What I was trying to say about the use of a beginning in John is that it is different from how arche is used in the narratives about the primary elements. — Paine

It is also worth noting that what John says about the beginning is not what the story it alludes to says.

It is a case of arguing on the basis of authority and then changing what the authority said afterwards.

If he was not a saint it would seem sneaky.

In the beginning was the word — John

ॐ

Very Hindu of John.

Perhaps that element played a part in those early churches; We will never know.

But it does not reflect the expectation that the world was going to change because of their arrival upon the scene. Being a Christian is a job.

Perhaps that element played a part in those early churches; We will never know.

But it does not reflect the expectation that the world was going to change because of their arrival upon the scene. Being a Christian is a job — Paine

I see. Is it disappointment I detect or is it elation? Perhaps that's irrelevant to a non-Christian or, contrariwise, even more so to one.

What's important though, in me humble opinion, is what's implied by ॐ. Agree/disagree/don't give a damn?

Well, "what's implied by ॐ"?

Well, "what's implied by ॐ"? — 180 Proof

Il est facile de voir que ... we're not in a position to answer that question. As Paine so eloquently put it, some things ... we'll never know.

I see. Is it disappointment I detect or is it elation? Perhaps that's irrelevant to a non-Christian or, contrariwise, even more so to one. — Agent Smith

I have many conflicting thoughts and feelings regarding these matters. Perhaps I should stay within an area of agreement we have reached when you said, "chronos is the X factor." John placed a significance in a moment in time that would be utter nonsense to Heraclitus.

What's important though, in me humble opinion, is what's implied by ॐ. Agree/disagree/don't give a damn? — Agent Smith

Whatever is implied, the meditation gives voice to a desire. Something like that is happening in this prayer:




Asking as a form of receiving some portion of the request.

Il est facile de voir que ... we're not in a position to answer that question. — Agent Smith

If so, then why assume ॐ implies anything at all?

If so, then why assume ॐ implies anything at all? — 180 Proof

Good question. It's the only thing we got?!

Your post on the logos directed this thread down an interesting path, with time playing a significant role. I only wished to bring that to your attention. It seems arche is very similar to God.

It's the only thing we got?! — Agent Smith

Far from it, mi amigo. We temporarily have everything else too.

Far from it, mi amigo. We temporarily have everything else too — 180 Proof

:ok:

It seems arche is very similar to God. — Agent Smith

I prefer the real.

I prefer the real. — 180 Proof

Me too, but I can't imagine a person, living or dead, who doesn't have at least one unreal element in his/her weltanschauung. I e.g. have an unstable notion of God in my worldview. What about you?

So what? We're flawed – "unstable" – in our thinking, feelings, beliefs; however, philosophy is a discipline for correcting or mitigating such flaws. I'm as consciously godless as I can be insofar as I'm striving to be fully attentive to the real as much as possible. For me, like Sisyphus, understanding consists in eliminating every "unreal element" from my way of life. :death: :flower:

It seems arche is very similar to God. — Agent Smith

I don't think that arche is an active principle in John 1. He says explicitly that the Logos was God. Note also that in the beginning God/Logos already was.

Yes, there are many, many ways we could look at it.

Of course. My hermeneutic preference is to first try and understand what an author is saying. In line with this to try and figure out what he is denying.

This dispute can be seen by comparing what he says with Heraclitus:

Having harkened not to me but to the Word (Logos) it is wise to agree that all things are one. (B50)

With talk of Logos what John says would have sounded familiar to an educated Greek or Roman, and perhaps to others as well.

With "in the beginning" what John says would have sounded familiar to a Jewish audience.

The key difference is a creator God who stands apart from His creation.

If John was aware of this difference he presents a brilliant rhetorical piece of writing. The word of God as opposed to the Word shifts the voice of authority.

