Is the Logos meaningful, or meaningless? - Depends on your view of Logos.

[Hillsage]

It's a screen capture image, not text.

1) Right click in margin.
2) Select "Take Screenshot" from pull-down menu.
3) Adjust cropping to suit.
4) Click "Copy". (or download if you want to save it for other uses)
5) Go to page where you want to paste it.
6) Click where you want it. Paste.
7) Like this. (hit reply to see it is an image, not text)

View attachment 40829

/

Best answer for me. By the numbers. You know just how clueless I really am with moden tech.

 

[St. SteVen]

You are not a Christian.

Man! This site is full of you people! This is two in one day!

That is NOT okay!

/

 

[Logikos]

That is NOT okay!

/

It is the truth.

 

[St. SteVen]

Best answer for me. By the numbers. You know just how clueless I really am with moden tech.

You should do a test post to try it. Use this, or whatever.

1 John 4:14 NIV
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

/

 

[Gottservant]

To me, the idea that the Logos became flesh, means that the flesh is as filling as it can be and as quenching as it can be.

 

[Spyder]

The English term "word" is possibly the worst possible translation of John's use of the term "Logos". First of all, the English term "word" is NEVER used in this manner anywhere else in all of English literature or speech. Secondly, and more importantly, John's audience was a Greek audience. His gospel was likely written in the Greek city of Ephesus and so ignoring the Greek meaning of "logos" would be a disastrous mistake.

Dealing first the with English term "word", the term simply conveys no meaning in the contexts of John chapter one. And I mean that quite literally. It is simply meaningless. The only way to understand it at all is for someone to explain what logos means and then you're left hoping that the person who explained it to you knows what he's talking about and from that point on, you just cognitively insert that meaning into the term "word" whenever you read John's gospel and ONLY when you read John's gospel. Nowhere else in the whole of the English language is the term "word" used in such a fashion unless it is either directly quoting or making reference to the first chapter of John.

As for the Greek, what does the term "logos" mean? Well, it is the root of the word "logic". Logos is where we get the English suffix "-ology" from, as in "biology" or "theology", etc. "Bio" means "life", "-ology" means logic, thus biology is the logic of life and that which pertains to biology is said to be biological. Similarly, "Theology" is the logos of the theos, the logic of God and that which pertains to theology is said to be theological.

Now, that's the dictionary definition of the term but that isn't quite what John is referring to when he uses the term because the Greeks had this idea about an underlying organizing force behind the working of nature which they called the logos. It wasn't merely rational thought that John was getting at but it was this idea of a divine mind that he was referring to and that his Greek audience would have instantly and intuitively understood him to be saying.

Incidentally, some have pointed out that the term "reason" is more accurate than "logic" because technically speaking "logic" refers to the rules that surround sound reason while logos is more making reference to the act of reasoning. However, in English, the terms "logic" and "reason" are mostly interchangeable in common use. They are very often used as perfect synonyms and so either term would work as a translation for "logos".

Thus, with this better understanding of the term "logos" the following translation of John 1 is offered....

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​

​

14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

Noice how much better that works with verses 4 & 5 when John, after making reference to a divine Logic, talks about the light of understanding and the world's failure to comprehend it. It's just a better translation in every conceivable way.

Now, there are some who object to such a translation thinking it improper to equate the living God with some abstract concept such as logic. But it should be noted that those who make such an objection never object to God being equated with the abstract concept of "Word", nor are they typically capable of offering any explanation as to what exactly it means to say "the Word was God". In other words, people who object on the grounds of referring to God as an abstraction, typically have no real problem with abstractions so long as the abstraction being used makes no sense.

This is, however, quite a new idea to most of those reading this and so let me just cite a couple of others who have used and acknowledged the validity of such a translation. Not that doing so helps to prove anything other than that this teaching is not unique to, nor can it's genesis be attributed to me. Indeed, this idea is as old as Christianity. As evidence of both its veracity and its antiquity, I offer the following quotations, the likes of which there are many...

​

"...this translation––may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person's distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti–intellectualistic accusation of "reducing" God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.​

Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic." - Gordon H. Clark; Against The World. The Trinity Review, 1978-1988. [God And Logic, Gordon H. Clark, p. 52-56] John W. Robbins, Editor.​

​

"For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ;" Justin Martyr: The First Apology of Justin Chapter V​

​

Logos n. < Gr, a word: see Logic 1 Gr. Philos. reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as being manifested by speech 2 Christian Theol. the eternal thought or word of God, made incarnate in Jesus Christ: John 1 - Webster's Dictionary​

Thank you for taking the time to post this. I like it, except for your quote that says that it starts with He. Logic is not a "he."

 

[Spyder]

You are not a Christian.

Man! This site is full of you people! This is two in one day!

I DO NOT debate Christian doctrine with unbelievers.

Bottom line....

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

John 8:57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him;

Don't you think that your first statement is claiming to know the heart of someone? We should not claim that we can do something that only God can do.

 

[St. SteVen]

You are not a Christian.

Man! This site is full of you people! This is two in one day!

I DO NOT debate Christian doctrine with unbelievers.

