Can we say that the Trinity is the most Perfect and Accurate depiction of LOGOS ?

Secondly, Jesus' chief purpose is his interaction with creation directly.. both as the eternal Logos and as the bridge between God and Man in taking on both divine and human natures. The Father sent Jesus to connect with himself. But he is not the same exact thing as the Logos. The Logos is the conduit by which we know the Father. We can NOT EVER EVER EVER know the Father directly. Only through the Son can we do that.

It messes up salvation history itself by blurring this specific ministry that the Logos has with creation.

Why are you all saying word in Greek?

I discover new heresies on this board everyday

Only the Son is the Logos. And He is the Logos of the Father, not the Logos of the created universe.

If you say a word, does that mean that you, as a person, are a word? No. However, the word is an image of you.

A more accurate translation would be (and I quote here David Bentley Hart's):
"Ho theos" (here rendered as "Gᴏᴅ") means God in the fullest sense, and necessarily refers to the Father. "Theos" alone is used to refer to the Logos, which means He is divine but not to the same "strength" as the Father is. Obviously this does not tell the whole story (and the gospel of John is essentially a theological essay to show that Jesus really is God in the fullest sense even as He is distinct from the Father) but the prologue plays off the notion, already present in Judaism in the 1st century, that the Logos referred to in Greek philosophy is a sort of "emanation" or "image" or "son" of God, or God "in the sense we can understand Him", and it is this Logos that spoke to the prophets, rather than God directly.
Again this does not tell the whole story as John means to present it, but my point is that what you're saying makes no sense if you don't read this verse in English. And the Bible wasn't written in English.

The rest of what you're saying is giving me a headache. Please stop trying to innovate.

Attached: 0f635b451c19f6056906feeb982dd3f66b8fbbebf94484357a608a67c9c2dfe4.jpg (196x257, 8.72K)

The exact nature of the Trinity isn't something we can do more than speculate about.

Jesus and the Gospels say there's the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Only Christ is the logos.

Stream reuploaded

GET BEHIND ME SATAN

IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST

Attached: dsc01359.jpg (1683x2537, 935.91K)

user, this is a question that requires a lifetime of meditation and reflection on. You will not find an answer in a short thread on 8ch, but you WILL be given hints to reality of this concept through prayer. prayer is absolutely essential.
By the grace of the holy spirit, the Lord lets you experience the reality of the father
You can experience the reality of this truth. This is a very esoteric teaching, it is one of the "Mysteries". Prayer is 100% essential if you want to come anywhere close to being able to unravel the parables and mysteries of the Lord. He will teach you, but you need to pray in order to learn how He speaks.

1 BLESS THE LORD, O my soul. O Lord my God, Thou art become exceeding glorious; in honor and majesty hast Thou clothed Thyself.
2 Who hast wrapped Thyself in light as it were with a garment, Who hast stretched out the heavens like a curtain.
3 Who covereth the beams of His chambers by the waters, Who appointeth the clouds for His going forth, Who walketh upon the wings of the wind.
4 Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a fiery flame.
5 Who so layeth the earth on its foundations, that it shall never be moved.
6 The deep like a garment is its clothing; the waters will stand in the hills.
7 At Thy rebuke they shall flee; at the voice of Thy thunder they shall be afraid.
8 The hills shall go up and the plains shall go down, even unto the place which Thou hast appointed for them.
9 Thou hast set a boundary which they shall not pass, neither re- turn again to cover the earth.
10 Who sendeth the springs into the valleys; the waters will run be- tween the hills.
11 All beasts of the field shall drink thereof, and the wild asses quench their thirst.
12 Beside them shall the fowls of the air have their habitation; they shall sing1 among the rocks.
13 Who watereth the hills from His heights; the earth shall be well- fed by the fruit of Thy works.
14 Who bringeth forth grass for the cattle, and green herb for the service of men, to bring forth bread from the earth,
15 And wine maketh a man’s heart glad; to anoint the face with oil, and bread strengtheneth man’s heart.
16 The trees of the plain shall be full of sap, the cedars of Lebanon which He hath planted;
17 In them the birds shall make their nests; the home of the stork is chief among them.
18 The hills are for the deer; the stone is a refuge for the conies.
19 He made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knoweth his going down.
20 Thou didst ordain darkness, and there was night, wherein all the beasts of the forest do move,
21 Young lions roaring after their prey and seeking their meat from God.
22 The sun arose, and they gathered together, and shall lie down in their dens.
23 Man shall go forth to his work, and to his labor, until the even- ing.
24 How great are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all; the earth is filled with Thy handiwork.
25 So is the great and wide sea also, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.
26 There go the ships, and that Leviathan, whom Thou hast made to take his pastime therein.
27 These wait all upon Thee, that Thou mayest give them food in due season.
28 When Thou givest it them, they shall gather it; when Thou openest Thy hand, all things shall be filled with good.
29 But when Thou hidest Thy face, they shall be troubled; Thou shalt take away their spirit, and they shall pass away, and return again to their dust.
30 Thou shalt send forth Thy Spirit, and they shall be made, and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth.
31 O let the glory of the Lord endure for ever; the Lord shall re- joice in His works.
32 Who looketh upon the earth, and it trembleth; Who toucheth the hills, and they smoke.
33 I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live; I will praise my God while I have my being.
34 Let my conversation be pleasing unto Him, for I shall be glad in the Lord.
35 O that sinners should cease from the earth, and the ungodly, that they should be no more! Bless the Lord, O my soul.

