Impossible Questions For Trinitarians

[BradtheImpaler]

Brad,

In 431 at the Council of Ephesus she was pronounced, "Mother Of God". I would say that title made her at least a little godlike?

Not in the slightest. It mearly means that she gave birth to the God-man Jesus Christ. That is the only way the Catholic Church views the title. There is no omnipotence of Mary in doing this as it was accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit. No omniscience as she only knew what the angel told her. No omniprescence is implied in the title. You are quite wrong Brad. But thanks for playing.

I won't continue this here out of respect for the continuity of R7's thread, but if you'd like to start another, perhaps you could further explain how someone who you pray to, believe was sinless, who gave birth to one who was "100% God", and is called the "Mother of God" (when you believe that the title "Son of God" infers Godhood) is "not in the LEAST" - "godlike" (small "g" / "like" = similar)

[quote:3afb7]I thought you said out of respect for R17 you would not continue this discussion

[/quote:3afb7]

I won't continue it on this thread, that's why I invited Thessolonian to start another. And it's R7, not R17.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Brad,

In 431 at the Council of Ephesus she was pronounced, "Mother Of God". I would say that title made her at least a little godlike?

Not in the slightest. It mearly means that she gave birth to the God-man Jesus Christ. That is the only way the Catholic Church views the title. There is no omnipotence of Mary in doing this as it was accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit. No omniscience as she only knew what the angel told her. No omniprescence is implied in the title. You are quite wrong Brad. But thanks for playing.

I won't continue this here out of respect for the continuity of R7's thread, but if you'd like to start another, perhaps you could further explain how someone who you pray to, believe was sinless, who gave birth to one who was "100% God", and is called the "Mother of God" (when you believe that the title "Son of God" infers Godhood) is "not in the LEAST" - "godlike" (small "g" / "like" = similar)

[quote:fb991]I thought you said out of respect for R17 you would not continue this discussion

I won't continue it on this thread, that's why I invited Thessalonian to start another. And it's R7, not R17.

[/quote:fb991]

 

[jgredline]

Question 1:

According to the doctrine of the Trinity, God is one being in three hypostases, or persons, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ is co-equal with the Father (and therefore omniscient), if this were biblically true how would it possible for the following to occur, as it so obviously does within the Bible narrative?

For Jesus Christ to receive revelation from God? Which is then received by John from Messiah.

Revelation 1:1 says that it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show his servants things which must shortly take place. And he sent and signified it by his angel to His servant John.

1:1, 2 The first verse announces the subject of the book, namely, the things which must shortly take place. The book of Revelation is primarily an unfolding of the future. This revelation of future events was given by God to Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus, in turn, committed it to His angel, and the angel made it known to His servant John. John’s purpose in writing the Book was to share the information with the Lord’s servants, that is, with all true believers. In doing this, John bore witness to the prophetic word which God had spoken to him and to the testimony to which Jesus Christ had borne witness. In short, John testified to all things that he saw in heavenly visions.

 

[R7-12]

1:1, 2 The first verse announces the subject of the book, namely, the things which must shortly take place. The book of Revelation is primarily an unfolding of the future. This revelation of future events was given by God to Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus, in turn, committed it to His angel, and the angel made it known to His servant John. John’s purpose in writing the Book was to share the information with the Lord’s servants, that is, with all true believers. In doing this, John bore witness to the prophetic word which God had spoken to him and to the testimony to which Jesus Christ had borne witness. In short, John testified to all things that he saw in heavenly visions.

No, it does not say that Christ committed the revelation to his angel and that angel made it known to John. The Bible narrative makes it undeniably clear that Jesus Christ committed or made known the revelation that he received from God, to his servant John.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servantsâ€â€things which must shortly take place. And He (God) sent and signified it by His angel (Christ, the Angel of God) to His servant John.

