Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 10-02-2005, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Tell us more about miltha.

Is there a definition for miltha that will bridge the gap between malak (Hebrew for messenger) and logos?

To be honest I don't know. The only discussion I have seen is by christians and there always seems to be the hint that they are tring to fit the word to their theology.

Andrew Garbiel Roth

Had the following to say.

Quote:

A last consideration in the mind of John must have been the depth of meaning in the word itself. Put simply, miltha is a term that has no direct equivalent in any other language, including Hebrew. Like the Tanakh usage of davar (rbd) in Psalm 33:6 and the frequent targumic allusion to memra to avoid the anthropomorphizing of Deity, miltha has great power as a particle of divine speech. However, miltha has meanings not even hinted at in these other terms, and certainly not in the Greek logos. Over the centuries, miltha has been rendered as "force", "manifestation", "emanation", "substance" as well as "word", and even all these put together still don't come close to approaching its totality. Surely though it was also this very diversity that John wanted, since only a nearly infinite-meaning word can attempt to do justice to that which is infinite in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Maybe the original tune went a little like this:

In the beginning was the messenger Yahweh, and the messenger Yahweh was with El, and the messenger Yahweh was a son of El.

Possible. Can you see this in view of the verses that immediately follow in John 1?

Loomis · 10-02-2005, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Can you see this in view of the verses that immediately follow in John 1?

Yes. Absolutely. I don’t see any difficulties, except that verse 18 says no one has seen El. But that contradiction is nothing new or unique to my hypothesis. (Jacob saw El.)

How about you?

Quote:

1:2 The Word was with God in the beginning.

1:3 All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.

1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.

Verses 2 says "the Word" had company.

Verse 3 is ambiguous because the creator can be God (El) or the Word (Yahweh) and ether way, we’ve got creation story to support it.

Verse 4 appears to be an allusion to Psalm 36:9 where the elohim is identified as Yahweh (and not El).

Loomis · 10-02-2005, 12:31 PM

Verse 5 is exceptional because the author says someone cannot comprehend something.

Quote:

John 1:5
And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness has not comprehended it.

So what is the big fucking mysterious Gnostic secret that the “darkness�? cannot comprehend?

I think that the author thought that Yahweh was a son of El (and not a permutation of El), and that that was the big fucking secret.

In other words, the author was frustrated because the Jews thought Yahweh and El Elyon were one and the same, but the author thought otherwise.

Loomis · 10-02-2005, 12:47 PM

Quote:

John 1:12
But to all who have received him (Yahweh)—those who believe in his name (Yahweh)—he has given the right to become God’s children (El’s children) 1:13 —children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God (El).

In other words, if you receive Jesus/ Yahweh, you can be a ben elim like Chemosh, Milcom, Shactar, Shalim, and Baal (although I suspect Yahweh might be a permutation of Baal).

Note that the Gospel of Thomas says Jesus had a non-human mother. This is consistent with the view that Jesus/ Yahweh was the son of El and Asherah.

Loomis · 10-02-2005, 12:52 PM

GJohn tells us what his story is going to be about:

Quote:

John 1:14
Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the unique one, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.

Now Yahweh became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the unique one, full of grace and truth, who came from El.

Loomis · 10-02-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

John 1:23
He (John the Baptist) said, “I am the voice of one shouting in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.�?

Quote:

Isaiah 40:3
A voice cries out, “In the wilderness clear a way for Yahweh; construct in the desert a road for our elohim."

John the Baptist said he was making a way for Yahweh.

Time after time, all of the controversial verses in GJohn that purportedly offer conflicting views of Jesus in relation to his “Father�? (and that have traditionally been remedied by the Trinity) can be better reconciled if we assume that the author of GJohn had the same mindset as the author of Deut 32:8-9.

GJohn thought Jesus was Yahweh – a son of El.

I see little room for disagreement.

Does anyone even understand me?

Loomis · 10-04-2005, 10:48 AM

From the thread Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani …

Quote:

Originally Posted by cass256

I have always thought the first part of John was Greek in thought, but to the point where he wants Jesus to be God, and not merely human.

and God said let there be light. Beyone a word being spoken by God to create, we also have the idea that the knowledge from God came as a "word", or became his "Word" when spoken by his prophets. So a word from god is more than just a word.

Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

2 Genesis 15:4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

Moses was the "Word' of God. Baaalam received the "Word"

29 Numbers 22:38 And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak.

30 Numbers 23:5 And the LORD put a word in Balaam's mouth, and said, Return unto Balak, and thus thou shalt speak.

The prophets became the Word of God. John's idea of Jesus being the Logos, would be "Word" in any language and still leave him fully human, despite what John might have been wanting to have people believe. When the Word was with/or in a prophet they became the Word of "God"..

Hey cass256,

thanks for bringing these verses to my attention. It supports what I am trying to say here.

Have you ever wondered if Yahweh may have been the “word of El?�?

GJohn specifically says the Word was not human, and then became human.

Quote:

John 1:14
Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the unique one, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.

Now Yahweh became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the unique one, full of grace and truth, who came from El.

I can’t think of a simpler, more satisfying explanation.

Yahweh and El were not the same god. Jesus and Yahweh were.

Bobinius · 10-04-2005, 11:39 AM

This looks like Loomis talking to Loomis.

Carry on...

Loomis · 10-04-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobinius

This looks like Loomis talking to Loomis.

Carry on...

Yep. And Loomis is getting frustrated.

I suspect the lack of participation stems from the underlying postulate that the Hebrews/ Israelites were every bit as polytheistic as their Canaanite / Ugaritic counterparts.

But that, of course, is only speculation.

Loomis · 10-04-2005, 11:57 AM

From the thread Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani …

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

How can "logos" be an exclusive Greek concept when it is used thousands of times in the LXX as a translation of the original Hebrew word "dabar?"

Thanks. This is the type of “bridge�? I was asking for earlier.

Quote:

Genesis 15:1
After these things the dabar of Yahweh came unto Abram in a vision …

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2005, 11:39 AM	#18
Bobinius Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Transylvania (a real place in Romania ) and France Posts: 2,914	This looks like Loomis talking to Loomis. Carry on...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.