What does Logos mean?

Now that i did a further bit of research i found that yes it was used by gnostic sects and it is thought to be written by a gnostic in egypt at one pointGospel of John - Wikipedia - general source but answers questions
interesting how much it differs from the others in quite a few waysfrom Gospel of John at the bottom so main stream may view it as anti-gnostic but thats purely because later they viewed them as heretics so any links would be considered wrong

Main stream had their reasons. Some would say that the prevailing views of the church were political and based on power and human fallibility. Others, such as myself, tend to view the anti-gnostic stance as quite orthodox and proper.Regardless of who actually wrote John, the issue as I see it is the spirit and meaning behind the words.I have always seen it as two basic flows....either God directly inspired the authors--whomever they may have been--with His Spirit....Or.Man thought himself inspired by God and wrote entirely from a human perspective.Did the word exist before people could even form words? Thats what I believe, and most of the mainstream would agree with me. Humanities later attempts to raise up through human wisdom were the heretical efforts of a fallible society. IMHO, anyway!

Turns out there were more than I remembered. This is from Strong's Concordance at blueletterbible.org. which is only for the King James Bible. Strong's assigns a number to each Hebrew word. In this case "almah" is #05959, and from the following you can see that that Hebrew word occurs in the Bible a total of seven times, and that four of those times it is translated "virgin" in English, two times as "maid" and once as "damsels" which certainly ought to demonstrate that the translators knew the shades of meaning of the word: This link is to the Concordance page on Isaiah 7:14 which shows that the Greek Septuagint used the Greek word "parthenos" to translate "almah" over 200 years before Christ. "Parthenos" also has other meanings than "virgin" but it a very specific Greek word for "virgin" as well.(Sometimes links to the Hebrew and Greek pages don't work, so go to the verse itself at Blue Letter Bible and click on "C" to the left of the verse to get the page.)I also checked the Greek Septuagint for the other places "almah" appears in the Bible (again, go to the verse and click on "C" to get the Greek and Hebrew). I can't reproduce the Greek words but I do recognize the word "parthenos" in the Greek, so I can tell if it's used in the passage or not:It IS used in Genesis 24:43 which is translated in the KJV as "virgin"It is NOT used in Exodus 2:8 which is translated in the KJV as "maid"
or in Psalm 68:25 which is translated in the KJV as "damsels" or in Proverbs 30:19 which the KJV translates "maid," or in Song of Songs 1:3 and 6:8 which are translated "virgins."SO, the Jewish translators of their Hebrew scriptures into Greek 200+ years before Christ chose the Greek word "parthenos" to translate "almah" only twice, in Genesis 24:43 for Dinah who was raped {ABE: Rebekah before she married Isaac} and Isaiah 7:14 for the virgin who will bear a son and call His name Immanuel; and then the English translators of the KJV also used "virgins" in the Song of Songs.Oh let me spell out the whole picture here for the seven places "almah" occurs in the Hebrew Bible, for the Greek and English (KJV):Genesis 24:43 "almah" = "parthenos" = "virgin"Exodus 2:8 "almah" = not "parthenos" = "maid"Psalm 68:25 "almah" = not "parthenos" = "damsels"Prov. 30:19 "almah" = not "parthenos" = "maid"Songs 1:3 "almah" = not "parthenos" = "virgins"Songs 6:8 "almah" = not "parthenos" = "virgins"Isaiah 7:14 "almah" = "parthenos" = "virgin"And again, let me help you understand this. The translators are being very careful to find THE word in the "target" language that BEST translates the original Hebrew word, and they are very well versed in both languages. First the Jewish translators of the Greek Septuagint 200+ years before Christ certainly knew both the Hebrew and the Greek; and the KJV translators were the best scholars in England in all the languages, and they had manuscripts to work from in many languages. Can you claim similar expertise?This ought to do it for "almah" and for the expertise of the translators.END OF OFF TOPIC SEQUENCE.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2006 03:40 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 09:47 AM

Can I remind participants that this thread is for discussing the meaning of the word 'logos', it even says that on the thread title!There are many threads on the meaning of 'almah', please find one of those, or start a new topic.AdminBrian.

