In the beginning was the word

[James_S_Saint]

@V-OutOfTheWilderness

@Arcturus Descending

Simply put, what the writer was expressing was that Christ, as the Word, was with the father from the beginning through all of eternity…he did not just have his origin at the moment of conception. Sort of an expression of the Blessed Trinity (along with the Holy Spirit) for those who believe.

Though I’m agnostic, I might subtitute “Word” used here for Reality.

In the beginning was the reality. Now it finally makes sense. Thanks AD …

[size=150]CAUSE OF[/size] Reality …
…jezzz… get it straight.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

@James S Saint

The Logos (“reasoning”) of Jesus was proposed as their “Theory of Everything”.
Quantum Mechanics’s “Theory of Everything” is the “Standard Model”.

Again reference please. As I understand it we don’t have a ToE, and therefore no model.

@James S Saint

That is why they were so enthused about trying to find the Higg’s boson.

If I claimed the Logos is the ToE I would have gone with : “. . . and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

They call the Higgs Boson the God particle. But more accurately, according to the opening of the gospel of John, it’s the Jesus particle. The Higgs is scratchin down to the Jesus Logos.

Heraclitus of Ephesus coined the word Logos. To him it basically meant “the creating and sustaining force of the cosmos.” Now isn’t that what the narrator of John is saying? Didn’t John then, with the Logos concept, weave in Greek paganism into the early primitive Christ movement?

But I think I might be getting closer to understanding your claim that the Logos is the ToE. Thanks for explaining St. James …

[James_S_Saint]

You say “we” as if the entire human race was some open, visible collective.

@Wiki

The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, which mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles. Developed throughout the mid to late 20th century, The Standard Model is truly “a tapestry woven by many hands” because it was cobbled together by many brilliant minds, sometimes driven forward by new experimental discoveries, sometimes by theoretical advances. It was a collaborative effort in the largest sense, spanning continents and decades[1]. The current formulation was finalized in the mid 1970s upon experimental confirmation of the existence of quarks. Since then, discoveries of the bottom quark (1977), the top quark (1995), and the tau neutrino (2000) have given further credence to the Standard Model. More recently, the apparent detection of the Higgs boson completes the set of predicted particles. Because of its success in explaining a wide variety of experimental results, the Standard Model is sometimes regarded as a “theory of almost everything”.

They rightfully fear boasting that it is the actual “ToE”.

@V-OutOfTheWilderness

Heraclitus of Ephesus coined the word Logos. To him it basically meant “the creating and sustaining force of the cosmos.” Now isn’t that what the narrator of John is saying? Didn’t John then, with the Logos concept, weave in Greek paganism into the early primitive Christ movement?

A Logos can be properly fit into very many paradigms and remain accurate. It is mostly just an issue of what is being meant by the variety of names that a culture has been using. The Roman and Greek “gods” were actual/real concepts to those who understood it all. The population assumes all kinds of anthropomorphic wierdness and is seldom told otherwise (anything for the sake of faith). So no doubt John and his speakers spoke in terms of whatever the Greeks could understand. To do otherwise would be pretty foolish. But that isn’t the same as lying to get support. but rather merely attempting to communicate as closely as possible. I don’t know that they didn’t “cheat” in some way, but I doubt it.

As far as I can tell, even the Apostles couldn’t fully understand the Logos to the degree that Jesus would have preferred. Having experience in that type of arena, I can tell you that getting anyone to fully see a precise concept is very difficult. Gautama stated that after forty years and over 100 direct disciples, there was only one of them that actually “got it”… and they were speaking the same language and had similar backgrounds (very unlike the Jews and Greeks).

[Arcturus_Descending]

@V-OutOfTheWilderness

@Arcturus Descending

Simply put, what the writer was expressing was that Christ, as the Word, was with the father from the beginning through all of eternity…he did not just have his origin at the moment of conception. Sort of an expression of the Blessed Trinity (along with the Holy Spirit) for those who believe.

