The Word: Earth Created by Sound Waves

by cameo-d 58 Replies latest watchtower bible

notverylikely

I agree with that. I only called it "nothing" to make my point, as there are those who apparently believe energy is "nothing", for instance, the scientists in the article who claimed to have made matter "out of nothing." Get my drift?
The scientists don't beleive that. It's an expression, like saying you created something out of thin air. I DO get the drift that you didn't know much or ANY of this before you started this discussion and have continutally been corrected, which leads me to...
Ah, yes, sarcasm... even when someone admits their ignorance of a subject and attempts to have an honest discussion, albeit presenting a differing point of view
You've been ignorant os science and what the words and ideas and fact are and continually try to fit god into them. You started with god "speaking" things into existence via sound and now it's jesus created everything with light. The sarcasm comes in because when you try to take ideas that you CLEARLY don't understand and use them to explain something unproveable, you might as well claim the easter bunner pooped out eggs that contained pure photons that made the universe when they hatched. Nevermind that rabbits are rodent mammals that don't lay eggs and where did the rabbit come from anyway.....
So... mature.
So I should say to you..."Learn." I appreciate that you are trying, but reading a short article and fitting it into a pre-existing theology ain't science, kid.
so, in their minds... "nothing"? But perhaps you know something the scientists didn't... and I would be more than happy to hear about it, if you care to share...
I knew enough to recognize a colloquialism.
It is not I who said a photon is nothing. I only quoted the article. Hence, the quotation marks. My position, however, as I stated above, is that "something" cannot come from "nothing"
I guess that's my point, you didn't understand the article because you don't have the neccasry knowledge and background.
It stated "create". But perhaps you know something these physicists/science writer doesn't know?
*sigh*.... no, I just understood the article.
May I ask you, please... why do YOU think people so long ago would write that the first thing "God" said "let there be"... was "light"?
Because in the dawn there is light before you can actually see the sun. It's not that hard.
But in case you didn't get it, my position is that, contrary to previous believe... and evidently some belief here... pure energy CAN create matter.
Who doesn't believe matter can come from energy? Can you define "pure engergy" and differentiate it from just regular energy?
And Christ is the pure energy... or light... through which all matter... or the physical universe... was created.
The bible never says christ is pure energy. It says he is a spirit. spirits are invisible. he is the light metaphorically as in "I can see the truth" in your mind's eye.
notverylikely

And i have to say, shelby, that you shouldn't take these as personal attacks but it does seem disingenuous when you claim no understanding, then when you are corrected about something you repeated you claim you were just repeating it and you suddenly know all kinds of stuff but still don't understand the article.
BTW, if the scientists really CAN create something out of "nothing" like God did....wouldn't that make him a God?
AGuest