Are you claiming to be a Christian? If so, on what basis?

/

 

[Logikos]

Thank you for taking the time to post this. I like it, except for your quote that says that it starts with He. Logic is not a "he."

The Greek could not be more clearly masculine.

The Logos that became flesh and dwelt among us is the person whom we call Jesus. Jesus was not a hermaphrodite, He was a man, as in a human male, and remains one to this day and forever more.

 

[Logikos]

Are you claiming to be a Christian? If so, on what basis?

/

Excellent question! Yes! Is the obvious answer. I definitely claim to be a Christian! Of course, so does everyone else on this website regardless of what doctrines that they may or may not hold too. The real question then comes down to what does it mean to be a real Christian rather than being one in name only.

I've spent a very considerable amount of time and effort exploring that exact question and have boiled it down to what I called "The gospel proper" meaning that the following list of doctrines are what I believe are required in order to rightly call yourself "saved" or "Christian".
All I will likely be allowed to do here on this forum is to post the list because of mindless rules that are currently in place here....

You are a saved Christian if and only if you believe ALL of the following....

• God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
• We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
• Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
• Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent and free of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

Incidentally, I don't really care much (in the context of answering your question) what other doctrines one might hold. Generally speaking, one can be as right or as wrong about pretty much every other doctrinal position they hold and if they get this much right, then God's grace will cover whatever errors they make elsewhere.

 

[Logikos]

Don't you think that your first statement is claiming to know the heart of someone? We should not claim that we can do something that only God can do.

Well, it isn't as if I have to have some sort of super power. My comments are in reaction to his own words; the things that he himself claims to believe (or not believe).

If someone came to you and told you that all of life isn't real and that we are all just characters inside the imaginations of some disembodied brain in a vat on some alien's shelf, would you not know, by virtue of such a claim, that this person was not a Christian? What if someone showed up and claimed that Jesus and Satan were actually brothers who were just having a family squabble over which of them got to be the savior of the Earth? Would that disqualify them as Christians in your mind? Or is it that you think that there is no such thing as a belief that would disqualify a person from rightly claiming to be a Christian?

The term Christian means something!! People don't get to just believe whatever the heck they want and still be considered believers. At least not by me!

 

[Logikos]

To me, the idea that the Logos became flesh, means that the flesh is as filling as it can be and as quenching as it can be.

Huh?

 

[St. SteVen]

You are a saved Christian if and only if you believe ALL of the following....

• God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
• We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
• Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
• Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent and free of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

Which of these is @Hillsage in violation of? Since you declared that he is not a Christian.

Incidentally, I don't really care much (in the context of answering your question) what other doctrines one might hold.

Not based on what you claimed about @Hillsage

/

 

[Logikos]

Which of these is @Hillsage in violation of? Since you declared that he is not a Christian.

I don't keep track of names but there were two people in one day that I put on ignore for having denied the deity of Christ.

Not based on what you claimed about @Hillsage

If I stated that he wasn't a Christian it is because he denied one or more of those doctrines, regardless of what other nonsense he might or might not have spouted.

 

[St. SteVen]

I don't keep track of names but there were two people in one day that I put on ignore for having denied the deity of Christ.


If I stated that he wasn't a Christian it is because he denied one or more of those doctrines, regardless of what other nonsense he might or might not have spouted.

I know for a fact that @Hillsage does NOT deny the deity of Christ.
Nor any of the rest of your pet requirements.
But I guess you don't keep track of your abusive comments.

/

 

[Gottservant]

Huh?

You've got to eat and drink the Logos - as Jesus said.

 

[Spyder]

Well, it isn't as if I have to have some sort of super power. My comments are in reaction to his own words; the things that he himself claims to believe (or not believe).

If someone came to you and told you that all of life isn't real and that we are all just characters inside the imaginations of some disembodied brain in a vat on some alien's shelf, would you not know, by virtue of such a claim, that this person was not a Christian? What if someone showed up and claimed that Jesus and Satan were actually brothers who were just having a family squabble over which of them got to be the savior of the Earth? Would that disqualify them as Christians in your mind? Or is it that you think that there is no such thing as a belief that would disqualify a person from rightly claiming to be a Christian? Or is it that you think that there is no such thing as a belief that would disqualify a person from rightly claiming to be a Christian?

The term Christian means something!! People don't get to just believe whatever the heck they want and still be considered believers. At least not by me!

Yes, the term Christian means something to me as well. However, I don't get to determine at which point someone qualifies. Every one of us has a "first day" of belief. (And that doesn't even get into what the word "belief" means to we who claim English as our native language.) At one point, we were all ignorant and needed to grow. However, God knows who are His - despite how off-the-wall it might appear what they are. If someone seems to be lacking maturity in his walk with Yeshua, I have to remind myself of the time I was in that same spot. In other words, at one point when I thought I was "a Christian," God know how immature I was. I won't say that He didn't claim me, though.

 

[Logikos]

I know for a fact that @Hillsage does NOT deny the deity of Christ.
Nor any of the rest of your pet requirements.
But I guess you don't keep track of your abusive comments.

