In the beginning was the word

[obe]

This very seemingly ambiguous line out of the Bible (John 1.1), seems almost a tautology, or is it? "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word is God. It seems this statement begs for meaning. Could the word of God be exclusively to mean --what we use when we want to imply "consciousness"? Consequently , then, can "consciousness" be what was with god, and God" BE that very "consciousness? And finally if God "IS" Consciousness, is that the beginning ? Therefore "IS" God THE BEGINNING? (The AlPHA AND OMEGA Christ talks about?). But, alpha and omega are not linearly described anymore, but functionally-circularly,can this be the eternity of the garden--? Implication being, that it is future generations to discover? And then what? And does this Eternity --THE RETURN to the garden (of realization)? There is a desperate need to really, really understand what is going on here, and no accusations of reading into the scripture will suffice here.

[James S Saint]

A "word" refers to an influence on the mind, a concept (but not a "complete thought of action").
To"cast" something means to form something into a more solid structure, a "form".
When someone is "casting a spell", they are "formulating an influence".
When you spell a "word", you are formulating an influence, "casting the word".

"In the beginning, there was The Influence, The Influence was with God (the Cause of influence), and The Influence was God (The Influence causes itself again - past creates the present)."

Go-spel == Spell of influence == "The Word" == God

In Quantum Physics;
Standard Model == Go-spel == Spell of Influence == "The Word" == God

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

A "word" refers to an influence on the mind, a concept (but not a "complete thought of action").
To"cast" something means to form something into a more solid structure, a "form".
When someone is "casting a spell", they are "formulating an influence".
When you spell a "word", you are formulating an influence, "casting the word".

"In the beginning, there was The Influence, The Influence was with God (the Cause of influence), and The Influence was God (The Influence causes itself again - past creates the present)."

Go-spel == Spell of influence == "The Word" == God

In Quantum Physics;
Standard Model == Go-spel == Spell of Influence == "The Word" == God

Saint James, are you trying to reinterpret the opening of the so-called gospel of John? Are you speaking of the Logos? What do you do with "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us?"

[James S Saint]

"What do you do with "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us?"

Well, if "The Word" means "The Influence", what do you think it means.

[Amorphos]

obe

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word is God

Could perhaps mean that all informations are primarily in one place, = the word + with god, then that as like our thoughts are part of what we are, and are words, the word is in both us and god in that way.
This is perhaps truer than saying simply that we are the word, because we can stop words from forming in our minds, or can be thinking visually, listening to music [and being fully involved in it] and mind is in that instance not a word.

Then we consider the alpha and the omega;

alpha and omega are not linearly described anymore, but functionally-circularly,can this be the eternity of the garden--? Implication being, that it is future generations to discover? And then what? And does this Eternity --THE RETURN to the garden (of realization)?

Could it be that in the garden we departed from a language we shared with god, and that the return is to arrive back at that former residency?
Language is so very important to the way we model the world, and to what world we pass on to the next generation. It is not the only thing by which our perceptions shape those constructions, being in the world requires a world to be in [the garden], and the world itself [as the serpent?] also shapes our image of it.

Is there a path by which we may come to know the world, and by that remove the serpent from the garden? Or can only the person who is not of the world do that for us, take us back to innocence but in full knowledge. Is that then a shared path within which we must play our part?

So what happens then! Lets go there, and say we are in the reformed garden, does the universe change or cease to exist? [hope all the alien species are also in tune with all this lol]. Would humans be taken to another realm which is like earth but completely different [is a transformed earth], would we be equally like humans but completely different?

I’ll assume a less literal interpretation.

Edit; perhaps it’s a reference to the journey of life, that we are taken along a road upon which there are demons, and we all fall in some measure because we don’t know the world. Eventually we find our way by knowing, and in that may find a release, a return to the garden now pacified?

In both interpretations I cannot find an eternal resolution, though they are otherwise helpful metaphors.

e.g. What are we to become?
Why the world then not the world?

_

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

"What do you do with "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us?"

Well, if "The Word" means "The Influence", what do you think it means.

It must mean :
The influence became flesh and dwelt among us, to produce the Christian influence. And the influence continued to develop the Christian influence until the Christian influence became the state religion. And the influence continued, producing the crusades and inquisitions.

Over time the influence split the Christian influence. And in the end, or up to now, the influence broke the Christian influence into more than 41,000 sects, and over 2 billion Christians, influencing now into all kinds of directions.

So what will the influence produce today? Where will the influence take us from here?

Is the influence God?

[felix dakat]

"What do you do with "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us?"

Well, if "The Word" means "The Influence", what do you think it means.