The revelation is from God. It was revealed to Jesus Christ who in turn showed it to John. Thus Christ is the angel spoken of in Revelation 1:1 and here is further evidence that it was Christ who signified it or communicated it to his servant John, as it is written,

I (John) was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,†and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.†12Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. 17And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18“I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death. 19“Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this. 20“The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven churches (Revelation 1:10-20).

There is no doubt that Jesus Christ is the one who revealed the visions of the revelation to his servant John. That in turn demands that he is the angel whom God used to signify the revelation to John, as it is written in Rev. 1:1. That is the topic for another thread.

Now the question which you have not addressed is the question of this thread, and this is it,

If God and Jesus Christ are ONE being as the Trinity demands, how can Christ receive revelation from God?

R7-12

 

[jgredline]

1:1, 2 The first verse announces the subject of the book, namely, the things which must shortly take place. The book of Revelation is primarily an unfolding of the future. This revelation of future events was given by God to Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus, in turn, committed it to His angel, and the angel made it known to His servant John. John’s purpose in writing the Book was to share the information with the Lord’s servants, that is, with all true believers. In doing this, John bore witness to the prophetic word which God had spoken to him and to the testimony to which Jesus Christ had borne witness. In short, John testified to all things that he saw in heavenly visions.

No, it does not say that Christ committed the revelation to his angel and that angel made it known to John. The Bible narrative makes it undeniably clear that Jesus Christ committed or made known the revelation that he received from God, to his servant John.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servantsâ€â€things which must shortly take place. And He (God) sent and signified it by His angel (Christ, the Angel of God) to His servant John.

The revelation is from God. It was revealed to Jesus Christ who in turn showed it to John. Thus Christ is the angel spoken of in Revelation 1:1 and here is further evidence that it was Christ who signified it or communicated it to his servant John, as it is written,

I (John) was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,†and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.†12Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. 17And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18“I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death. 19“Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this. 20“The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven churches (Revelation 1:10-20).

There is no doubt that Jesus Christ is the one who revealed the visions of the revelation to his servant John. That in turn demands that he is the angel whom God used to signify the revelation to John, as it is written in Rev. 1:1. That is the topic for another thread.

Now the question which you have not addressed is the question of this thread, and this is it,

If God and Jesus Christ are ONE being as the Trinity demands, how can Christ receive revelation from God?

R7-12

Well my friend your wrong again.
First lets look at your interpretation of Rev 1:1

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servantsâ€â€things which must shortly take place. And He (God) sent and signified it by His angel (Christ, the Angel of God) to His servant John.

In the original greek the word you have as HIS is actually The (tou) and the Greek word that is used for angel is 32 ἄγγελος [aggelos /ang·el·os/] n m. From aggello TDNT 1:74; TDNTA 12; GK 34; AV translates as “angel†179 times, and “messenger†seven times. 1 a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God. (not Jesus)

Revelation 1:1-2 in the Greek reads like this exactly

1 A revelation of Jesus Christ, which gave to him-God to show to the slaves of him things it be-which hoves to occur with speed, and he signified sending through the angel of him to the slave of him john, 2 who bore witness of the word-of God and the witness of Jesus Christ as many things as he saw

Now that we have established that your interpretaion of Revelation 1 is wrong lets take a look at your question.

If God and Jesus Christ are ONE being as the Trinity demands, how can Christ receive revelation from God?

R7
This is too easy Lets assume that the angel is Jesus (which he is not )
The way that Christ would receieve revelation from God is the same way your foot or hand gets revelation from your brain. You walk or move your hands with out thinking about it. Its that simple.
My guess is that the reason you do not beleive the trinity is because you don't understand it. My friend. Why would we want to worship a God who is on the same level as us? There is so much scripture to back the trinity.

Now maybe you can answer one of my Questions
In a previouse post I put a list of Bible teachers, theologians, expositors that went back 2000 years. Are you telling me they are all wrong in their triune theology?

