Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
. When atoms are not particles, it does not make physics a myth, they are waves. Perspectives. The rest is not for me.
Notes on God in the Gospel of John
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
. When atoms are not particles, it does not make physics a myth, they are waves. Perspectives. The rest is not for me.Thomas said: “Hi Clear — just to pick up on this and clarify my position on a couple of points.”
Hi Thomas. The last post between us concerning this topic was October of 2025 when it came to a halt. I am both traveling and I am in the middle of a historical debate on another website and will not have time to debate at this time but may come back to this thread at some time in the future.
1) IS RELIGIOUS LITERATURE FICTITIONAL DOCUMENTS THAT ARE VEHICLES TO CARRY THEOLOGICAL TEACHING
Thomas clarified: “I think the fictional document is a vehicle to carry theological teaching.”
I do agree that with your statement (a position shared by many athiests) that ancient religious literature is often mixed with fiction to carry “theological teaching”.
2)Clear pointed out: “…ancient Judeo-Christianity possessed very detailed answers and beliefs concerning such questions which most modern Christian movements lack.”
Thomas said: “Perhaps you could enlighten me?”
Regarding your request to enlighten you concerning the increased details present in ancient Judeo-Christianity that are no longer present in the theology of most modern Christian movements. I think you could start by researching the fall of Lucifer/Satan/Iblis in ancient Judeo-Christian and Islamic literature (since all three ancient theologies agree on the reasons for his becoming an enemy to God and Adam). When my other debate ends, I will return and see what you have discovered and will fill in the historical blanks you will have.
As you engage in historical research on this subject, you will discover for yourself what I mean when I say that I think the ancients would view modern Christianity as theologically “anemic” compared to their religion that had richer and more detailed beliefs. The evolution of Satan from an angel of power and authority in the presence of God to an enemy of God who starts the “war in heaven” and is ultimately cast out of heaven will be a good example as you compare the relative dearth of similar tradition in modern Christianity.
Good luck.
Hi Thomas. The last post between us concerning this topic was October of 2025 when it came to a halt. I am both traveling and I am in the middle of a historical debate on another website and will not have time to debate at this time but may come back to this thread at some time in the future.
1) IS RELIGIOUS LITERATURE FICTITIONAL DOCUMENTS THAT ARE VEHICLES TO CARRY THEOLOGICAL TEACHING
Thomas clarified: “I think the fictional document is a vehicle to carry theological teaching.”
I do agree that with your statement (a position shared by many athiests) that ancient religious literature is often mixed with fiction to carry “theological teaching”.
2)Clear pointed out: “…ancient Judeo-Christianity possessed very detailed answers and beliefs concerning such questions which most modern Christian movements lack.”
Thomas said: “Perhaps you could enlighten me?”
Regarding your request to enlighten you concerning the increased details present in ancient Judeo-Christianity that are no longer present in the theology of most modern Christian movements. I think you could start by researching the fall of Lucifer/Satan/Iblis in ancient Judeo-Christian and Islamic literature (since all three ancient theologies agree on the reasons for his becoming an enemy to God and Adam). When my other debate ends, I will return and see what you have discovered and will fill in the historical blanks you will have.
As you engage in historical research on this subject, you will discover for yourself what I mean when I say that I think the ancients would view modern Christianity as theologically “anemic” compared to their religion that had richer and more detailed beliefs. The evolution of Satan from an angel of power and authority in the presence of God to an enemy of God who starts the “war in heaven” and is ultimately cast out of heaven will be a good example as you compare the relative dearth of similar tradition in modern Christianity.
Good luck.
Photons have no mass, so are not particles .. neither are they waves.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
It is not necessary for particles to have mass.Photons have no mass, so are not particles .. neither are they waves.
"In particle physics, a massless particle (luxon) is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. ..
- Neutrinos were originally thought to be massless. However, because neutrinos change flavour as they travel, at least two of the types of neutrinos must have mass (and cannot be Weyl fermions). The discovery of this phenomenon, known as neutrino oscillation, led to Canadian scientist Arthur B. McDonald and Japanese scientist Takaaki Kajita sharing the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics.
- A Phonon is a type of quasiparticle in physics, It is a phonon is an excited state in the quantum mechanical quantization of the modes of vibrations for elastic structures of interacting particles. Phonons can be thought of as quantized sound waves, similar to photons as quantized light waves."
| Name | Symbol | Antiparticle | Charge (e) | Spin | Interaction mediated | Experimentally confirmed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Photon | γ | Self | 0 | 1 | Electromagnetism | Confirmed to exist. Confirmed massless. |
| Gluon | g | Self | 0 | 1 | Strong interaction | Indirectly confirmed to exist. Cannot be confirmed. |
| Graviton | G | Self | 0 | 2 | Gravitation | Never observed / entirely hypothetical |
Massless particle - Wikipedia
"General Properties of Massless Particles:
1. They can exist without mass because they possess energy.
2. They always travel at the speed of light in all valid reference frames.
3. They have zero electric charge and zero weak charge.
4. Each massless particle is its own antiparticle." DuckAI
Last edited:
I know we tend to wander around here at IO, but a discussion of atomic theory looks really peculiar under the title "Notes on God in the Gospel of John".
Especially as, from a Christian Perspective, the Quantum World is as much a part of this world as the Newtonian, in that Quantum phenomena, despite its appearances, is this side of the material horizon and not the realm of the spiritual.
