We disagree on that point or this thread would not exist.
Know what I mean Vern?
Who Is The Word Of God
- Thread starter easymon1
- Start date
Know what I mean Vern?
No! There is no "Who" for the Word of God. It is a construct couched in parable!
Who is the boogeyman? There is no boogeyman, it is simply our fears anthropomorphized!
We disagree on the topic of interest in this thread, or this thread would not exist.
Know what I mean Vern?
Know what I mean Vern?
The Bible says "God created man in His image". Genesis 1:27
But is it true the Tanakh reads "We will create man in our image"?
Emphasis (mine) on "our".
Supposedly he was talking to angels....
It's interesting though.
While that may only be one word, it's a BIG word in its meaning. One not likely to get lost in translation.
"Our".
Hmmm.
Ahh geez, that goes deep into that Jew shit I hate. The Tanakh is like an expanded version of the Torah. They, like the Christians, mucked it all up by adding all these extra books to the original scriptures. I don't know in which section they mentioned "We will create man in our image", but it cannot be good for Jehova, since they are co-opting His original work.
Sumarian creation stories
https://www.dogpile.com/serp?q=Sumarian+creation+stories
Well, it says here...
Looks like you got the genesis end of The Good Book on y'alls mind so in keeping with proper and grateful exhaltation for that once in a hmmm, what's that word ..., Sarge little help man, you know, fill in the word follows for that once in a ____________ event, Genesis, a follow up report featuring more recent news... Yes Sarge we have reports of flooding incoming. Joseph Pesci, aka the human fish ladder, second from right above, files the following report...Tossing it to You Joe!
The Sumerian Flood Story (also known as the Eridu Genesis, Sumerian Creation Myth, Sumerian Deluge Myth) is the oldest Mesopotamian text relating the tale of the Great Flood which would appear in later works such as the Atrahasis (17th century BCE) and The Epic of Gilgamesh (c. 2150-1400 BCE). The tale is also – most famously – told as the story of Noah and his ark from the biblical Book of Genesis (earliest possible date c. 1450 BCE, latest, c. 800-600 BCE). The story is dated to c. 2300 BCE in its written form but is thought to be much older, preserved by oral tradition until committed to writing. The extant work is badly damaged, with a number of significant lines missing, but can still be read and easily understood as an early Great Flood story. Scholars who have studied the text generally rely on the later Akkadian/Babylonian Atrahasis – which tells the same tale – to fill in the blanks of missing text from the broken tablet. The story most likely influenced the Egyptian “flood story” known as The Book of the Heavenly Cow (dated, in part, to the First Intermediate Period of Egypt, 2181-2040 BCE) but certainly was the inspiration for the later Mesopotamian works as well as the biblical narrative of Noah. The story was first discovered in 1893, during the period of widespread expeditions and excavations throughout Mesopotamia funded by western institutions. The good man in this version of the tale, chosen to survive the flood and preserve life on earth, is the Priest-King Ziudsura of the city of Suruppak (whose name means “life of long days”). This same figure appears as Atrahasis (“exceedingly wise”) in the later work that bears his name, as Utnapishtim (“he found life”) in The Epic of Gilgamesh, and as Noah (“rest” or “peace”) in the Book of Genesis.
The Sumerian Flood Story (also known as the Eridu Genesis, Sumerian Creation Myth, Sumerian Deluge Myth) is the oldest Mesopotamian text relating the tale of the Great Flood which would appear in later works such as the Atrahasis (17th century BCE) and The Epic of Gilgamesh (c. 2150-1400 BCE). The tale is also – most famously – told as the story of Noah and his ark from the biblical Book of Genesis (earliest possible date c. 1450 BCE, latest, c. 800-600 BCE). The story is dated to c. 2300 BCE in its written form but is thought to be much older, preserved by oral tradition until committed to writing. The extant work is badly damaged, with a number of significant lines missing, but can still be read and easily understood as an early Great Flood story. Scholars who have studied the text generally rely on the later Akkadian/Babylonian Atrahasis – which tells the same tale – to fill in the blanks of missing text from the broken tablet. The story most likely influenced the Egyptian “flood story” known as The Book of the Heavenly Cow (dated, in part, to the First Intermediate Period of Egypt, 2181-2040 BCE) but certainly was the inspiration for the later Mesopotamian works as well as the biblical narrative of Noah. The story was first discovered in 1893, during the period of widespread expeditions and excavations throughout Mesopotamia funded by western institutions. The good man in this version of the tale, chosen to survive the flood and preserve life on earth, is the Priest-King Ziudsura of the city of Suruppak (whose name means “life of long days”). This same figure appears as Atrahasis (“exceedingly wise”) in the later work that bears his name, as Utnapishtim (“he found life”) in The Epic of Gilgamesh, and as Noah (“rest” or “peace”) in the Book of Genesis.
I dislike slicing and dicing the contents of the bible because it implies there is some importance there that we must understand. I don't think so. I would prefer to slice and dice to show that it is somewhat self-contradictory, and not worth our time.
I have, in the past, suggested that Genesis 1:1 and the first verse of the so called gospel of John, are really two different narrations about beginnings. They have in common the term, "In the beginning", but that's about all they have in common.
Technically anonymous, whomever did author the gospel attributed to John, diverged enough from the other three main pop gospels that it is not included in their sphere of "synoptic". It's quite possible "John" represents one of the early interpretations of Jesus message, as various interpretations evolved away from each other. John might represent one of six variations of Jesus' message within the first 50 years. In my opinion, it helps more than the other three "synoptic" gospels, but diverges enough from Jesus original message that it really does not help us move the needle much toward salvation. John does contain a couple three interesting references that does support my own understanding of the message. Christians are never happy to be reminded of those references.
