Most complex explanation of the Godhead ever!

[1ofthechosen]

Part 2:
"Some are nothing more than mythical meanderings and mental apparitions concocted by philosophers who believed salvation lay in intellectual reasonings. The lexicon is a good place to start looking at Logos. Thayer’s Lexicon, which pre-dates the greatly accepted Ardnt-Gingrich, gives logos as: (1) a word, yet not in a grammatical sense,—but language—it embodies a conception or idea. (2) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating, etc.: once so in the phrase ὁ λόγoς τoῦ θεoῦ, of the divine mind, pervading and noting all things by its proper force.6 Also noted is a distinction of John’s use of the word as, “The Word of God” i.e. the personal (hypostatic) wisdom and power in union with God, His minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.7 (Lesser Arabic numbers and their definitions have not been listed, only the Roman numerals.) Thayer also defines the “hypostatic logos”: “(1.) having to do with substance or essence…(4.) in theology having to do with the two natures of Christ.” He admits that not everyone accepts this concept: “The interpretation which refers this passage to the hypostatic is disputed by some, as by Bauer, New Testament Theologie page 216 sq.” He says that its origin is of Hebrew and Greek elements, “and this conception originated among the Alexandrian Jews.”8 Now Arndt-Gingrich lists, under its major heading, similar renderings: (1.) Speaking…word (2.) computation, reckoning (under d.—reason, motive) (3.) The Logos…Our literature shows traces of a way of thinking that was widespread in contemporary syncretism, as well as Jewish wisdom literature and Philo, the most prominent feature of which is the concept of the Logos, the independent, personified word (of God).9 Reymond comments: Now, no matter how one prefers to translate logos in this passage (word, account, esteem, ratio, reason, formula, debate, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence), I agree with Clark when he writes, “Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures…emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation.” [Then he proceeds to add an interpretation that negates precisely what he has already set forth.] In other words, just as in the sphere of being, all things subsist or hold together by the power of the second person (Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3) so in the sphere of knowing, the divine Logos, as an absolutely rational Person himself, is the source of whatever rationality any and every man possesses.10 Here is a classic example of an absolute truth revealed in translation, then obscured and reversed in interpretation. He says to translate Logos as anything other than “word,” “account,” “esteem,” “etc.,” is bad translation, then tells us that the “divine Logos” is an “absolute rational Person himself.” From whence comes the statement “divine Logos?” Where does it say the “divine Logos” is an “absolutely rational Person?” It simply says “the Word became flesh.” Logos became person, but to interpret this as a “number two person” in the Godhead is corrupting by interpretation what is acquired in translation. There is an energetic effort on the part of some theologians to find and establish two (or three) divine persons (or Gods), and this simply cannot be done by this passage. John is saying that “reasoning,” which was God, became flesh. God simply became flesh. Not one of three persons became flesh; but God, simply—without further qualification—became flesh. ἦν = was The verb ἦν which is imperfect tense of the verb εἰμἱ, meaning “to be” or “I am,” indicates continuous action in the past. “In the beginning was (ἦν) the word, and the word was (ἧν) with God.” This particular form of the Greek verb does indicate a continuous action in the past. It is used to show its existence contemporary with God. Randolf Yeager says: Since ἧν transmits the concept of continuous existence in the past we can say that at a timepoint, arbitrarily referred to by creatures of time and space as “the beginning” the Word was already existing and had enjoyed this existence “before the beginning.” Had John used the present tense of εἰμἱ (ἐστἱ), we would translate “in the beginning is the Word” and comment that the Word had a continuous existence in and simultaneous existence with a point which we call the beginning. In other words, the conclusion would be that the Word had His beginning at the same time that time began. This would deny the eternal character of the Word.11 An effort is made to place the Word in existence with God and to ascribe a substance to Him as a separate being from “the God.” This effort is futile inasmuch as those who believe that God is one find no inconsistency at all in having God’s Word exist at the same