What is The Word?

[Jesuis]

Couldn't that logic be applied to everything we say we "know".

No. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/ -> Wittgenstein's private language argument.

Thanks!

You have created a word in a private language "frequency/ies"

An accusation through as assumption. I have not "created" any "private word" on this thread or any where else. Frequencies was on my last thread in an attempt to solve a problem. It was not private but very public.

Apparently, you feel you know what you mean - nobody else does.

I do know what I mean. I do not know if others know. I also do not feel I know what others say either nor claim to. I always think I am mistaken but you don't

On the other hand, the main meaning[1] of "dog" is known by English speakers, showing that it is not from a set of words within a private language.

1.	there will also be many who know alternative meanings

Code?

You are suggesting that only John (or whoever wrote "John") knew what "word" meant.

Not really. I am thinking if it means something we should be able to figure it out. If it is a secret coded language.

In the extremely unlikely event of your being anywhere near correct, as John is dead and has taken his secret to the grave, there can be no answer to your question. It is lost for ever.

If John is a theist who lives in a society that kills theists for saying something contrary to their beliefs, and he wants to make sure the truth gets passed down He might word or code a sentence in such a way that prevents him from being killed but the message lives on. Although the messengers do not know what it means. 

Old Church Guy did point you to a reputable site that did define "word" as it appeared in John. You did not accept this definition despite your education in the area being abysmal.

I have no education in the area. If you are going to keep accusing me of these things you are trolling me.

I suspect you are now trying to drag others into your delusion.

Why would I want to do that. More accusations based on your mystical esp. You did it on the last thread and now you are doing it again.

But do not worry: the "real" meaning will come to you; be revealed unto you; will appear in your brain with astonishing clarity, but, like "frequencies" you will not quite be able to explain it to others, nor will you (without resort to fantasy and non-sequiturs) be able to say how "word" fits with any known theory.

I know - you seem to be very versatile in this department. I get the message you can ban me and so could anyone who respond in a manner that is threatening to your authority.

Are you a psychic?

[Jesuis]

If the WORD was God, and the WORD became flesh, wouldn't that mean God became flesh?

Flesh is God.

That would explain why sex is awesome.

and steak lets not forget steak is flesh.

Oh yes.  Steak.

Wait, didn't the flesh become steak?  So Steak is God?

Wait didn't the Steak become bacteria? So Bacteria is God? (just playing along).

[JeffPT]

John might have been one person who knew what the WORD was because he wrote it.

The gospels were not actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  We don't know who wrote them.  The names were slapped on later in order to give the 4 stories some credibility.   The apostle John was certainly not the author of the gospel according to John though. 

It would be better to say, 'the original author of the first line of the gospel that was later attributed to John, whomever that may have been, might have been one person who knew what the WORD was because he wrote it'.

[Jesuis]

"In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God." and the Word became Flesh.
What is the WORD?

God.

The answer is contained within the first assertion.  The last part of the assertion says that "the WORD was God".

All I see in this statement is as follows:

"In the beginning was the God and the God was with God and the God was God”.

The same thing occurs when you say the WORD is the Son of God.  The Son of God is God.  So the WORD is God.  God is God.

This is why I gave a negative karma for preaching.

It’s the circular logic that is common when someone claims something that ends up being a logical paradox.

Who or what created God?  God always was.  So God created God.

Wouldn't the first assertion be "In the Beginning"?

You're not very good at leaving, are you. Thanks for getting our hopes up and then dashing them.

Drivel on.

Should I post things that make you love me?
I could that it is easy - all I have to say is You are right!

[Hatter23]

Where's my cookie?

-Nam

no cookie, only steak

[Hatter23]

I gave a positive karma to negate the negative karma I gave.

I forgot this was General Religious Discussion forum which means asking a question about religous text is not preaching.

My bad.

The issue is that he wasn't asking about a question in reality. The question has only one acceptable answer, his. And the whole thing is about circular reasoning. That's just a sermon. Look at his responses here; was there any clarification? Justification? Discourse? No. All he wanted was to muddy the water, have people chase their tails, and then go Halleluiah, I am so great, God is so great.

[Jesuis]

John might have been one person who knew what the WORD was because he wrote it.