Just to reply i wasn't talking about the word useage but the claim that they suddenly decided "Hey we don't trust/like/believe in jesus so we are going to alter our beliefs so he isn't messiah, even though the beliefs never changedif you want to make sweeping claims that there was a compiricy to change what the jews believed, solely becuase of jesus then you have to find anything with evidence

I wasn't even talking about almah, i think she eather didn't understand me or decided to bring it up, i was contesting that the jewish people altered thier writings solely to deny jesus messiahship, i was asking for evidence that anyone would do thisthe writings that talk about messiahship deny jesus, without altering it{abe:i will further try not to derail so much but faith needs to stop posting unsupported stuff }This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 04-23-2006 04:43 PM

My stuff is supported well.I was answering somebody's reference to Almah, if it wasn't you then somebody else, and then you followed up on it. ABE: I looked it up. It was Ramoss, and you answered my answers to him.I never said the Jews "ALTERED" anything, they simply refuse to acknowledge the valid meanings given to their OWN scriptures by their OWN Jewish translators BEFORE CHRIST, and how they treat "almah" is one good example of this. Many readings were fine before Christ that since then they object to because they validate Christ. Again these readings were given to many things in the Hebrew scriptures before Christ by the JEWISH translators of the Septuagint. And AGAIN, The New Testament writers were JEWS, so let's stop this idea that the Jews always read their scriptures the way they insist on reading them now.THAT is the evidence you are asking for, that JEWISH translators once accepted the readings that current Jewish readers reject.You think this has nothing to do with their attitude to Christ? Pretty naive if so.ABE to clarify the sentence about translators of the Septuagint.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2006 05:08 PM

I'll say it again. The fact that Jews once accepted the meanings Christians now accept to describe Christ is plenty of evidence that they are now rejecting those reasons {abe: readings/meanings} BECAUSE they validate Christ. That is how I have been arguing this all along so you can stop the false complaint that I have not offered support.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2006 08:25 PM

I have. I love that period in church history, because it explains so much of the problem that came afterward. Temporarily. The end result of that controversy is that the early church's doctrine of the Trinity was completely lost and replaced with an "Anti-Arian" version that doesn't even agree with the Nicene Creed. I can't say I memorized Arius' arguments or letters from those on his side. I can't think of any reason that Arius would have a problem saying the Son was begotten. I realize he said the Son was created from nothing, but that doesn't seem so different from begotten that it would cause Arius problems.What seems certain is that there is nothing in your link that backs up what you said. Alexander makes numerous references to John 1:18 in those letters, but they're all translated as "only-begotten," and it's clear from his statements that he's understanding it to mean exactly that. For example:

quote:

---

Not that the Word is unbegotten, for the Father alone is unbegotten, but because the inexplicable subsistence of the only-begotten Son transcends the acute comprehension of the evangelists, and perhaps also of angels.

---

That was from p. 4 of the first letter. From p. 7:

quote:

---

who, not in time, nor after an interval, nor from things which are not, hath begotten His only-begotten Son.

---

The link you gave was Philip Schaff: ANF06. Fathers of the Third Century: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius, and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius - Christian Classics Ethereal Library . Maybe you could point out what you found.

Well, this at least I hope we can all agree on. When Y'shua is referred to as the Logos of God, it was not referring to him as words.In fact, Hebrews 4:12, if you include v. 13, is clearly referring to Y'shua, not the Scriptures, though modern Christians are so used to referring to the Scriptures as the Word of God (something the Scriptures never do in the manner that we do), that they don't realize the reference there is to Y'shua, the Logos who was with God from the beginning.