 

[jgredline]

The steps of Revelation
1 God
2 Jesus Christ
3 Angel
4 John
5 Servents

It came from heaven from God the Father, through His Son, Jesus Christ, and it was given to an angel who gave it to John, who wrote about what he saw for all of us.

 

[R7-12]

If God and Jesus Christ are ONE being as the Trinity demands, how can Christ receive revelation from God?

R7
This is too easy Lets assume that the angel is Jesus (which he is not )
The way that Christ would receieve revelation from God is the same way your foot or hand gets revelation from your brain. You walk or move your hands with out thinking about it. Its that simple.

jgredline, you cannot prove something to be true by using a premise that you say is impossible as the basis for the explanation. It is absurd.

You claim that Jesus Christ is not the angel and then go on to explain how Christ the angel, who you say is not the angel, would receive revelation from God. Can’t you see how ridiculous this sounds? And you say this is too easy?

In your anthropomorphic explanation of how a single deity reveals knowledge to the son of the deity, who is in fact the same deity, as being the same as your head telling your foot to move, you assert that the mind of the Deity is Almighty God and the son is merely an appendage – a foot!

Well let's put this amusing premise to the test. All that is required are a few questions to determine if your assertion has any hope of offering a Biblical or even a reasonable explanation.

Is your mind in your foot jgredline?!
Does your foot contain a will of its own?
Can your foot deny its own will?
Can you claim that your foot is your offspring?
Does the Bible identify the son as a foot?
Can you willfully deny your foot specific knowledge?
Can your foot willfully choose to volunteer itself to be a sacrifice?
Can your foot ask you for something?
Is your foot the express image of yourself?
Can you send your foot to be a messenger somewhere else?
Is your foot your firstborn of many?
Can your foot inherit something outside of itself?
Can your foot be the husband of a bride?
Tell me how you reveal knowledge your foot doesn’t already have?

One could literally go on for days demonstrating that your analogy immediately breaks down once it is challenged and thus is proven incapable of answering the question asked.

Try something interesting just for the sake of it would you? Just replace the word foot in each question above with the word son and see if this analogy might make some sense.

The truth is you did not explain how God reveals knowledge to Christ who is the God revealing the knowledge in the first place, according to the doctrine of the Trinity.

What you explained is how God designed your mind to communicate with your foot without your conscious mind even being aware of the communication so you can move in a physical world. Is it your opinion that God communicates this way to Christ – on a physical plane while not being conscious of it?

Your feeble analogy isn’t even on the radar screen of remote possibility.

Now maybe you can answer one of my Questions
In a previouse post I put a list of Bible teachers, theologians, expositors that went back 2000 years. Are you telling me they are all wrong in their triune theology?

If you are asserting that those people on your list of Bible teachers, theologians, and expositors that go back 2000 years believed or would accept what you claim here, then the answer cannot be more obvious.

Your explanation is not even in the realm of the remotest possible reality conceivable.

R7-12

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Now maybe you can answer one of my Questions
In a previouse post I put a list of Bible teachers, theologians, expositors that went back 2000 years. Are you telling me they are all wrong in their triune theology?

If I had the energy, I could readily compile an even larger list of Rabbinical scholars going back 2000 years who would testify that the Hebrew scriptures could not possibly support the notion of a triune Godhead and/or that the Messiah would actually be "GOD in the flesh". Could ALL these scholars be wrong?

 

[TanNinety]

Now maybe you can answer one of my Questions
In a previouse post I put a list of Bible teachers, theologians, expositors that went back 2000 years. Are you telling me they are all wrong in their triune theology?

If I had the energy, I could readily compile an even larger list of Rabbinical scholars going back 2000 years who would testify that the Hebrew scriptures could not possibly support the notion of a triune Godhead and/or that the Messiah would actually be "GOD in the flesh". Could ALL these scholars be wrong?

