The logical truth and reality of God. Or the Logos.

Tercon

Active member
If the ONLY way and place that the truth, morality, logic, consciousness, existence and reality itself can be known and experienced is in and by a believing mind, then the truth, morality, logic, consciousness, existence and reality itself must be the product of God's believing mind.

And if YOU cannot know and experience the truth, morality, logic, consciousness, existence and reality itself outside of or without the benefit of a believing mind, then YOU too cannot know or experience the truth, morality, logic, consciousness, existence and reality itself without a believing mind as well.

And if nothing can be known to exist without or outside of a believing mind, because it is only a believing mind that is capable of knowing and experiencing the truth and reality to begin with, then God must be a believing mind.
 
Last edited:

Tercon

Active member
And if it is ONLY belief and believing that God recommends we do and commends us for, then for believers it is ONLY a believing mind that God can be known to exist.
 

civic

Well-known member
wrong forum this is not scientology, christian science, science of the mind, Hinduism, Pantheism etc...................................................
 

Tercon

Active member
wrong forum this is not scientology, christian science, science of the mind, Hinduism, Pantheism etc...................................................
I cannot help it if you don't know the truth the believer find in Christ that leads believers to the reality of God.

Why don't you ask your skydaddy to show you; if he isn't known by the truth and in reality, then how he is known to you silly fool.
 

Tercon

Active member
If you don't believe Christ is the truth and God is reality, then what do you believe God is silly?
BUMP for your skydaddy and you empty vessel.

But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Matthew 23;11-23)
 

Tercon

Active member
you don't even know the first thing about the Logos in John 1:1
I know the truth I found in Christ and the Spirit of truth that lead me to the reality of God. I also know the the truth, logic and reality are the product of God's mind. And the truth and reality tells me that you are a religious nuance, because even the truth offends you.
 
Last edited:

Tercon

Active member
I know the truth I found in Christ and the Spirit of truth that lead me to the reality of God. I also know the the truth, logic and reality are the product of God's mind. And the truth and reality tells me that you are a religious nuisance, because even the truth offends you.
 

civic

Well-known member
I know the truth I found in Christ and the Spirit of truth that lead me to the reality of God. I also know the the truth, logic and reality are the product of God's mind. And the truth and reality tells me that you are a religious nuance, because even the truth offends you.
Define logos in John 1:1
 

civic

Well-known member
The religious are so lazy, if you have a criticism against what I said, then make it. And stop pretending I have to make it for you.
I see you are incapable of defining the logos in John 1. All talk , no walk.
 

Tercon

Active member
I see you are incapable of defining the logos in John 1. All talk , no walk.
All I see is someone that isn't able to show that Christ and God doesn't believe or have faith. Also, you still haven't answered my question, as if you disbelieve that belief and faith came from Christ and/or God, then where do you think your belief and faith came from then silly?
 

Septextura

Well-known member
It does deal with how and why the truth and reality of God is known to us. So, if that isn't the goal of Arminianism or Calvinism, then what's the goal of Arminianism or Calvinism?

No, you're soapboxing personal heterodox religious views unrelated to the topic. You're certainly welcome to do so in the relevant forum.
 

civic

Well-known member
It does deal with how and why the truth and reality of God is known to us. So, if that isn't the goal of Arminianism or Calvinism, then what's the goal of Arminianism or Calvinism?
I do not need these Greek Experts but you do so here is the truth regarding the logos from Linguistic Experts, Greek Grammarians and N.T. Theologians on the Logos in Johns Prologue.