The scientists don't beleive that. It's an expression, like saying you created something out of thin air.
Sorry, dear NVL (again, peace to you!)... but I thought that that was exactly what they were saying... and believed. I mean, it warranted an article in a science journal...
I DO get the drift that you didn't know much or ANY of this before you started this discussion and have continutally been corrected, which leads me to
Well, okay, if you believe the discussion needs to deteriorate to that...
You've been ignorant os science and what the words and ideas and fact are and continually try to fit god into them.
You don't believe that there are things of this physical world... "science"... that can explain God... or things attributed to God? I'm sorry, but I don't totally agree with that...
You started with god "speaking" things into existence via sound
No. I asked a question... whether or not God's breathing something could result in air. And I explained what I meant by "air."
and now it's jesus created everything with light.
Oh, thank you, LORD! I thought I was going crazy. That very statement shows me that you don't have a CLUE what I'm speaking of. There is NOWHERE that I said my Lord created everything with light. There is NOWHERE that I said my Lord created anything.
The sarcasm comes in because when you try to take ideas that you CLEARLY don't understand and use them to explain something unproveable,
Goodness gracious... what in the WORLD are you speaking of? True, I don't clearly understand certain "ideas"... but I think you've expended more time trying to attack what I'm saying... than trying to understand it. Okay, I misused "mass" when I should have used "matter." But surely you knew what I meant. And if you didn't, you need only ask. Even so, I clarified once you corrected me.
But the issue was COULD "something" come from "nothing"... something being matter... nothing being no matter. According to the article light (which THEY consider as "nothing")... was used to create/convert energy into matter (which THEY consider as "something"). Okay, could light be converted into matter. Either way... the answer is still yes. Photons are not matter, but energy particles. In the experiment, one photon colliding into a densely packed set of photons resulted in matter. No matter before; matter after. Per the scientists... something... from "nothing" (i.e., no matter).
That same premise can be applied... if Christ is light. Something (the physical universe) came OUT of nothing (the light that is Christ).
you might as well claim the easter bunner pooped out eggs that contained pure photons that made the universe when they hatched.
Well, according to the article, if the dear bunny COULD lay eggs... and so pooped out, say, a billion billion eggs... and for some reason one of those eggs hit, say, a couple million of the others (which were densely packed together) at the same time... well, you might not get the universe but, according to the article, you might get a tiny piece of it...
Which doesn't make me quiver in fear (because the scope is too small). Big numbers don't scare me: just multiply the billions of billions of eggs... by whatever number you need to multiply them by... and have them collide with a force, say, a gazillion gazillion... gazillion... times stronger than what occurred in the experiment and, well, you must might end up with a genesis.
Nevermind that rabbits are rodent mammals that don't lay eggs and where did the rabbit come from anyway.....
Well, not the same place as the eggs...
So I should say to you..."Learn."
As I should say to you...
I appreciate that you are trying,
No, you don't. You are chagrined that I am bothering to enter into unknown territory... YOUR territory... and so you wish/need to set me straight. No problem, I don't mind - as I stated, I don't know science. I do know God, though, but find it funny that you are unwilling to grant me to same... ummmm... regard. I am willing to learn about science. Are you willing to learn about the Most Holy One of Israel? No, you only wish to ridicule. Why IS that, exactly? I am not afraid of science or learning about science. I will try. What, though, do you have to fear of learning about God?
but reading a short article and fitting it into a pre-existing theology ain't science, kid.
No, and I didn't intend it to be. I wasn't even thinking to use Christ to prove science is right, dear one. My position is that science may prove that Christ is the light that God used to create the physical universe. What's the concern?
I knew enough to recognize a colloquialism.
My bad. I have a tendency to take people seriously. I don't initially attribute false motives... or misleading statements... to anyone. Not until I have reason to...
I guess that's my point, you didn't understand the article because you don't have the neccasry knowledge and background.
Well, then, I guess that puts us on equal ground, then, yes? Because I know about as much about physics as you know about the Most Holy One of Israel. Yet, you believe you can use what YOU "know"... to explain away what you DON'T know. How are we different, I must ask?
*sigh*.... no, I just understood the article.
Then I really am glad that you condescended to explain it more accurately to me. Perhaps next time a similar subject comes up... I won't cause myself (oh, wait, no, YOU)... so much chagrin. I have to say, though, your very thorough lesson notwithstanding... nothing changed for me.
in the dawn there is light before you can actually see the sun. It's not that hard.
Ummm... so you missed the part about the account NOT being about the sun/moon/stars... you know, physical luminaries? C'mon, man... at least I TRIED to read the dang article. The least you could have done was checked to see WHAT "light" was being referred to...
Who doesn't believe matter can come from energy?
I was referring to people, including some here... who believe that something can come out of nothing. I do not. I believe something comes out of something. I do not believe light... to be nothing...
Can you define "pure engergy" and differentiate it from just regular energy?
Probably not without looking it up.
The bible never says christ is pure energy.
Ahhhh... and see, there again, you misunderstand me. I never said the Bible said Christ was pure energy. It does say he is the light, though. If you had seen that light... and its substance, purity, dynamic power... well, I cannot describe it to, but you would know what I mean. You most likely are going to have to wait, though, and see for yourself.
It says he is a spirit.
Indeed.
spirits are invisible.
Not always, number one. And that doesn't mean they can't be seen... number two. It just means they can't be seen with eyes of flesh. Those are not the only eyes we see with, however...
he is the light metaphorically as in "I can see the truth" in your mind's eye.
Oh, NOW who's talking what they don't know?? LOLOLOLOLOL! Dear one... you have no idea. Absolutely NO idea. I don't know where you even got that explanation/understanding. Certainly not from HIM. And PLEASE don't tell me you got it from the Bible. Please.
I bid you peace, dear NVL, truly. And some calm. Don't feel so threatened when someone ventures into "your" territory. Otherwise, you might rum them far... far... away. Which would defeat what SHOULD be your purpose: to teach them what you believe YOU know about it. Right?
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
Nathan Natas

