Thomas... My Lord and my God

Yes! Not speech or any other heretical view. Keep that thought - don't deviate from it in any way shape or form.
John 1:1c I have to take in the grammatically correct form in which to understand that. In this case 'God' is a predicate nominative and therefore the word is NOT EQUAL TO but qualitative OF the word. Thus - the Word was the full expression of God, the Word was how God expressed himself......that word that was the full expression of God, i.e. that word that fully expressed God ----- became flesh.
And in that manner, I have not deviated from it in any way shape or form.
Thanks for those Trinitarian verses that you're quoting. The first set explain the moment when the Word, who was God, tabernacled as Jesus on Earth. The 2nd set describes a truly amazing manifestation of the Trinity that any sincere person could and would recognize as being so.

Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!
Yep, that word that was the full expression of God, i.e. that word that fully expressed God ---- became flesh.
And Luke 1:35 tells how.
Was the holy spirit an extra person called in to help? READ the verse - Luke describes the holy spirit as the power of God.
I see no Trinity but read 'em as you will.
 
Amen to the Personal Word who was God and with the Father ( who is God ) before creation and who created all things that came into existence and shared the same GLORY together with the Father before anything existed.

And all of Gods children said with confidence and affirmation of the Truth, the True One, Our True God and Eternal Life- Jesus Christ.- AMEN !!!
Let me ask you this: If the first 'God' references the Father why doesn't the second 'God' also reference the Father?
And if it doesn't then who does the second 'God' reference?
 
no you are not a word or your words- you are a living soul.
I am a living soul a living person who is known by her words.

If I never spoke no one would know me. No one would know if I was a liar or if I had integrity . . . .No one would know if I had a sense of humor or not or what type of humor I had. No one would know if I could take sarcastic humor or if I would be offended. No one would know if I was prideful or humble . . . . Nope, without my words, no one would know ME.

If it were possible and my words were to become flesh - that person would fully express ME!
Just as the Word of God became flesh in the only Son of the Father - Jesus fully expresses God his Father and makes him known.
 
I actually have no idea what you are ranting about. I did not say that the word was 'every single word of creation' You are taking what I said and just being totally ridiculous with it.

Did you even read thoroughly your own post regarding what AI had to say? I took the time to respond to that ridiculously long post and now you act as though you have NO idea what it said or what I am saying!!!!! Even within that ridiculously long post that I took the time to respond to - AI quoted places where it said "that the word fully expressed God" . . . which I agreed to and which I have said all along in this thread.

The Word was God - God's creative speech, the Word was the full expression of God - the Word was how God expressed himself..... that word that was the full expression of God, i.e. that word that fully expresses God --- became flesh. Luke 1:35 tells how. Was the holy spirit an extra person called in to help? READ the verse - Luke describes the holy spirit as the power of God.

Now, if you really take the time to read this you will get this far ----- and if you really want to discuss and take apart that long post together with my responses singly address those - okay but when someone just starts ranting and making no sense - I can't.
Short and to the point.
""that the word fully expressed God"

"The Word was God - God's creative speech,"

It was only a long post if there were things brought up that were new concepts to you.....

Nope... No need to go through it at all... I would much rather compare Sabellius and his teachings that seem to have influenced you so much.
 
because the Father was not with the Father, but with the Son.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (the Father) and the Word was God (the Son).
That's how you read that? So God's word wouldn't be with him in his mind and his thoughts? ----
As my words are with me - especially if one thinks before they speak - that word is with them in their mind and thoughts before it is spoken.
 
I am a living soul a living person who is known by her words.

If I never spoke no one would know me. No one would know if I was a liar or if I had integrity . . . .No one would know if I had a sense of humor or not or what type of humor I had. No one would know if I could take sarcastic humor or if I would be offended. No one would know if I was prideful or humble . . . . Nope, without my words, no one would know ME.

If it were possible and my words were to become flesh - that person would fully express ME!
Just as the Word of God became flesh in the only Son of the Father - Jesus fully expresses God his Father and makes him known.
no your thoughts not your words determine your heart as Jesus taught. its what determines what kind of person you are.