Especially as, from a Christian Perspective, the Quantum World is as much a part of this world as the Newtonian, in that Quantum phenomena, despite its appearances, is this side of the material horizon and not the realm of the spiritual.
Yeah, we call it a particle .. for want of a better word.
Mmm .. but you brought it up:
"You're over-simplifying. That's like saying atoms aren't actually particles, so all physics is myth ..."
wil
UNeyeR1
Is the implication that issues with science is similar to issues with virgin birth, seven days of creation?Mmm .. but you brought it up:
"You're over-simplifying. That's like saying atoms aren't actually particles, so all physics is myth ..."
The point was contextual, with regard to Wil's statement, which I said was an over-simplification.
I seem them as neither waves nor particles, but displaying qualities of both.
Quite. It wasn't a comment about particle physics, it was about over-simplification.Mmm .. but you brought it up:
"You're over-simplifying. That's like saying atoms aren't actually particles, so all physics is myth ..."
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
To clarify my point here ... yes, there are realistic theologies.
Sound theologies, and indeed other branches of the sciences, examine our myths, allegories and parables – our narratives – to discern whether or not there is an element of truth conveyed therein, and draw out the meaning and insights thereof ...
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,546
- Reaction score
- 650
- Points
- 108
Not only does the last chapter (21) appear to be a later addition, but the verses after 20.28 appear to be later additions too if your reading is the correct one. If the climax of the Gospel of John is the revelation that Jesus is the God (20.28), why in the world does the author summarize the book's purpose merely as believing Jesus is the “Christ, the Son of God” (20.31) instead of “God Himself?”
How do you know for sure he addressed Jesus as ho theos? Others like “Theodore of Mopsuestia argued that the words were not addressed directly to Jesus but were uttered in praise of God,” says Bart D. Ehrman. In my opinion, Thomas is acknowledging the Father in the Son.
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,546
- Reaction score
- 650
- Points
- 108
To understand what Thomas is actually saying, we only need to go back a few chapters to when Jesus last spoke to him (see John 14.20):
En ekeinē tē hēmera gnōsesthe hymeis hoti egō en tō patri mou kai hymeis en emoi kagō en hymin.
In that day [the day of His resurrection] you will know that I [am] in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.
In John 20.28 Thomas realizes “the Father is IN Jesus” (which Jesus promised his disciples they would realize soon in 14.20 and 14.9). He sees the Father’s authority and presence in the resurrected Son.
The purpose of John’s book is quite clear: “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (John 20.31; Romans 1.4).
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,644
- Reaction score
- 1,737
- Points
- 108
This is a really good point that can be broadened... it seems to be the difference between modern day fundies and everybody else - the facticity of various biblical accounts. Fundies insist everything is literal/factual, other believers argue that it doesn't have to be to support theological beliefs.
Have you a reference to this? Ehrman regards it as authentic.
Because John regards Christ as God, the Son of God, the Incarnate Logos of God, and not another God, nor 'God Himself' as understood as the utterly transcendent deity of the Hebrew Scriptures?
Ehrman is probably quoting the Second Council of Constantinople, in which these words were attributed to Theodore, but we have no way of knowing whether he actually said them, or whether they were invoked by a partisan accusers intent on destroying his reputation.
What we do know is that Theodore's particular Antiochene Christology is a reflection of theological debate in his day, particularly the relation of the divine to the human in Jesus – one person in two natures, two persons one nature, and so forth. In the end, the Alexandrian school emerged as the accepted orthodox teaching, and various Antiochene positions were condemned.
Theodore, and Antiochene scholar, argued for Christ's total humanity (which is entirely orthodox), but went too far, it was later decided, in pressing for Christ's humanity at the expense of his divinity. The Catechetical School at Antioch championed a "two-subject" Christology, in which the divine Logos (Christ) is united to a distinct human person (Jesus), but that these two were never one in any way more than a moral or ethical sense – the emphasis being on "indwelling theology" – the Logos indwells in Jesus, they are two, rather than one, persons.
That said however, in regard to Theodore's exegesis of John 20:28, and Thomas' outcry "My Lord and my God", his position seems to be that Thomas speaks in praise of the Father who has resurrected the Son, but nevertheless, he (Thomas) stands in the Divine Presence of the crucified Jesus whom the Father has seen for to bring back from the dead.
+++
You've rather made a point by the need to insert a parenthetical text to make the citation say what you want it to say.
'In that day' may refer to the day of His Resurrection, but not the only reading. Reading in the context of the Chapter, it is equally possible that Jesus is talking of Pentecost:
"... And I shall entreat the Father, and he will give you another advocate, that he may be with you throughout the age, the Spirit of the truth, which the cosmos cannot receive because it neither sees nor knows it; you know it because it abides with you and will be within you" (v16-17).
So we have 'another advocate' whom the Father will send at the Son's entreaty.
"... but you see me; because I live, you too will live. On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you" (v20).
This could well mean the day of the Resurrection, but then the later account, by John, would suggest this knowledge was still incomplete.
"If someone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and will make our home with him" (v23). Then: "... but the advocate, the Spirit, the Holy One, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you" (v26).
So we have three who will indwell ...
The presence of the Father in the Son is not disputed, it's the nature of the presence that was the topic of centuries of Christological debate.
Yes.