The "Word of God" was probably John's own special treatment of his own special understanding of the gospel of Jesus.
It may derive from an old Jewish custom, which was to never utter the actual name of God, which may have been a four letter Hebrew word that sounds like Jehovah in English. Instead of skipping the name, when reading the scriptures, the reader may have substituted a phrase like "word of god", in order to avoid pronouncing the actual name.
It may also derive from John's borrowing from a Greek legend about a "logos" of sorts. In Greek philosophy it is a reference to cosmic reason. If you delve into Greek references to logos, you may see that it lends itself to literary appropriation for the proponents of John's version of Christianity, as it tries to penetrate the Greek market of ideas. It may be the closest reference in Greek to anything John's crowd was promoting, and so, it was appropriated.
As such, it emphasizes a rather mystical pre-existence for the manifestation which eventually became known as "Jesus". At least that is the connection John wants us to make, as if Greek philosophy had expected, as if Greeks also had prophets to contend with. I don't think the Greeks did expect anything like Jesus, but that is what John wants us to believe.
From what he then says about it, we can presume that this pre-existent "logos" did not express itself as "flesh", because John wishes to emphasize that however Jesus was previously expressed, it morphed into ("became") what is now called "flesh". John is sorely lacking as to how or why the logos "became flesh", just that it did. In doing so, John wishes to emphasize that it "came unto it's own". Unfortunately, it's own did not recognize it, because that world was "dark".
This gives clues why i suggest this is a completely different narrative than anything offered by "Genesis". They only have "In the beginning" in common. As such, John's is a mix between Jewish and Greek traditions. As far as the Jewish tradition, i have asserted that Jesus spoke against those who emphasized any kind of "beginning", telling the scribes and Pharisees that the devil was a liar since "the beginning" which i have asserted is a reference to the very first sentence in Jewish scriptures. As such, everything in their (Hebrew) scriptures, which follows upon "the beginning", is a lie.
Likewise, i don't think Jesus would be much more impressed by what John has said follows "the beginning", for the very simple logic:
Christ has no beginning. If Christ is the truth, then anything that has a beginning must be a lie.
In the case of John, i would call it, at best, a very confusing interpretation. Worth saving is the concept of light coming into a dark world, which does not recognize the light, even though it may be related to the light ("came unto his own"). Worth noting is this implies there are two worlds at enmity. One is "dark" and the other is "light". If you equate light to knowledge, and dark to ignorance and/or faith (like i do), it begins to make a little more sense.
This phrase, The Word of God, as if it was a Being, is about the only commonality with the book called "Revelations". For this reason, early thinkers like Justin Martyr may have thought the authors of these two books were the same. But other, just as weighty early thinkers, disagree, mainly because the language in these two books is worlds apart. I agree with those who figure the author was a narcissist high on some kind of drug. You have to draw a line somewhere between symbolism, and an actual revelation. I argue that the book does not reveal a damn thing. Rather the opposite, the symbolism conceals more than it reveals. As such, it is not much more significant than anything Nostradamus gave us.
Trying to interpret that book ("Revelations") just causes more gnashing of teeth. If i were to interpret that book to make it support my own message (i could), not one Christian would accept my interpretation. As such, the book sits next to Song of Solomon in such vague references that it stretches the concept of "parable" to such a limit that no interpretation really has any value. It causes people to argue about things like "pre-tribulation" and "post-tribulation", and more than any book, supports the concept of a great judgement after a first death, but before a second death, and so forth. For this reason alone it was probably included in the canon because this concept, more than anything else in the book, lends itself to the agenda of the new priesthood which divides the entire globe up into "diocese", into which a version of the basic Jewish priesthood is extended into franchise. Think: McReligion.
Just looking at the term "word of god", whether capitalized at all, or not at all, the first thing i notice is that words come from mouths. "Became flesh" ought to mean that some Being that did not have a mouth, became something that has a "mouth". If you believe that prior Being was a "Spirit" (capitalized or not), then you would accept perhaps that if Spirit does not have a mouth, then "word" must mean something else.
I suggest that because the "word" or "Word" was channeled into some kind of "beginning", that the "word" has something to do with FAITH, which has both a beginning and an end...at best. I suggest that "the word" is a mechanism by which faith transforms spirit into forms such as "flesh". A better term, then, might be fiat of intention, which is a primal thought process in the faith paradigm. Faith, and the world of magic are closely intertwined. In the world of magic, everything begins with a "spell", which is usually worded and expressed and finalized with a phrase like, "so mote it be". Upon this "fiat", whatever is intended is brought into what's called "manifestation", which is then called "reality".
As such, i suggest that the term "the word of god" is mainly used by those early interpreters of Jesus' message who were interested in magic, and who wished to find a way to use Jesus' message to further their magical intentions. The so called "Book of Hebrews" is most illustrative of the magical thinking of the day, the book being practically a grimoire, which admits how a world with a beginning is initiated by the fiat of FAITH. It then tries to explain how the blood of Jesus can be used to further some magical intentions, if accepted with a drop of faith. As such, i suggest it is a grimiore of black magic.
So no, i don't think the term is at all helpful, except to understand it's context within the world of magic...to beware how faith works, so that it can be avoided in favor of actual knowledge.
Last edited:
He appears in Revelation 19, the last section of the bible from Genesis which is
the Second section or a loooooooooooooong list of sections of the bible.
A search finds no other instances of this four word phrase with capitalization
appearing exactly like that of the way it appears below. Why is that?
The Rider from Heaven and his Victory (19:11–21)
Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse.[14]
He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and
His name is called The Word of God.[17]
-
Who is called "The Word of God"?
G = God
H = "He who is called The Word of God"
Is "H" called by any other word?
https://www.openbible.info/topics/who_is_the_word_of_god
Last edited: