Logos

[CoreIssue]

Note: The first 24 posts here are reposts from the old board by CoreIssue.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:58 am by Vagabond

Here is a definition of the word Logos given by strong's:


Quote:
3056 logos log'-os from 3004; something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. 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.




I am going to speculate that, the greek word "logos" was being used and understood before the gospel of John was written. Because of this speculation, I would assume, that, in the original use of the word "logos" the greeks were not even remotely concerned with how John may or may not use this word to express. Therefore, to add to the definition of the word would be an error. It is as simple as that!

Any usage of ("with the article of John") in translating the word logos, to show a different meaning of the word, is incorrect, no matter which dictionary you use! One will never convince me that the greeks, when forming their language, or anytime before the gospel of John was written, used ("when used with the article of John") to give special definition of this word!

It is as clear as a bell, that the word logos is not used in the present tense, just read every verse where it's used. It may always be in "singular form" yes, but it is never used in the "present" tense! That is a fact! Therefore, given it's original definition, and how it is used, one should easily conclude that logos is something said, written, or thought.

[CoreIssue]

Quote:I am going to speculate that, the greek word "logos" was being used and understood before the gospel of John was written.
No speculation. Historical fact.
Quote:Because of this speculation, I would assume, that, in the original use of the word "logos" the greeks were not even remotely concerned with how John may or may not use this word to express.
Moot and pointless argument. The point is it had an establish use and meaning in this arena of language before John used it.
Quote: Therefore, to add to the definition of the word would be an error. It is as simple as that!
It is part of the definition. It is as simple as that!
Quote:Any usage of ("with the article of John") in translating the word logos, to show a different meaning of the word, is incorrect, no matter which dictionary you use! One will never convince me that the greeks, when forming their language, or anytime before the gospel of John was written, used ("when used with the article of John") to give special definition of this word!
Then you are blind and refuse to research the issue. Plain as that.

Any student of history knows this was huge usage of the word in the realm of religion and philosophy.
Quote:It is as clear as a bell, that the word logos is not used in the present tense, just read every verse where it's used.
I already posted multiple uses of logos in Matthew where it is used in the neutral tense. Meaning it applies past, present and future.

Again you turn a blind eye to simple fact and solid evidence.
Quote: It may always be in "singular form" yes, but it is never used in the "present" tense! That is a fact!
Obviously you did not read the Matthew verses I referenced then.

Your fact claim is false.
Quote:Therefore, given it's original definition, and how it is used, one should easily conclude that logos is something said, written, or thought.
Based on the blind assumptions of vagabond. Who refuses to do any research and dismisses parts of definitions in both ancient and modern Greek.

Read if you will or not but some others may want read here (http://www.bartleby.com/65/lo/Logos.html) (did not post text due to copyright requirements) for sumary data on the understand and use of Logos in religion and philosophy for centuries before Christ. And it usage in Christ.

Vagabond, if you are unwilling to investigate these simple realities and address them then there is nothing more to discuss here. Just dismissing parts of definition, history and so on is zero evidence supporting your claims and leaves nothing to respond to except to say you conclusions contradict the evidence and are nothing more than your personal opinions.

[CoreIssue]

Quote:It may always be in "singular form" yes, but it is never used in the "present" tense! That is a fact!
Obviously you did not read the Matthew verses I referenced then.


Is the best you can come up with in this argument a scripture that shows "logos" in a "neutral" tense? I think I'm sarting to see a wiggle.

Quote: Read if you will or not but some others may want read here (http://www.bartleby.com/65/lo/Logos.html)



I read it, it, by far helps my case and does nothing for yours, thanks:
By the concepts of platonism and Aristotelism?
To "them" God was....?
Here's a term that helps my case- "Spermaticos logos"
Philo's synthesis?
Philo's logos, at times is independent of God?

Not one place in this does it say that "logos" is used by the greeks in present tense.

Here is the evidence against your claim:
Logos, in the bible is never used in the present tense, a neutral tense is neutral not present!
Logos was used before John 1:1, therefore someone's assumption of what John 1:1 is talking about, and using it to show logos in the present tense is "inadmissable"!
The concepts of Platonism and Aristotelism, are a long reach away from "biblical".
Who cares about "Philo's" synthesis.Who, at times sees the logos "independent" of God, helping my case.
And the term "Spematicos"? If anything would help my case, not yours, but I wouldn't use it!

Quote:Vagabond, if you are unwilling to investigate these simple realities and address them then there is nothing more to discuss here. Just dismissing parts of definition, history and so on is zero evidence supporting your claims and leaves nothing to respond to except to say you conclusions contradict the evidence and are nothing more than your personal opinions.

I don't blame you for wanting to get out of it!
"My" personal opinions?
Parts of definition (which clearly don't belong), history and so on? I noticed you never said "bible", interesting!

[CoreIssue]

Quote: It may always be in "singular form" yes, but it is never used in the "present" tense! That is a fact!
Quote:
Obviously you did not read the Matthew verses I referenced then.




Is the best you can come up with in this argument a scripture that shows "logos" in a "neutral" tense? I think I'm sarting to see a wiggle.


What is your game here?
I showed you verses with the Roman to Christ that was present and future tense using logos.

I showed you in a chapter of Matthew where it was referring to past, present and future tense.

That most assuredly shows you past tense only as totally false.

Any one wiggling here it is you to escape being wrong in your absolute declaration it is always past tense.

Yeesh. You have been shown you are wrong. And this is how you respond??
Read if you will or not but some others may want read here (http://www.bartleby.com/65/lo/Logos.html)


I read it, it, by far helps my case and does nothing for yours, thanks:
By the concepts of platonism and Aristotelism?
To "them" God was....?
Here's a term that helps my case- "Spermaticos logos"
Philo's synthesis?
Philo's logos, at times is independent of God?

Not one place in this does it say that "logos" is used by the greeks in present tense.


Garbage. What nonsense.

You have been clearly shown here that they used it in context that did not means words written or spoken. But in a spiritual, cosmic and foundation of reality sense.

That solidly refutes you.

And they used to deal with their present tense concept of the Cosmos.

It solidly reject you claim Logos means words.
Quote: Here is the evidence against your claim:
Logos, in the bible is never used in the present tense, a neutral tense is neutral not present!


