What does God look like?

a reply to: Whaler

well he is called the "Ancient of Days" how would you suppose an ancient to look like. Jesus dies at thirty and resurrected and when John sees him in circa 95Ad he is said to look just like the old man you see. More proof Jesus was the incarnation of God in this world, and was God from everlasting to everlasting.

a reply to: Malocchio

John called Jesus the Logos of God, which is a creaTION, and a Platonic, Stoic and Philonic concept that was "borrowed" to make Jesus God by whoever wrote that Gospel (it actually wasn't John, who would not have used Hellenistic philosophy to make the argument that Jesus is God because the Apostles didn't think Jesus was God.

Logos means Reason rather far more often than Word, and Word far from encompasses the meaning of Logos and the Logos becoming flesh is a mere metaphor and not a statement that Jesus is God. Because Jesus is not God, never claimed to be God, insisted he wasn't God and to Love God and worship God alone. I love Christians who use obscure metaphors as a reason to make Jesus not just the Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man but also the Creator. Unfortunately Genesis does not say anything about Jesus because he wasn't born yet and had nothing to do with the creation. That honor belongs to God alone. It's patently ridiculous to claim that Jesus is God the Creator seeing as he was just a man, the Messiah, and never claimed to be God. In fact he worshipped and prayed to God. God doesn't have a God, if Jesus has a God like we do it logically follows he is not God.

Your playbook is outdated. You are neither a linguist, translator or interpreter of the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. You should not try to correct the hundreds of scholars who have translated just as I have postulated.

Firstly the literature of the Apostle John is Aramaic and Hebrew. It was totally Jewish and not Greek. The Hebrew concept of Word or Logos was not borrowed from any Greek philosophy as you have been taught. The literature of the apostle John borrowed nothing from the Greek. In fact John was the second authority of the Nazarene movement under "James The Just" and the Greek logos (thought) nor language was allowed to be entertained or taught in the first Nazarene synagogue. There were other Greek synagogues who did teach in Greek and were tolerated till they could be taught Aramaic and Hebrew and were still under James but the liturgy of the Christ Jesus was entirely Aramaic and Hebrew as taught by the first Nazarene congregation.

I understand your Muslim perspective and if I were a worshiper of Muhammadism I suppose I would parrot what they have instructed you to parrot but their teachings are not Christian teachings and quite wrong in my theological understanding.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Malocchio

John called Jesus the Logos of God, which is a creaTION, and a Platonic, Stoic and Philonic concept that was "borrowed" to make Jesus God by whoever wrote that Gospel (it actually wasn't John, who would not have used Hellenistic philosophy to make the argument that Jesus is God because the Apostles didn't think Jesus was God.

Logos means Reason rather far more often than Word, and Word far from encompasses the meaning of Logos and the Logos becoming flesh is a mere metaphor and not a statement that Jesus is God. Because Jesus is not God, never claimed to be God, insisted he wasn't God and to Love God and worship God alone. I love Christians who use obscure metaphors as a reason to make Jesus not just the Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man but also the Creator. Unfortunately Genesis does not say anything about Jesus because he wasn't born yet and had nothing to do with the creation. That honor belongs to God alone. It's patently ridiculous to claim that Jesus is God the Creator seeing as he was just a man, the Messiah, and never claimed to be God. In fact he worshipped and prayed to God. God doesn't have a God, if Jesus has a God like we do it logically follows he is not God.

Your playbook is outdated. You are neither a linguist, translator or interpreter of the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. You should not try to correct the hundreds of scholars who have translated just as I have postulated.

Firstly the literature of the Apostle John is Aramaic and Hebrew. It was totally Jewish and not Greek. The Hebrew concept of Word or Logos was not borrowed from any Greek philosophy as you have been taught. The literature of the apostle John borrowed nothing from the Greek. In fact John was the second authority of the Nazarene movement under "James The Just" and the Greek logos (thought) nor language was allowed to be entertained or taught in the first Nazarene synagogue. There were other Greek synagogues who did teach in Greek and were tolerated till they could be taught Aramaic and Hebrew and were still under James but the liturgy of the Christ Jesus was entirely Aramaic and Hebrew as taught by the first Nazarene congregation.