The gospels were not actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  We don't know who wrote them.  The names were slapped on later in order to give the 4 stories some credibility.   The apostle John was certainly not the author of the gospel according to John though. 

It would be better to say, 'the original author of the first line of the gospel that was later attributed to John, whomever that may have been, might have been one person who knew what the WORD was because he wrote it'.

Thanks -
Can this mystical figure be a bit of a time traveler because this unexplainable mystical WORD turns up in many of the present day religions.

[ParkingPlaces]

Should I post things that make you love me?
I could that it is easy - all I have to say is You are right!

Oh gosh no. I would never set my hopes that high for a theist. And hey, I don't even know if I'm right myself. But I am able to state exactly what I think, believe, etc., using the english language, and I just love it when my adversaries can do the same thing.

That's why you disappoint. In this thread, for instance, you didn't say what you thought the WORD is, you asked us to tell you. And then you've sat around saying no no no no no to so many. All you had to do is tell us what your version is, then we'd know, and we could talk about something else,

You could have approached the frequency crap intelligently. You could have quoted Tesla, whom we all love, who said "“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”, and built on that. You could have talked physics coherently (just kidding, I know you can't) But nooooooo, you had to beat around the frickin' bush for 875 pages, and berate us for our lack of knowledge because none of us happen to unthink like you. So when I heard you'd run away, I was kind of hoping it was for good and stuff. For a few minutes, I knew how the folks at the Daily Mail felt early last year when you stopped posting there.

I envy them so much.

[magicmiles]

I gave a positive karma to negate the negative karma I gave.

I forgot this was General Religious Discussion forum which means asking a question about religous text is not preaching.

My bad.

The issue is that he wasn't asking about a question in reality. The question has only one acceptable answer, his. And the whole thing is about circular reasoning. That's just a sermon. Look at his responses here; was there any clarification? Justification? Discourse? No. All he wanted was to muddy the water, have people chase their tails, and then go Halleluiah, I am so great, God is so great.

So smite the posts which bear out your suspicions, not the OP which leads you to those suspicions. Not saying your suspicions were unfounded or incorrect (they were spot on), but the OP, in and of itself, was not preaching.

If we all smited on suspicion we could smite Nam's first post in every single thread, knowing he will be an asshole at some point in the thread.

[Jesuis]

I gave a positive karma to negate the negative karma I gave.

I forgot this was General Religious Discussion forum which means asking a question about religous text is not preaching.

My bad.

The issue is that he wasn't asking about a question in reality. The question has only one acceptable answer, his. And the whole thing is about circular reasoning. That's just a sermon. Look at his responses here; was there any clarification? Justification? Discourse? No. All he wanted was to muddy the water, have people chase their tails, and then go Halleluiah, I am so great, God is so great.

I am asking because I have heard something that is nagging in my mind. And for circular "Energy" cannot be destroyed. I am working on its Eternalness.

[Nam]

Where's my cookie?

-Nam

no cookie, only steak

I love steak but I want a cookie.

-Nam

[ThatZenoGuy]

The word is:

[Nam]

Should I post things that make you love me?
I could that it is easy - all I have to say is You are right!

Oh gosh no. I would never set my hopes that high for a theist. And hey, I don't even know if I'm right myself. But I am able to state exactly what I think, believe, etc., using the english language, and I just love it when my adversaries can do the same thing.

That's why you disappoint. In this thread, for instance, you didn't say what you thought the WORD is, you asked us to tell you. And then you've sat around saying no no no no no to so many. All you had to do is tell us what your version is, then we'd know, and we could talk about something else,

You could have approached the frequency crap intelligently. You could have quoted Tesla, whom we all love, who said "“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”, and built on that. You could have talked physics coherently (just kidding, I know you can't) But nooooooo, you had to beat around the frickin' bush for 875 pages, and berate us for our lack of knowledge because none of us happen to unthink like you. So when I heard you'd run away, I was kind of hoping it was for good and stuff. For a few minutes, I knew how the folks at the Daily Mail felt early last year when you stopped posting there.

I envy them so much.

If I told you once, I know I have told you twice and if I have told you twice then thrice! I also have told you (and perhaps 'frice' but that may not be a word)...what was I saying? Oh...um...if I told you srice (I skipped one, didn't I? No, I said "one"). Okay...if I told you what I KNOW I told you, and I believe I did so I must have, that, if you are going to use the word "envy" that it is to be targeted toward clovers. "Why?", you ask...I forget why but THE POINT STILL STANDS!