Neutral is all tenses. Get over it. And the Roman to Christ was present tense. Not neutral.
Quote:Logos was used before John 1:1, therefore someone's assumption of what John 1:1 is talking about, and using it to show logos in the present tense is "inadmissable"!
Trying to escape the simple fact yoiu declared the conept of Logos as anything but words fiction with all the indignant claims?

No. You have been nailed and everyone sees it. You are not getting out of being wrong Logos does not means written or spoken words in the past tense.
Quote: The concepts of Platonism and Aristotelism, are a long reach away from "biblical".
Who cares about "Philo's" synthesis.Who, at times sees the logos "independent" of God, helping my case.
And the term "Spematicos"? If anything would help my case, not yours, but I wouldn't use it!


Nope. Shoots your claim that it measn writtten or spoken words down.
Vagabond, if you are unwilling to investigate these simple realities and address them then there is nothing more to discuss here. Just dismissing parts of definition, history and so on is zero evidence supporting your claims and leaves nothing to respond to except to say you conclusions contradict the evidence and are nothing more than your personal opinions.
I don't blame you for wanting to get out of it!
"My" personal opinions?
Parts of definition (which clearly don't belong), history and so on? I noticed you never said "bible", interesting!

You act like language was not invented until the Bible. Or that a new special language was created for it.

No. The Bible was written in already existing language with all reeady existing rules of grammar and such using words with already existing meanings applied in a way to give us God's truth.

Apparently you don't understand that simple reality.

So it is indeed your personal opinion to dump portions of word definitions because they do not fit your doctrine.

But, as shown elsewhere. you doctrine on John 1 has Christ being words manifest in the flesh and not God manifest in the flesh.

You have never been confronted with that simple reality before, have you? And now you are trying to talk around it.

Please give us a clear definition of who Christ was. None of your flowery figurative speechs but straight forward words telling us whether Christ was a personage of the Godhead become flesh or not. Telling us if his spirit is eternal God or created being apart from God. Or is he a manifest aspect of the eternal God.

No. It is very obvious the areas you have skirted in your statements. Which makes it obvious you know we are not going to agree with you.

Time to define things you attack me about but do not make clear regarding where you are coming from.

[CoreIssue]

I think its very clear that he believes that words turned into flesh.
That either written words actually turned into flesh or spoken words turned into flesh.

Either way is unbiblical or just plain made up nonsense.

Mary gave birth to who? Part man part "sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes. "

You cannot be serious. And if you believe that you can just dismiss definitions of words because they disagree with your doctrine than you need to study more about language and grammar. You determine the definition of a word from the given context. Not because you want to force it to be some strange belief that actual grammatical word structures came to life and no other definitions fit or even exist.
word http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dword) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (wûrd)
n.

A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.
Something said; an utterance, remark, or comment: May I say a word about that?
Computer Science. A set of bits constituting the smallest unit of addressable memory.
words Discourse or talk; speech: Actions speak louder than words.
words Music. The text of a vocal composition; lyrics.
An assurance or promise; sworn intention: She has kept her word.
<LI type=a>A command or direction; an order: gave the word to retreat.
A verbal signal; a password or watchword.
<LI type=a>News: Any word on your promotion? See Synonyms at news (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=news).
Rumor: Word has it they're divorcing.
words Hostile or angry remarks made back and forth.
Used euphemistically in combination with the initial letter of a term that is considered offensive or taboo or that one does not want to utter: “Although economists here will not call it a recession yet, the dreaded ‘R’ word is beginning to pop up in the media” (Francine S. Kiefer).
Word
See Logos (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Logos).
The Scriptures; the Bible.Lets see, using your logic I dont want to believe in computer science so the definition as used here is unacceptible. When the "true" definition was learned and written down computers didnt even exist, so the computer science definiton has no right to be there.



The real problem is that the christ you believe in isnt even a human so how could he pay for your sins? Your savior is inadequate, and you will doom yourself to Hell by believing in such nonsense. The christ you believe in is not human or God. He is some words that turned into flesh.

[CoreIssue]

People are the soil, God's word is planted in them. If they receive it then they are good soil and his word takes root and grows. If they reject it, they are bad soil and it can never take root.

This is what I'm trying to say.

"I am the vine, you are the branches, and my Father is the husbandman (farmer), if you abide in me and I in you you shall bring forth much (oops- one) fruit."



The Word (logos) of God is his seed, every seed takes after it's own kind, even his. But what he put's in the ground has not the same form (seed form) as what comes out of the ground, but it is given a different body (rhema) as it pleases the Father.

His word "never" returns to him void (empty, unaccomplished) but it performs that which it was sent to do.

Christ is in you (your spirit) in seed form, now there is hope that it will be glorified (made manifest, seen). When the word of God "springs" forth from his garden (people are the soil) God will be glorified (seen, made manifest) throughout the whole world. This is the "manifestation" of the seed, but in it's new form, of the sons (words) of God.



Here is what I said:

Quote: The Word (logos) of God is his seed, every seed takes after it's own kind, even his. But what he put's in the ground has not the same form (seed form) as what comes out of the ground, but it is given a different body (rhema) as it pleases the Father.

His word "never" returns to him void (empty, unaccomplished) but it performs that which it was sent to do.

Christ is in you (your spirit) in seed form, now there is hope that it will be glorified (made manifest, seen). When the word of God "springs" forth from his garden (people are the soil) God will be glorified (seen, made manifest) throughout the whole world. This is the "manifestation" of the seed, but in it's new form, of the sons (words) of God.



The only thing that I see different, is that I said the Word of God is his seed, implying that it is the part of him that gets planted. Seed, it was told me, is "plural", so it's not seed. I didn't say the word, the word of God "are" his seed, I said "is". Other then by using "is" rather then "are", I have no way of showing it as singular "seed".

I never meant to start a fight over this, I was trying to present my thoughts on the matter, now I find myself not trying to explain what I'm trying to say, but explaining what I'm saying to try and explain what I'm trying to say.

[CoreIssue]

OK. Becoming clear you are here to preach. You are not answering questiosn at all. Nor addressing refutations.

No more preaching. Answer our questions to you and directly address refutations.

We have two rules that you are really pushing. One is no preaching and the other is one must answer questions.