God said as the heavens are above the earth so are My thoughts above your thoughts. He didn't say His words were but His thoughts contrasted with mans thoughts- the inner man- the soul.

hope this helps !!!
 
Short and to the point.
""that the word fully expressed God"

"The Word was God - God's creative speech,"

It was only a long post if there were things brought up that were new concepts to you.....

Nope... No need to go through it at all... I would much rather compare Sabellius and his teachings that seem to have influenced you so much.
Why would you post something that you haven't even read?
No, you actually didn't bring up new concepts to me. I was intrigued and also courteous. You spent the time to do that and post it so I took the time to respond.

I'll break it up so maybe what I say will be better understood which I sincerely doubt!
If you agree that He created through his word. Then now you know why God said "Let US'. The Word was there.

God plus Word = US.
God created by speaking WORDS --- Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light". 1:6,7 And God said, "Let there be an expanse.....And it was so. 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together.....And it was so. etc., etc. By the time the discussion of creating man in v26 - the heavens and earth and all the host of them, the separation of land and water, the plants and vegetation created, the fish, birds all the animals - there is NO plurality. - elohim - singular or plural usage? Dependent upon verb tense - created is singular verb tense therefore elohim is singular. Not plural so not 3 persons God singularly created:

Thus says the LORD........I made the earth and created man on it; it was MY hands that stretched out the heavens and I commanded all their host; .......For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (HE is God!), who formed the earth and made it(HE established it, HE did not create it empty , he formed it to be inhabited!), I am the LORD, and there is no other......I the LORD speak the truth; I declare what is right. [Isaiah 45:11a,12,18,19b]

When you speak your words - Do you consider your words and you an US?
 
no your thoughts not your words determine your heart as Jesus taught. its what determines what kind of person you are.

God said as the heavens are above the earth so are My thoughts above your thoughts. He didn't say His words were but His thoughts contrasted with mans thoughts- the inner man- the soul.

hope this helps !!!
Now you are taking it into a whole other context ---- You cannot know my heart without knowing me and you cannot know me without my words to back up who I am. ONLY GOD CAN KNOW MY HEART.
Where did I take this into knowing someone's heart? Where did I take this into knowing someone's thoughts?
And I sure didn't say anything about knowing God's thoughts.
WOW, no wonder the word of God is misunderstood when you can't even follow and understand what I am saying.
 
John 1:1c I have to take in the grammatically correct form in which to understand that. In this case 'God' is a predicate nominative and therefore the word is NOT EQUAL TO but qualitative OF the word. Thus - the Word was the full expression of God, the Word was how God expressed himself......that word that was the full expression of God, i.e. that word that fully expressed God ----- became flesh.
And in that manner, I have not deviated from it in any way shape or form.

Yep, that word that was the full expression of God, i.e. that word that fully expressed God ---- became flesh.
And Luke 1:35 tells how.
Was the holy spirit an extra person called in to help? READ the verse - Luke describes the holy spirit as the power of God.
I see no Trinity but read 'em as you will.
I see a Word who became Jesus... that uyou never fully adnmit. I see a Holy Spirit.... I see God the Father.

1....2.....3.... Trinity. Wow, that was tough.

But I do believe you single handily have solved the meaning of why children and babies are not baptized .... and have to wait until they believe....

If everyone has to grammatically dissect each scripture of what ever is said theologically God would lose a lot of interested people until they get out of middle school.

You are right and wrong.

Int the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

You said God was the predicate nominative and you are correct.... But you made it far more complicated in YOUR ramblings.

Instead you simply had to tell us aboout the sentence and then about the differences between English and Greek for predicate nominatives.

In Greek, when you have a linking verb (like ἦν = “was”), you get:

Subject = the noun with the article

Predicate nominative = the noun without the article

Greek wordRole
ὁ λόγος (“the Word”)Subject (has the article ὁ)
θεός (“God”)Predicate nominative
ἦν (“was”)Linking verb

Trivia time....