You mean the 1000 police men that didn't see me speeding on the road are wrong and the one that saw me speeding was right? Golly, have you forgotten the law of moral science? Truth is directly proportional to the weight of majority! :-D

 

[BradtheImpaler]

You mean the 1000 police men that didn't see me speeding on the road are wrong and the one that saw me speeding was right? Golly, have you forgotten the law of moral science? Truth is directly proportional to the weight of majority! :-D

If anything, we could make the case that, according to the scripture, truth is always in the minority.

 

[TanNinety]

If anything, we could make the case that, according to the scripture, truth is always in the minority.

Couldn't agree more. Narrow is the path and few that find it, else the Messiah would have said the majority will find it. But hope you got the sarcasm in my previous post about truth and majority though.

 

[jgredline]

[quote="R7-12":be832]If God and Jesus Christ are ONE being as the Trinity demands, how can Christ receive revelation from God?

R7
This is too easy Lets assume that the angel is Jesus (which he is not )
The way that Christ would receieve revelation from God is the same way your foot or hand gets revelation from your brain. You walk or move your hands with out thinking about it. Its that simple.

jgredline, you cannot prove something to be true by using a premise that you say is impossible as the basis for the explanation. It is absurd.

You claim that Jesus Christ is not the angel and then go on to explain how Christ the angel, who you say is not the angel, would receive revelation from God. Can’t you see how ridiculous this sounds? And you say this is too easy?

In your anthropomorphic explanation of how a single deity reveals knowledge to the son of the deity, who is in fact the same deity, as being the same as your head telling your foot to move, you assert that the mind of the Deity is Almighty God and the son is merely an appendage – a foot!

Well let's put this amusing premise to the test. All that is required are a few questions to determine if your assertion has any hope of offering a Biblical or even a reasonable explanation.

Is your mind in your foot jgredline?!
Does your foot contain a will of its own?
Can your foot deny its own will?
Can you claim that your foot is your offspring?
Does the Bible identify the son as a foot?
Can you willfully deny your foot specific knowledge?
Can your foot willfully choose to volunteer itself to be a sacrifice?
Can your foot ask you for something?
Is your foot the express image of yourself?
Can you send your foot to be a messenger somewhere else?
Is your foot your firstborn of many?
Can your foot inherit something outside of itself?
Can your foot be the husband of a bride?
Tell me how you reveal knowledge your foot doesn’t already have?

One could literally go on for days demonstrating that your analogy immediately breaks down once it is challenged and thus is proven incapable of answering the question asked.

Try something interesting just for the sake of it would you? Just replace the word foot in each question above with the word son and see if this analogy might make some sense.

The truth is you did not explain how God reveals knowledge to Christ who is the God revealing the knowledge in the first place, according to the doctrine of the Trinity.

What you explained is how God designed your mind to communicate with your foot without your conscious mind even being aware of the communication so you can move in a physical world. Is it your opinion that God communicates this way to Christ – on a physical plane while not being conscious of it?

Your feeble analogy isn’t even on the radar screen of remote possibility.

Now maybe you can answer one of my Questions
In a previouse post I put a list of Bible teachers, theologians, expositors that went back 2000 years. Are you telling me they are all wrong in their triune theology?

If you are asserting that those people on your list of Bible teachers, theologians, and expositors that go back 2000 years believed or would accept what you claim here, then the answer cannot be more obvious.

Your explanation is not even in the realm of the remotest possible reality conceivable.

R7-12[/quote:be832]


R7
Pride comes before a fall my friend.
In using the original greek
So far I have proven your interpretation of John1:1 false
I have proven your interpretaion of Rev 1:1 false
You should consider a class in Hermeneutics.. One of things you will learn is
that you can't take single verses out of contex as you have done with the prevoiuse 2 verses.
and others have done with Col 1:15
I know you have a little cult following on this board and I pray that they too will see how your teaching is false. You can keep throwing out fancy words and hope I don't understand them, but its not going to work. I understand them well.

Here is a question for you if you choose to answer it.
When you go to church do you go to worship Jesus?