A.T. Robertson: "So in Jo. 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, not God was the Logos." A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, by A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, 1977), p. 279. (Source)

A.T. Robertson: "And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of the Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality." Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 5, pp. 4-5. (Source)

A. T. Robertson: "The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may be. So in Jo. 1:1, theos an ho logos, the subject is perfectly clear. Cf. ho logos sarx egeneto (Jo. 1:14). It is true that ho theos an ho logos (convertible terms) would have been Sabellianism. See also ho theos agape estin (1 Jo.4:16). "God" and "love" are not convertible terms any more than "God" and "Logos" or "Logos" and "flesh." Cf. also hoi theristai angeloi eisin (Mt. 13:39), ho logos ho sos alatheia estin (Jo. 17:17), ho nomos hamartia; (Ro. 7:7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea." A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934) p. 767-768. (Source)

A. T. Robertson: "A word should be said concerning the use and non-use of the article in John 1:1, where a narrow path is safely followed by the author. "The Word was God." It both God and Word were articular, they would be coextensive and equally distributed and so interchangeable. But the separate personality of the Logos is affirmed by the construction used and Sabellianism is denied. If God were articular and Logos non-articular, the affirmation would be that God was Logos, but not that the Logos was God. As it is, John asserts that in the Pre-incarnate state the Logos was God, though the Father was greater than the Son (John 14:28). The Logos became flesh (1:14), and not the Father. But the Incarnate Logos was really "God only Begotten in the bosom of the Father" (1:18 correct text)." The Minister and His Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977) pp. 67-68. (Source)

E. M. Sidebottom: "...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho logos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to John." The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S. P. C. K., 1961), p. 461. (Source)

E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context and in the case of John 1:1c this is not so." "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.
(Source)

Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos." "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973) p. 87.
(Source)

Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II (Guardian Press, 1975; originally published 1871), p. 681.
(Source)

H. E. Dana and Julius Mantey: "The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion d' en to korion, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos." A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1950) pp. 148-149. (Source)

F. F. Bruce: "The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation "The Word was God." Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also "with God". What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase "what God was, the Word was", brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can...So, when heaven and earth were created, there was the Word of God, already existing in the closest association with God and partaking of the essence of God. No matter how far back we may try to push our imagination, we can never reach a point at which we could say of the Divine Word, as Arius did, 'There was once when he was not.'" The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), p. 31. (Source)

Gerhard Kittel, and Gerhard Friedrich: A similar ascription is more common in the Johannine writings, and for the most part incontestable. Jn. 1:1 says of the Pre-existent: kai theos en ho logos...The lack of the article, which is grammatically necessary in 1:1, is striking here, and reminds us of Philonic usage. The Logos who became flesh and revealed the invisible God was a divine being, God by nature. The man born blind has some sense of this when, after his healing, he falls down in believing adoration before Christ, who addresses him with the divine "I" (Jn. 9:38f). The final veil is removed, however, when the Risen Lord discloses Himself to Thomas and the astonished disciple exclaims: ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou (Jn. 20:28). In Jn. 1:1 we have Christology: He is God in Himself. Here we have the revelation of Christ: He is God for believers. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964) vol 3:105-106. (Source)

James R. White: The phrase kai theos en ho logos is most literally translated as "and the Word was God." (Robertson, Bruce). The reason that theos is anarthrous is both that it is the predicate nominative (Robertson, Dana and Mantey) and that it is demanded by the fact that if it had the article, it would be then interchangeable with logos, which is contextually impossible. (Robertson, Dana and Mantey, Bruce, Nicoll) Colwell's rule also comes into play at this point. We have seen that the majority of scholarship sees the theos as indicating the nature of the Word, that He is God as to His nature. The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as "god-like." Hence, John 1:1 teaches that the Word is eternal (the imperfect form of eimi, en), that He has always been in communion with God (pros ton theon), and hence is an individual and recognizable as such, and that, as to His essential nature, He is God. Anything less departs from the teaching of John, and is not Biblical. (Source)

hope this helps !!!
 

Tercon

Active member
I do not need these Greek Experts but you do so here is the truth regarding the logos from Linguistic Experts, Greek Grammarians and N.T. Theologians on the Logos in Johns Prologue.

hope this helps !!!
Thanks, it was a pretty good read.

So what do you think you done by posting this? As I have not seen anything in it that contradicted anything I believe about the truth and reality of God. The only thing that I would add is that the word "Logos" takes in and denotes much more than the word "Word".

Also, I believe that the word 'logos' takes in any and all words that refer to and denote any idea that its denial of existence is self-refuting. Like the word truth, logic, belief, morality, consciousness, mind, existence and reality.
 
Top