It must mean :
The influence became flesh and dwelt among us, to produce the Christian influence. And the influence continued to develop the Christian influence until the Christian influence became the state religion. And the influence continued, producing the crusades and inquisitions.

Over time the influence split the Christian influence. And in the end, or up to now, the influence broke the Christian influence into more than 41,000 sects, and over 2 billion Christians, influencing now into all kinds of directions.

So what will the influence produce today? Where will the influence take us from here?

Is the influence God?

There are many kinds of influence. A logos is a particular kind of influence. Logos became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus, who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge. Philo distinguished between logos prophorikos (the uttered word) and the logos endiathetos (the word remaining within).The Stoics also spoke of the logos spermatikos (the generative principle of the Universe). Based on the context of John 1, I'd say the latter meaning applies most directly i.e. logos as the creative, generating word.

[Amorphos]

Perhaps replace ‘word’ with ‘information‘, and we may be somewhat nearer to what is meant?

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

There are many kinds of influence. A logos is a particular kind of influence. Logos became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus, who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge. Philo distinguished between logos prophorikos (the uttered word) and the logos endiathetos (the word remaining within).The Stoics also spoke of the logos spermatikos (the generative principle of the Universe). Based on the context of John 1, I'd say the latter meaning applies most directly i.e. logos as the creative, generating word.

I don't think it was a coincidence that both Heraclitus, who coined the word Logos, and the gospel of John, who used the word Logos, were both of Ephesus. Logos must have been the mindset in Ephesus.

[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").

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

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").

I seriously doubt that John wrote the gospel of John. Not to mention that Acts 4:13 says both John and Peter were illiterate.

[James S Saint]

Btw, another "word" for "Logos" is "ToE" - "Theory of Everything".

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

Btw, another "word" for "Logos" is "ToE" - "Theory of Everything".

Reference please? Or are you being arbitrary?

In the Chinese Bible Logos is translated as Dao, or Tao. That's a good fit.

[James S Saint]

Btw, another "word" for "Logos" is "ToE" - "Theory of Everything".

Reference please? Or are you being arbitrary?

"Arbitrary"??

In the Chinese Bible Logos is translated as Dao, or Tao. That's a good fit.

Yep. Same concept; "The Way" [it All works].
..or were you being arbitrary?

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

Btw, another "word" for "Logos" is "ToE" - "Theory of Everything".

Reference please? Or are you being arbitrary?

"Arbitrary"??

In the Chinese Bible Logos is translated as Dao, or Tao. That's a good fit.

Yep. Same concept; "The Way" [it All works].
..or were you being arbitrary?

What, no reference? Are you pulling that the Logos is ToE out yer backside?

Here's my reference :
"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." http://www.thegreattao.com/html/introfounderyelemp.html. You can find much more proof that the Logos is translated in Chinese into Tao all over the web.

Now how about a valid reference to back your claim? You know better than to make claims without backing them up.

[James S Saint]

What, no reference? Are you pulling that the Logos is ToE out yer backside?

When you actually know the Logos that they were talking about, their efforts to translate what other people meant, doesn't carry much weight.
Yes, I pulled it out of my "backside" (which is more respectable than most other sources on many subjects ).

Or were you looking for a debate?

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

What, no reference? Are you pulling that the Logos is ToE out yer backside?

When you actually know the Logos that they were talking about, their efforts to translate what other people meant, doesn't carry much weight.
Yes, I pulled it out of my "backside" (which is more respectable than most other sources on many subjects ).

Or were you looking for a debate?

No, just looking for some reference or source documentation that Logos is the ToE.

First of all we don't have a theory of everything. Second, how does the Logos relate to the ToE? Does it provide the missing answer to the ToE?

[James S Saint]

What, no reference? Are you pulling that the Logos is ToE out yer backside?

When you actually know the Logos that they were talking about, their efforts to translate what other people meant, doesn't carry much weight.
Yes, I pulled it out of my "backside" (which is more respectable than most other sources on many subjects ).

Or were you looking for a debate?

No, just looking for some reference or source documentation that Logos is the ToE.

First of all we don't have a theory of everything. Second, how does the Logos relate to the ToE? Does it provide the missing answer to the ToE?

The Logos ("reasoning") of Jesus was proposed as their "Theory of Everything".
Quantum Mechanics's "Theory of Everything" is the "Standard Model". That is why they were so enthused about trying to find the Higg's boson.
But Rational Metaphysics has the real ToE, "Principles of Affectance", and includes all of their concerns and more.

[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.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

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 ...

[James S Saint]

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 ...

CAUSE OF Reality ..
..jezzz.. get it straight.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

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.

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.

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".

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]

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]

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 ...

CAUSE OF 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?