Though I’m agnostic, I might subtitute “Word” used here for Reality.

In the beginning was the reality. Now it finally makes sense. Thanks AD …

I don’t know if you are being ‘real’ or facetious here.

[Arcturus_Descending]

@James S Saint

@V-OutOfTheWilderness

@Arcturus Descending

Simply put, what the writer was expressing was that Christ, as the Word, was with the father from the beginning through all of eternity…he did not just have his origin at the moment of conception. Sort of an expression of the Blessed Trinity (along with the Holy Spirit) for those who believe.

Though I’m agnostic, I might subtitute “Word” used here for Reality.

In the beginning was the reality. Now it finally makes sense. Thanks AD …

[size=150]CAUSE OF[/size] Reality …
…jezzz… get it straight.

Cause of Reality…but James, that would only be true if there is a divine reality - one phrase for god. Oh, what the hell, something has to have been the cause of all of this…but god is such a boring explanation for it…tells us nothing.
How very many so-called Big Bangs were there before our universe came into existence and what was the cause for the first one and what was the cause for the cause? It is so very interesting, isn’t it?
James, are you a priest?

[James_S_Saint]

@Arcturus Descending

Cause of Reality…but James, that would only be true if there is a divine reality - one phrase for god. Oh, what the hell, something has to have been the cause of all of this…but god is such a boring explanation for it…tells us nothing.

Oh I very much agree that merely saying “believe in God” is kind of an empty phrase leading people to rather believe in what the local priests say rather than God Himself, thus Jesus proclaimed that “The Spirit of God is within you”. Of course he was talking only to his Church at the time.

@Arcturus Descending

How very many so-called Big Bangs were there before our universe came into existence and what was the cause for the first one and what was the cause for the cause? It is so very interesting, isn’t it?

All of that is trivially resolved. The idea that the entire universe began out of nothingness into a Big Bang was silly from the start. That isn’t to say that there wasn’t a BB at some point, but there is no big mystery or magic as to its cause.

@Arcturus Descending

James, are you a priest?

I couldn’t afford the pay cut.

[James_S_Saint]

A couple of other words that you might want to get straight while your at it with “Logos”;

“Spirit” referred to the behavior of something/one. A “Holy Spirit” referred to a spirit/behavior that was explicative of the whole, entire, and complete behavior of the Universe - a ToE. Often in scriptures “angels” and “spirits” get equivocated. An “angel” is an idea or concept. God was said to be the “Head Angel” as well as the “Holy Spirit”. The Catholics allowed for the combination of varied concepts as one; God the “Father”/“Creator”, The Son - “The Way to Behave”, and The Holy Spirit - the behavior of the entire universe. The saying, “In the beginning was the word…” does that same thing in combining all of the human concepts into the same one entity. The Catholics weren’t wrong about that. It is just confusing to those who want it to be.

“Allah” refers to the All-Spirit, the “sum/combination of all behavior”, the same as “Elohim” (Cause of all spirits).

“Messiah” referred to “a messenger of The [Holy] Spirit”. Every prophet was supposed to be a messiah, but there were a great many false prophets just as there are today in Quantum Physics, the new National Religion (undeclared so that it can be taught in schools).

[Arcturus_Descending]

james…

Arcturus Descending wrote:

How very many so-called Big Bangs were there before our universe came into existence and what was the cause for the first one and what was the cause for the cause? It is so very interesting, isn’t it?

All of that is trivially resolved. The idea that the entire universe began out of nothingness into a Big Bang was silly from the start. That isn’t to say that there wasn’t a BB at some point, but there is no big mystery or magic as to its cause.