You are talking past our comments to you to say what you want us to hear. No more of that.

[CoreIssue]

I wasn't going to answer this, because it is so far from what I've been trying to express, but I should.
Quote: I think its very clear that he believes that words turned into flesh.
That either written words actually turned into flesh or spoken words turned into flesh.



I am very sorry if this is the sum of what I have tried to express: I believe that the Word of God became flesh, and the expression of his Word was seen and heard as Jesus spoke, using "words" to express his thoughts. Thus the Word of God was "glorified/seen/expressed" to us through Jesus Christ. I believe that Jesus impregnated the disciples with the Word of God, and at the day of Pente cost they all stood as one man and spoke, using "words" to express the true Word which was made alive (quickened) in them.

Quote:Either way is unbiblical or just plain made up nonsense.

I agree, what you heard me say(according to the above quote), is unbiblical, and would have to be made up non-sense.

Quote: Mary gave birth to who? Part man part "sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes. "



My point on "logos" is how the greeks used it, I made a point to show how the "logos" becomes manifest/seen/glorified in our realm. If the true light had shown from God, and not been made manifest through a man, it would have been devistating! Jesus Christ "reflected" the Word to us through signs and words.

Quote: You cannot be serious. And if you believe that you can just dismiss definitions of words because they disagree with your doctrine than you need to study more about language and grammar. You determine the definition of a word from the given context. Not because you want to force it to be some strange belief that actual grammatical word structures came to life and no other definitions fit or even exist.



In the definition of the word logos, at the time that it was used in John 1:1) It did not give the "extended" definition, as what is being presented on these posts. It does not matter what has happened between now and then, I was referring to the "definition" as it was, at the time it was used.
[QUOTE]word http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dword) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (wûrd)
n.


A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.
Something said; an utterance, remark, or comment: May I say a word about that?
Computer Science. A set of bits constituting the smallest unit of addressable memory.
words Discourse or talk; speech: Actions speak louder than words.
words Music. The text of a vocal composition; lyrics.
An assurance or promise; sworn intention: She has kept her word.
<LI type=a>A command or direction; an order: gave the word to retreat.
A verbal signal; a password or watchword.
<LI type=a>News: Any word on your promotion? See Synonyms at news (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=news).
Rumor: Word has it they're divorcing.
words Hostile or angry remarks made back and forth.
Used euphemistically in combination with the initial letter of a term that is considered offensive or taboo or that one does not want to utter: “Although economists here will not call it a recession yet, the dreaded ‘R’ word is beginning to pop up in the media” (Francine S. Kiefer).
Word<LI type=a>See Logos (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Logos).
The Scriptures; the Bible. [QUOTE]Lets see, using your logic I dont want to believe in computer science so the definition as used here is unacceptible. When the "true" definition was learned and written down computers didnt even exist, so the computer science definiton has no right to be there.

No, using my logic, if you were discussing the word "word", before it was used as something to describe:
computer science, or
music, or
before "having words" meant arguing, or especially before,
"the scriptures, the bible".
I base my claim on: the greeks use "two" words for "word", one is logos, one is rhema. What someone decided to make out of the word in 600 B.C. has no bearring on my claim.

Quote: The real problem is that the christ you believe in isnt even a human so how could he pay for your sins? Your savior is inadequate, and you will doom yourself to Hell by believing in such nonsense. The christ you believe in is not human or God. He is some words that turned into flesh.



I don't find that to be a problem, the Christ I believe in is a "quickened spirit", and I know longer know him after the flesh. A human saviour, is an inadequate one, and though I make my bed in hell my saviour is able to deliver me.

Of course, I'm confident that you would like to rephrase that, you don't really believe that Christ is still "human", do you?

[CoreIssue]

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:09 pm by CoreIssue

I wasn't going to answer this, because it is so far from what I've been trying to express, but I should.




And because you are failing to convey a clear statement you would think that justifies not responding? Strange thinking.


I think its very clear that he believes that words turned into flesh.
That either written words actually turned into flesh or spoken words turned into flesh.


I am very sorry if this is the sum of what I have tried to express: I believe that the Word of God became flesh, and the expression of his Word was seen and heard as Jesus spoke, using "words" to express his thoughts. Thus the Word of God was "glorified/seen/expressed" to us through Jesus Christ. I believe that Jesus impregnated the disciples with the Word of God, and at the day of Pente cost they all stood as one man and spoke, using "words" to express the true Word which was made alive (quickened) in them.

This remains evasive. You have defined Logos as words, then say the Word incarnated as flesh but then deny you are saying Christ is incarnate words.

We still do not have a clue who Jesus was in your eyes since you have not spelled it out in plain words.
Quote: Quote:[quote]Either way is unbiblical or just plain made up nonsense.

I agree, what you heard me say(according to the above quote), is unbiblical, and would have to be made up non-sense.


Then use plain words. Answer the questions on the other topic without semantical games.
Mary gave birth to who? Part man part "sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes. "My point on "logos" is how the greeks used it, I made a point to show how the "logos" becomes manifest/seen/glorified in our realm. If the true light had shown from God, and not been made manifest through a man, it would have been devistating! Jesus Christ "reflected" the Word to us through signs and words.


Goobility Goop. You have said nothing to change Christ being words to you since that is what Logos means to you. Words epressed.

But it remains by your definition words being expressed.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot deny the Greeks and the NT saying Christ is God manifest in the flesh in John 1 because Logos means words expressed and then try to deny you are saying Christ is an expression of the words or wisdom of God without being God himself of a distinct personage prior to the incarnation.

Your position is ill thought out and it is showing here big time.
You cannot be serious. And if you believe that you can just dismiss definitions of words because they disagree with your doctrine than you need to study more about language and grammar. You determine the definition of a word from the given context. Not because you want to force it to be some strange belief that actual grammatical word structures came to life and no other definitions fit or even exist.
In the definition of the word logos, at the time that it was used in John 1:1) It did not give the "extended" definition, as what is being presented on these posts. It does not matter what has happened between now and then, I was referring to the "definition" as it was, at the time it was used.

Which is a flatly erroneous statement. It was part of the definitions of Logos at that time and centuries before.

So AGAIN you argue here Logos is words and thus Christ therefore must be words incarnate. But then when confronted on this point try to deny it!