time as God. When questioned as to how far back in time will ἦν allow the Word to exist, the answer must be as far back in time as God exists. No violence is done to reason and truth to say God’s Word was always with Him. But the problem occurs when we begin to add a particular substance to λóγoς at the wrong time. At a given time λóγoς becomes light, but was not flesh until a later date. At one point ζωὴ (life) expanded into all regions of the universe; this “Life” was in Him, but was never revealed until a certain time. There is a limit as to what the imperfect ἦν could constitute. The context will limit the student of the word to the proper proportion of time. The same tense of the verb is used in verse 10, “He was (ἦν) in the world.” Here ἦν also indicates continuous action in the past as does verse 1. Whatever length of time extended to one extends to the other, “He was (ἦν) always in the beginning” according to verse 1, and it is the same “He was (ἦν) always in the world” in verse 10. Are we quite ready to believe that? No one believes that Christ was in the world for as long as the world existed. We believe in a birth into this world. There was a particular day in which He came into the world. “This day have I begotten thee” (Hebrews 1:5). It cannot be said that He was in the world continuously as “Logos,” because this is the same existence that was rejected by the world. Logos is not the subject here. He was never rejected as “Logos,” but when the Word became flesh, that flesh was rejected. Randolf Yeager says of the imperfect ἧν in verse 10: The imperfect tense in ἧν is not involved here with the phrase ἐν ἀρχῇ as in verse 1. Hence John is not talking about the eternity of Christ and the fact that He pre-dated the time point that men call “the beginning.” ἧν in verse 10 is a progressive time structure. It means that though Jesus came into the world, He did not come at this time to stay.12 One can see that this commentator accommodated the sense of the text with a different extension of time than in the earlier treatment of the verb. It is difficult to leave to someone else’s discretion the right to extend different limits to the exact same verb. Some theological point was being made in verse 1; namely, the pre-existence of Christ. It is advantageous to such a theological proposition to have ἧν in verse 1, and emphasize its durative quality. Whereas in verse 10, it has lost its “verve” and means “only while he is here.” Yeager’s last point, however, is valid. The verb should be accomodated to the sense of the verse, “He continued being in this world”13 as long as was necessary to provide skeptics plenty of evidence as to His person and work, but it is somewhat inaccurate to use the tense of the verb to qualify the pre-existence of Christ. Here is an example of fitting the Scripture to our particular idea. He did not pre-exist as a Messiah, but as “Concept,” then at a certain time this concept became crystalized into a visible image. πρòς = with Probably the preposition πρὸς is equal to λόγoς in the effort to convince us of the nature of this “Word” which was “with God.” As has been stated, when we say the Word was with God, it is customary to give the preposition defined as “face to face.” That in itself is acceptable if we understand the expression as used in every day communication, but to say “face to face” refers to “persons” is totally absurd. It is possible to use such an expression when referring to inanimate objects: books, pillars, buildings, etc. Because Bauer lists such expression (under E of Roman Numeral III),14 it has been picked out as the surest definition of πρòς The conclusion that the quality or essence of the objects which are “face to face” must be “person” is totally unfounded in sound reasoning. Literally anything, whether animate or inanimate, could be “face to face.” The greater usage is overlooked in the effort to produce substantiation of an hitherto unfounded hypothesis. To say because “face” is mentioned qualifies λόγoς as a person is rather unreasonable. The major definitions in Bauer are (once again only the Roman numerals and not the Arabic, are listed): I.with the genitive; to the advantage of. II.with the dative; near, at, by. III.with the accusative; toward, to one another, with each other.15 Under this heading are many other uses. In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel and Friedrich we find the following definitions: The general sense of πρòς is “(immediately) before”; with the gen., however, it expresses a going out “from,” with the dat. being “before” or “by” something, with acc. movement “to” something.16 We should note that there is no effort to qualify the essence of whatever is associated with the preposition. Instead of a person, it continues with the relative, “something.” "

