We try to teach children by repeating the same things over and over again so that they will eventually get it. But some just don't listen and become stubborn adults.
My Pastor used to stress the importance of redundancy in teaching.
So you respond to an offer to continue by insulting me? So which am I, a child or a stubborn adult?
If you make arguments, I will respond in kind. If you make bald claims with no supporting argument then there is nothing to respond to except to tell you that saying something doesn't make it so.
>> A major component of your premise in your thesis is that in JOHN 1:1, LOGOS MEANS logic <<
This definition suffers miserably to express the full spectrum of meaning.
Saying it doesn't make it so!
We know God is logical, but just to imply logic or reason is the fundamental truth about God is weak.
Saying it doesn't make it so!
To introduce God that way is lacking spiritual depth and insight.
Saying it doesn't make it so!
Greek philosophy taught that reason was the fundamental reality and the Age of Enlightenment/ Reason reiterated that concept.
As stated, neither of these claims are true and wouldn't really be relevant if they were.
What is relevant is what John's Greek audience would have understood him to be saying in the first part of his gospel. The Greeks were very much aware that the universe made sense, that there was a logic to it and believed because of the undeniable order of the universe that it could not have happened by accident and that there was therefore a divine force that was responsible for this order. The term they used to refer to this divine force was the term "Logos" and it was specifically this concept that John was referencing. They DID NOT believe that some sort of disembodied, impersonal sort of logic was the fundamental reality, as you seem to claim.
As for "logic" as a proper English translation of the term "logos", it isn't even disputable. I quoted notable sources in my essay and you can look it up yourself without much effort. What it means in the context of John's gospel is a matter for deep discussion, prayer and meditation, none of which can be done without employing sound reason, by the way.
The first sentence of the Book of John presents JESUS AS GOD. HE IS THE WORD.
Precisely!
The entire book elaborates on the deity of Christ. One does not grasp the book if he does not get tha point.
No doubt!
In essence He is the exact expression and illumination of God's divine wisdom, life, power, love and glory.
[verse 3] - He is the Creator ...
[vs. 4] Life and Light of men
[vs. 14] He became flesh and dwelt among us in the fullness of grace and truth.
None of this is in dispute nor has a syllable of it has been challenged by me in anyway shape fashion or form nor is it relevant to whether "logic" or "reason" or even "divine reason" is a better translation of Logos into English than is the term "word"!
The entire Bible is also referred to as the WORD.
But not the Logos! You are making my argument for me!
The use of the term "word" actually has a normal and intuitive meaning in the context of referring to the bible as "the word of God", which is precisely what is absent of the use of the term "word" in John 1.
I have heard scholars claim that Jesus is on every page of the Bible.
"Every page" may be an overstatement but I have no dispute with the sentiment.
We all agree (most of us), that we receive a moral code from God. He is righteous, good and holy. We are to be aware of what is evil too and learn to distinguish between the good and evil.
This is also not in dispute and misses the point. The question is whether God Himself is moral and if so, by what standard?
Logos is vast and deep, encompassing the truth and nature about God, it is not just his logic we are talking about.
I didn't say it was!
You seem to be obsessed with the word logic to the point that you use that as your avatar and also describe God this way, which is impersonal.
It is totally personal! There is no such thing as impersonal logic. Logic cannot occur absent a person. Logic presupposes a thinking mind.
What you might mean is that it is unemotional. If so, then I would ask whether you think that doctrine should be done dispassionately or not and to what degree you would think it wise to employ emotions that are not strictly governed by reason in any determination of one's doctrine?
Besides omniscience is better partial description of His mind, but then you are leaving out omnipotence and omnipresence.
All three of these doctrines are unbiblical and have the origins directly from the very Greek philosophy that you're attempting to beat me over the head with! They are literally called the "Classical attributes of God". The term "Classical" being a reference to the fact that the Omni doctrines come from Aristotle and Plato and were imported from there by Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century.
Biblically....
God knows everything that is knowable that He wants to know.
God is the source of all power but delegates power to others and cannot do the rationally absurd (e.g. make perfect spheres with sharp corners).
God is everywhere He wants to be but is not required to be anywhere He does not want to be nor is He capable of being in a place that does not exist (e.g. the past or future).
Even those words are not quite enough to describe God, Who is Spirit, loving, kind, patient, good, faithful, merciful, forgiving, gracious, glorious, peaceful, joyful, just, righteous, holy, eternal and much more. We need the whole Bible to grasp who Logos is. And then someday, He will reveal the mysteries of God to us.
Not a word of this is in dispute nor is any of it challenged by a proper translation of the word Logos into English!