Trivially resolved?
See, this is what I mean. If you are saying that “God” is the cause, then you are trivializing the mystery and the magic and the sacredness of the universe. Science/astronomy is STILL trying to come up with explanations for it all - they get closer and closer and further and further - at times they realize they’ve been wrong in part but never to throw the baby out with the bathwater - but I don’t think that any real scientist or philosopher worth his weight in gold would ever trivialize the Reality or the meaning of the Universe[s] by saying that 'there is no big mystery or magic as to the cause". Supposedly having an explanation for something, James, does not necessarily detract from ongoing its mystery or its ‘true’ reality.

Drink more coffee, james.

[James_S_Saint]

@Arcturus Descending

If you are saying that “God” is the cause, then you are trivializing the mystery and the magic and the sacredness of the universe.

Have you ever, ever heard me say that?
Presumption is the seed of all sin.
Presuming about me, is… well… not advised.

@Arcturus Descending

Science/astronomy is STILL trying to come up with explanations for it all - they get closer and closer and further and further - at times they realize they’ve been wrong in part but never to throw the baby out with the bathwater - but I don’t think that any real scientist or philosopher worth his weight in gold would ever trivialize the Reality or the meaning of the Universe[s] by saying that 'there is no big mystery or magic as to the cause". Supposedly having an explanation for something, James, does not necessarily detract from ongoing its mystery or its ‘true’ reality.

To the confused still seeking answers, everything is complicated.
The real answer is simple once understood. But that answer is NOT simply, “God did it”, true or not.

[Arcturus_Descending]

When I was a practicing Catholic, when I believed, Elohim was actually my favorite name for god.
It refers to the great beauty and majesty of god’s creation - or rather, to that aspect which is god - like the sense that comes over one when he/she sees a mountain looming up in the distance or beholds a starry night. It is Elohim who created all of that beauty and mystery and sacredness which belongs to the universe…I am just saying. There are some things, some residuals, which continue to resonate through one even after belief has dissolved into whatever it dissolves into.

[felix_dakat]

@James S Saint

I seriously doubt that John used the actual word “Logos”. Logos is a particular concept that the translators recognized. It means “the fundamental reason/logic” (ie. “First Cause”, “God”, or in QM “Standard Model”).

You doubt that John used the word logos? Based on what? Logos is in the earliest extant manuscripts. None of the manuscripts use the term first cause or Standard Model. The author of John could have been aware of Aristotle “first cause” doctrine, but the notion that he contemplated the standard model of contemporary physics is a unjustified.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

@felix dakat

You doubt that John used the word logos? Based on what? Logos is in the earliest extant manuscripts.

St. James isn’t a Bible thumper and doesn’t care about manuscript evidence. He pulls his evidence from somewhere else. I think he has his own dictionary.

[Amorphos]

“Tao is God, according to the Chinese who translate Gospel John 1:1 thus: “In the beginning was the Tao, and the Tao was with God, and the Tao was God.” According to the English translation of the Bible, the Word is God.”

I don’t think Tao means the same thing as logos although may include that interpretatively. Sounds like a Christian interpreter of the bible has written it with a certain slant; to ‘bribe’ the Chinese thinker into considering Christianity in with their current thinking on divinity, and to exploit the then perceived cultural similarities as one. to me this is the same old cultural assimilation it has always done, it comes across as being similar to ones own religion then filters that out until there is nothing left but the old exclusivist dog.
Taoism doesn’t contain god, it means literally the way, and not the word or logos.

In the foundational text of Taoism, the Tao Te Ching, Laozi explains that Tao is not a ‘name’ for a ‘thing’
Tao or Dao is a Chinese word meaning ‘way’, ‘path’, ‘route’, or sometimes more loosely, ‘doctrine’ or ‘principle’.
In Taoism, Chinese Buddhism and Confucianism, the object of spiritual practice is to ‘become one with the tao’ (Tao Te Ching) or to harmonise one’s will with Nature (cf. Stoicism) in order to achieve ‘effortless action’ (Wu wei). This involves meditative and moral practices.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao

This doesn’t sound like Christianity?