[1ofthechosen]

Part 3:
"It is “going out from something”; “before or by something.” It would solve quite a problem to many if John 1 would read “one person of God was ‘face to face’ with (πρὸς) another person of God.” But it simply states that the “Word” was with God. It is equivalent to asking someone, “Where is my word?” The answer is, “It is with me.” One’s word is not another individual. The preposition πρὸς is not the pivotal center of this passage. It does not intend to qualify essence of the nominatives. It tends to lend a perfective force to the association of the nominatives, whereas the locative case of association could have been sufficient. Much of the basis for πρὸς moving from a rather simple translation (“with” or “to”) into the area of interpretation, which possibilities are pointed out constantly by A. T. Robertson, is a result of this same scholar’s treatment of πρὸς in his exhaustive grammar.17 When he gives the etymology of πρὸς, he states that the root idea is “near,” “near by,” “towards,” then says the literal idea comes out well, “face to face with God.” However, he tells us that the etymology is not perfectly clear. From this treatment of the preposition arises the idea of “face to face,” implying that, since face is mentioned, it must involve person. Such illogical reasoning is not becoming to serious students of the Word. It is without question that the idea of “face to face” is used by most expositors because of this treatment of πρὸς from this etymological view point. Robertson states: It (πρὸς) seems to be itself a phonetic variation of προτí which is found in Homer as well as the form ποτí. What the relation is between ποτἱ and πρατἱ is not certain. The Sanskrit prati is in the locative case. The connection, if any, between πρóς and πρó is not made out, except that προ-τἱ and prati both correspond to πρó and pra. Thayer considers -τí an adverbial suffix.18 After giving the meaning of πρòς as “near,” “near by,” “toward,” he concludes, “The idea seems to be ‘facing,’ German ‘gegen’ cf, πρóσωπον. In ό λóγος ἦν πρòς τòν θεòν (John 1:1) the literal idea comes out well, ‘face to face’ with God.”19 One can see that John 1:1 is segregated for a completely different treatment. Why this is true is not clear. Why, with the meaning clearly “near,” “to,” “toward” to render it by πρóσωπον (face)? It is not πρóσωπον. It should be continued with its same rendering as in any other place. No license is granted, from either John or any other gospel writer, to lay such stress upon the word. It is probably from this effort of etymological treatment that the major authority for a “face to face” rendering comes. I have examined the papyri for such deviations from the normal use of πρòς and could not find any. Moulton and Milligan, in cataloging the papyri use of πρòς, list approximately thirty-six manuscripts to illustrate its rendering and never did attempt to find anything other than its usual meaning.20 It would be well to mention Dana and Mantey’s treatment of πρòς before going to other words in John 1. They give its root meaning as “near,” “facing,” then proceed to translate πρòς no less than twenty-one times with “to,” “towards,” “besides,” “against,” “for,” “with,” “on account of,” and never use “face to face.” Even in John 1, it is translated “with.” One wonders why such tremendous efforts are made to lift this word out here and give it a meaning never mentioned in the same situations. One wonders if someone is not guilty of setting forth his “pet” theology then trying desperately to find some sort of Scripture to substantiate it. It certainly is conceivable that such could happen, as Ralph Yeager points out so well in a quote from “The Bible Newsletter.” He introduces “Murphy’s Four Spiritual Laws”: 1.After your ideas are firmly in place, find Scripture to back them up. 2.If Scripture contradicts your ideas, ignore it. 3.When in doubt, use Christian jargon. 