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

[MissKate13]

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #21]

... Jesus is the way God manifested Himself to the world.

O I completely agree, not the only way, scripture says "the heavens declare rhe glory of God" but the main and most important way because Jesus revealed so much of his Father.

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #21]



Can the sun be separated from its rays?

I dont believe the bible likens Jesus to sunrays and his Father to the sun but (sticking to scripture rather than human thinking) the bible does say Jesus is the "vine" and Jehovah is the "cultivator". So a more scriptural question might be:

Can a cultivator be separated from his vine? (See John 15:1)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #4]

Again, you do not address what I posted about the word. You answered the topic question but ignored all of the points I made in my OP. Instead, you redirect. What you wrote in your post has nothing to do with the OP.

Oh yes it does. Read it again.

[MadJW]

[MissKate13]

[MadJW]

[JehovahsWitness]

[onewithhim]

[Difflugia]

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.

[MadJW]

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.

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.

[Difflugia]

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.