In Christology, the conception that the Christ is the Logos (Greek: Λόγος for “word”, “discourse” or “reason”)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(Christianity

Logos ( /ˈloʊɡɒs/, UK /ˈlɒɡɒs/, or US /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Greek: λόγος, from λέγω lego “I say”) is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion. Originally a word meaning “a ground”, “a plea”, “an opinion”, “an expectation”, “word,” “speech,” “account,” “reason,”[1][2] it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.[3]
+
Ancient philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to refer to “reasoned discourse”

_

[James_S_Saint]

@felix dakat

@James S Saint

I seriously doubt that John used the actual word “Logos”. Logos is a particular concept that the translators recognized. It means “the fundamental reason/logic” (ie. “First Cause”, “God”, or in QM “Standard Model”).

You doubt that John used the word logos? Based on what? Logos is in the earliest extant manuscripts. None of the manuscripts use the term first cause or Standard Model. The author of John could have been aware of Aristotle “first cause” doctrine, but the notion that he contemplated the standard model of contemporary physics is a unjustified.

What I doubt is that John spoke Greek to that degree. John didn’t actually write the manuscripts.
And as far as the Standard Model… get your glasses, a little coffee, and reread what I said.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

@Amorphos

“Tao is God, according to the Chinese who translate Gospel John 1:1 thus: “In the beginning was the Tao, and the Tao was with God, and the Tao was God.” According to the English translation of the Bible, the Word is God.”

I don’t think Tao means the same thing as logos although may include that interpretatively. Sounds like a Christian interpreter of the bible has written it with a certain slant; to ‘bribe’ the Chinese thinker into considering Christianity in with their current thinking on divinity, and to exploit the then perceived cultural similarities as one. to me this is the same old cultural assimilation it has always done, it comes across as being similar to ones own religion then filters that out until there is nothing left but the old exclusivist dog.
Taoism doesn’t contain god, it means literally the way, and not the word or logos.

In the foundational text of Taoism, the Tao Te Ching, Laozi explains that Tao is not a ‘name’ for a ‘thing’
Tao or Dao is a Chinese word meaning ‘way’, ‘path’, ‘route’, or sometimes more loosely, ‘doctrine’ or ‘principle’.
In Taoism, Chinese Buddhism and Confucianism, the object of spiritual practice is to ‘become one with the tao’ (Tao Te Ching) or to harmonise one’s will with Nature (cf. Stoicism) in order to achieve ‘effortless action’ (Wu wei). This involves meditative and moral practices.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao

This doesn’t sound like Christianity?

In Christology, the conception that the Christ is the Logos (Greek: Λόγος for “word”, “discourse” or “reason”)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(Christianity

Logos ( /ˈloʊɡɒs/, UK /ˈlɒɡɒs/, or US /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Greek: λόγος, from λέγω lego “I say”) is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion. Originally a word meaning “a ground”, “a plea”, “an opinion”, “an expectation”, “word,” “speech,” “account,” “reason,”[1][2] it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.[3]
+
Ancient philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to refer to “reasoned discourse”

_

Well just nail it down Amorphos. The Tao is not God, and also, is not worshiped, like God.

Tao verse 4 - translation by S. Mitchell
The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

It is hidden but always present.
I don’t know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.

[Amorphos]

It is older than God.

I wonder what the ancient Chinese even meant by the term ‘god’! or is that a modern translation?

The Tao makes a lot of sense to me, I rather like Chinese spirituality because of its emptiness and lack of god.

[James_S_Saint]

The Chinese didn’t get into the worship of “gods” because they kept them as un-anthropomorphic concepts.

Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE;[6] Christian tradition has tended to assume an earlier date.