4.Accuse the English text of faulty translation and hope that there are no Greek scholars in the audience.22 It does not really matter if the definition “face to face” is used here, as long as we intend an idiom of verbal transmission without literalizing it and ascribing a particular essence to it. It is hard to get “person” out of a simple expression, “face to face.” Once again, πρòς here simply does what prepositions do in all other places where the cases would convey the sense of association. Dana and Mantey say concerning this, It is incorrect…to say that prepositions govern cases. Neither is the opposite true, that cases govern prepositions. But it is true that as cases limit and define the relations of verbs to substantives, so also prepositions help to express more exactly and effectively the very distinctions for which cases were created.23 For this reason πρòς here has a perfective force (so say Dana and Mantey as well) or emphatic force to show relationship between ὁ λóγoς and θεòν. The reasoning and concept (λóγος) of original creation John is setting forth here does not come from some source other than God. Since it continues to say that “the Word was God,” no other element, whether celestial creature or matter reduced or enlarged, was associated with the first inkling of awesome creation. These far reaching intentions were not floating as mist through space as a nebula, but it all was with God and God was this planning. γíνομαι = became “All things were made by Him” or “came to be through Him,” and, in the 14th verse, “the Word became flesh.” Both of these statements come from the verb γíνομαι. Both are aorist tense and affect the understanding of these passages. The lexicon gives in its major headings I “come to be,” “become,” “originate” and II “a substitute for εἰμí.” Under sub-headings it gives “arise,” “come about,” “happen,” “take place,” “become something—of persons and things which change their nature, to indicate their entering a new condition.”24 Robertson says of egeneto in verse 3 that it is second aorist middle indicative of ginomai, the constative aorist covering the creative activity looked at as one event in contrast with the continuous existence of “en” in verses 1 and 2. All things “came into being.” Creation is thus presented as a becoming (ginomai) in contrast with being (eimi).25 He is saying that the imperfect ἦν speaks of a continuing existence in the past, whereas γíνομαι represents a change from something else. The effort is made to qualify a pre-existent Christ as a person by the imperfect ἦν, relying on the durative past action to substantiate a particular essence (person), then pointing out the difference of γíνομαι as a change from one nature to another. In other words, “The Word was (always had been)” but “all things were made (which things had not always been thus) by Him.” Literally the “Word” was always, but the world was not. This is correct. The “Word” was in the beginning as an uninterrupted entity with God. It was with God; it was God; not a God; not a part of God; not a one-third of a committee constituting “Godhood,” but the God already designated by the article. The article with λόγoς, indicates that λόγoς is the subject of the verb ἦν and the fact that θεός is without the article places it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of θεός demands that we translate “and the Word was God” not as though He was only one of many Gods, but God exclusively. The linear action of the imperfect ἦν allows a constant existence of the λόγoς, but it does not yet constitute person. He was not yet such. Becoming “flesh” did not happen until verse 14. The verb ἐγένετο means a change took place. The pertinent question is posed, what was ὁ λóγoς before the change? We know that He became flesh, but to say that He eternally existed as a divine person from eternity is begging the question. It does not come near to saying, “One person of God was face to face with another person of God.” That which was concept and reasoning with God became flesh at a later time. It does violence to Scripture and reason to have this change coming at the wrong time. Galatians 4:4 tells how and when He was made as to flesh—’born of a woman, born under the Law.” Try as they will, either with saying πρός means “person” because of “face to face” (which is doubtful) or ἦν lending to continuous existence in past time, Trinitarians cannot get John to say what they really want it to say."