You refuse to see your own contradiction.
Lets see, using your logic I dont want to believe in computer science so the definition as used here is unacceptible. When the "true" definition was learned and written down computers didnt even exist, so the computer science definiton has no right to be there.No, using my logic, if you were discussing the word "word", before it was used as something to describe:
computer science, or
music, or
before "having words" meant arguing, or especially before,
"the scriptures, the bible".
I base my claim on: the greeks use "two" words for "word", one is logos, one is rhema. What someone decided to make out of the word in 600 B.C. has no bearring on my claim.


But your claim is nonsense. Illogical. And against who the Bible says Christ was and is.


And you still fail to see logos and rhema are different words from different roots.
The real problem is that the christ you believe in isnt even a human so how could he pay for your sins? Your savior is inadequate, and you will doom yourself to Hell by believing in such nonsense. The christ you believe in is not human or God. He is some words that turned into flesh.
I don't find that to be a problem, the Christ I believe in is a "quickened spirit", and I know longer know him after the flesh. A human saviour, is an inadequate one, and though I make my bed in hell my saviour is able to deliver me.

Define what quickened spirit he is?

But at least you admit he is not human to you. And yet as the Second Adam must be.

So right back to words again.
Quote: Of course, I'm confident that you would like to rephrase that, you don't really believe that Christ is still "human", do you?


Absolutely do. As well as still God.

[CoreIssue]

Heres another question that should be asked.

Just why did Christ die then if you believe he is just words?
Are you words?
Did your mother give birth to words?

How can Christ's death be a substutionary death on behalf of all mankind if He was not then and is not now human? Thats what we are, humans. And if he is not or never was then the death on the Cross was not only unjust but worthless.

He cannot be out representative before God if he is not human now. You cannot be a representative before God on behalf of the entire human race if you are not human. Why? Because God says there will be no excuses when you stand before him. The lost could clearly point out that Christ was an impostor, because he isnt human, so what would he know about MY suffering? Thats an excuse.

Christ is most definately human, but now he is as we will be, in a glorified state. This old flesh will die and we will be given new flesh just as Christ has now. Fully human, and Fully God he is and will be. We will be like Him but not become Him, meaning we will not be gods or a god. But we will be fully human with glorified eternal flesh.

[CoreIssue]

Quote:Define what quickened spirit he is?
The Word of God, by the Spirit of God, through his (Jesus)obedience, quickened his mortal body.

Quote: But at least you admit he is not human to you. And yet as the Second Adam must be.



If I said that the second Adam was a human, then I stand corrected. However, if I said that the first Adam and the second Adam are one with two different forms, then I maintain my position.

Quote: So right back to words again.



If that is what you see, then I guess that's where we are.

[CoreIssue]

Define what quickened spirit he is?
The Word of God, by the Spirit of God, through his (Jesus)obedience, quickened his mortal body.

And that brings you right back to saying Christ is words.

Knock off using Word and tell us what Christ was before the incarnation. Was he God? Was he an angel? Was he a spirit being of some kind? Was he a flesh being of some kind?Was he the vision and plans in Gods mind, bring us right back to concepts expressed as words?
But at least you admit he is not human to you. And yet as the Second Adam must be.

If I said that the second Adam was a human, then I stand corrected. However, if I said that the first Adam and the second Adam are one with two different forms, then I maintain my position.



You didn't say the Second Adam was a human. God did.

As for the same being in two forms then that is cult. Things such as Mormons.
So right back to words again.

If that is what you see, then I guess that's where we are.



You say he is not, that Logos is written or verbal expression, which are words and then you say he is not.

But what was and is he? Living? Robot? God? What?

Or do you actually know? Has your thinking about what he was not stopped you from figuring out what he is and was?

If so, that is a very hollow concept you have.

[CoreIssue]

Quote: Knock off using Word and tell us what Christ was before the incarnation. Was he God? Was he an angel? Was he a spirit being of some kind? Was he a flesh being of some kind?Was he the vision and plans in Gods mind, bring us right back to concepts expressed as words?



He was the Word, which is the seed of God, sperm may be a better term for clearification.


Quote: You didn't say the Second Adam was a human. God did.



What I intended to say is: the "second Adam" is the risen form of the first, he "was" human, but now is in a spiritual form. The first Adam was of the earth earthy (human), the second Adam is the changed form of the first. The first is seed form, the last is the risen form of the seed.

Quote:
You say he is not, that Logos is written or verbal expression, which are words and then you say he is not.




I said, the word "Word" used in John 1:1, comes from the greek word "Logos", which means spoken/written word.

Quote: As for the same being in two forms then that is cult. Things such as Mormons.



I'm not aware of what the mormons teach on this, I arrived at this concept through, the Word of God being a seed, being planted in flesh, changing the flesh into a spiriual creature and returning to it's first estate. As taught by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 15)


Quote:But what was and is he? Living? Robot? God? What?


He was alive in the Father as his seed, he was dead, he is now risen and alive forever more.

Quote:Or do you actually know? Has your thinking about what he was not stopped you from figuring out what he is and was?

My thinking about what he was, made it easier to understand who he is.
He was a seed, now he is the whole tree including the roots, branches, fruit and seed.


Quote: If so, that is a very hollow concept you have.



It's not so.

[CoreIssue]

Knock off using Word and tell us what Christ was before the incarnation. Was he God? Was he an angel? Was he a spirit being of some kind? Was he a flesh being of some kind?Was he the vision and plans in Gods mind, bring us right back to concepts expressed as words?


He was the Word, which is the seed of God, sperm may be a better term for clearification.


Quote:

You are using Word by your defintion. Which is not the Greek defnition.
So Word as you are using it is complete meaningless to us.
:Logos never means seed in the Greek.
You didn't say the Second Adam was a human. God did.
What I intended to say is: the "second Adam" is the risen form of the first, he "was" human, but now is in a spiritual form.
Which is never said in the Bible
Quote: The first Adam was of the earth earthy (human),
The First Adam was both dirt and spirit.
Quote: the second Adam is the changed form of the first. The first is seed form, the last is the risen form of the seed.
The Second Adam is both spirit (God) and glorfied flesh. But earthly flesh glorified, not earth thrown of and replaced with spirit flesh.
Moonies, Oneness and such beleive this.