Greek often places the predicate nominative before the verb for emphasis:

θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
God was the Word (word order)

But English reverses it for clarity:
“the Word was God”

And the rest of what you wrote has nothing to do with anything predicate nominative

"therefore the word is NOT EQUAL TO but qualitative OF the word. Thus - the Word was the full expression of God, the Word was how God expressed himself......that word that was the full expression of God, i.e. that word that fully expressed God ----- became flesh.

This is pure fabrication from where???? I can guess, but not right now
 
So now that we understand that....

If God is commonly called the Father, and Jesus is commonly called the Son... for what reason do you think the Word (Logos) was called that and not something like Like or even Cup?
Yes, God is the Father and Jesus is the Son. My thoughts on why logos was used in John 1:1 is because God's word did the creating in the beginning.
God is a Father. Jesus is a Son Why do you suppose the one with God the Father in the beginning of creation would be called the Word when HE WAS NOT the one saying anything according to you.
The question would be - What would the original readers have understood with this verse? We have to remember that this was written to people who had NO IDEA OF AN ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. They only had what was known through the OT scripture and scripture clearly depicts that a singular person identified as either the LORD, the LORD God, or God - created.
Well lets look at Ai. My Question ....Is there anyway to know why the logos/word was called that back during creation?

1. Gemini

To understand why "the Word" ($Logos$) is used to describe the Creator in the context of Genesis, we have to look at how ancient Jewish and Greek thought merged before the New Testament was written.
While Genesis 1 simply says, "God said," later thinkers used the term Logos to explain how a transcendent God interacts with a physical world.

1. The Power of the "Spoken Word" (Jewish Context)

In Hebrew thought, a word ($Dabar$) was not just a sound; it was a concrete force.
  • Genesis 1: Creation happens through speech.1 By calling the Creator "the Word," the text identifies Jesus as the very "speech" or "breath" of God that brought matter into existence.
  • Psalm 33:6: This verse explicitly links the two: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made."2
  • The Memra: In the Aramaic Targums (ancient Jewish translations/paraphrases of the Bible), the term Memra ("Word") was often used as a buffer to describe God acting on earth, helping readers understand how an invisible God could be "seen" or "heard."

2. The "Logic" of the Universe (Greek Context)

In the Greek-speaking world of the New Testament, Logos meant more than "speech"; it meant reason, logic, or the underlying blueprint of the universe.
  • Heraclitus and the Stoics: They used Logos to describe the "universal mind" that keeps the stars in their courses and the seasons changing.
  • Philo of Alexandria: A Jewish philosopher living around the time of Jesus, Philo combined these ideas. He taught that the Logos was God's instrument in creation—the "bridge" between the perfect mind of God and the material world.

3. The Theological Synthesis

When the Gospel of John was written, using the term "Word" was a genius "bridge" for both audiences:
  • To the Jew, it signaled that Jesus is the creative command of Genesis 1.
  • To the Greek, it signaled that Jesus is the "Logic" or "Reason" behind why the universe works the way it does.

Summary Table


ConceptOriginMeaning in Creation
DabarHebrewThe active, powerful command that causes things to happen.
LogosGreekThe rational structure and blueprint of the cosmos.
MemraAramaicThe manifestation of God’s presence and agency in the world.
By using this title, the authors were essentially saying: "The same 'Voice' that said 'Let there be light' is the person of Jesus Christ."

I was asked... Would you like to see how the Church Fathers like Justin Martyr or Irenaeus expanded on this "Logos" theology in the second century?

Reply




In the second century, the Church Fathers bridged the gap between the biblical "Word" and Greek philosophy, explaining how the Logos was both eternal with God and active in the physical world.

1. Justin Martyr: The "Seeds" of Truth

Justin Martyr, a philosopher turned Christian, developed the concept of the Logos Spermatikos (the "Sowing Word").

  • Universal Reason: He argued that every human possesses a "seed" of the Logos, which is why even non-Christian philosophers like Socrates could stumble upon truths.
  • The Full Manifestation: While others had seeds of truth, Justin taught that in Jesus Christ, the entire Logos became flesh to provide the full and definitive truth for humanity.
  • The Agent of Revelation: For Justin, any time God appeared in the Old Testament (like the burning bush), it was actually a pre-incarnate appearance of the Logos.