...for some reason I am reminded of the fable of the blind men describing an elephant.
Peace in, peace out, peace all about.
notverylikely

Well, okay, if you believe the discussion needs to deteriorate to that...
You admitted that. Re-iterating what you yourself said is not detiorating a discussion.
You don't believe that there are things of this physical world... "science"... that can explain God... or things attributed to God? I'm sorry, but I don't totally agree with that...
That's not at all what I was saying and to suggest it was is .... interesting. In any event, whether you agree with it or not, science hasn't found god.
That very statement shows me that you don't have a CLUE what I'm speaking of. There is NOWHERE that I said my Lord created everything with light.
You're right. You said God flashed it into existence thorugh christ who was a photon. That also has no scientific backing.
That same premise can be applied... if Christ is light. Something (the physical universe) came OUT of nothing (the light that is Christ).
So jesus is photons smashing together? is THAT your premise?
No, you don't. You are chagrined that I am bothering to enter into unknown territory... YOUR territory... and so you wish/need to set me straight. No problem, I don't mind - as I stated, I don't know science. I do know God, though, but find it funny that you are unwilling to grant me to same... ummmm... regard.
I am not chagrined at all. Science is repeatable, observable and open to scrutiny and better ideas. You claim to speak to god through dreams and deny what others say about him that hear on the inside at all. You are trying to merge science with YOUR theology that is unverifiable. When there is falsifiable and repeatable experiments that your theology is right, I'll happily believe it. Science and knowledge isn't about GRANTING anyone anything, it's about data and experimentation. When you wander into the realm of science, anything you put forth has to meet the criteria. Fits observations, falsifiable, repeatable.
No, and I didn't intend it to be. I wasn't even thinking to use Christ to prove science is right, dear one. My position is that science may prove that Christ is the light that God used to create the physical universe. What's the concern?
The poor understanding of science and math that seems to be so common.
Well, then, I guess that puts us on equal ground, then, yes? Because I know about as much about physics as you know about the Most Holy One of Israel. Yet, you believe you can use what YOU "know"... to explain away what you DON'T know. How are we different, I must ask?
Equal? What I know is able to be observed by anyone, learned, repeated. What you know comes to you in dreams and differs from others that claim to get info from the same god in the same way. In what way is that "equal"? I mean, in another thread someone was quoting a langston hughes story where he describes HIS spiritualty and you said parts of his experience were wrong. But they were right to him. You dismissed his experience with hubris and arrogance.
No, those positions aren't equal. Once is subject to scrutiny and testing and proof. The other is subject to what you happen to dream about.
I have to say, though, your very thorough lesson notwithstanding... nothing changed for me.
Well, you can learn or not. The choice is up to you.
Ummm... so you missed the part about the account NOT being about the sun/moon/stars... you know, physical luminaries? C'mon, man... at least I TRIED to read the dang article. The least you could have done was checked to see WHAT "light" was being referred to...
No, I didn't miss it. I just don't think that a sheepherder 4000 years ago had any idea what light was or how it worked. I mean, heck, they thought a woman menstruating made her unclean and not to be touched. They thought raping a girl was a reason to marry her. They thought beating a slave to death was OK as long as it took them a day or two to die. Do you believe those things as well? if not, why not?
Heck, you already told me you thought parts of the bible are wrong. why not the parts where they get science wrong?
Oh, NOW who's talking what they don't know??
You. Still. Nothing about jesus being made out of photons or god making breath create stuff is in the bible. That is at best interpretation laid on top of an interpretation of a translation of an error filled copy of a copy of a copy of an ancient book that was redacted and merged over and over.
I bid you peace, dear NVL, truly. And some calm. Don't feel so threatened when someone ventures into "your" territory.
Threatened? I'm not threatened. I'm sad at how utterly little people know and how little they WANT to know. I would venture that I know at LEAST as much as you about the bible and the bible writers and the history of god and jesus.
Which would defeat what SHOULD be your purpose: to teach them what you believe YOU know about it. Right?
Sure, but I can't make you learn. Rather than learn, you absorb and twist science in Jesus. That's not learning.
AGuest

