The Gospel Truth(?)

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Okay, sounds like it's easier to not discuss any of these matters here. (hehe) If I develop an interest in context or Genesis or thread paranoia, I'll start another thread.

Actually, I'd say that such would likely deserve a thread of its own, anyway, as it's a major topic all its own. I'm sure I'd participate in something like that, as I've had to deconstruct my own beliefs about Genesis.

[Prinie]

Originally Posted by Beingist

No worries, Prinie, I don't think this thread will be derailed as the other was. And if it is, I'm okay with that (I've been becoming okay with a lot of stuff, these days). I'll do my best, and I think others (like yourself) will help keep things on track.

It's too bad I can't simply assign all the contention to the 'What Is, Is' thread. I consider that an official battleground, of sorts, if only because I've fought my own imaginary battles there , but also because 'What Is' is rather infinite, and would include all contention.

Yeah, I might've acted foolishly. Sorry Beingst.

[Prinie]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it."

Due to training, I associate this post with Jesus. But is it the same in Latin?

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Yes, it is a hypothetical. My late great uncle would have responded to that with, "if the dog don't stop to take a dump, will he still catch the rabbit?"

Good stuff. I'm enjoying the thread Beingist.

[VinceG]

Context discussion continued here:
Spiritual Contexts

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Prinie

Yeah, I might've acted foolishly. Sorry Beingist.

LOL. I would have seen more to forgive if you had acted with "worldly wisdom," tbh, Prinie. Nothing to be sorry for.

In that light (somewhat), know that I don't consider myself all-knowing on this topic. I still have questions, such as, is there a possibility that Jesus revealed his own ego?

I need to translate two passages before I can even attempt to answer that, myself. But, it's something I've wondered for the past few months.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

LOL. I would have seen more to forgive if you had acted with "worldly wisdom," tbh, Prinie. Nothing to be sorry for.

In that light (somewhat), know that I don't consider myself all-knowing on this topic. I still have questions, such as, is there a possibility that Jesus revealed his own ego?

I need to translate two passages before I can even attempt to answer that, myself. But, it's something I've wondered for the past few months.

There's no accounts of him in his early years right?

[Prinie]

Originally Posted by Beingist

LOL. I would have seen more to forgive if you had acted with "worldly wisdom," tbh, Prinie. Nothing to be sorry for.

In that light (somewhat), know that I don't consider myself all-knowing on this topic. I still have questions, such as, is there a possibility that Jesus revealed his own ego?

I need to translate two passages before I can even attempt to answer that, myself. But, it's something I've wondered for the past few months.

Mhm, yeah that section in John often leaves me stuck so I usually just glance over it. Hopefully I'll be around still so that if you do translate it and post it here, I'll be able to read it.

I'm actually going through it now and what I get is that Jesus perhaps was God incarnate, an avatar of sorts, who pointed to himself saying, "I am the way, the truth, the light" not so that we'd worship him, per se, but so that we'd know that God was within us, just as God was inside of him.

[Prinie]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

There's no accounts of him in his early years right?

They do have books that talk about him at 12. I don't remember which one. But I guess if one keeps in line with the socially accepted Bible, no. :/

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Prinie

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it."

Due to training, I associate this post with Jesus. But is it the same in Latin?

Interestingly enough, this was the very first thing I translated, when I picked up my unusual hobby. Here's the Latin--

In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. 2 Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. 3 Omnia per ipsum facta sunt : et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est. 4 In ipso vita erat, et vita erat lux hominum : 5 et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebræ eam non comprehenderunt.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. This was in the beginning with God. All things through it are made, and without it nothing is made that is made. In it was life, and life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it.

Seriously, there could be an entire thread dedicated to just this passage. Such is the gravity of it. Merely in tone, this the essence of all Christian dogma.

The Latin makes this particularly difficult to translate directly, and it may be more accurate through the Greek. The reason for this is very technical, but suffice it to say that there are no Latin words for 'it' or 'him', specifically. Pronouns always refer to something prior to the pronoun itself, so ipsum must refer to 'the word' (verbum, which is neuter), which makes ipsum an 'it', not a 'him'. The 'him' comes a little later in the same passage, but it's after the introduction of John the Baptist, which makes the Latin a virtual nightmare, as there are then two possible 'hims' (John and Jesus) and one 'it' (the Word).

Another item of note is what I have bolded, which deals with tenses. Lucet is present tense, while comprehenderunt is perfect (past) tense. The light may still shine, but the darkness did not comprehend it. Hence, I suppose, no more darkness.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

There's no accounts of him in his early years right?

Actually, there is this--
Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But, it wasn't written until much later, which makes its veracity highly suspect. Meanwhile, Luke 2:39 has him teaching in the temple as a boy, but that might be inferred by Luke, who was more scholarly, and depicts Jesus in similar fashion throughout his Gospel.

Which brings up a point that I considered last night. Its long been assumed that Jesus was enlightened from birth (which is celebrated, currently with manger scenes), but few seem to realize that mythologies abounded in ancient history, and that at the time the Gospels were written, even Roman emperors were worshipped as divine beings. It's long been my hypothesis that the story of Jesus' divine birth was a fabrication in the effort to give more validity to his crucifixion, which was truly ignominius. At that time, divine beings simply weren't crucified, but if he was made out to be a divine being from birth, then his crucifixion becomes infinitely more meaningful.