I understand your Muslim perspective and if I were a worshiper of Muhammadism I suppose I would parrot what they have instructed you to parrot but their teachings are not Christian teachings and quite wrong in my theological understanding.

I don't receive instructions from anyone, my comment had nothing to with Islam, was correct, and your rebuttal is garbled nonsense from a (cheap shot for cheap shot) fully indoctrinated, intellectually stunted Pauline.

I see nothing in your comment worth addressing as you can refer to my original message for the correct info on the Logos.

What you call a scholar I call a biased translator destroying the real meaning of Logos.

It means Reason in every philosophy of antiquity and in the Greek language John it has the same meaning.

There is no Aramaic Gospel of John as it was obviously written by a Hellenistic Greek or b Jew who knew Logos does not mean word.

Sorry for correcting you but you aren't right and taking a cheap shot because I am Muslim proves the type of person you are.

A Paulinist.

a reply to: Seede

Sir. Really?

Very dismissive and patronizing. If I had written it I would have expected someone to point that out. Not that I'm innocent at all.. Just, "takes one to know one" sort of thing. You know?

That post was really patronizing, arrogant and dismissive. Malocchio is totally in bounds to protest it.

a reply to: Seede

Firstly the literature of the Apostle John is Aramaic and Hebrew. It was totally Jewish and not Greek. The Hebrew concept of Word or Logos was not borrowed from any Greek philosophy as you h

The earliest fragments that we have of the Gospel of John were written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic.

Can you show me Hebrew tradition of the doctrine of "The Word" from the Old Testament that supports John's LOGOS, that is used to identify Jesus as God, that is NOT borrowed from Plato's tradition of the LOGOS?

a reply to: Seede

And you should really update your knowledge of modern scholarship.

Gospel of John, traditionally attributed to John was actually written anonymously and not by the assumed "beloved disciple" who is unknown, though that stops no one from assuming that John was said beloved disciple.

Or assuming that the beloved disciple was the author.

Modern scholars tend to refer to John as the most Gnostic influenced Gospel written to assimilate the Gnostic Logos theology of Christ.

And they also say no Aramaic version existed, that it was written in Greek and influenced by Gnosticism.

Long before John Philo was using Logos philosophy to describe the creative power of God and translates to Reason.

Philo also made comparisons of the Logos to Melchizedek the High Priest and called the Logos the first born of God and other titles also attributed to Jesus.

It's impossible to deny that Logos was used in the Greek Philonic sense unless you have never read Philo, if you had you would see that the author of John was using it in the same fashion and meaning and borrowing from Philo Judaeus.

In Hebrew God's Word is the Tanakh, the Tanakh is not Logos, it doesn't work out in Hebrew thought unless one was familiar with Philo and writing in Greek.

I would have to guess it was translated to Word to disassociate the meaning of Logos, which is Reason not thought, (thought is nous) from Philo.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Seede

Sir. Really?

Very dismissive and patronizing. If I had written it I would have expected someone to point that out. Not that I'm not prone to do that. Just, "takes one to know one" sort of thing. You know?

That post was really patronizing, arrogant and dismissive. Malocchio is totally in bounds to protest it.

Thanks.

a reply to: Seede

I must again correct you for saying after James in authority was John, because It well known that Peter was second to James and that James was replaced by Simeon, I believe his brother.

John was one of the three pillars, in Hebrew thought a pillar is a Zaddik or Righteous One, although James was the only one called a Zaddik.

Interesting fact, the Zaddikim of Dead Sea Scrolls fame also had a 3 pillar 12 leader system as included in the ''Sons of Light" were the Nazarenes and Ebionites.