“I am the Way”

According to Chinese traditions, Laozi [Lao Tsu] lived in the 6th century BCE. Historians variously contend that Laozi is a synthesis of multiple historical figures, that he is a mythical figure, or that he actually lived in the 5th–4th century BCE

Tao or Dao (Chinese: 道; pinyin: About this sound Dào (help·info)) is a Chinese word meaning ‘way’, ‘path’, ‘route’, or sometimes more loosely, ‘doctrine’ or ‘principle’. Within the context of traditional Chinese philosophy and religion, Tao is a metaphysical concept originating with Laozi that gave rise to a religion (Wade–Giles, Tao Chiao; Pinyin, Daojiao) and philosophy (Wade–Giles, Tao chia; Pinyin, Daojia) referred to in English with the single term Taoism. The concept of Tao was later adopted in Confucianism, Chán and Zen Buddhism and more broadly throughout East Asian philosophy and religion in general. Within these contexts Tao signifies the primordial essence or fundamental nature of the universe. In the foundational text of Taoism, the Tao Te Ching, Laozi explains that Tao is not a ‘name’ for a ‘thing’ but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe.

The word “Dao” (道) has a variety of meanings in both ancient and modern Chinese language. Aside from its purely prosaic use to mean road, channel, path, doctrine, or similar,[1] the word has acquired a variety of differing and often confusing metaphorical, philosophical and religious uses. In most belief systems, Dao is used symbolically in its sense of ‘way’ as the ‘right’ or ‘proper’ way of existence, or in the context of ongoing practices of attainment or of the full coming into being, or the state of enlightenment or spiritual perfection that is the outcome of such practices.

[Dao] means a road, path, way; and hence, the way in which one does something; method, doctrine, principle. The Way of Heaven

The Dao, or Way, of Confucius can be said to be ‘Truth’. Confucianism regards the Way, or Truth, as concordant with a particular approach to life, politics, and tradition. It is held as equally necessary and well regarded as De (virtue) and jen (humanity). Confucius presents a humanistic ‘Dao’. He only rarely speaks of the t’ien Dao (Way of Heaven).

During the Song Dynasty, Neo-Confucians regarded Dao as the purest thing-in-itself. Shao Yong regarded the Dao as the origin of heaven, earth, and everything within them. In contrast, Zhang Zai presented a vitalistic Dao that was the fundamental component or effect of ch’i, the motive energy behind life and the world. A number of later scholars adopted this interpretation, such as Tai Chen during the Qing Dynasty.[23]

Zhu Xi, Cheng Ho, and Cheng Yi perceived the Dao in the context of li (Principle) and t’ien li (the Principle of Heaven). Cheng Hao regarded the fundamental matter of li, and thus Dao, to be humaneness. Developing compassion, altruism, and other humane virtues is the following of the Way. Cheng Yi followed this interpretation, elaborating on this perspective of Dao through teachings about yin-yang interactions, the cultivation and preservation of life; and the axiom of a morally just universe.[23]

In total, the Dao is equated with the Absolute. Wang Fuzhi expressed the Dao as the tai chi, The Great Ultimate, as well as the road leading to it. Nothing exists apart from the Principle of Heaven in Neo-Confucianism. The Way is contained within all things. Thus, the religious life is not an elite or special journey for Neo-Confucians. The normal, mundane life is the path that leads to the Absolute, because the Absolute is contained within the mundane objects and events of daily life.

Noted Christian author, C.S. Lewis, used the Tao to describe “the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.” [26]He asserted that every religion and philosophy is an attempt to line up with the Tao—the way mankind was designed to be. In Lewis’ thinking, God created the Tao and fully displayed it through the person of Jesus Christ. Christianity, then, would be the path that lines human beings up with the Tao most effectively.

Also the Greek word used in N.T. for the Way is ὁδοῦ (odao). Here the Way refers to the path of righteousness and salvation as revealed through Christ.

[Amorphos]

The Chinese didn’t get into the worship of “gods” because they kept them as un-anthropomorphic concepts.

‘Impersonal’ I’d say, no matter how one conceives of God he surely is a person of some kind, otherwise what do we even mean by the term ‘God’. not to mention Jesus and the trinity.

