Using rabbinic rules on the first three words of Gen 1:1 bereshit bara Elohim

we find bara in bereshit (ignore vowels) – In the beginning was the word.

bara Elohim – the words are side by side, the word was with God

bara Elohim (with bara as an attribute of Elohim) – the Word was God.

bar also means son

bereshit bara Elohim – the beginning (alpha in Greek) son of God. The alpha was God’s Son, so the word was God’s son.

Elohim has two puns:

L’chai-im – life

Alo-khoom – not dark, or light

We can see that John could derive all the concepts of John 1:1-5 by using a first century Jewish hermeneutic without depending upon Greek ideas at all.

Wait… So you acknowledge Jesus as Logos, but say I am committing idolatry for comparing the Tao to Logos? You do know that Logos is a philosophy that existed hundreds of years before Jesus in Greek culture, don’t you? I am uncertain as to what your argument actually is.

The bible is clear that mysticism and occultic means to approach “God” are forbidden, bc fallen angels inhibit the spiritual realm. They utilize false religion, false idols, and demonic communication through these systems of false spiritual instruction which are laced with deception to lead people astray and yes, into eternal judgment.
You try to equate the Tao and/or other false religious mysticism with Jesus, but Jesus said He alone was the gate, the door, the epitome of God in human flesh exclusively dying for the sins of the world. He said man must be born again to enter the kingdom. The bible is replete with 66 books and gives important instruction, which you seem to ignore for the replacement of subjective experience without the security of identifying the Source. Merton, was a huge advocate of meditation, all finding God in all paths, and finding God in all creation.

The bible never gives support to false religions, or New Age and eastern concepts all God as the Universe or part of all. God is a person, not a force, not a thing, not a manifestation or a universal mind. God is spirit, God incarnated into one human, once. This is to never be duplicated again- ever.
People that play with mystical paths as opposed to entering through the Cross of Jesus, are so far away from the forgiveness of sins, the narrow path that leads to life, all tenets given by Jesus; Things thatare mysteriously absent from your erroneous marriage of Tao and Jesus/Logos. The bible could not be clearer that there is a division between Truth and error, Light and darkness, forgiveness and rebellion… The old Test gives great pains in teaching a lesson to not (under that covenant)combind certain materials of fabrics to mantain a concept of singular purity. The New Test tells us to not combine truth and error, of which your article and site leap into doing.
Part of the danger of error with consequences, is marrying the Tao to the Logos is that with In the Eastern philosophy God is all, and God is IN all, including his creation, thus making creation equal with God, the Creator. If you are being honest you will admit the bible declares that to be incorrect according to the Source and a sin. The end of Romans 1 declares that man will exchange the worship due the Creator with the creation and offend a holy God.
And towards the end of the book of Revelation, when man unites to do just such a thing, you can see God’s respond to such through great judgment. ( You can even peer straight into your future by looking up Revelation 17 the adulterous whore/Harlot, who worships all false gods, along with Jesus, if you are not clear on this principle.
Thank you and may you repent of your sins and bow to the one true God for the forgiveness of sins, of which he will not reject any humble heart that is burdened to seek the Truth.

You are confusing an insight into purpose and function with insight into construction. I am also afraid to say that your over-simplified (yet not entirely incorrect) assessment of the universe’s construction shows that you are both rushing to establish an answer to great mysteries and, in the process of doing so, missing so much nuance and meaning therein.

Good stuff. I have studied both concepts extensively and I am currently working on a comparative article on the topic. I have some questions for you about some of the statements you made. But may come in the future. I’ll keep your page link so i can visit again.

thanks for your thoughts

Jim

Ahh, home at last. Until recently, I had been part of the conservative/fundy church for most of my, getting to be, long life. I’ve had heavy Taoist leanings along with my Christian theology for most of those years; albeit, fear of being branded a heretic had kept me “in the closet”, if you will.
Many thanks and much gratitude to all of you for your posts. I do have some questions and hope that the collective” brethren/sisteren” might share their insight with me.

Peace,

Prodigal