WAIT....hold the phone (hey! I am)...what was I talking about?

-Nam

[12 Monkeys]

The Word is almost universally accepted by theologians as a reference to God the Son, part of the triune God-head and who became human as Jesus.

only for less than 33% of the earth,try again

[magicmiles]

The Word is almost universally accepted by theologians as a reference to God the Son, part of the triune God-head and who became human as Jesus.

only for less than 33% of the earth,try again

Note the bolded part of my post.

[12 Monkeys]

The Word is almost universally accepted by theologians as a reference to God the Son, part of the triune God-head and who became human as Jesus.

only for less than 33% of the earth,try again

Note the bolded part of my post.

You don't discount the believers who listen to these theologians,and gather their info from them,,,, sorry I was speaking in general terms

[Hatter23]

I gave a positive karma to negate the negative karma I gave.

I forgot this was General Religious Discussion forum which means asking a question about religous text is not preaching.

My bad.

The issue is that he wasn't asking about a question in reality. The question has only one acceptable answer, his. And the whole thing is about circular reasoning. That's just a sermon. Look at his responses here; was there any clarification? Justification? Discourse? No. All he wanted was to muddy the water, have people chase their tails, and then go Halleluiah, I am so great, God is so great.

So smite the posts which bear out your suspicions, not the OP which leads you to those suspicions. Not saying your suspicions were unfounded or incorrect (they were spot on), but the OP, in and of itself, was not preaching.

If we all smited on suspicion we could smite Nam's first post in every single thread, knowing he will be an asshole at some point in the thread.

Look at the OP's wording. Is it expressed like a philosopher? A scientist? Someone asking a rhetorical question out loud for debate? Even like a theologian?

No. It is phrased like a Baptist preacher.

I have heard it from the pulpit word for word, even the bolding and capitalization follow the exact emphasis; this question eliciting the refrain "Jeeehsus" coming from the congregation, followed with a smattering of "Praise God"s.

[magicmiles]

^^ Well we'll have to disagree. I hope you can handle the shock of it.

[ThatZenoGuy]

I personally think it is worded like a preacher, but more so its that the question is asking for something fictional that I am annoyed with.

[Hatter23]

In this thread, for instance, you didn't say what you thought the WORD is, you asked us to tell you. And then you've sat around saying no no no no no to so many.

Yes the "you missed my invisible goalposts" game. Somewhat advanced trolling.

[Astreja]

(Springy G brews a cup of tea and uses the resultant Brownian motion to create an Improbabilistic Woobabbelatron...)

*CLICK* This thing on?

(sips tea and clears Her throat) "The Word," capital W, is not the eternal Word.  Or bird, either.  The Trashmen only got to #4 on the Billboard Hot 100, after all, and then fell off the radar.  I think Laozi was more on the ball than the pseudo-eponymous author  of the Gospel of John, who was clearly informed by dualism.

Or something more trinary if you want to save a seat for the Holy Spook, too.

You see, eternity doesn't need words unless you want to describe it.  That Laozi guy[1] said this:

The Dao that can be spoken is not the Eternal Dao.
The name that can be spoken is not the Eternal Name.
"Non-being" describes the origin of Heaven and Earth.
"Being" describes the mother of the 10,000 things.

Laozi also wrote "Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.”  So I guess he didn't know either, but was at least smart enough to know that he didn't.  That goes double (triple?) for the god of the Bible.  All talk, and still had to call "Where are you?" when he couldn't find Adam and Eve hiding in the shrubbery.

So where does that leave a god that is simultaneously a Word?  Stripped of immortality and vanished in a puff of logic, laid low by its own Logos.

1.	Didn't he invent the Dao Jones Industrial Average, or something?

[Jesuis]

Should I post things that make you love me?
I could that it is easy - all I have to say is You are right!

Oh gosh no. I would never set my hopes that high for a theist. And hey, I don't even know if I'm right myself. But I am able to state exactly what I think, believe, etc., using the english language, and I just love it when my adversaries can do the same thing.