So what? We're flawed – "unstable" – in our thinking, feelings, beliefs; however, philosophy is a discipline for correcting or mitigating such flaws. I'm as consciously godless as I can be insofar as I'm striving to be fully attentive to the real as much as possible. For me, like Sisyphus, understanding consists in eliminating every "unreal element" from my way of life — 180 Proof

I intelligo mon ami! I applaud your no-nonsense approach to life. It is for people like yourself, mon ami, that I'm, unfortunately, a reluctant (a)theist.

I see. That's a unique way of looking at the issue, true. Heraclitean views are quite down-to-earth and I fear I fail to see the John connection. I'm not denying there is one though. I (reluctantly) hope there is one.

I fail to see the John connection — Agent Smith

The connection to what? To Heraclitus? To your reluctant theism?

The connection to what? To Heraclitus? To your reluctant theism? — Paine

Si.

In the beginning was the word
— John — Agent Smith

This is a translation of the Greek "Εν αρχή ην ο λόγος και Θεός ην ο λόγος" (transliterated as "En archi in o logos kai Theos in o logos"), with which John managed to perplex everyone, including St. Augustine. As the ancient Greek priestess Pythia did with her oracular statements! :smile:

Augustine, talking about the Trinity, "not just in his theological writings, but frequently in his homilies, encouraging his audience to plumb the depths of this mystery even though they cannot fully understand it: 'It says and the Word was God (Jn. 1:1). We are talking about God; so why be surprised if you cannot grasp it? I mean, if you can grasp it, it isn’t God.'" (https://www.faithandculture.com/home/2020/4/15/john-113-with-st-augustine).

Now, here's what I have to say about this big "riddle":

First of all, the word "logos" has been wrongly translated as "word", which does does not make any sense as Arche. So the English translation makes John's "riddle" even more difficult to solve!

In Greek, the word logos had --and still has-- different meanings: speech, logic, analogy, reason, to mention a few. The word "word" (a literal translation of the word "lexis" in Greek) is not even among them. But even if we take the word "speech" as the closest one to it, it makes no sense that everything was created by speech, does it? There are other meanings that are much more pertinent, the first of which being "logic", which has the same root with "logos" and it is also close to "reason".

As for the word "Om" that you have brought up as a parallel, the prime symbol of Hinduism, is has also different meanings and has been interpreted in various ways, but mainly to denote the essence of the supreme Being or God, the Absolute, consciousness, Atman, Brahman or the cosmic world.
So, Hinduism at least refers to ॐ as a symbol, not a word (although it is spoken as part of chants or songs).
I don't know of anyone referring to John's "Word" as a symbol of some kind. That at least would make more sense. But no, it is left "hanglng on the air".

At least, Augustine admitted he can't solve the riddle and (cunningly) stated: "If you can grasp it, it isn’t God"! (It reminds of "God Works in Mysterious Ways", doesn't it? :smile:)

I have to say that's how some of us would interpret the story. The true meaning was probably lost in translation. This happens quite often I'm told. Still, arche, ex mea sententia, seems relevant ... somehow.

The alpha of the beginning is tied to the omega of the risen Christ. John says the only way to salvation is through the Son. The First Word becomes the Last.

It is difficult to imagine a country further from the domicile of Heraclitus who says:

106. To God all things are beautiful, good, and right; men, on the other hand, deem some things right and others wrong. — ibid

Good point.

Unlike Christian eschatology where there is a beginning and end it time, for Heraclitus time does not play a significant role. The arche is not a point in time, it is not the beginning but, rather a cause or principle without beginning or end.

For John time is not the cause of what happens in time, God is.

Is it ironic then that the New Advent encyclopedia, in its entry on Logos, says

It is in Heraclitus that the theory of the Logos appears for the first time, and it is doubtless for this reason that, first among the Greek philosophers, Heraclitus was regarded by St. Justin (Apol. I, 46) as a Christian before Christ.

I hope Heraclitus does not find this out. That would make the Oedipus story look like an ice cream headache.