There are so many parallels between the Scrolls and early Messianics that it is obvious why they were suppressed for so long, especially the latest Eisenmen portions.

a reply to: Whaler

Namaste, friend. At this point in your spiritual career, it isn't at all important to know what God looks like. In fact, your senses and mind are not developed enough to perceive God's form. There are other members of God's government who will appear to you, such as the Masters (Jesus and Buddha) and Angels (Seraphims). But as for our Father, He may appear to you in a great ball of light (like the Sun), not in any kind of form until you arrive at higher worlds, such as Heaven.

God also has many manifestations. He is ONE but also many. So, God doesn't have a single look as you may understand it. What you are talking about is God who is Outside of you. At this time period in your life, I suggest you focus on God who is Inside of you. It is better to focus on Father's teachings from your Heart, rather than somewhere else in the Universe.

originally posted by: ctophil
a reply to: Whaler

Namaste, friend. At this point in your spiritual career, it isn't at all important to know what God looks like. In fact, your senses and mind are not developed enough to perceive God's form. There are other members of God's government who will appear to you, such as the Masters (Jesus and Buddha) and Angels (Seraphims). But as for our Father, He may appear to you in a great ball of light (like the Sun), not in any kind of form until you arrive at higher worlds, such as Heaven.

God also has many manifestations. He is ONE but also many. So, God doesn't have a single look as you may understand it. What you are talking about is God who is Outside of you. At this time period in your life, I suggest you focus on God who is Inside of you. It is better to focus on Father's teachings from your Heart, rather than somewhere else in the Universe.

Great remarks. Thanks for making them.

I think God looks like BuzzyWigs.

a reply to: windword

Text The earliest fragments that we have of the Gospel of John were written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Can you show me Hebrew tradition of the doctrine of "The Word" from the Old Testament that supports John's LOGOS, that is used to identify Jesus as God, that is NOT borrowed from Plato's tradition of the LOGOS?

Apparently you and most others here on ATS do not understand what is written. I stated that the Apostle John's literature was entirely written by John in Aramaic and Hebrew and not in Greek and then I gave you the reason for believing that. Now along with that post did I not make it clear that this was theology? I believe all of you have missed that part of this debate.

The Nazarene's would not have used nor approved of Greek because they forbid the usage of the Greek language and Greek Logos (thought) into their liturgy. By your way of thinking then all of the autographs were written in Greek by Jews. Is that what you are trying to show? If that is your proposal then you are as wrong as the others who are just as misled. You and your fellow ATS friends have no idea what language the autographs are written and you assume Greek because that is how most came to you.

This was the remark made by Malocchio

John called Jesus the Logos of God, which is a creaTION, and a Platonic, Stoic and Philonic concept that was "borrowed" to make Jesus God by whoever wrote that Gospel (it actually wasn't John, who would not have used Hellenistic philosophy to make the argument that Jesus is God because the Apostles didn't think Jesus was God.

Now firstly show me the Christian bible that is written that John called Jesus the Logos-- I will wait for you to dig one up. But is not that what your friend just stated in the above quote? Not true at all and in fact followed by more untruths. The Blackwell Dictionary of Judaica states that the Greek word Logos is referenced as "The Word". "The Word of God by which the universe was created." There was no other source to influence the Hebrew John and is not even suggested in the Gospels. A blatant lie at best to try to influence the ignorant to believe his theology. The entire post of Malocchio is a lie and a deliberate lie.

Can you show me Hebrew tradition of the doctrine of "The Word" from the Old Testament that supports John's LOGOS, that is used to identify Jesus as God, that is NOT borrowed from Plato's tradition of the LOGOS?

There is no OT Hebrew tradition of doctrine of any begotten Son of God but there is confirmation in Torah. The virgin conception was with Jesus as is told in the scriptures and it is not supported as Logos. Logos is thought and was not believed by the Nazarene's as an existing entity in the celestial realm. The Word or image of the Most High created both the celestial and terrestrial existences according to scripture. The Word became flesh. Not the thought (Logos) became flesh. The celestial Word was begotten of The Most High and shown as His image and is an independent entity. The Word was conceived and was known as Jesus according to the Nazarene's. To help you understand a little more. The Word of God in the celestial world is the image of God with life within him. The Most High is total spirit of which no one has the slightest idea of its composition. For our understanding the Entity of the Most High became flesh and existed as Jesus.

I apologize for nothing in defense of my theology and I believe I did not insult anyone through criticism. Malocchio is a Muslim with Muslim ideology the same as I am Christian with Christian ideology. The political correction crowd is shown to be sensitive and wants the debate to be one way but the real world is not that way. That is the usual procedure today but I do not follow political correctness in a debate.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: windword

Text The earliest fragments that we have of the Gospel of John were written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Can you show me Hebrew tradition of the doctrine of "The Word" from the Old Testament that supports John's LOGOS, that is used to identify Jesus as God, that is NOT borrowed from Plato's tradition of the LOGOS?

Apparently you and most others here on ATS do not understand what is written. I stated that the Apostle John's literature was entirely written by John in Aramaic and Hebrew and not in Greek and then I gave you the reason for believing that. Now along with that post did I not make it clear that this was theology? I believe all of you have missed that part of this debate.

The Nazarene's would not have used nor approved of Greek because they forbid the usage of the Greek language and Greek Logos (thought) into their liturgy. By your way of thinking then all of the autographs were written in Greek by Jews. Is that what you are trying to show? If that is your proposal then you are as wrong as the others who are just as misled. You and your fellow ATS friends have no idea what language the autographs are written and you assume Greek because that is how most came to you.

You believing it was written in Hebrew or Aramaic is a belief without evidence. Nobody has an autograph of any part of the Bible but it is generally believed to have been written in Greek and influenced by Gnostics.

Take it up with the scholars.

This was the remark made by Malocchio

John called Jesus the Logos of God, which is a creaTION, and a Platonic, Stoic and Philonic concept that was "borrowed" to make Jesus God by whoever wrote that Gospel (it actually wasn't John, who would not have used Hellenistic philosophy to make the argument that Jesus is God because the Apostles didn't think Jesus was God.

Now firstly show me the Christian bible that is written that John called Jesus the Logos-- I will wait for you to dig one up. But is not that what your friend just stated in the above quote? Not true at all and in fact followed by more untruths. The Blackwell Dictionary of Judaica states that the Greek word Logos is referenced as "The Word". "The Word of God by which the universe was created." There was no other source to influence the Hebrew John and is not even suggested in the Gospels. A blatant lie at best to try to influence the ignorant to believe his theology. The entire post of Malocchio is a lie and a deliberate lie.

Every Greek language Christian Bible.

Deliberate lie? Come on now, you are just talking trash and I didn't lie about a thing.

You just don't know what you are talking about is all.

Can you show me Hebrew tradition of the doctrine of "The Word" from the Old Testament that supports John's LOGOS, that is used to identify Jesus as God, that is NOT borrowed from Plato's tradition of the LOGOS?

There is no OT Hebrew tradition of doctrine of any begotten Son of God but there is confirmation in Torah. The virgin conception was with Jesus as is told in the scriptures and it is not supported as Logos. Logos is thought and was not believed by the Nazarene's as an existing entity in the celestial realm. The Word or image of the Most High created both the celestial and terrestrial existences according to scripture. The Word became flesh. Not the thought (Logos) became flesh. The celestial Word was begotten of The Most High and shown as His image and is an independent entity. The Word was conceived and was known as Jesus according to the Nazarene's. To help you understand a little more. The Word of God in the celestial world is the image of God with life within him. The Most High is total spirit of which no one has the slightest idea of its composition. For our understanding the Entity of the Most High became flesh and existed as Jesus.

I apologize for nothing in defense of my theology and I believe I did not insult anyone through criticism. Malocchio is a Muslim with Muslim ideology the same as I am Christian with Christian ideology. The political correction crowd is shown to be sensitive and wants the debate to be one way but the real world is not that way. That is the usual procedure today but I do not follow political correctness in a debate.

You really don't need to defend yourself, it's not your fault that beliefs take precedent over truth.

Oh, wait, it is. Sorry about that.

a reply to: Seede

Well, thanks for clearing that up, that it's what you believe, but not based on anything real or historic. Just as you believe that John, the young apostle is the person who actually wrote the Gospel of John, which again, there is no historic evidence of this being true. In fact the gospels are all anonymous.

Now firstly show me the Christian bible that is written that John called Jesus the Logos--

Strong's Concordance logos: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech Original Word: λόγος, ου, ὁ Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine Transliteration: logos Phonetic Spelling: (log'-os) Short Definition: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy Definition: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy.
biblehub.com...

The Word of God in the celestial world is the image of God with life within him.

That's Platoism, not the Bible. John 1:1 is borrowed from Hellenistic philosophy taught by Platoists and Hellenistic Pythagoreans and The Therapeutae.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Seede

Well, thanks for clearing that up, that it's what you believe, but not based on anything real or historic. Just as you believe that John, the young apostle is the person who actually wrote the Gospel of John, which again, there is no historic evidence of this being true. In fact the gospels are all anonymous.

Now firstly show me the Christian bible that is written that John called Jesus the Logos--

Strong's Concordance logos: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech Original Word: λόγος, ου, ὁ Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine Transliteration: logos Phonetic Spelling: (log'-os) Short Definition: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy Definition: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy.
biblehub.com...

The Word of God in the celestial world is the image of God with life within him.

That's Platoism, not the Bible. John 1:1 is borrowed from Hellenistic philosophy taught by Platoists and Hellenistic Pythagoreans and The Therapeutae.

Don't forget the Stoics and Philo Judaeus.

I happen to own Philo's books though they are available online (I like books) and when Philo, an Alexandrian Jew from a family with connections through marriage to powerful Romans, uses Logos it's always translated as Reason, so that would be the Hebrew Logos definition to the Greek writing author of John.

In the manner of creative power or the Reason for creation, the first born of God.

And in the Greek philosophical mind that also is the meaning, I don't know why the definition you posted didn't include Reason because it's the most common meaning of Logos in the era of Philo, the Stoics and John.

The common word for word in Greek is lexis, in the grammatical sense.

When Logos is used by the Sophists it means discourse, i.e. a conversation.

Aristotle used it to meam "reasoned discourse.

The Stoics used it as the divine animating principle pervading the universe.

Philo used it with the meaning of Reason.

According to Wikipedia:

Despite the conventional translation as "word" it is not used for word in the grammatical sense, instead, the term lexis was used. However, both derive from the verb lego, meaning "count, tell, say, speak."

To Philo the Logos was the highest intermediary of the divine beings, "the first born of God." "God's instrument in the creation of the universe."

So I have to conclude that John's author was borrowing specifically from Philo.

What other source could it have been that so closely matches John's usage of the Logos?

The Philonic conception of Logos, Philo being a contemporary of Christ, was simply applied to Jesus to make the argument he was God.

Because Jesus sure didn't.

There are instances when Philos Logos is translated Word though.

Who is the Inheritor of Divine Things

XLII.

And the Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Word a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and seperated that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Word is continually a supplant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery, and is the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race.

Other times this same Logos is translated as Reason, so it can only be that Philos Logos means Reason and Word.

But certainly ''John''borrowed this Logos as creative principle of God from Philo as he was the first Jew to apply it to the Hebrew God, John was written later.

That would be one helluva coincidence if the author of John had no knowledge of Philo, and on his own developed an almost identical usage of the term to describe Jesus.

Really fit with red hair.

a reply to: Malocchio

Text I must again correct you for saying after James in authority was John, because It well known that Peter was second to James and that James was replaced by Simeon, I believe his brother.

