constantine changed the day of rest to the "day of the sun" per his decree of 321 AD, his convened Council of Nicaea also changed from having one God to having 3 gods. This will only endure until the "end of the age" when the "extension of life" given to the beast ends (Dan 7:12). The "tares"/"those who commit lawlessness, of Mt 13 will be "gathered up" at the "end of the age", and "cast into a place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mt 13:42). The laws of the beast prevail until the beast/statue are crushed (Dan 2:34). These laws are the marks of the beast (Dt 6:8).

 

[savagewind]

Dear savage,
The commandments weren't changed, it was the beast with two horns like a lamb (Rev 13:11), called "another beast", who is the same "another"/king, who will "arise after them", and will "intend to make alterations in times and in law" of Daniel 7:24-25. That king was Constantine, and it was his Roman church which was to "wear down the saints"/Inquistions. Constantine changed the day of rest to the "day of the sun" per his decree of 321 AD, his convened Council of Nicaea also changed from having one God to having 3 gods. This will only endure until the "end of the age" when the "extension of life" given to the beast ends (Dan 7:12). The "tares"/"those who commit lawlessness, of Mt 13 will be "gathered up" at the "end of the age", and "cast into a place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mt 13:42). The laws of the beast prevail until the beast/statue are crushed (Dan 2:34). These laws are the marks of the beast (Dt 6:8).

I am certain the ninth commandment was changed, but not enough so anyone but me would notice.

It reads to not lie to someone else about your neighbor, but I am sure it means do not lie to yourself about your neighbor.

And in the first place, we take the plainest meaning of this commandmentaccording to the words (Thou shalt not bear false witness), as pertaining to the public courts of justice, where a poor innocent man is accused and oppressed by false witnesses in order to be punished in his body, property, or honor.

All the commandments are for everyone to obey. They made the ninth commandment only for those who are called to testify about someone.