That's why you disappoint. In this thread, for instance, you didn't say what you thought the WORD is, you asked us to tell you. And then you've sat around saying no no no no no to so many. All you had to do is tell us what your version is, then we'd know, and we could talk about something else,

You could have approached the frequency crap intelligently. You could have quoted Tesla, whom we all love, who said "“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”, and built on that. You could have talked physics coherently (just kidding, I know you can't) But nooooooo, you had to beat around the frickin' bush for 875 pages, and berate us for our lack of knowledge because none of us happen to unthink like you. So when I heard you'd run away, I was kind of hoping it was for good and stuff. For a few minutes, I knew how the folks at the Daily Mail felt early last year when you stopped posting there.

I envy them so much.

At least you realise I am not a troll. Thanks for the wise advice on Tesla's approach.
As for my English - give it time - Age does not make it any better.
Soon I'll be dead anyway so it does not matter.
All I want to know is whether I pass away knowing I was right that there is no God after all these years.
So if any atheist have proof that they are right it would really help. I aim to pick out the things that have troubled me when I came upon them and ignored them for the sake of life's pleasures.

[Nam]

^^ Well we'll have to disagree. I hope you can handle the shock of it.

Not to be pedantic but I agree with Hatter. There's nothing really following what he says. He's asking an innocuous question because he already has the answer, his answer. If you contradicted his answer you'd get the same response the rest of us would get and that deems it not only preaching but inconclusive to holding an actual conversation.

Who but maybe you and Graybeard actually have? And, look at his response to Graybeard. Proves the point made.

-Nam

[Jesuis]

The Word is almost universally accepted by theologians as a reference to God the Son, part of the triune God-head and who became human as Jesus.

only for less than 33% of the earth,try again

However the WORD is mentioned in all religions as the creative power just they do not have the same theologians or the same language. If it was taken into account that would change the percentage phenomenally.

[Jesuis]

In this thread, for instance, you didn't say what you thought the WORD is, you asked us to tell you. And then you've sat around saying no no no no no to so many.

Yes the "you missed my invisible goalposts" game. Somewhat advanced trolling.

Thanks. - I am touched - advanced? No one has ever said such a nice Word to me.

[SevenPatch]

"In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God." and the Word became Flesh.
What is the WORD?

God.

The answer is contained within the first assertion.  The last part of the assertion says that "the WORD was God".

All I see in this statement is as follows:

"In the beginning was the God and the God was with God and the God was God”.

The same thing occurs when you say the WORD is the Son of God.  The Son of God is God.  So the WORD is God.  God is God.

This is why I gave a negative karma for preaching.

It’s the circular logic that is common when someone claims something that ends up being a logical paradox.

Who or what created God?  God always was.  So God created God.

Wouldn't the first assertion be "In the Beginning"?

The first assertion is the first sentance, at least that is what I meant.  I guess it's possible to have multiple assertions in a sentance but it still ends up being an assertion.

I guess we'll never know what the actual auther thought the WORD was.  Even if said auther tried to explain it, they might have known something different.

[ThatZenoGuy]

However the WORD is mentioned in all religions as the creative power just they do not have the same theologians or the same language. If it was taken into account that would change the percentage phenomenally.

I am going to need a source on this, stat.

[Jesuis]

"In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God." and the Word became Flesh.
What is the WORD?

God.

The answer is contained within the first assertion.  The last part of the assertion says that "the WORD was God".

All I see in this statement is as follows:

"In the beginning was the God and the God was with God and the God was God”.

The same thing occurs when you say the WORD is the Son of God.  The Son of God is God.  So the WORD is God.  God is God.

This is why I gave a negative karma for preaching.

It’s the circular logic that is common when someone claims something that ends up being a logical paradox.

Who or what created God?  God always was.  So God created God.

Wouldn't the first assertion be "In the Beginning"?

The first assertion is the first sentance, at least that is what I meant.  I guess it's possible to have multiple assertions in a sentance but it still ends up being an assertion.

I guess we'll never know what the actual auther thought the WORD was.  Even if said auther tried to explain it, they might have known something different.

Maybe they should have called it "The teachings of John" instead of trying to pass it off as The teachings of Jesus?

[Jesuis]

However the WORD is mentioned in all religions as the creative power just they do not have the same theologians or the same language. If it was taken into account that would change the percentage phenomenally.

I am going to need a source on this, stat.

What is a Stat?