You have no idea of what you say. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

You are overly sensitive as well. You should be proud that you champion your own ideology just as I am proud to champion Jesus the Word of God.


Quote
But John's doctrine is not Philo's, and does not depend upon it. The differences between the two are pronounced. Though both use the term Logos, they use it with utterly different meanings. In John it signifies word, as in Holy Scripture generally; in Philo, reason; and that so distinctly that when Philo wishes to give it the meaning of word, he adds to it by way of explanation, the term ρημα, word.
The nature of the being described by Logos is conceived by each in an entirely different spirit. John's Logos is a person, with a consciousness of personal distinction; Philo's is impersonal. His notion is indeterminate and fluctuating, shaped by the influence which happens to be operating at the time. Under the influence of Jewish documents he styles the Logos an "archangel;" under the influence of Plato, "the Idea of Ideas;" of the Stoics, "the impersonal Reason." It is doubtful whether Philo ever meant to represent the Logos formally as a person. All the titles he gives it may be explained by supposing it to mean the ideal world on which the actual is modeled.

In Philo, moreover, the function of the Logos is confined to the creation and preservation of the universe. He does not identify or connect him with the Messiah. His doctrine was, to a great degree, a philosophical substitute for Messianic hopes. He may have conceived of the Word as acting through the Messiah, but not as one with him. He is a universal principle. In John the Messiah is the Logos himself, uniting himself with humanity, and clothing himself with a body in order to save the world.

The two notions differ as to origin. The impersonal God of Philo cannot pass to the finite creation without contamination of his divine essence. Hence an inferior agent must be interposed. John's God, on the other hand, is personal, and a loving personality. He is a Father (1:18); His essence is love (3:16; 1 John 4:8, 16). He is in direct relation with the world which He desires to save, and the Logos is He Himself, manifest in the flesh. According to Philo, the Logos is not coexistent with the eternal God. Eternal matter is before him in time. According to John, the Logos is essentially with the Father from all eternity (1:2), and it is He who creates all things, matter included (1:3).
Philo misses the moral energy of the Hebrew religion as expressed in its emphasis upon the holiness of Jehovah, and therefore fails to perceive the necessity of a divine teacher and Savior. He forgets the wide distinction between God and the world, and declares that, were the universe to end, God would die of loneliness and inactivit

As Logos has the double meaning of thought and speech, so Christ is related to God as the word to the idea, the word being not merely a name for the idea, but the idea itself expressed. The thought is the inward word (Dr. Schaff compares the Hebrew expression "I speak in my heart" for "I think").
The Logos of John is the real, personal God (1:1), the Word, who was originally before the creation with God, and was God, one in essence and nature, yet personally distinct (1:1, 18); the revealer and interpreter of the hidden being of God; the reflection and visible image of God, and the organ of all His manifestations to the world. Compare Hebrews 1:3. He made all things, proceeding personally from God for the accomplishment of the act of creation (1:3), and became man in the person of Jesus Christ, accomplishing the redemption of the world. Compare Philippians 2:6.
Unquote
Source www.bible-researcher.com...

Simply because you read John's literature from a Greek to English translations does not mean that the author is Greek. We have Greek to Hebrew to English of the same material with Hebrew thought which, by the way, is not the Greek understanding of Philo or any other Greek philosophy. It would do you well to understand that the two are not
compatible. John's literature is not Gnostic as you are taught and John is the author regaqrdkess of your sources.

Now by your understanding of literature the entire NT would be authored by Greeks simply because that is your source of the material. But you have overlooked the fact that it is well documented through the Nazarene liturgy that even the Hellenistic Jews were not accepted into the synagogue of James. That is a fact. You are trying to tell me that James and his congregation were Hellenistic Jews and that the liturgy was Greek? Preposterous at best. Not true at all. They all penned in Hebrew and Aramaic and taught in in the synagogue in Hebrew.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
Really fit with red hair.

Indeed..."god" is short for "godric gryffindor".