wow, actually, you are very much the teacher of me! That is very deep, OP. Thank you for the thread. I reacted much too quickly, and I am sorry, sincerely, for the tone in my first post. I was listening to that song recently, and the Lord has through you made me realize it is much deeper than I realized by far. I will think and reflect and more about that question. Our Father is truly great and wise! Thank you, brother! Praise God!

Not particularly good at theology or anything but arguing that because a certain member of the godhead has certain (I don't know what a good word to say here for this is so I'm going to go with qualities) that all members must possess it goes weird places with things like the incarnation or the subordination of the Spirit and Son to the Father doesn't it? It seems like it leads to something between modalism and unitarianism where members of the godhead are basically identical and interchangeable to me.

:) hello orthobro

Attached: 6503e6e5e2219a020a927c745a8c68d8--greek-icons-byzantine-icons.jpg (736x981, 262.57K)

Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

First off why do you keep saying "word" in Greek? Secondly, John 1:2 says the Word was with God and the Word was God. So it is God directly. Sorry but your first statement which I quoted that outright claims that Jesus is somehow not God in the fullest sense is already heretical and I hope you realize that. You only piled on more errors after that, like implying Jesus Christ is somehow different from the word, and using "Logos" as if referencing some obscure Greek philosophical concept.

Hi OP, EMJ adresses this more or less…I wouldn't know if his argument says that the Trinity is the most complete form of Logos or not, but there you have it.
Maybe some good anons here could listen to it and say if OP is wrong or not based on this video.
Here between 33:00-37:20
youtu.be/szwuLDg_uTk?t=1975
"The Trinity was already embedded in creation"
"When you put love in God, you've got motion in God and when you've got motion in God, then it's basically the Trinity"
So wouldn't be the motion of God be the Logos itself ?

Attached: 1213.jpg (800x532, 144.44K)

Hence why I said it doesn't tell the whole story. We are speaking here of the prologue of John, do not change subject.

What does that even have to do with what I said?

Because I am Orthodox and we tend to say it in Greek, especially since "Word" does not properly convey the meaning of "Logos".

It's like you didn't read my post.
That aside, this verse was used by the Arians to -justify- that Jesus isn't God in the fullest sense. Believe it or not, but the Bible wasn't written in English, and the translation you read is already filtered through Nicene-Chalcedonian orthodoxy.

Are you stupid? Read my entire post. What part of

Let's recap. It says in John 1:2 the Word was with God and the Word was God.

You then said this (i.e. God) doesn't refer to God "in the fullest sense." But this is equivalent to a denial of what scripture says in John 1:2. It's gnostic trash where you redefine words to suit your fancy and whim. Please keep it out of discussion.

God means God.