You say he is not, that Logos is written or verbal expression, which are words and then you say he is not.
Quote:

I said, the word "Word" used in John 1:1, comes from the greek word "Logos", which means spoken/written word.





Logos means moe than spoken and written word. Doesn't matter if you like it or not.

The word you are referring to is rhema which is not used in John 1 anywhere!
As for the same being in two forms then that is cult. Things such as Mormons.
Quote:

I'm not aware of what the mormons teach on this, I arrived at this concept through, the Word of God being a seed, being planted in flesh, changing the flesh into a spiriual creature and returning to it's first estate. As taught by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 15)


Which required you to redefine Logos to rhema falsely. And redefining seed to words in all applications.
None of which is legitimate in grammar, logic or any linquistics.

No. Dumping meanings you don't like and then studying is not legitimate.
But what was and is he? Living? Robot? God? What?

He was alive in the Father as his seed, he was dead, he is now risen and alive forever more.

Yep. Modalism.
Or do you actually know? Has your thinking about what he was not stopped you from figuring out what he is and was?My thinking about what he was, made it easier to understand who he is.
He was a seed, now he is the whole tree including the roots, branches, fruit and seed.
Trouble is it is an invention of your mind. And it required to redine words, reject definitions, pull out of context and a whole list of other violations of linquistics.


If so, that is a very hollow concept you have.


It's not so.

It actually is.
And a concept that has been rejected, in it numerous forms as false, from the Apostles on.

[CoreIssue]

You are using Word by your defintion. Which is not the Greek defnition.

So Word as you are using it is complete meaningless to us.
:Logos never means seed in the Greek.


No, it does not, that is correct, and Logos doesn't mean "the devine expression" in the greek either. However, when John uses the word "logos" in John 1:1, he gives it special meaning showing it with capital letters. Hence he is obviously talking about the devine being expressed. However, as I was trying to point out, the "Word" is expressed, not of itself, but through Jesus Christ. The Word, was made flesh, the Word was seen through the flesh, not directly.

I've got more to respond to in this post, but have to run suddenly.

[CoreIssue]

You are using Word by your defintion. Which is not the Greek defnition.

So Word as you are using it is complete meaningless to us.
:Logos never means seed in the Greek.


No, it does not, that is correct, and Logos doesn't mean "the devine expression" in the greek either.


It does, the definitions and illustrations have been posted from the Interlinear, a modern Greek to English dictionary and from ancient Greek usage
Pretend it does not all you want. You have been shown wrong on that point and no one buying your argument.
Quote:However, when John uses the word "logos" in John 1:1, he gives it special meaning showing it with capital letters.
Because it is used as a name of the Second Person of Godhead. The reason and purpose behind all things of creation. That definition you deny exists.Quote: Hence he is obviously talking about the devine being expressed.
Second Person of the Godhead who became flesh.
Quote:However, as I was trying to point out, the "Word" is expressed, not of itself, but through Jesus Christ.
And that is nonsense. The Word became flesh as literally stated. It did not become expressed through flesh as you claim.
Again you redefine and rewrite literal text to suit your doctrine.
The Second Person of the Godhead is the Word, the purpose and reason for all things in creation. He (a literal personage separate from the Father) became flesh.
His spirit and the Father are of one nature, not one being. Together they are God with the Holy Spirit. So to see the Son, Christ is the see the Father.
And the Holy Spirit, not Christ, abides in us. We are in union with Christ via the Holy Spirit, who is also a personage of God.
Quote:The Word, was made flesh, the Word was seen through the flesh, not directly.
Which is a contradiction. The Word BECAME flesh. The Word, God, is the spirit of Christ thus Christ.
We are spirit, body and soul. What makes us unique individuals resides in the spirit and soul. Take them away and you have nothing but dirt.
We are in totality us. The Word is in totality flesh via his spirit and soul.
Christ is now glorified flesh with God as his spirit and the union of the two has his soul(mind).
We are in totality flesh, mind and spirit iin the same way Christ was on the earth minus being God. And we will be as he is no in flesh, mind and spirit in eternity, again minus being God
Flesh is part of who we are.
That is why it says the Word BECAME flesh. Not the Word spoke through flesh or any such thing.
Really, "was made flesh" is not really accurate. Ginomai does not mean "made." It means "to become" or "became."
Quote:I've got more to respond to in this post, but have to run suddenly.
OK. But you are not being accurate in what you are claiming about word meanings and contextual declarations.

[CoreIssue]

You are using Word by your defintion. Which is not the Greek defnition.

So Word as you are using it is complete meaningless to us.
:Logos never means seed in the Greek.


No, it does not, that is correct, and Logos doesn't mean "the devine expression" in the greek either.


Quote:It does, the definitions and illustrations have been posted from the Interlinear, a modern Greek to English dictionary and from ancient Greek usage
Quote:Pretend it does not all you want. You have been shown wrong on that point and no one buying your argument.


The word "logos", used by the greeks, was never used in this context, it was only used by John in this context, in: John 1:1, in 1 John 1:1, and in 1 John 5:7) It is clearly stated in the strong's exhaustive concordance, (with the art. in John) the divine expression (i.e. Christ). The author is clearly stating, Logos, when used by John in John 1:1, was used as a proper noun, showing that he was referring to God as the Word. I have said, many, many times that the word "logos" itself, means a word in thought, spoken, written, signs etc. but the greeks used another word for "speaking" (present tense)- rhema. You actually state "no, rhema is the past tense word". I was going to write down all the scriptures for you, but if you cannot see it by now then what's the use. Look for yourself, check the verses using rhema, how many are in present tense without question. You can hold fast to this belief, I'm tired of trying to take that bone away from you.
Explain these passages:
John 12:47)and if any man hear my words (rhema/present tense), and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
John 12:4http://www.christiantalkzone.net/archive/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif He that rejecteth me, and receive not my words (rhema/present tense), hath one that judgeth him: even the word (logos) that I have spoken (past tense), the same shall judge him in the last day.
A perfect example of who Jesus Christ is, what the word is and the difference in use of the "logos" and "rhema" words.

However, when John uses the word "logos" in John 1:1, he gives it special meaning showing it with capital letters.

