What was the appearance of the three [LORD,lords] who visited Abraham.

Bladerunner

Active member
i believe that the other two men were angels and one of the Men was God himself manifested in the flesh but not manifested as the Son of God, as the Son had not yet been born.
The Bible tells us in many places that Jesus was the first, the last, the Alpha, the Omega, the one who died and is still alive.....Is it this Jesus you speak of? The bible mostly reserved the word "LORD" in caps as God's identity, Lord as Jesus' Identity and lord for those men of earth who were over other poor souls. Your Nontrinitarianism is showing.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
For what? A punctuation mark?


If Jesus is not God in the flesh, then who is? To whom are you referring by your phrase, "God in the flesh"? Whom are you saying Jesus is not?
There is no such entity in the scriprtures called, "God in the flesh". John 1:14 clearly states, that

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

God was not made flesh, "the Word was made flesh"

The Greek word for "word" is logos, which basically means message.

The message was made flesh

We have the word, the message, in written form which is scripture

The word, the message, in the flesh is Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Saying it doesn't make it so.

God is the logos. Jesus is the logos. Therefore, Jesus is God.



No.

Logos means "logic" or "reason."

"Word" is a mistranslation.



When you can't even respond directly to something you yourself asked for, and then assert that which is false, expecting your opponent to just believe it because you said it, that makes you a fool.
The scripture is also the logos.

God's message is of course, logical and reasonable. However, logos means message

Please be patient with yourself. You can still learn if you become lowly and meek to learn
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
There is no such entity in the scriprtures called, "God in the flesh". John 1:14 clearly states, that

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

God was not made flesh, "the Word was made flesh"

The Greek word for "word" is logos, which basically means message.

The message was made flesh

We have the word, the message, in written form which is scripture

The word, the message, in the flesh is Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father
The word logos does NOT mean message.

It MIGHT be able to be translated that way in some weird contexts but certainly not in John chapter 1 where the word is used.

You really should avoid saying things that you know nothing about when you're on the internet where people can look it up in just about ten seconds.
 
Last edited:

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank

Bladerunner

Active member
There is no such entity in the scriprtures called, "God in the flesh". John 1:14 clearly states, that

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

God was not made flesh, "the Word was made flesh"

The Greek word for "word" is logos, which basically means message.

The message was made flesh

We have the word, the message, in written form which is scripture

The word, the message, in the flesh is Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Ti 3:16
 

Insight me

New member
.

Thank you for reading and replying

The Old Testament explains clearly that the Spirit of The ANOINTING / CHRIST was IN the Old Testaments Prophets and Godly characters of the Old Testament

The Old Testament explains clearly that these did not receive the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ -

Jesus Christ the son of God was never revealed to them

➣- ➣ revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us


i was in no way wanting to make a comment about the doctrine of the Trinity, that is an entirely different subject

why would one need to discuss the Trinity in order to point out basic scriptures of the Bible ?



but the point was to note that " Christ - " The Anointing " is similar to = the sword of the Spirit,


the word of God is the application / anointing of the Spirit Holy - the Christ / ANOINTING - the word is also how the world was created, I believe in this way as scriptures demonstrate Jesus Christ himself created all things --

by being the very anointing spirit of God himself,. from the begening,





sorry for not making that clearer
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
.

Thank you for reading and replying

The Old Testament explains clearly that the Spirit of The ANOINTING / CHRIST was IN the Old Testaments Prophets and Godly characters of the Old Testament

The Old Testament explains clearly that these did not receive the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ -


Jesus Christ the son of God was never revealed to them

➣- ➣ revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us


i was in no way wanting to make a comment about the doctrine of the Trinity, that is an entirely different subject

why would one need to discuss the Trinity in order to point out basic scriptures of the Bible ?



but the point was to note that " Christ - " The Anointing " is similar to = the sword of the Spirit,



the word of God is the application / anointing of the Spirit Holy - the Christ / ANOINTING - the word is also how the world was created, I believe in this way as scriptures demonstrate Jesus Christ himself created all things --

by being the very anointing spirit of God himself,. from the begening,




sorry for not making that clearer
Sorry, but I'd have to say that the point you're making is still far from clear.

