Why is Jesus called the Word, the Logos of God?

[MissKate13]

[MadJW]

As it did with Moses-Ex 7:1: And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

That's exactly my point: that's one metaphorical use six hundred years earlier in a different language and in a context that supports the metaphor. It's poor justification for John's author using the metaphor in a context that doesn't.

Both Moses and Jesus represented Jeovah at that time.

[MadJW]

As it did with Moses-Ex 7:1: And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

That's exactly my point: that's one metaphorical use six hundred years earlier in a different language and in a context that supports the metaphor. It's poor justification for John's author using the metaphor in a context that doesn't.

Both Moses and Jesus represented Jeovah at that time.

[MadJW]

As it did with Moses-Ex 7:1: And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

That's exactly my point: that's one metaphorical use six hundred years earlier in a different language and in a context that supports the metaphor. It's poor justification for John's author using the metaphor in a context that doesn't.

Both Moses and Jesus represented Jeovah at that time.

[Difflugia]

Both Moses and Jesus represented Jeovah at that time.

Both Moses and Jesus represented Jeovah at that time.

Both Moses and Jesus represented Jeovah at that time.

I assume by "at that time" you mean at the respective times that the verses were written, but how does that help your case? Whenever one being represents another, metaphor is understandable? Exodus 7:1 is within a larger context of God Himself telling Moses to speak for Him and Moses asking why Pharaoh would heed him. "I will make you god to Pharaoh." John 1:1 is the very first thought in the story and is John's author setting the context for what's to come. Exodus 7:1 and John 1:1 are not at all analogous. The metaphor in Exodus is made unambiguous by the context, which is exactly the opposite of John. You're trying to use one literary construction to draw your desired interpretation out of a completely different one. You're then using that tortured reading of John as a prooftext for the theology that you yourself put into it. At best it's a non sequitur, at worst it's circular.

[MadJW]

Both Moses and Jesus represented Jeovah at that time.

Both Moses and Jesus represented Jeovah at that time.

Both Moses and Jesus represented Jeovah at that time.

I assume by "at that time" you mean at the respective times that the verses were written, but how does that help your case? Whenever one being represents another, metaphor is understandable? Exodus 7:1 is within a larger context of God Himself telling Moses to speak for Him and Moses asking why Pharaoh would heed him. "I will make you god to Pharaoh." John 1:1 is the very first thought in the story and is John's author setting the context for what's to come. Exodus 7:1 and John 1:1 are not at all analogous. The metaphor in Exodus is made unambiguous by the context, which is exactly the opposite of John. You're trying to use one literary construction to draw your desired interpretation out of a completely different one. You're then using that tortured reading of John as a prooftext for the theology that you yourself put into it. At best it's a non sequitur, at worst it's circular.

If you can't see it, I can't help you.
If one God was speaking to another literal God...

[Difflugia]

If you can't see it, I can't help you.

That's OK. Romans 12:6-8.

If one God was speaking to another literal God...

It would be difficult for mere humans to understand and they might be tempted to reinterpret God's Holy Writ such that they don't have to think about it.

[onewithhim]

The second "god" in the verse has no article, meaning that this "god" is just a powerful, important individual (which the word "god" means).

An important distinction that you repeatedly fail to make is the difference between what something could mean and what something dogmatically does mean. The author is introducing and describing a novel theological concept and expecting to be understood, but you're insisting that we treat one of those words metaphorically because it's been used that way somewhere in the Bible. The word "god" doesn't mean "just a powerful, important individual." It's sometimes metaphorically used to mean that as a form of hyperbole, but you're telling us to believe such within a discussion about God. That's like claiming that in a discussion about baseball, home run is being used metaphorically because it sometimes is. It's possible, but hardly likely, especially because the only apparent reason for your assertion is that you're uncomfortable with the theological implications.

John was trying to distinguish between the only true God (the Father, YHWH) and the Word, Christ. He did this by including the article "ho" when mentioning "God" in reference to the God whom the Word was with. He wanted to make clear the fact that the Word was not the God but still was a powerful important individual. He did so by also leaving off the "ho" in front of "god" in the last part of the verse. There was no "novel theological concept." The nation of Israel knew YHWH to be God Almighty, so that went without saying. Christ, who carried the pure religion of the Jews to another level, is stated to be what he was, so that the Jews and Greeks could understand. He was WITH God and he was A god--powerful, important--but to be distinguished from THE God, YHWH. It was reiterated many times in John's Gospel that Jesus was the Messiah that the nation had been awaiting. That was not a "novel theological concept."