Because it is used as a name of the Second Person of Godhead. The reason and purpose behind all things of creation. That definition you deny exists.


Yes, how John used the word to describe the Word of God, I deny as a greek definition. It is not a definition, it is an interpretation of what John was referring to when using the word as a proper noun. The word logos was used in this manner how many times? What about the other times it is used? Now, using the context the word is generally used in, using the definition of the word, as it is given excluding how John may have used it (as a proper noun). The word remains as I have shown.
Take a serious look at how the rhema is used, look at the context that it is used in, look at the definition the strong's exhaustive concordance gives.
I know that John used "logos" as "Logos", to show that he was talking about the "Word" of God and not just any "word".


Hence he is obviously talking about the devine being expressed.

Second Person of the Godhead who became flesh.

However, as I was trying to point out, the "Word" is expressed, not of itself, but through Jesus Christ.

And that is nonsense. The Word became flesh as literally stated. It did not become expressed through flesh as you claim.
Again you redefine and rewrite literal text to suit your doctrine.
The Second Person of the Godhead is the Word, the purpose and reason for all things in creation. He (a literal personage separate from the Father) became flesh.

Oh, now I see why you refuse to see what I'm saying, the Word has to be a literal second personage, not just a seed, okay, gotchya.
The Word was made flesh, as literally stated, so that it could be seen, expressed to us on this earth. Until it became flesh we could not see it, therefore it was not "expressed". It hadn't come alive in this realm until then. If the Word of God was to show itself without being clothed in flesh then all would have been blinded by it. No man can see God and live! They weren't even able to look at Moses when he was reflecting the glory of God.
The Word was made flesh, and dwellt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of his Father,) full of grace and truth. When the Word "became" flesh, did it have to change forms?
Quote:
And the Holy Spirit, not Christ, abides in us. We are in union with Christ via the Holy Spirit, who is also a personage of God.




Here is a direct quote from you:


Quote:People are the soil. God's word is planted in them. If they are open to it then they are good soil and his word grows. They they are not open they are bad soil and it can never take root


So then, what is it, is the word of God in us or not?

You claim that the word of God is "planted" in people, I told you that I would use this statement to base my whole claim on, and I have, and still do.

[CoreIssue]

The word "logos", used by the greeks, was never used in this context, it was only used by John in this context, in: John 1:1, in 1 John 1:1, and in 1 John 5:7)
Really? You didn't read that link very well then.Don't confuse context with exact application.
Quote: It is clearly stated in the strong's exhaustive concordance, (with the art. in John) the divine expression (i.e. Christ). The author is clearly stating, Logos, when used by John in John 1:1, was used as a proper noun, showing that he was referring to God as the Word.
Nope, you just edited Strong and rewrote the defintion to try to limit it to what you are claiming. Try reading it in full and you see your definition as stated here is both false and a rewrite.
Quote:

In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal 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, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds. A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates achanging universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose inJohn 1.

You are still trying to prune definitions down to what you will accept.
You have nothing in the Bible to back you.
Quote:I have said, many, many times that the word "logos" itself, means a word in thought, spoken, written, signs etc.
Which is a false claim because you are portraying it as the full definition of Logos when it is not. You have edited the definition.
Quote:but the greeks used another word for "speaking" (present tense)- rhema. And as shown before rhema and logos are not from the same root thus different words carrying different meanings. Which refutes your past declarations about the relationship of logos and rhrema.
Quote:You actually state "no, rhema is the past tense word".
FALSE! I never said rhema was limited to past tense and posted examples to show neither logos or rhema are locked into past tense.
Quote:I was going to write down all the scriptures for you, but if you cannot see it by now then what's the use. Look for yourself, check the verses using rhema, how many are in present tense without question. You can hold fast to this belief, I'm tired of trying to take that bone away from you.
WHAT!!!!!!!!!! YOU were the one claiming it was always past tense and I refuted you on both not being just past tense.
This is a rediculous statement from you.
Explain these passages:
Quote:

John 12:47)and if any man hear my words (rhema/present tense), and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
John 12:4http://www.christiantalkzone.net/archive/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif He that rejecteth me, and receive not my words (rhema/present tense), hath one that judgeth him: even the word (logos) that I have spoken (past tense), the same shall judge him in the last day.
A perfect example of who Jesus Christ is, what the word is and the difference in use of the "logos" and "rhema" words.




Nothing here defines Christ as words or expressions (logos). This is absurd and showing lack of understanding how linquistics work.


However, when John uses the word "logos" in John 1:1, he gives it special meaning showing it with capital letters.
Because it is used as a name of the Second Person of Godhead. The reason and purpose behind all things of creation. That definition you deny exists.

Yes, how John used the word to describe the Word of God, I deny as a greek definition.


That is your blindness. Not mine or anyone elses that reads the full meaning of logos.
You are not making any headway here because your have given no proof, just claims.
Christ is the Son and Word of God. Baptism is:
Quote:19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:18-20&version=31#fen-NIV-24212a)] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Notice in the name of, of the and of the? That demands individual personage in the Greek. And individual power and authority since that is what name means. Name and the (kai) says they are unique individuals. Not aspects or manifestation of one being.
As doe Elohim in the OT.
You have baseless on your claims here.
Quote: It is not a definition, it is an interpretation of what John was referring to when using the word as a proper noun.
Deny it all you want but it is part of the definition of Logos. Your interpretation is illogical and contradicts the rest of what the Bible says about God and Christ.
Quote:The word logos was used in this manner how many times?

Does not matter. It is used in John 1 and
Quote:Revelation 19
13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.


So, yep, Christ is the Son of God, the Word of God and God with the Father and Holy Spiirit, not part of God as a component of a single being.
Quote: What about the other times it is used? Now, using the context the word is generally used in, using the definition of the word, as it is given excluding how John may have used it (as a proper noun). The word remains as I have shown.
Moot point when you are trying to define Christ as not being a personage apart from the Father and not human.
I have already shown the usages of logos and rhema in full. Why are you constantly trying to get around those simple realities?
Because Logos also means words in action, in example, has nothing to do with the other usages of Logos declaring Christ God in the Flesh.
Quote:Take a serious look at how the rhema is used, look at the context that it is used in, look at the definition the strong's exhaustive concordance gives.
Rhema has on contextual meaning or part in Christ being Logos, God in the Flesh.
Quote:I know that John used "logos" as "Logos", to show that he was talking about the "Word" of God and not just any "word".
Then get off of using rhema as if it matters what Logos means in John 1 and Revelation.
Rhema is words written or spoken. Not God. Not the Word of God. Not Logos.