2. Irenaeus of Lyons: The "Hands" of God

Irenaeus focused on the Logos specifically in the context of creation and "recapitulation."

  • The Two Hands: He famously described the Word (Son) and Wisdom (Holy Spirit) as the "two hands of God". This helped explain that God did not need external help or angels to create; He used His own Word.
  • Recapitulation: Irenaeus taught that the Logos, who originally created humanity, became human to "sum up" or redo human history. By living a perfect life, the Word "re-created" what had been broken in Adam.

Comparison of Early Logos Theology

[td]Father[/td][td]Key Concept[/td][td]Focus[/td] [td]Justin Martyr[/td][td]Logos Spermatikos[/td][td]How the Word enlightens all people and Greek philosophy.[/td] [td]Irenaeus[/td][td]"The Two Hands"[/td][td]How the Word is the direct agent of creation and redemption.[/td]



These early thinkers ensured that the term "Logos" wasn't just a philosophical idea, but a person who linked the act of creation to the act of salvation.
Would you like to explore how these ideas eventually led to the specific language used in the Nicene Creed?

#2. GROK
Yes, the term "Logos" (translated as "Word" in English Bibles) in the prologue of the Gospel of John (John 1:1–14) has a rich background, and scholars have extensively studied why the author chose this specific Greek word to describe the pre-existent divine figure who becomes incarnate in Jesus.


The Greek Word "Logos"​


The Greek word logos (λόγος) has a broad range of meanings, including "word," "speech," "reason," "account," "principle," or "rational order." It was not coined by John but had been used philosophically for centuries before the Gospel was written (likely around 90–100 CE).


Philosophical Background​


  • Heraclitus (c. 535–475 BCE): One of the earliest philosophers to elevate logos. For him, it referred to the rational principle or underlying order governing the universe—the hidden structure behind constant change and opposites (e.g., day/night, war/peace). It was an impersonal, divine rationality that humans often fail to comprehend.
  • Stoics (from c. 300 BCE): Developed logos further as the active, rational force animating the cosmos—an immanent divine reason permeating all things.
  • Plato and later thinkers: Logos often meant human reason or discourse, but in Hellenistic philosophy, it bridged the gap between the transcendent divine and the material world.

Jewish-Hellenistic Influence: Philo of Alexandria​


Philo (c. 20 BCE–50 CE), a Jewish philosopher from Alexandria, heavily influenced by Greek thought (especially Platonism and Stoicism), fused logos with Jewish ideas:


  • He described the Logos as God's intermediary: the "image" of God, the firstborn "Son" of God, the agent of creation, and the mediator between the transcendent God and the world.
  • It was semi-personified—not fully a separate person, but more than a mere abstraction. Philo drew from Old Testament concepts like personified Wisdom (Proverbs 8:22–31, where Wisdom is with God at creation) and God's creative word ("God said...").
  • Philo's Logos was never incarnate (it couldn't become human flesh, as that would violate God's transcendence).

John's audience, in the Greco-Roman world (possibly Ephesus or Asia Minor), would have been familiar with these ideas through Hellenistic Judaism.
I did not respond to any of the above.
 
<snip>

Old Testament and Jewish Roots​


John's primary foundation is Jewish Scripture (in Greek translation, the Septuagint):
  • God's creative "word" in Genesis 1 ("And God said, 'Let there be light'") brings the universe into existence.
  • Phrases like "the word of the Lord" in prophets (e.g., Jeremiah, Isaiah) convey God's revelation, power, and will.
  • Personified Wisdom in Proverbs 8 and Wisdom of Solomon (a Jewish text from ~1st century BCE) is pre-existent, involved in creation, and a divine agent—parallels that early Christians applied to Jesus.
  • In Aramaic Targums (Jewish interpretive translations), "Memra" (Word) sometimes substitutes for God in anthropomorphic passages, emphasizing God's active presence.
John echoes Genesis 1:1 exactly ("In the beginning...") to link the Logos to God's creative act.
Agreed. I'm not sure exactly how they are defining Personified Wisdom and the Wisdom of Solomon above but I do not believe that Personified Wisdom nor the Wisdom of Solomon 'preexisted' as literal beings but that God's wisdom is being personified as Lady Wisdom, a female figure.
I’ll walk through this in a structured way so you can use it in discussion or debate if you wish.