RDG,Thanks. I didn't know most of the stuff you wrote about. There are some comments in your link from Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers that I really wanted to look up, but my ANF set is at work. I'll have to wait until tomorrow. The Scripture index is especially useful, because it lets you see who quoted what and when.One thing I caught though, in that argument from Helms, is the question, "How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic?" This is interesting, but it should be noted that the person who regarded it as composed for attacking Cerinthus preceded the one who attributed it to Cerinthus by 150 years.I read some other stuff on that site, including someone named Loisy who had decided which parts belong and which didn't. Before giving him any credence, I'd have to see whether he's basing that on text or conjecture. I'll look up Tertullian and Irenaeus quotes which he references.I have to admit that the lateness of the date I already agree to, and that the author is other than John the apostle fascinates me. I have never forgotten the statement, though I'm not certain whether it's Dionysius the Great or Gregory Thaumaturga who makes it, that John's Greek was impeccable, while Paul's was crude. Why would John's Greek be impeccable? A fisherman from Galilee that wrote in grammatically excellent Greek? Possible, if he lived till 90 or 100, as it is said, but not real likely.I'll look up Irenaeus' statement as well, because he says Valentinius wrote an intro to John. I didn't remember that, but I'll go look that passage up. Your link gives a reference.It seemed odd to me also that Papias was quoted by very late sources (5th and 9th centuries) as saying John was martyred, when Irenaeus and Eusebius quote Papias extensively in the 2nd and 4th centuries, but quote him as living long and appointing Ignatius and Polycarp in Antioch and Smyrna. How did these 5th and 9th century guys get manuscripts of Papias that Irenaeus and Eusebius didn't have?Anyway, I'm rambling more with questions than answers.One more: Wikipedia mentions the textual issues about the story of the adulteress. I'm wondering about this supposed Cerinthus text. It's completely lost, and only a revision remains? That revision did not result in many conflicting versions of the "orthodox" John? All that seems unlikely to me.I'm not sure all this is even on topic, and since so much of my post is questions, maybe if it's off topic here, it deserves its own thread. There is no doubt that the gnostics were once in the church. There is no doubt, IMHO, that they were in the church at the writing of 1 & 2 John. There is little doubt, to me, that Ignatius wrote (around AD 110) at the time that the gnostics were being expelled, which helps date those letters (and thus the Gospel, too, I imagine) at not too awful long before Ignatius writings, but definitely before.If the person who wrote the letters of John was the same as the one who wrote the whole Gospel of John (as opposed to having simply edited it--though if he edited it, he wrote a lot in, because there are such glaring similarities), then he's clearly anti-gnostic. I'm having real trouble picturing the reason for editing a gnostic work, because almost no other gnostic works gained any hearing at all in the churches.

At the time i was in a hurry when i posted the links, but i think i'm going to dig deeper and see whats what, you maybe right in that some of the things on the site may be a bit questionable Thats the problem with tradition in the churchs, sometimes it bears little resemblence to the real history of the church attributing something to someone, who of themselves really couldn't write or read very well brings in to question as to whether they wrote what they are claimed to have written (that goes for most anything really) like the hacked up texts of titus and josphus i think if the information was found later and not earlier it was added to reinforce an idea just remember not everyone believed gnostism was herecy, maybe even in the church maybe they thought it would destroy any conversions to gnostism if they edited it, who could say the motiveThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 04-24-2006 03:11 AM

quote:

---

Well, this at least I hope we can all agree on. When Y'shua is referred to as the Logos of God, it was not referring to him as words.

---

Given the general goal of Gnostic Christianity, wouldn't the actual meaning of logos for our language be closer to meaning reason since we already agreed it didn't mean words or the scripture?I haven't really read much on the gnostics or ever heard of the aeons, so I find this a very interesting avenue.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

No, not at all. Strong basically was wrong. Period. Strong's weakness is that he built a concordance of what the language meants due to his specific religious beliefs.. not what the word actually meant.He made some glaring errors. For example, He said "Daris" was a title, which is incorrect. Almah is just another of his errors.\And I don't see HOW anybody can call the 'Almah' in the song of solomon a virgin, considering the context of it.This message has been edited by ramoss, 04-24-2006 08:13 AM

Nonsense. You are failing to read things in context, just like most evangalistic Christians.Gosh, if you want ot know the Jewish scripture, you can't ask a Jewish Rabbi, you have to ask an Evangalistic Christian..