Hence he is obviously talking about the devine being expressed.
Second Person of the Godhead who became flesh.
However, as I was trying to point out, the "Word" is expressed, not of itself, but through Jesus Christ.
And that is nonsense. The Word became flesh as literally stated. It did not become expressed through flesh as you claim.
Again you redefine and rewrite literal text to suit your doctrine.
The Second Person of the Godhead is the Word, the purpose and reason for all things in creation. He (a literal personage separate from the Father) became flesh.



Oh, now I see why you refuse to see what I'm saying, the Word has to be a literal second personage, not just a seed, okay, gotchya.

Right. Because you have NO justification for altering it from literal to figurative.
And because Elohim states there are 3 personages, not one. And the Great Commission state there are 3 personage, not one. And John says the preexistend word became flesh, was not made flesh. And Christ said he was God more than once. And so on.
All these issues declaring separate personages and you want to say no, they are aspects or manifestations of one singular personage.
Quote:The Word was made flesh, as literally stated, so that it could be seen, expressed to us on this earth.
Wrong. The Word became flesh. Look at John 1:1 in an Interlinear to see the Greek word used.
Quote: Until it became flesh we could not see it, therefore it was not "expressed".
But the Word, Christ did show himself in the OT as a burning bush, a whirlwind by day and fire by night, as the Angel of the Lord and was present at Creation as part of the WE God stated.
Quote: It hadn't come alive in this realm until then.
Most assuredly the Second Person was alive before this and did show on the earth from time to time.
Quote: If the Word of God was to show itself without being clothed in flesh then all would have been blinded by it. No man can see God and live! They weren't even able to look at Moses when he was reflecting the glory of God.
And that is why in the OT God cloaked himself in other forms. And to Abrahm all three of the Godhead appeared cloaked in human appearance.
Quote:The Word was made flesh, and dwellt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of his Father,) full of grace and truth. When the Word "became" flesh, did it have to change forms?
No. God did not change forms but placed himself into human flesh.
Quote:
And the Holy Spirit, not Christ, abides in us. We are in union with Christ via the Holy Spirit, who is also a personage of God.
Here is a direct quote from you:
People are the soil. God's word is planted in them. If they are open to it then they are good soil and his word grows. They they are not open they are bad soil and it can never take root
So then, what is it, is the word of God in us or not?

You claim that the word of God is "planted" in people, I told you that I would use this statement to base my whole claim on, and I have, and still do.


Not the way you are saying all this.

Until you get the meanings and places of the Holy Spirit, Logos of God, Son of God, and rhema correct you hare never going to understand all the complexity in these issues.

[CoreIssue]

John 12:47)and if any man hear my words (rhema/present tense), and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
John 12:4http://www.christiantalkzone.net/archive/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif He that rejecteth me, and receive not my words (rhema/present tense), hath one that judgeth him: even the word (logos) that I have spoken (past tense), the same shall judge him in the last day.
A perfect example of who Jesus Christ is, what the word is and the difference in use of the "logos" and "rhema" words.



Nothing here defines Christ as words or expressions (logos). This is absurd and showing lack of understanding how linquistics work
I asked you to explain these scriptures, I stated that these verses are the best one's to show rhema verses logos. This isn't the first time you have avoided these verses, the last time you said they are "off the topic", well they are on topic now! explain them! explain what he is saying here! explain why he has separated himself from the logos! explain why the rhema is clearly used in the present tense! and the logos in the past!

[CoreIssue]

John 12:47)and if any man hear my words (rhema/present tense), and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
John 12:4http://www.christiantalkzone.net/archive/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif He that rejecteth me, and receive not my words (rhema/present tense), hath one that judgeth him: even the word (logos) that I have spoken (past tense), the same shall judge him in the last day.
A perfect example of who Jesus Christ is, what the word is and the difference in use of the "logos" and "rhema" words.



Nothing here defines Christ as words or expressions (logos). This is absurd and showing lack of understanding how linquistics work

I asked you to explain these scriptures, I stated that these verses are the best one's to show rhema verses logos. This isn't the first time you have avoided these verses, the last time you said they are "off the topic", well they are on topic now! explain them! explain what he is saying here! explain why he has separated himself from the logos! explain why the rhema is clearly used in the present tense! and the logos in the past!

OK.