1. The Jewish background: God creates by His Word​

For a Jewish reader, “Word” was already a creation category.
  • Genesis 1: Creation happens by speech

  • Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.

  • Isaiah 55:11
    God’s word goes out, acts, and accomplishes His will
  • Aramaic Targums (paraphrases used in synagogues) often say: "The Memra (Word) of the LORD created...."
So within Judaism, God’s Word was:
  • from God
  • distinct in action
  • yet fully God’s own self-expression
John is not inventing a new idea—he is identifying it.
Agree, creation happened by speech. Agreed, God's word is from God and is fully God's own self-expression.
 
Why would you post something that you haven't even read?

Paleeze administrator.... can I say it....?

I read it... I posted it... I read it... I never post anything I do not read or understand.

No, you actually didn't bring up new concepts to me. I was intrigued and also courteous. You spent the time to do that and post it so I took the time to respond.

I'll break it up so maybe what I say will be better understood which I sincerely doubt!

God created by speaking WORDS --- Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light". 1:6,7 And God said, "Let there be an expanse.....And it was so. 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together.....And it was so. etc., etc. By the time the discussion of creating man in v26 - the heavens and earth and all the host of them, the separation of land and water, the plants and vegetation created, the fish, birds all the animals - there is NO plurality. - elohim - singular or plural usage? Dependent upon verb tense - created is singular verb tense therefore elohim is singular. Not plural so not 3 persons God singularly created:

Thus says the LORD........I made the earth and created man on it; it was MY hands that stretched out the heavens and I commanded all their host; .......For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (HE is God!), who formed the earth and made it(HE established it, HE did not create it empty , he formed it to be inhabited!), I am the LORD, and there is no other......I the LORD speak the truth; I declare what is right. [Isaiah 45:11a,12,18,19b]

When you speak your words - Do you consider your words and you an US?

When someone on this forum say @civic, or @ Synergy, or @ Jim quotes what I have to say and expoundes on it and it is my thoughts in agreement.... That would be an us.

It happened the other day... One kind soul posted the rest of my post .... That would be an us.

When I drop an egg on the floor and I shout an expletive... that would be me.... I am the only one present.

When the Word, who is separate from the Father spoke things into being in creation, the two would have been an us.

When the spirit was hovering over the waters....

And the earth was formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

That is two... That is an US. We know they are two because The Spirit came upon Mary separate from God the Father... AND
The Spirit descended on Jesus at His baptism....

When the Holy Father sent the Holy Spirit to do whatever He did to Mary and the Word was infused into Mary, you had the Father, The Holy Spirit present, and the Word became the incarnate Jesus (Both fully human and fully God)
you have them. 1.2.3.= Trinity.
 
Last edited:
I see a Word who became Jesus... that uyou never fully adnmit. I see a Holy Spirit.... I see God the Father.

1....2.....3.... Trinity. Wow, that was tough.

But I do believe you single handily have solved the meaning of why children and babies are not baptized .... and have to wait until they believe....

If everyone has to grammatically dissect each scripture of what ever is said theologically God would lose a lot of interested people until they get out of middle school.
You see A word = God who became Jesus.
Correct - I will never admit that.
I don't see the holy spirit in John 1:1. I do see God the Father in John 1:1.
You are right and wrong.

Int the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

You said God was the predicate nominative and you are correct.... But you made it far more complicated in YOUR ramblings.

Instead you simply had to tell us aboout the sentence and then about the differences between English and Greek for predicate nominatives.

In Greek, when you have a linking verb (like ἦν = “was”), you get:

Subject = the noun with the article

Predicate nominative = the noun without the article

Greek wordRole
ὁ λόγος (“the Word”)Subject (has the article ὁ)
θεός (“God”)Predicate nominative
ἦν (“was”)Linking verb

Trivia time....