What exactly is it that you're driving at?

Also, I'm more convinced than ever that this is Oneness Pentecostal (i.e. modalistic) doctrine. It is quite heretical. By equating “the Word” with “the Anointing” and with “the Spirit,” you're is collapsing the biblical distinctions between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. With this "Christ = The Anointing = The Word = The Spirit = Application of God’s Power = God only knows what else", you seem to be putting forward some sort of quasi-mystical abstraction, rather than a personal, relational, volitional, rational Son of God who became a man and died in payment for our sins.
 

Insight me

New member
the word Christos is a Greek word that means in the Greek language = to apply, application, to be the application - anointing


The Scriptures agree with what you say that Jesus is the manifestation, form or MOPRPH OF GOD and what is being applied, ANOINTED -

Christ is what is placed, applied, positioned, stationed, appointed, working, rubbing, moving anointing

- the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil, to handle); to furnish what is needed; , to apply and to use.

This is the role of Jesus the Anointing / Christ - that Gods Holy Spirit has applied HIS SACRIFICE for our salvation and also for communication to Him, the eternal spirit,



As far as the Trinity Doctrine, there are thousands upon thousands of denominations within denominations and even within Pentecostal - ism as well. there are many denominations

I belong to none of them nor would recommend their human attempts to explain the manifestation of God - if you wish to share your Trinity formula , i would not mind the discussion, however I alone profess what the scripture sayeth.


i just do not see any scripture from your posts to know enough about your formula on the Trinity, the Trinity has been heavily debated for almost 2000 years because Christians are still translating and reviewing a book that took nearly 2000 years to update to a modern language,

I did not want to specifically handle your book review based on personal - ism - I just want to share what the SCRIPTURE says,.alone.

bless alway
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
The word logos does NOT mean message.

It MIGHT be able to be translated that way in some weird contexts but certainly not in John chapter 1 where the word is used.

You really should avoid saying things that you know nothing about when you're on the internet where people can look it up in just about ten seconds.
Why is logos translated "word" if it does not mean "word"? If it means "God" everywhere, why not translate it "God" everywhere?

Mat 5:32

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause [logos] of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mat 5:37

But let your communication [logos] be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Mat 7:24

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings [logos, plural] of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Mat 7:26

And every one that heareth these sayings [logos, plural] of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

Rev 1:9

I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word [logos] of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Why not substitute the word "God, or Gods, where logos is plural" in these verses?
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Nice try, Christ-hater. But Scripture contradicts your glaring falsehood by, in John 1:1, stating that "the Word was God". Thus, since the Word was God (v 1) and was made flesh (v 14), God was made flesh.
"Christ hater?"

Why "was" past tense? If that is an accurate translation, then the word had been God but is no longer God, thus the word is something else after it ceased to be God.

What is the word now?

Logos means message or communication or saying. The message was God

Why pollute scripture?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
the word Christos is a Greek word that means in the Greek language = to apply, application, to be the application - anointing


The Scriptures agree with what you say that Jesus is the manifestation, form or MOPRPH OF GOD and what is being applied, ANOINTED -

Christ is what is placed, applied, positioned, stationed, appointed, working, rubbing, moving anointing

- the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil, to handle); to furnish what is needed; , to apply and to use.

This is the role of Jesus the Anointing / Christ - that Gods Holy Spirit has applied HIS SACRIFICE for our salvation and also for communication to Him, the eternal spirit,



As far as the Trinity Doctrine, there are thousands upon thousands of denominations within denominations and even within Pentecostal - ism as well. there are many denominations

I belong to none of them nor would recommend their human attempts to explain the manifestation of God
You ARE a fool.

Do you think it was by pure luck that I nailed your doctrine after having read one single, nearly incoherent post?