[1ofthechosen]

Part 4:
"Before the λόγoς became flesh, there were other forms and manifestations brought into being. “All things” (πáντα) “came into being” (ἐγένετο) through Him. In fact there was nothing created without Him (χωρìς αὐτοῦ) (verse 2). It may be correct to believe that “the Word” was the highest expression of deity throughout the universe, then again perhaps not! All Life was in Him, and that became Light. The first visible manifestation of “Life” (ζωὴ) was “Light” (φῶς). Surely “Life” and “Light” were comparable with λόγoς becoming flesh, on any scale of wondrous works. We would not have existed to need a Savior had not φῶς and ζωὴ preceded the “Word” becoming flesh. We are tremendously vocal and adamant about the need of our Savior. This statement does not minimize in any degree the magnificence of this unique action of God. Yet infinite in contemplation and awesome in action is this seed of all animation, ζωὴ, waiting and aspiring to revelation. At a public debate, a Christian minister and a professor of biology wrangled at length to prove when life began. The biology professor took us back to a tiny microorganism and said, “There, sir, is where all life originated.” The preacher said, “Is that really where it all started?” And the professor answered, “Yes.” Then came the inevitable question: “Then,” said the preacher, “I want to know where that thing came from; from whence came its life?” The professor could not reply. It left the minister to say, “If that, then, was Life’s origination, the only place it could have come from was God, for ‘in Him was Life.’” The first thing that the “Life,” which was in Him, became was “Light.” And it “blasted” into the darkness, and the darkness “could not (κατέλαβεν) take it down.” We use “blasted” because of the need of a similar energetic action on the part of φαíνει to counterbalance such an emphatic effort expressed by the verb κατέλαβεν. In contrast to the usual νοέω or συνíημι that would be sufficient for “comprehend,” so translated by the King James Version, there is such aggressive connotation in using κατέλαβεν. It conjures up the ideas of light invading darkness and of a “wrestling” or literally a “seizing” effort being made. It was a futile effort, however; and light established itself. The strangest circumstance of all time existed when the “Word” (God) became man! It demands a spiritual cast of mind and an enlargement of mind to visualize the Creator, for a time, becoming part of His own creation; but such is the case. “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world did not know Him” (verse 10). After all of the vivid illustrations of God being revealed in ζῶν (Life) and φῶς (Light), every man coming into the world is made aware of the True Light. This is an experience common to every man. He enlightens every man coming into the world, then he beholds His glory as never revealed in these previous methods of revelation. It is one thing to see all life moving, reproducing, inventing, etc., and say this is “God”; but to see an individual who is the “reproduction of His real being” (Hebrews 1:3) walking among His own handiwork takes one aback theologically. The world, who tested His hands, was the same world that was molded by those hands. The men who “picked” His mind and tempted Him with their minds were products of the λòγoς of God. It is “God’s reasoning stamped upon all minds.” They are but extensions of divine reason. The λόγος had flesh encapsulating it. It was veiled; it was not any longer “reason” in simpler context. It was now “reason” in a body. They did not know Him. Whether it was arrogance, pride, or blindness, it matters not. “We heard it, we beheld with our eyes, handled it, with our hands, the Word of Life” (I John 1:1). Verse 14 calls Him the “Unique One.” The word usually translated “only begotten,” actually means “unique.” Randolf Yeager says μονογενοῦς (which is gen., sing., masc, of μονογενῆς) is a “combination of μóνο and γένος. Hence, the only one of its kind; unique.”26 Moulton and Milligan say of μονογενής, “It is literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ ‘unique,’ (unicus), not ‘only begotten’ which would be μονογέννητος (unigenitus).”27 Not only do the examples given by the papyri say μονογεvής is “unique”; but that in order for it to be “only begotten,” it would necessitate a different word altogether.28 So this passage is literally “the unique One from the Father.” Ardnt and Gingrich say it is “only kind, unique.”29 There exists no other such individual who was God (which term allows no equals) and man fused into one being. Yeager says He was unique in another sense. “What other man overflowed with grace and truth? There was no room in Jesus for anything except grace and truth.”30 What effect does this have upon the question of the “Word” being a person? Plainly it demonstrates that the relationship between Father and Son is much different than any other. The inevitable comparison between this relationship and what happens when everyone thinks of father and son is as different as daylight and dark. We are not talking about a usual relationship here. This is not a son as any other son, but a totally unprecedented fusion of God and man. Although He was not received by His own when He came as a man among men, it can be appreciated that He did not come solely to men! They were not the sole creation. There were other creatures sharing existence with man! The unusual exchange, in verse 11, of the gender of the direct objects from neuter to the masculine, causes the sense of the verse to change tremendously. “He came to His own things (ἴδια) and His own men (ἴδιοι) did not receive Him.” The first ἴδια is neuter and would indicate “things,” while the second ἴδιοι, being masculine, indicates men. Some scholars translate the verse this way: “He came to His own ‘world,’ but His own ‘people’ did not receive Him.” But that would confuse the gender of the first ἴδια with its counterpart in translation. The word “world” cannot fit because κóσμος is masculine and ἴδια is neuter. In the second instance, “people” would fit as well as “men”; because both are masculine either one is acceptable. But the reason for the neuter object of “His own” implies a larger area of limits than would the masculine form. He came to all creation, not just men. After creating all things, as is stated in verse 3, He then visited His massive work; and the only things that rejected Him were His own “men” or “people.” It is conceivable to imagine perfect harmony of Christ with all other creatures. Animals were believed to have had rapport with Him. Although we may not be certain of this, we do know that the body He inhabited was closely associated with the elements. Upon His death on the Cross, the earth shook; the sky was darkened; and dead people were resurrected and walked the streets. He was connected intricately with all the elements. At His command, the waves of the sea of Galilee lay down at His feet. We may not know how it happened and we may not understand the mechanics of the impact of creator upon creature, but one thing is certain. Jesus Christ, while involved in a body of flesh, still controlled all His creation. Even unclean spirits quaked in His presence and called Him the “Son of God.” The λόγoς that had been the reasoning force in creation was still effective upon all things. Somehow it was man, the creature in His likeness, the one stamped most with “reasoning of God,” that rejected Him. While coming to His “things” it was His men that rejected Him."