/

I would have responded directly to his own words. If I happen to be wrong then prove it and I'll repent. Otherwise, I'll take his word over yours.

 

[Logikos]

Yes, the term Christian means something to me as well. However, I don't get to determine at which point someone qualifies.

Well, of course not!
I didn't define what Christianity is! I didn't write the bible. God did that! I just read it, take it to mean what it says and engage my thinking in compliance with what I've read.

Every one of us has a "first day" of belief. (And that doesn't even get into what the word "belief" means to we who claim English as our native language.) At one point, we were all ignorant and needed to grow.

Quite so, but the first step in correcting an error is knowing that the error exists, is it not? Does the man standing on a ship's deck feel the need for a life preserver or isn't it the man in the water? If the man in the water is delusional and wrongly thinks he's still on the ship, you can throw him one life preserver after another and he'll ignore them all.

However, God knows who are His - despite how off-the-wall it might appear what they are.

God is certainly better able to know that we are but that does not mean that we can't tell at all. Otherwise, the term "Christian" would literally have no meaning.

If someone seems to be lacking maturity in his walk with Yeshua,

It's "Jesus" in English.

I have to remind myself of the time I was in that same spot. In other words, at one point when I thought I was "a Christian," God know how immature I was. I won't say that He didn't claim me, though.

I would! IF you rejected such things as the deity of Christ!

The gospel has many aspects to it that are reserved for the understanding of those who are more mature. There can be no doubt about that. The concepts surrounding the fact that we are identified in Christ and that He lives His life through us, are so deep and rich that a whole lifetime is insufficient time to plumb it's depths but the gospel is not so plastic that one is able to pick and choose whichever doctrines they like and which they don't. If someone where to say that the fact that Jesus was God in the flesh doesn't make sense to them and His constant references to the Father confuse them on that issue but that he sees and acknowledges the fact that the word of God teaches that He is God in the flesh and so accepts that on mere faith in spite of his lack of understanding, then that's more than good enough for me. But if you place the verdict of your own personal opinions or emotionally based perspectives over the clear teaching of scripture then you are, by definition, an unbeliever. And I, through no trivial process where several people were involved in very detailed discussion and debate, have been fully persuaded that the bible is more than clear enough for anyone to know that it was God Himself that died at Calvary for our sins and rose from the grave three days a later and that anyone who denies that irrefutably biblical truth then they are not saved and thus are not real Christians.

On a side note, by what method would you presume to tell me that my convictions on this matter are false that wouldn't be just as valid being applied to telling someone that they aren't saved? And, whenever you witness to someone, are you not tacitly "judging their hearts" in the same way you are saying is wrong for me to do?

 

[Spyder]

Well, of course not!
I didn't define what Christianity is! I didn't write the bible. God did that! I just read it, take it to mean what it says and engage my thinking in compliance with what I've read.


Quite so, but the first step in correcting an error is knowing that the error exists, is it not? Does the man standing on a ship's deck feel the need for a life preserver or isn't it the man in the water? If the man in the water is delusional and wrongly thinks he's still on the ship, you can throw him one life preserver after another and he'll ignore them all.


God is certainly better able to know that we are but that does not mean that we can't tell at all. Otherwise, the term "Christian" would literally have no meaning.


It's "Jesus" in English.


I would! IF you rejected such things as the deity of Christ!

The gospel has many aspects to it that are reserved for the understanding of those who are more mature. There can be no doubt about that. The concepts surrounding the fact that we are identified in Christ and that He lives His life through us, are so deep and rich that a whole lifetime is insufficient time to plumb it's depths but the gospel is not so plastic that one is able to pick and choose whichever doctrines they like and which they don't. If someone where to say that the fact that Jesus was God in the flesh doesn't make sense to them and His constant references to the Father confuse them on that issue but that he sees and acknowledges the fact that the word of God teaches that He is God in the flesh and so accepts that on mere faith in spite of his lack of understanding, then that's more than good enough for me. But if you place the verdict of your own personal opinions or emotionally based perspectives over the clear teaching of scripture then you are, by definition, an unbeliever. And I, through no trivial process where several people were involved in very detailed discussion and debate, have been fully persuaded that the bible is more than clear enough for anyone to know that it was God Himself that died at Calvary for our sins and rose from the grave three days a later and that anyone who denies that irrefutably biblical truth then they are not saved and thus are not real Christians.

On a side note, by what method would you presume to tell me that my convictions on this matter are false that wouldn't be just as valid being applied to telling someone that they aren't saved? And, whenever you witness to someone, are you not tacitly "judging their hearts" in the same way you are saying is wrong for me to do?

My brother, my intent was simply to point out that, while we see and hear what others say and do, we should be gentle in our approach. Now Yeshua (Jesus) did speak harshly to the Pharisees, I believe that He had greater authority to do so. I respond "no" to the question of whether or not i am judging the hearts of those to whom I witness. I do so either because they open the door to do so, or they are family and I know that they reject salvation through Yeshua (Jesus). If my response to you caused you to think I was "on the attack," please forgive me.

Perhaps you could show me a verse that clearly says Christ Jesus IS God?