Greek often places the predicate nominative before the verb for emphasis:

θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
God was the Word (word order)

But English reverses it for clarity:
“the Word was God”

And the rest of what you wrote has nothing to do with anything predicate nominative

"therefore the word is NOT EQUAL TO but qualitative OF the word. Thus - the Word was the full expression of God, the Word was how God expressed himself......that word that was the full expression of God, i.e. that word that fully expressed God ----- became flesh.

This is pure fabrication from where???? I can guess, but not right now
Yes, that is the correct reading in the Greek - God was the word. ---- Yet, translated into English - 'the word was God' - 'God' is seen as a predicate nominative which makes it descriptive.

And if kept in that manner: uh oh.....

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God (the Father) and God (the Father) was the word.

You cannot equivocate on the meaning of 'God' in this verse. One God means the Father and the other means the Son.
 
Now you are taking it into a whole other context ---- You cannot know my heart without knowing me and you cannot know me without my words to back up who I am. ONLY GOD CAN KNOW MY HEART.
Where did I take this into knowing someone's heart? Where did I take this into knowing someone's thoughts?
And I sure didn't say anything about knowing God's thoughts.
WOW, no wonder the word of God is misunderstood when you can't even follow and understand what I am saying.
Nope I’m talking scripture not secular Greek philosophy from Plato you are espousing
 
Paleeze administrator.... can I say it....?

I read it... I posted it... I read it... I never post anything I do not read or understand.

When someone on this forum say @civic, or @ Synergy, or @ Jim quotes what I have to say and expoundes on it and it is my thoughts in agreement.... That would be an us.

It happened the other day... One kind soul posted the rest of my post .... That would be an us.
When someone responds to your quotes - they are using the words you said - your own words or words that you have quoted from a source and they respond in agreement with YOU; it is still YOU that said it NOT US that said anything - they just agreed with what YOU said. Those words YOU posted, YOU put together with thought and reason from YOUR mind.

I saw where a error happened in what you posted and synergy corrected it for you - that would be an US that made the post but not an US that said what was in the POST.

A person's words are their own, even if I take and quote YOUR WORDS that doesn't make them MINE - they are YOURS. That's why some authors of books or articles require permission to use them and should always be named as a source.
When I drop an egg on the floor and I shout an expletive... that would be me.... I am the only one present.
True.
When the Word, who is separate from the Father spoke things into being in creation, the two would have been an us.
God's word is not separate from Himself - Just as what you speak is not separate from you.
God had a plan in mind and that plan in God's mind started taking shape as God spoke things into being.
When the spirit was hovering over the waters....
And the earth was formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

That is two... That is an US. We know they are two because The Spirit came upon Mary separate from God the Father... AND
The Spirit descended on Jesus at His baptism....

When the Holy Father sent the Holy Spirit to do whatever He did to Mary and the Word was infused into Mary, you had the Father, The Holy Spirit present, and the Word became the incarnate Jesus (Both fully human and fully God)
you have them. 1.2.3.= Trinity.
Yes, the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters or moving over the waters dependent on translation. "Then God said" and by His Spirit, His power, God started the creation process. That is ONE.

NO, the Holy Spirit is clearly stated to be the power of the Most High not a separate person in Luke.
"INFUSED INTO MARY" - What exactly does that mean? Does that mean Mary 'conceived'?
You have the power of God - aka the holy spirit which is God and Mary present - the holy child was begotten, conceived. A human being conceived, therefore a human being was conceived in Mary's womb and a human child would be born.

The Spirit of God - seen and presented physically as a dove - descended on Jesus at his baptism filling him with the Spirit, i.e. baptizing him with holy spirit (John 3:34), strengthening him to face the temptations of Satan (Mark 1:13) and giving him power to begin his ministry (Luke 3:23).
 
Nope I’m talking scripture not secular Greek philosophy from Plato you are espousing
I am not espousing anything philosophical - I don't know enough about 'secular Greek philosophy from Plato' to espouse upon it!!!! I'm just talking normal, logical stuff!!!
You wouldn't know me at all if not for my words you read in these forums.
 
Back
Top Bottom