[Prinie]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Interestingly enough, this was the very first thing I translated, when I picked up my unusual hobby. Here's the Latin--

Seriously, there could be an entire thread dedicated to just this passage. Such is the gravity of it. Merely in tone, this the essence of all Christian dogma.[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

The Latin makes this particularly difficult to translate directly, and it may be more accurate through the Greek. The reason for this is very technical, but suffice it to say that there are no Latin words for 'it' or 'him', specifically. Pronouns always refer to something prior to the pronoun itself, so ipsum must refer to 'the word' (verbum, which is neuter), which makes ipsum an 'it', not a 'him'. The 'him' comes a little later in the same passage, but it's after the introduction of John the Baptist, which makes the Latin a virtual nightmare, as there are then two possible 'hims' (John and Jesus) and one 'it' (the Word).

Another item of note is what I have bolded, which deals with tenses. Lucet is present tense, while comprehenderunt is perfect (past) tense. The light may still shine, but the darkness did not comprehend it. Hence, I suppose, no more darkness.

Ahhh! So the light is, and the darkness is no more. Quite the revolutionary. He may very well have been the indicator of change many of the others were seeking at that time.

btw, I'm only speculating. lol I'm learning like the rest of you, family.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. This was in the beginning with God. All things through it are made, and without it nothing is made that is made. In it was life, and life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it.

It's not too clear, but I might as well take a shot at it.
"Word" refers to creation, since creation is fundamentally conceptual; ideas forming in consciousness and symbolized and actualized through languageing, both internal (the voice in the head) and external (communication).

One way of viewing God is as creation itself rather than talking about God as some no-thing prior to creation, so in that way God=Consciousness, and Consciousness is fundamentally conceptual. Hencely, the Word=Consciousness=God.

All things through concepts are made, and without concepts nothing is made. In it (Consciousness) was life, and life was the light of men. It sounds a bit like "light" refers to the essence of existence, or 'I Am' that shines by virtue of consciousness in the body?

Perhaps the "darkness" refers to ignorance of this 'I Amness'.

[royster]

Originally Posted by Beingist

No worries, Prinie, I don't think this thread will be derailed as the other was. And if it is, I'm okay with that (I've been becoming okay with a lot of stuff, these days). I'll do my best, and I think others (like yourself) will help keep things on track.

Should it hit a wall, you can always continue on my website: I placed this in the public forum specifically so non-members could participate.

Beingist's Gospel Truth

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

It's not too clear, but I might as well take a shot at it.
"Word" refers to creation, since creation is fundamentally conceptual; ideas forming in consciousness and symbolized and actualized through languageing, both internal (the voice in the head) and external (communication).

One way of viewing God is as creation itself rather than talking about God as some no-thing prior to creation, so in that way God=Consciousness, and Consciousness is fundamentally conceptual. Hencely, the Word=Consciousness=God.

All things through concepts are made, and without concepts nothing is made. In it (Consciousness) was life, and life was the light of men. It sounds a bit like "light" refers to the essence of existence, or 'I Am' that shines by virtue of consciousness in the body?

Perhaps the "darkness" refers to ignorance of this 'I Amness'.

Wow, Arc, that's pretty good, and just about how I interpret it, myself, though I have never been able to even put it into words, but I visualize it this very way. I imagine a voice saying, "let there be light", and then the big bang.

[royster]

In conjunction with Beingist's translation and my own study, I submit that "The darnkness did not grasp it" means "did not fully understand", which fits perfectly into the Free Radical Thesis, which states that a free radical is an incomplete atom or molecule. In that light (oh boy! A free pun!) the distinction between Light and Dark becomes actually quite clear: missing information as opposed to a complete, comprehensive sentience.

As regards "The Word", I again refer to my own research, which strongly suggests that the moment of first-cognizance...in other words, the first Awareness to realize that "I AM!"...is the starting point of several chain reactions, which are cited in Genesis. Further, this would strongly indicate the specific pattern of DNA for all Creation to follow. When we look at how our very planet has evolved, first there was magma (from the sun in all probability), then water, then plantlife that later provided soil nutrients. It is from this compounding of elements the human form was then possible to construct. I then go on to offer that the human Chakra are indeed the same pattern of Creation, in the logical order necessary to build a sustainable system.

There is much to ponder regarding the Fractal Universe. I'm confident that Beingist's translation will help us uncover many of the validations we need for this understanding...this "graping it". And along the way, probably dispel a lot of myths.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by royster

In conjunction with Beingist's translation and my own study, I submit that "The darnkness did not grasp it" means "did not fully understand", which fits perfectly into the Free Radical Thesis, which states that a free radical is an incomplete atom or molecule. In that light (oh boy! A free pun!) the distinction between Light and Dark becomes actually quite clear: missing information as opposed to a complete, comprehensive sentience.

An old friend of mine once put it to me best, when he said, "darkness is nothing but the absence of light". This is how I've always seen the darkness/light thing. Darkness didn't comprehend (i.e., "grasp") light, because it's nothing, and so has nothing with which to grasp it.

[royster]

Pretty much, B-dude. While we can split hairs about the properties of Light and Dark, it only serves to locate navel lint, really. The devisiveness of, say "Lightworker" and "Darkworker" is really moot in the face of what applies to us, as Light Beings...which we are.