Discussion in 'User Topics' started by McdonaldsHappymeal, May 26, 2018.
None of you have anything of merit to say. Pathetic.
Must have been the devils work
I love watching how butt hurt the religious right are these days now that their shitty little theocracies are crumbling and they're losing their hold on society.
Kids are overrated
Not worth it for the 1/100 of the time they're cute, smart, funny.
But you wouldn't be alive today if you didn't go through the stage of being a kid, lol.
Lol don't you have a kid?
Religious people don't believe in God and atheism is impossible
Can you elaborate?
the US Constitution should be destroyed
The first few lines of the Gospel of John,
1 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Logos was in Beginning, it was near God, it was God.
2 οὖτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
In Beginning, Logos was near God.
3 πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν
Everything came forth through Logos, and apart from Logos, not even one thing, which had come forth, came forth.
4 ἐν αὐτῶ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων
Life came forth though Logos, and Life was the Light of the Mortals.
Line 14 of the Gospel of John : καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν
And so Logos became Flesh and dwelt among Us.
So, Logos became Flesh, Christianity seems to focus on Logos as Flesh since this this Christ, but Logos as Logos is missed in this, and if you read the imperfect tense in the first line in a conative or tendential way, you wont hear a strict identification w/ Logos and God. This was recognized by Heraclitus in Fragment 32 hundreds of years before the Gospel of John was ever written.
ἓν τὸ σοφὸν µοῦνον λέγεσθαι οὐκ ἐθέλει καὶ ἐθέλει Ζηνὸς ὄνοµα
Here, ἓν τὸ σοφὸν = ὁ λόγος
So, what is really at stake here is Logos and that everything comes forth through Logos, and this is all you really need to hear. This allows for the funny situation, that even those mortals who try to turn away or refute the existence of God are brought forth as such through Logos. And further, if they deny that they are brought as such through Logos, even this denying is brought forth through Logos.
Some people mistakenly credit Heraclitus w/ upholding some sort of pantheism, since for him Logos is the name of Being itself, but it is much stronger than it.
That's just the Gospel of John, though, which is usually thought of as having been inspired by some of the Gnostic gospels. The other 3 are usually thought of as deriving from a Source Q and they don't equate God with Logos. They say that God is a god or THE god, hence God.
Quoting Heraclitus and then only translating one word is quite pointless.
i.e., there is one name only by which what is wise wants and does not want to be called, that of Zeus.
So Heraclitus speaks of wisdom wanting or not wanting to be called Zeus. As far as I am concerned, that has nothing to do with the gospel of John.
I didn't really go into all the details because I thought it would make the post too long, but I can't ignore the coincidence between Heraclitus' understanding of Logos in the Fragments and what is said in the Gospel of John, there is a clear continuity.
My point isn't that God is equated w/ Logos in the Gospel of John, my point is that it is not...(if you read the English translation you might think it is)
As far as I am concerned, it is not clear what you take wisdom to mean and why that meaning would be relevant to Heraclitus' thinking of ἓν τὸ σοφὸν, or why you are translating ἓν τὸ σοφὸν by wisdom at all.
Obviously, me just posting ὁ λόγος = ἓν τὸ σοφὸν might seem like I am forcing a connection between the Gospel of John and Heraclitus' thinking, but it is actually based on a reading of Fragment 50 by Heidegger in his text called Logos (Heraklit, Fragment 50), this is a beautiful reading of the fragment, his translation of Logos as die lesende Lege or das zusammen-vor-liegen-Lassen really presents Heraclitus as giving us one of the most profound and enduring thoughts, and in only one or two lines! You won't regret reading this, I tried to attach it here but it is too large.
This saying of God as a God or THE God, and hence God, this setting of something as something is Logos. So, this is how I read line 3, where we hear that everything came through Logos, and this is where I connect it to Heraclitus' thinking of Logos as the name of Being (w/ the the help of Heidegger's text on Logos). Logos is the letting-be of something as something, whether it is God, an apple, an atheist, or a religious person, everything comes forth through this letting-be, through Logos. So, when we hear the hesitation of calling Logos God in the first line of the Gospel of John and Zeus in Heraclitus' fragment, it is because hearing Logos as Logos, the letting-be as itself, brings forth Logos as God, but in some sense this is not Logos, since Logos is the letting-be not that which is let be.
The essence of Logos and hence God does not let itself be grasped by discussions about the truth of the Gospel of John, since this Gospel and any other would presuppose its essencing.
@imakehersay What do you think about how Paul was probably well-acquainted with ancient Greek philosophy and that Paul's letters probably influenced the writing of the Gospels?
Separate names with a comma.