Dao is used symbolically in its sense of ‘way’ as the ‘right’ or ‘proper’ way of existence

It is a misuse to think of that as like dharma or divine morality in the reasoned manner, read some Taoist poetry and the Tao is like the butcher who can make a perfect cut ~ because he knows the way of it without even thinking about it. A thing which lies after skill and learned knowing of a thing. I can see how that can corroborate with god knowing the perfect way, but I think the biblical meaning is reasoned, god makes the law and that is the word and the reason, god doesn’t learn the Tao.

Ask yourself if we can become god? ~ Yet we can attain the Tao!

Surely you can see the two are worlds apart? And surely you can see how the term is being manipulated with clear duplicity by the Christian writer ‘interpreting’ the bible in such a manner.

Cheng Hao regarded the fundamental matter of li, and thus Dao, to be humaneness. Developing compassion, altruism, and other humane virtues is the following of the Way. Cheng Yi followed this interpretation, elaborating on this perspective of Dao through teachings about yin-yang interactions, the cultivation and preservation of life; and the axiom of a morally just universe.

Yin-yang not God Vs Satan, clearly a dualistic concept where compassion in the eastern context arises from non-duality. Did the interpreter write vegetarianism into the bible too, I bet not. Hmm maybe that’s a bit Buddhist/Jainist.

I think we will find similarities between any wise individuals/thinkers, they will be compassionate [not a word often mentioned in the bible and certainly often not meant] and will try to find the right way to be. Yet Christianity and Taoism are as different as wise men could be.

I mean, I could say that in druidry we have caugant; the divine infinite, which is godless, and we have Awens which mean divine winds/thought. That sounds a lot more like Taoism, but either way would you concede then that druidry didn’t need to convert to Christianity after all? That Chinese Christians shouldn’t be converting because they already have a perfectly valid religion!!!

Awaits the third answer [neither yes nor no].

Ps CS Lewis was a dickhead lol
_

[James_S_Saint]

@Amorphos

The Chinese didn’t get into the worship of “gods” because they kept them as un-anthropomorphic concepts.

‘Impersonal’ I’d say, no matter how one conceives of God he surely is a person of some kind, otherwise what do we even mean by the term ‘God’. not to mention Jesus and the trinity.

The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be.

@Amorphos

god makes the law and that is the word and the reason, god doesn’t learn the Tao.

God IS the “Law for the Universe”.

@Amorphos

Ask yourself if we can become god? ~ Yet we can attain the Tao!

Dao can be roughly thought of as the flow of the universe

Tao ≡ The Way [to get along with “Taiji Fa”/“The Law of the Universe” - “to be one with that which governs the entire universe”.
Jesus - “I am the Way” [to get along with God/“The Law of the Universe” - “to be one with that which governs the entire universe”.

The Way has attributes and evidence, but it has no action and no form. It may be transmitted but cannot be received. It may be apprehended but cannot be seen. From the root, from the stock, before there was heaven or earth, for all eternity truly has it existed. It inspirits demons and gods, gives birth to heaven and earth. It lies above the zenith but is not high; it lies beneath the nadir but is not deep. It is prior to heaven and earth, but is not ancient; it is senior to high antiquity, but it is not old. (tr. Mair 1994:55)

@Amorphos

Yin-yang not God Vs Satan

It is Jesus versus Satan, not God versus Satan.
The good (harmonious) way versus the bad (disharmonious) way.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

@Amorphos

‘Impersonal’ I’d say, no matter how one conceives of God he surely is a person of some kind, otherwise what do we even mean by the term ‘God’. not to mention Jesus and the trinity.

The whole purpose in the opening of the gospel of John using the Logos is to posit the Word became flesh, and that God became a person in the world in Christ.

The Tao, on the other hand, is not a person.

So translating Logos in John into Tao is misleading to an extreme, and could even be considered trickery by the translator. Just who translated it that way?

Ps CS Lewis was a dickhead lol
_

Yes but he did smoke pot and drink. So he can’t be all bad.