[1ofthechosen]

Sources also saying "Robert L Reymond said in his book “The Justification of Knowledge:
An Introductory Study in Christian Apologetic Methodology” “Now, no
matter how one prefers to translate logos in this passage (word, account,
esteem, ratio, reason, formula, debate, speech, deliberation, discussion,
oracle, sentence), I agree with Gordon H. Clark when he writes, “Any
translation of John 1:1 that obscures…emphasis on mind or reason is a
bad translation.”

“The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Volume 2 pages 1046-1047 states” Many scholars have argued that the apostle John had this philosophical development (of the Greek philosophical LOGOS) in the back of his mind when he wrote the prologue to his Gospel and that he actually tried to impart some of these (Greek Philosophical) concepts. For a long time many have contended that the background of the fourth Gospel was essentially Hellenistic rather than Hebraic. In dealing with such an assertion we may note that studies in the Dead Sea scrolls have tended to confirm the traditional conservative position that the cultural orientation of the Gospel of John was Hebraic. Moreover, we must observe that John was a simple fisherman from Palestine … there is no evidence that he imbibed any Greek pagan philosophical orientation in John Chapter 1. If he intended to be philosophical in the first few verses, he certainly was not anywhere else. We may argue that John used the word ‘logos’ in its ordinary meaning.”

These are some sources I found also backing up what the Encyclopedia Brittanica is saying also.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

In the OT the Jews thought of God in connection with the angel of God. To them they were the same.

Zechariah 12:8

8In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

Genesis 48:15-16

15And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,

16The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

Jacob (Israel) was the Father of the Jews. He taught that the God (Elohim) that he knew WAS THE ANGEL.

So the angel was with God but the Angel was God.

This is the lesson John was teaching in John 1:1

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

Or Literally in the Greek, Aramaic, and Latin "GOD WAS THE WORD".

It was God himself possessing a form with his own eternal life before the word was.

Proverbs 8:22-31


22The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

31Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

Does the Bible teach that Gods eternal life was with him?

1 John 1:1-2

1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us

So the Logos was the "word of life" or we might say the EXPRESSION OF GODS ETERNAL LIFE.

It was neither a second person or merely a "plan".

It was God possessing a form where some of his eternal life would be MANIFESTED.

The Logos is just that: the expression of God. Thus, it is God manifesting Himself to His creation. Also known as "the Angel of His Presence".

Does "word" imply a thought, idea, or conception? Absolutely. But a thought that is unexpressed and uncommunicated is alone, hidden, and ineffectual. A word is an idea that has taken actual form and existence and is actually doing something.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Does "word" imply a thought, idea, or conception? Absolutely. But a thought that is unexpressed and uncommunicated is alone, hidden, and ineffectual. A word is an idea that has taken actual form and existence and is actually doing something.

But they have a Greek Word for that also. John 6:62-63 "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

In verse 63 the word translated as "words" come from entirely different Greek Word "ῥῆμα or transliterated rhēma". Which the Thayers Defines as "that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word." So why would it just be the Logo's for when did Jesus become the Spoken Word? (I would say at the point of Luke 1:27-38 was spoken) Before that He was simply just the Logo's. The Greek seperates the meaning of the words, so saying what you said above can be refuted.

So this takes someone who really knows Greek to sort out. I never did get a answer on this earlier in the discussion. Where's Brother RDP, maybe he can answer this, or brother E.B., unless one of you can give a good explaination? For I see a huge distinction in the 2 words from the original language.