Greetings dear NVL… and, as always, peace to you! We will have to do this in parts, if you don’t mind. Thank you!
You admitted that. Re-iterating what you yourself said is not detiorating a discussion.
I think we misunderstand one another; I was referring to your sarcasm… and admission of resulting to that. I realize you believe yourself to be one who doesn’t “suffer fools lightly” and you think me a fool. I won’t deny that – I am the first to admit it. I am a foolish thing… and it is one of the reasons I receive what I do from my Lord. Because I am willing to be that fool… look/appear foolish… for his sake. If my foolishness prompts you to need to be sarcastic… so be it. I am not offended. I was just sayin’…
You dispute my question regarding whether you believe there are things in the physical world… science… that can explain God or things attributed to him. Please forgive my misunderstanding you – I truly thought that was what you were saying. My apologies. As to your next statement, however, that:
In any event, whether you agree with it or not, science hasn't found god.
I have to say again that perhaps we misunderstand one another. I do not know how or where you got that I said science has found god… or God… or even Christ. I wasn’t even in that realm of thinking. May I ask where you got that notion from? Perhaps I can better explain something I wrote… that you’ve misunderstood. Or… perhaps you have, in your “zeal” to show me wrong… and foolish… assumed I stated… or implied… something that I absolutely did not?

You said God flashed it into existence through christ who was a photon. That also has no scientific backing.

(Smiling) Ahhhh… no. That is not what I said… or meant. But if that’s what you got, then I must apologize – obviously, I wasn’t clear enough… for you, at least. What I stated… no, I will give YOU the benefit of the doubt… what I MEANT… is that Christ is the Light through which all creation came into existence. I did not mean to indicate that the experiment proved anything other than what it did: that something cannot come from nothing… that even “nothing”, as scientists describe light… is something… and Christ, is the Light… through which all things came into existence. Just as the matter (something) resulted from the collision of the photons (nothing).

To relegate my Lord to a mere photon is… well, let’s just say that wasn’t what I meant, but that the ENERGY that is in a photon… is just a teenchy-tiny modicum of the [dynamic] ENERGY generated… by God… when He brought forth my Lord, Christ… the “light”… which act, in turn, brought forth the creation.

So jesus is photons smashing together? is THAT your premise?

Not exactly. My Lord is the “light”… i.e., his very substance is of the dynamic ENERGY… that it took to bring about the genesis. Is that better?

I am not chagrined at all. Science is repeatable, observable and open to scrutiny and better ideas.

To the extent earthling man has the tools… and intelligence… to test, observe, etc., yes. I will touch on this more, below…

You claim to speak to god through dreams

Unfortunately, you err on a couple levels, here. I do not claim to speak to God, per se (other than through my Lord… and prayer)… and it isn’t in dreams. Not at all.

and deny what others say about him that hear on the inside at all.

I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you mean by this statement. I may deny what others say about God… but it isn’t those who hear Christ… inside or out…

You are trying to merge science with YOUR theology that is unverifiable.

I don’t understand: one man said the world was flat, another said it was round. One of them was right. One of them was wrong. Neither could prove their position… initially. But that didn’t make the right one wrong. With that said… that my truth cannot be verified now… doesn’t make false. Otherwise, you’re saying what the WTBTS: that truth is only what we know and understand now… regardless of whether it is truth or not. Right? Sorry, but I left that thinking some time ago. I have learned that sometimes what we DON’T know… is the truth.

When there is falsifiable and repeatable experiments that your theology is right, I'll happily believe it.

Well, now, dear NVL… again, I’m confused. How is this about what YOU believe… happily or otherwise? I didn’t ask YOU to believe ANYTHING I’ve stated. I didn’t ask ANYONE to believe it. I know it’s true… and I declared it, openly and honestly, because it IS true… but I didn’t do it for YOUR belief or approval… or ANY man’s. Haven’t you learned that about me, yet? If not, then you really don’t know me as well as you “believe” you do, dear one…
Science and knowledge isn't about GRANTING anyone anything, it's about data and experimentation.

Okay, I have no problem with that. The only thing that happened here, dear one, is that coming to know of scientific result helped ME understand something far, far greater: the creation of the physical universe. Now, you don’t buy that – cool! I’m not selling it to you… or anyone. You don’t have to believe me. I marveled… because I got it – not because YOU got it!

When you wander into the realm of science, anything you put forth has to meet the criteria. Fits observations, falsifiable, repeatable.