 

[gingercat]

Pride comes before a fall my friend.

I can say the same thing for you, jg.

Here is a question for you if you choose to answer it.
When you go to church do you go to worship Jesus?

[/quote]
If you want to talk or ask another topic, why don't you start a new thread?

 

[Georges]

[quote="R7-12":aaf0d]If God and Jesus Christ are ONE being as the Trinity demands, how can Christ receive revelation from God?

R7
This is too easy Lets assume that the angel is Jesus (which he is not )
The way that Christ would receieve revelation from God is the same way your foot or hand gets revelation from your brain. You walk or move your hands with out thinking about it. Its that simple.

jgredline, you cannot prove something to be true by using a premise that you say is impossible as the basis for the explanation. It is absurd.

You claim that Jesus Christ is not the angel and then go on to explain how Christ the angel, who you say is not the angel, would receive revelation from God. Can’t you see how ridiculous this sounds? And you say this is too easy?

In your anthropomorphic explanation of how a single deity reveals knowledge to the son of the deity, who is in fact the same deity, as being the same as your head telling your foot to move, you assert that the mind of the Deity is Almighty God and the son is merely an appendage – a foot!

Well let's put this amusing premise to the test. All that is required are a few questions to determine if your assertion has any hope of offering a Biblical or even a reasonable explanation.

Is your mind in your foot jgredline?!
Does your foot contain a will of its own?
Can your foot deny its own will?
Can you claim that your foot is your offspring?
Does the Bible identify the son as a foot?
Can you willfully deny your foot specific knowledge?
Can your foot willfully choose to volunteer itself to be a sacrifice?
Can your foot ask you for something?
Is your foot the express image of yourself?
Can you send your foot to be a messenger somewhere else?
Is your foot your firstborn of many?
Can your foot inherit something outside of itself?
Can your foot be the husband of a bride?
Tell me how you reveal knowledge your foot doesn’t already have?

One could literally go on for days demonstrating that your analogy immediately breaks down once it is challenged and thus is proven incapable of answering the question asked.

Try something interesting just for the sake of it would you? Just replace the word foot in each question above with the word son and see if this analogy might make some sense.

The truth is you did not explain how God reveals knowledge to Christ who is the God revealing the knowledge in the first place, according to the doctrine of the Trinity.

What you explained is how God designed your mind to communicate with your foot without your conscious mind even being aware of the communication so you can move in a physical world. Is it your opinion that God communicates this way to Christ – on a physical plane while not being conscious of it?

Your feeble analogy isn’t even on the radar screen of remote possibility.

Now maybe you can answer one of my Questions
In a previouse post I put a list of Bible teachers, theologians, expositors that went back 2000 years. Are you telling me they are all wrong in their triune theology?

I'm saying they are wrong....they are going with the information they were handed down with....If it's wrong from the begining, it will be further developed wrong...case in point....

It's not developed from Hebrew theology, it's developed from Greek neoplatoism....J....R7 is not wrong....Logos is the Memra in Hebrew...In Hebrew, there can be no possible interpretation for a coequal trinity....In Greek philosophy and mystery, you can...



If you are asserting that those people on your list of Bible teachers, theologians, and expositors that go back 2000 years believed or would accept what you claim here, then the answer cannot be more obvious.

Your explanation is not even in the realm of the remotest possible reality conceivable.

R7-12

R7
Pride comes before a fall my friend.
In using the original greek
So far I have proven your interpretation of John1:1 false
I have proven your interpretaion of Rev 1:1 false
You should consider a class in Hermeneutics.. One of things you will learn is
that you can't take single verses out of contex as you have done with the prevoiuse 2 verses.
and others have done with Col 1:15
I know you have a little cult following on this board and I pray that they too will see how your teaching is false. You can keep throwing out fancy words and hope I don't inderstand them, but its not going to work.

Here is a question for you if you choose to answer it.
When you go to church do you go to worship Jesus?