I found this about Rhema on Wikipedia: "Rhema (ῥῆμα in Greek) literally means an "utterance" or "thing said" in Greek. It is a word that signifies the action of utterance. In philosophy, it was used by both Plato and Aristotle to refer to propositions or sentences. In Christianity, it is used in reference to the concept of Rhematos Christou; Jesus Christ's sayings."In Christianity, rhema is used in Bible study to signify Jesus Christ's utterances. It also say's: "The Greek word rhema is useful to distinguish between two meanings of word. While both rhema and logos are translated into the English word, in the original Greek there was a substantial distinction. Some modern usage distinguishes rhema from logos in Christian theology, with rhema at times called "spoken word", referring to the revelation received by disciples when the Holy Spirit "speaks" to them. In this usage, "Logos" refers to Christ."

I don't go with what they said wholly because they say its "Jesus Christs utterances", but this is being said from people who want to try to create a distinction in personage between Jehovah, and Jesus Christ I believe is nothing more than philosophy.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

But they have a Greek Word for that also. John 6:62-63 "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

In verse 63 the word translated as "words" come from entirely different Greek Word "ῥῆμα or transliterated rhēma". Which the Thayers Defines as "that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word." So why would it just be the Logo's for when did Jesus become the Spoken Word? (I would say at the point of Luke 1:27-38 was spoken) Before that He was simply just the Logo's. The Greek seperates the meaning of the words, so saying what you said above can be refuted.

So this takes someone who really knows Greek to sort out. I never did get a answer on this earlier in the discussion. Where's Brother RDP, maybe he can answer this, or brother E.B., unless one of you can give a good explaination? For I see a huge distinction in the 2 words from the original language.

I found this about Rhema on Wikipedia: "Rhema (ῥῆμα in Greek) literally means an "utterance" or "thing said" in Greek. It is a word that signifies the action of utterance. In philosophy, it was used by both Plato and Aristotle to refer to propositions or sentences. In Christianity, it is used in reference to the concept of Rhematos Christou; Jesus Christ's sayings."In Christianity, rhema is used in Bible study to signify Jesus Christ's utterances. It also say's: "The Greek word rhema is useful to distinguish between two meanings of word. While both rhema and logos are translated into the English word, in the original Greek there was a substantial distinction. Some modern usage distinguishes rhema from logos in Christian theology, with rhema at times called "spoken word",[8] referring to the revelation received by disciples when the Holy Spirit "speaks" to them.[8][9] In this usage, "Logos" refers to Christ."

Lol. Brother, you need to study a bit more about rhema vs logos.


Logos:

Strong's Definition: From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive ; by extension a computation ; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

[Esaias]

Can someone demonstrate FROM THE BIBLE where the word "logos" is used unequivocally to mean somebody's plan or intention, APART FROM any reference to speech, utterance, expression of thought, dialogue, discussion, etc?

[Michael The Disciple]

So I must say I feel sorry for the followers of Elder Treece. How could anyone listen to or read all of that? Hardly any of it seems to connect people to what John was talking about. It seems like a maze of trying to figure out the Bible through mens ideas rather than studying the writings of the Apostles and Prophets.

I would agree with the name of the thread.

The Most Complicated Explanation Of The Godhead Ever!

Of the 3 videos by the plan/thought teachers nothing seems to have an answer. It seems to lead us to nowhere. A newborn Christian should not have to be subjected to all that philosophy to be able to understand one Bible verse.

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and God was the word. John 1:1

I admit the teaching of the Godhead is VERY DEEP. The deepest subject in the Universe. If we could COMPLETELY understand the truth of God we would be as wise as he.

It grieves my spirit to hear the majestic and glorious LOGOS reduced down to mere "thought" or "plan". Its like taking the heart out of the Old Testament.

Think of the Logos like this.

The omnipresent Spirit forms an image for some of his eternal life to dwell in. This form is HIS SPOKESMEN. His expressed word.

When the omnipresent Spirit spoke to angels or men his words came out of the Spirit into the Logos and then to their intended audience whoever it may be.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Logos is just that: the expression of God. Thus, it is God manifesting Himself to His creation. Also known as "the Angel of His Presence".

Does "word" imply a thought, idea, or conception? Absolutely. But a thought that is unexpressed and uncommunicated is alone, hidden, and ineffectual. A word is an idea that has taken actual form and existence and is actually doing something.

Exactly.