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. It’s not much different than me telling the WTBTS leaders, “Hey, look, my Lord showed me such and such,” and of course they poo-pooed me, because, well, who am I to be telling THEM… they’ve been theologians and scholars… and GB/FDS/Bethelites for SO long and so know ALL about God and Christ and the Bible…

This is no different, dear one. Just as I told them… and tell you here: I don’t know this stuff. None of it. It is not mine. And so I say to YOU… that if you were able to generate the kind of power it took to create the universe… you could create the universe. And that experiment showed that… but on so small a scale… it was less than a ga-zillionth of the hair on the wart on the back… of a photon. That it WAS so small… and that man will never be able to create the magnitude of energy it would take to bring about a genesis… does not negate the truth… that it was a very similar event that brought the physical universe into existence. Just much more… so much more… than man can really comprehend…

The poor understanding of science and math that seems to be so common.

And that concerns you… well, okay. To each his own, I guess. I would say that rather than… ummmm… taking it personally and reacting as if you were personally accosted… you might have had better results by simply explaining the error in thinking… or, better yet, asking for clarification to see if YOUR assumptions about what I was trying to say were accurate. Because they weren’t… just as mine about science weren’t. Again, how are we so different?
[Continued...]
AGuest

Equal? What I know is able to be observed by anyone, learned, repeated.

What you know is in relation to and therefore limited to… this world. Which limits what some of us are able to observe…learn… and repeat. And yet, there is so much beyond our little world…

What you know comes to you in dreams

Again, you are in error. Indeed, during the last vision I received (which was Saturday morning and was… well, I can’t even describe what occurred, yet, but I will… but it took me almost a full day to contain the joy of it!)… anyway, I was fully awake. FULLY. And my husband was there… as were my puppies. I heard… and I saw… and, well, all I can say is that if it had happened to you… you’d be here babbling like a fool, too. I have absolutely NO doubt about that.

and differs from others that claim to get info from the same god in the same way.

Well, for one, I don’t get info from God. But let’s say you’re confusing Him with my Lord (which many tend to do)… I have to ask, like who, for instance? Can you give me an example? Whom do I differ from… who makes the same claim… that they receive what THEY get from Christ? Now, I know there’s a WHOLE lotta folks out there saying they get things from God. Not me. I’ve never said that… because it’s not true, not in my case…

In what way is that "equal"? I mean, in another thread someone was quoting a langston hughes story where he describes HIS spiritualty and you said parts of his experience were wrong.

What??? I absolutely AGREED with Mr. Hughes! What are you SPEAKING of?? Where in the WORLD did I say his experience was wrong?

But they were right to him. You dismissed his experience with hubris and arrogance.

Sigh… no, dear one. I addressed his failure to understand what it was HE needed to do… which failure caused him to sit and wait for my Lord to come to him… when he never ASKED for my Lord to do so… OR heeded the invitation that was for HIM to be the one to “come”.

No, those positions aren't equal. Once is subject to scrutiny and testing and proof. The other is subject to what you happen to dream about.

What I dream about has nothing to do with what I share here. My dreams are just like anyone else’s: usually mundane and having to do with something or someone of this world. However, what I shared about my Lord is subject to scrutiny, testing, and proof… should man ever possess the TOOLS… and intelligence… to do so. Problem is… all of that “intelligence” is what usually gets in the way. So that even if he HAD the tool… there’s nothing that says to ME he would know how to use it…

Well, you can learn or not. The choice is up to you.

And you have exactly the same choice. Exactly. Difference between me and you: I’m willing to venture into science… and learn, if necessary. I don’t reject it at all. I don’t think I can say the same of you, however, as to what truly is “spiritual”…

As to my comment regarding your missing that the account was not about physical luminaries, you respond:

I didn't miss it. I just don't think that a sheepherder 4000 years ago had any idea what light was or how it worked.

EXACTLY!!!! EXACTLY!!!! So… either he COULDN’T have been talking about light/electricity as we know it today, OR… he only wrote what someone who DID told him. Since he wasn’t THERE (no human was)… he only wrote what he was TOLD… which “we” have been unable to understand… until now… because we are basing it on what WE know… or, rather, what we THINK we know. And again, we KNOW… he wasn’t talking about the sun and moon.

I mean, heck, they thought a woman menstruating made her unclean and not to be touched.