Yes it does. Period, end of discussion.

Lets assume this is true. Why does this matter at all? It doesn't.
Given that you don't even grasp the fundamental meanings of basic words, you are not in a position to lecture others. Stop misleading others and leading them down a wrong path.

You rejected the notion that God means God in John 1:2 because you said the first quote. If you take it back now maybe there's room for discussion but I did read your post that's how I got the text quote from it.
The part that you claim the word of God was an "essay"? Yeah I read that alright. It's actually inspired scripture, so keep that in mind before ever doing this again.
You called it an essay which diminishes something that ought to be magnified. I'm simply putting right what you cast down to the floor, when I quoted 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To re-establish the baseline of respect it deserves.

Jesus Christ is the Word. I find it hard to dispute that, and where I live doesn't factor into the equation. Yet despite this the phrasing of that post, your post, goes to great lengths to speak at length of a "Logos" more as if it was a disembodied entity. I've seen it plenty of times before, so I picked right up on it here. Also you even used it in reference to Greek philosophy, further entrenching this allegedly unintentional misunderstanding. Needless to say all this mystical philosopher-babble you've referred to about emanations is untrue and patently, demonstrably unscriptural.

You are the one redefining words. "Ho theos" and "theos" are not used interchangeably in the scriptures.

Tell that to Steven Anderson who goes on to say that the Bible is Jesus, lol

It does matter because if the meaning in Greek is contested, it means the meaning isn't as crystal clear as your average English translation, filtered through Nicene doctrine, makes it seem.

Are you the guy who accused me of being a liar and a sinner the other day?

Maybe look for someone else to fight. I'm not going to entertain you because you refuse to listen without literally shaking and crying.

… The Gospel of John is clearly theological in nature, explaining through the words and acts of Jesus that He is really God in the fullest sense, while also disproving early heresies (such as those who believed John the Forerunner was the Messiah, and those who believed Jesus did not really incarnate as flesh). Why does this disturb you? If I tell you the Song of Songs is a poem, are you going to insult me too?

Gee, you mean like Christians have always done since the 2nd century at the absolute earliest?
I can use Word instead of Logos if that really makes you happy. And it changes absolutely nothing about what I said. In fact it probably clarifies it - the Word of God emanating from God as an image of His "mind", so to speak, coming to us in a comprehensible manner. That is why, likewise, Jesus is called the Wisdom of God, and the Son of God. The Gospel of John introduces us with this but then goes on to develop that Jesus is not simply the Word, Wisdom, Son, Image of God, in a way that He would be a "mini-God" or "comprehensible God", but that He is also God in the fullest sense, without being the Father.

Why are you laughing? Feeling the ground underneath you shaking a bit? Starting to realize the graveness of the things you just took way too lightly?
You still said John 1:2 doesn't mean God when it says theos. I can't believe you are still maintaining this with a very casual demeanor to this very second and haven't thought maybe this conversation is going to be recorded for a very very long time.
No, I haven't said such things.

No you know what? This beyond a personal problem, this isn't about me being disturbed. You have committed an offense by downplaying the importance of the gospel of John and I don't care why you did it. I don't care what kind of point you were trying to make by lessening and taking away the importance of rightfully inspired scripture. It's wrong. And I can't find any way to place more emphasis on it

Laughing at the prospect that you would agree with such a grave heresy as "Jesus is the Bible".

Have some humility and stop pretending to speak like a prophet, it's getting on my nerves.
I didn't address John 1:2. 1:2 refers to God, "ho theos", yes. What is your point? That because it says the Logos was with Ho Theos in the beginning, that it automatically means the sole interpretation possible of 1:1 is that "Ho Theos" and "theos" are interchangeable? Do you think before speaking? Just so you know, John 1:1-3 is a reference to what is said about Wisdom in Proverbs and Sirach.

Stop being so excited. I don't know why calling the gospel of John a theological essay is seen as disrespectful to you, or why you're saging every reply for that matter, but I'm not going to entertain a troll. You didn't even answer what I asked, you just have a personal problem with me for some reason.

I mean Proverbs and Wisdom.

LOGOS
O
G
O
S