You shouldn't....you should worship God....and honor Jesus.....

[/quote:aaf0d]

Sorry for butting in (me in red), but you are arguing Greek language when the concepts are Hebrew....get by that and you do just fine.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

If anything, we could make the case that, according to the scripture, truth is always in the minority.

Couldn't agree more. Narrow is the path and few that find it, else the Messiah would have said the majority will find it. But hope you got the sarcasm in my previous post about truth and majority though.

Yes, I did :D

 

[BradtheImpaler]

In using the original greek
So far I have proven your interpretation of John1:1 false

Please tell me what the definition of "Logos" is in the original Greek.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I know you have a little cult following on this board and I pray that they too will see how your teaching is false

I can guarentee that those of us here who are in agreement with R7's points were thinking that way quite some time before we met him on this forum.

You can keep throwing out fancy words and hope I don't inderstand them, but its not going to work

I think what's happening is he's hoping you WILL understand them, but unfortunately that's not working either.

 

[jgredline]

In using the original greek
So far I have proven your interpretation of John1:1 false

Please tell me what the definition of "Logos" is in the original Greek.

3056 λόγος [logos /log·os/] n m. From 3004; TDNT 4:69; TDNTA 505; GK 3364; 330 occurrences; AV translates as “word†218 times, “saying†50 times, “account†eight times, “speech†eight times, “Word (Christ)†seven times, “thing†five times, not translated twice, and translated miscellaneously 32 times. 1 of speech. 1a a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea. 1b what someone has said. 1b1 a word. 1b2 the sayings of God. 1b3 decree, mandate or order. 1b4 of the moral precepts given by God. 1b5 Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets. 1b6 what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim. 1c discourse. 1c1 the act of speaking, speech. 1c2 the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking. 1c3 a kind or style of speaking. 1c4 a continuous speaking discourseâ€â€instruction. 1d doctrine, teaching. 1e anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative. 1f matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law. 1g the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed. 2 its use as respect to the MIND alone. 2a reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating. 2b account, i.e. regard, consideration. 2c account, i.e. reckoning, score. 2d account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment. 2e relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation. 2e1 reason would. 2f reason, cause, ground. 3 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. Additional Information: A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1.
Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G3056).

 

[Georges]

Again....Greek words trying to define Hebrew concepts....oil and water....


Word = Logos = Memra.....Memra is the creative, active Word of God. Part of the Elohim but not El...

 

[BradtheImpaler]

In using the original greek
So far I have proven your interpretation of John1:1 false

Please tell me what the definition of "Logos" is in the original Greek.

3056 λόγος [logos /log·os/] n m. From 3004; TDNT 4:69; TDNTA 505; GK 3364; 330 occurrences; AV translates as “word†218 times, “saying†50 times, “account†eight times, “speech†eight times, “Word (Christ)†seven times, “thing†five times, not translated twice, and translated miscellaneously 32 times. 1 of speech. 1a a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea. 1b what someone has said. 1b1 a word. 1b2 the sayings of God. 1b3 decree, mandate or order. 1b4 of the moral precepts given by God. 1b5 Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets. 1b6 what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim. 1c discourse. 1c1 the act of speaking, speech. 1c2 the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking. 1c3 a kind or style of speaking. 1c4 a continuous speaking discourseâ€â€instruction. 1d doctrine, teaching. 1e anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative. 1f matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law. 1g the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed. 2 its use as respect to the MIND alone. 2a reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating. 2b account, i.e. regard, consideration. 2c account, i.e. reckoning, score. 2d account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment. 2e relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation. 2e1 reason would. 2f reason, cause, ground. 3 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. Additional Information: A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1.
Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G3056).

So the Greek definition of the Word (logos) of John 1:1 would be...

The 2nd Person of 3 Persons in the Godhead

or...

"a word, uttered by a living voice, which embodies a conception or idea"..."a word/saying/account/speech/etc"?