What do you mean, thought? There are folks who still think that, today. And, yet, we’ve come SO far. Yeah, right…

They thought raping a girl was a reason to marry her.

You think raping her… and then leaving her… in a time when no other man would have had her was BETTER??? There are men TODAY, dear one… right here in our very advanced, very enlightened world… indeed country… who wouldn’t. Heck, there are men who won’t touch a woman over, say, 21. And there are WOMEN (and I shake my head over this)… who would tell the girl IT WAS HER FAULT!!! How are we SO different now than from then, really? The only difference is that now we have different laws. But such laws don’t always undercut what’s really going on in society.

They thought beating a slave to death was OK as long as it took them a day or two to die. Do you believe those things as well? if not, why not?

Of course I don’t… because my Lord has taught me different... which is why I know such ones certainly weren't following HIM. But you act like no one thinks that’s okay today. You sound like you believe NO ONE believes in slavery TODAY. There’s nothing new under the sun, dear NVL. There is only the illusion of it… created by our minds… that want to see only what it wants to see…
[Continued]...
Terry

I suppose it should be pointed out in the service of precise terminology that "In the beginning was the WORD" is an English translation.
The actual term employed by the writer of John 1:1 is LOGOS.
LOGOS can be translated as merely a spoken "word."
But, if any of you care to spend about thirty minutes reading about it---there is a history of philosophical implication in GREEK about LOGOS as something entirely else.
For Aristotle, logos is something more refined than the capacity to make private feelings public: it enables the human being to perform as no other animal can; it makes it possible for him to perceive and make clear to others through reasoned discourse the difference between what is advantageous and what is harmful, between what is just and what is unjust, and between what is good and what is evil.
After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo (ca. 20 BC–AD 40) adopted the term into Jewish philosophy.
AGuest

Heck, you already told me you thought parts of the bible are wrong. why not the parts where they get science wrong?

But they DID get the science wrong! That is my POINT! It was not “a” light… or a “kind of” light… or just some light. It was Christ… THE Light. C’mon, Mr. Intelligence… stay WITH me, here!

Nothing about jesus being made out of photons or god making breath create stuff is in the bible.

And you say that to say what… that all of the secrets of the universe, creation, God… and Christ… are in the Bible? Again, you don’t know me… and certainly haven’t paid much attention to anything I’ve posted on that matter.

That is at best interpretation laid on top of an interpretation of a translation of an error filled copy of a copy of a copy of an ancient book that was redacted and merged over and over.

I absolutely agree… and there are people here who can attest to that! That’s why, rather than going to IT… I simply go to the One about whom they claim it IS…

I'm not threatened. I'm sad at how utterly little people know and how little they WANT to know.

I'm not so sure about the first, but I absolutely agree with the second, too!

I would venture that I know at LEAST as much as you about the bible and the bible writers and the history of god and jesus.

As put forth in/by the Bible, perhaps. And I can’t say I know much about god and Jesus at all… because neither exist… at least, not in reality. However, the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies… isn’t IN a book… nor can He be known by means of one… but rather, by His Son and Christ, my Lord, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH. Who also isn’t in a book… nor can all that can be known about him be contained in a book…

Sure, but I can't make you learn. Rather than learn, you absorb and twist science in Jesus. That's not learning.

Well, now that I’ve gone all of your responses, I have to say that I don’t believe that it was I who twisted things here, but you. Unintentionally, of course, because you neither knew or understood what I was saying, at all. Sure, I might have misstated or mishandled a word or two… but I stood corrected when you pointed that out. That didn’t change what I now know to be TRUE, however, and which I stated (wait, meant to state; still giving you that benefit of the doubt)… which is that Christ is the Light… through whom the physical universe came… and the experiment helped me see that… by showing that something CANNOT come out of nothing… but the “nothing”… was in fact SOMETHING: light. Christ.

I bid you peace, dear NVL… truly… and ears to hear when the Spirit and the Bride say to YOU:

“Come! Take ‘life’s water’… the holy spirit of God… which spirit is poured out from the innermost parts of that LIGHT… Christ… free!”

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
Terry

Philo of Alexandria
Philo (20 BC - 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. [4] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect idea, and therefore i ntermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. [20] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God." [20] Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated." [21]
The Platonic Ideas were located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world. [20] In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the universe. [20]

The Word: Earth Created by Sound Waves

Philo of Alexandria

Share this