But we need to back it up to set context.
Quote: 37Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him.
The Jews kept rejecting him in spite of the miracles he did.
Any historical reading shows the Jews did not reject him because of what he did as regards miracles but because what he said rejected their beliefs and actually preached another god from theirs.
Quote:38This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
"Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"[g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2012&version=31#fen-NIV-26608g)]
It was prophesied they would reject his message from God.
Now remember, in becoming human Christ remained God in the spirit but he did not speak or act as God. But on God's behalf.
Don't get the idea Christ did not say he was not God, he did say he was. In example he declared himself I Am and the Jews had a hernia over him calling himself God.
Quote: 39For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
40"He has blinded their eyes
and deadened their hearts,
They could not believe because they would not see nor hear.
Quote: so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them."[h (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2012&version=31#fen-NIV-26610h)]
They just would not accept what they saw and heard for its true meaning.
Quote:41Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.
And how did ye see Christ's glory when Christ did not exist yet? How did he speak about him?
Because he saw the Glory of the Second Person of the Trinity who would become Christ and spoke about God.
He saw, past tense. He saw God then and knew God would become flesh.
Quote: 42Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him.
But the miracles and words did get through to many. In spite of those who hated Christ and the God he preached.
Quote:But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue;
But they feared the Pharisees and what would happen if they admitted they saw who Christ was and knew what he said was right.
Quote:43for they loved praise from men more than praise from God.
They say the truth and knew the truth but their vanity before men meant more. So they did not follow Christ.
Quote: 44Then Jesus cried out, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me.
Hmmm. Here says one who believes in Christ also believes in the Father who sent him. Two personages here. Not one. Two beliefs and two recognitions. Not one recognition of Christ being the same being as the Father.
Quote:45When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me.
To see the God nature of the Son is to see the God nature of the Father and the Holy Spirit. They share one nature, not one being.
Quote:46I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.
Christ says he came. Not the Father came. He is the Logos of John 1.
He came but who sees him in truth sees the Father and Holy Spirit in Truth. To see God in Truth is to see all of the Godhead in Truth, not one being.
Quote:47"As for the person who hears my words
Rhema. Hears the words Christ spoke.
Quote: but does not keep them,
Means they heard and understood but rejected.
Quote:I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.
Christ came in the First Coming as Savior, not King or Judge.
In Revelation we see him coming as King and Judge.
Quote:48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words;
Present tense concerning judging while he was on the earth.
We most assuredly see that Christ will return as King, Judge and God in the future. And that he now is our brother and advocate in Heaven before the throne but also he sits on the throne by the Father, not in the Father, as God on the Throne of God.
Quote: that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.
What word? The teachings about him coming as Savior. That he is the Son of God to be obeyed.
And who will judge those in the last day and condemn them to the Lake. Christ will!
And he will do so as God who is supreme, as Savior who was rejected, as human King who rules his subjects and High Priest.
Note the change from when he was on the earth he did not judge to Revelation and other places where he will judge and is the sole judge?
Quote:49For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.
Yep. He set aside his divinity to live as man as the human servant of God as stated in John 1:1. He did not come as God or speak as God.
Quote:50I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."
He said what the Father said to say and died as the Father sent him to die. But now he stands before the Father pleading our case in his name and his authority to the Father in his name and his authority.
The Father's commands lead to eternal life through Christ.
Can you see the changes of power, position and so on?
When Christ returned to Heaven his powers, rights, authority and so on as God were no longer set aside. He took them up again while still retaining his humanity.
Fully God. Fully human. And fully both. God in spirt, human in flesh and both in mind (soul).
Remember this was said before Christ died and when he was living as a man servant of God.

[CoreIssue]

Well that was a nice sermon, but you still haven't answered the question. Try and refrain from preaching, it's against the rules!
I asked:

Quote: asked you to explain these scriptures, I stated that these verses are the best one's to show rhema verses logos. This isn't the first time you have avoided these verses, the last time you said they are "off the topic", well they are on topic now! explain them! explain what he is saying here! explain why he has separated himself from the logos! explain why the rhema is clearly used in the present tense! and the logos in the past!



Explain why the logos is clearly used in the past tense, and the rhema is clearly used in the present tense.

If he said "the word" that I have "spoken" will judge you, did he use just one word to speak to them before, or did he speak the Word to them, using more then one word to express it?
I am not making any outragious claims here, and I have used scripture to show my thought, yet I stand accused of making it up.

Quote:

Now remember, in becoming human Christ remained God in the spirit but he did not speak or act as God. But on God's behalf.
Don't get the idea Christ did not say he was not God, he did say he was. In example he declared himself I Am and the Jews had a hernia over him calling himself God.




I have absolutely no problem with this statement, in fact I am overwhelmed by it coming from you. So the Word changed form, it was still the Word, however, it didn't have it's original form. He took upon a form a little lower then God for a time.
When you said, He spoke or acted on God's behalf, not directly as God, which he was and is, he is become the light of God to the world, he stood in the presence of the true light and "glorified" his father which is in heaven. Because, as you stated, even though he was physically on this earth, he was still spiritually in heaven and I agree.
In this act, Jesus Christ is showing God as the moon reflects the sun.

[CoreIssue]

You have split this issue of rhema and logos over more than one topic.

I explained the passage. I have posted proofs logos is not limited to past tense. I have posted proof rhema and logos are not derived from the same root word. I posted full definitions over your edited ones.

You have been answered.

[CoreIssue]

I have absolutely no problem with this statement, in fact I am overwhelmed by it coming from you. So the Word changed form, it was still the Word, however, it didn't have it's original form. He took upon a form a little lower then God for a time.
I did not say the Word changed forms. I have denied that.The Word became flesh by taking on flesh. The Word (God who is spirit) remained unchanged spirit.
Hard to have a conversation when you keep editing things to fit your doctrine.
Quote:When you said, He spoke or acted on God's behalf, not directly as God, which he was and is, he is become the light of God to the world, he stood in the presence of the true light and "glorified" his father which is in heaven. Because, as you stated, even though he was physically on this earth, he was still spiritually in heaven and I agree.
And you did it again. You totally rewrote what I said.
He set aside his divine rights to live as a man. He never ceased to be a divine personage of God. But his spirit never ceased to be God.
And I not only never said his spirit remained in Heaven when his flesh was here I totally reject that.
His spirit and his flesh were on the earth when he lived on the earth.
His now glofiried flesh and his spirit are not in Heaven before God's Throne as man and High Priest and he also sit on the God's Throne as God.
You don't read for what is said but what you want to hear.
Quote:In this act, Jesus Christ is showing God as the moon reflects the sun.
False. Christ shows God because he is God.

[CoreIssue]

Well that was a nice sermon, but you still haven't answered the question. Try and refrain from preaching, it's against the rules!
First it wasnt a sermon. Core defended his position with the actual WRITTEN context and verses that was needed to provide you with the correct answer.

Unlike you since you redefine and place you own PERSONAL context on verses to support you. Just bacuse you dont like the answer is no reason to get all in a huff and then make some snippy remark about the rules. We are fully aware of the rules, we dont need you to tell us.

Where do you get the right to change the written context of a verse? The literal context tha God wrote? Because it was "revealed" to you is not a legitimate reason. You have nothing to back you up on your doctrine at this point but you. You have rejected the biblical contexts and even resort to making up your own definitions to get around issues. This is the problem with your position and it has been show many times now that YOU are not in the Truth.

The Truth has been shown to you and you continue to reject the language, context, and so on that is literally written. And when pushed you now get defensive, which is the sign of indoctrination. Not the sign of a seeker.

I really dont see the point of discussing this issue much longer if you are going to blind yourself to the literal contexts and definitions of words. To argue those points is just rediculous, which is why you have to resort to spiritualizing the meanings and definitions, with assumptions and your own personal revelations.