It wasn't luck! The labels we human beings give to things are quite useful. They go a long way toward communicating whole swaths of information in just one or two words such that people like me don't have to guess where people like yourself are coming from or where you're likely to go. It works because ideas have consequences. Certain premises lead toward certain conclusions. If a person holds X position on one issue, they almost always hold Y position on another. It isn't coincidence, it's logic. The extent to which this is not the case, is the extent to which a particular group divorces themselves from the sound reason that follows even from their own premises.

Put another way, this "no labels" nonsense that you'd love to pull is just a cop out. It will not work with me. If you quack like a duck, I'm going to call you duck whether you lie to yourself about not being a duck or not.

- if you wish to share your Trinity formula , i would not mind the discussion, however I alone profess what the scripture sayeth.
Every heretical moron that has ever existed in the whole history of Christianity has made this mindless claim. David Koresh claimed to be a "sinning Messiah" out of one side of his mouth and out the other could quote you scripture until you both were blue in the face.

i just do not see any scripture from your posts to know enough about your formula on the Trinity, the Trinity has been heavily debated for almost 2000 years because Christians are still translating and reviewing a book that took nearly 2000 years to update to a modern language,
I made no attempt to argue either for or against the Trinity. I was simply trying to get you to identify yourself as the Trinity denying, Oneness Pentecostal that you obviously are. I'm always suspicious of people who want to hide who they are. Their motives are never honest.

I did not want to specifically handle your book review based on personal - ism -
I have no idea what you're talking about.

I just want to share what the SCRIPTURE says,.alone.

bless alway
Every single person - and I think that is very nearly literally true - every single person who calls themselves a Christian and knows enough about their doctrine that they're willing to put it out there as truth believes that their doctrine is biblical. The nearest you'll find to an exception to that is going to be the Catholics but even with all their "tradition" they still give lip service to the bible. Everyone else, from mainstream theologian to nutjob cult leader insists that their doctrine is biblical.

The Baptists believe, for example, that one cannot lose their salvation and the Church of Christ teaches the opposite. Both INSIST that their position is the biblically correct doctrine and can quote you passages all over the place as "proof". One of them is wrong!

Here's a question you will almost certainly not answer.....

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH IS RIGHT AND WHICH IS WRONG?




P.S. There is a quote function on this website for a reason. The fact that you didn't use it makes it unclear who it is you were responding to. I suspect that this post wasn't even directed at me because of the book review reference. PLEASE use the quote feature!

Additionally, writing your post with multiple font sizes is weird and difficult to read and, if you'd use complete sentences, with at least mostly correct grammar and punctuation, that also would go a long way toward letting people follow whatever it is you have to say. If need be, copy your post into Chat GPT and tell it to edit your post for readability and then post the result.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Why is logos translated "word" if it does not mean "word"? If it means "God" everywhere, why not translate it "God" everywhere?
What it means, in the context of John chapter 1 is "reason", "rational discourse", "communication", "logic". It is where we get the suffix "-ology" from - as in "biology" - "bio" (life) "ology" (the logic of).

As for why it is translated "word", I'm no expert, but here's what Chat GPT said when I asked it the same question...

1. Historical Translation Tradition


By the time the King James Version was produced in 1611, “Word” had already become the standard English rendering of Logos:

  • William Tyndale (1526) translated it as “Word.”
  • The Geneva Bible (1560) followed the same.
  • The Wycliffe Bible (1382) used “Word” based on the Latin Verbum from the Vulgate.
The KJV translators were deeply reverent toward this tradition. They did not aim to innovate in wording unless they found serious cause.

2. What Was Lost in Translation

Despite the above, Logos carried far more philosophical and theological meaning, especially to a Greek-speaking audience:
  • To Greeks, logos was the rational principle governing the cosmos (e.g., Heraclitus, Stoics).
  • In Hellenistic Judaism (like Philo of Alexandria), Logos was a divine intermediary, a rational expression of God’s mind.
Translating Logos as merely “Word” undercommunicates these rich ideas. A modern English reader won’t intuitively grasp that John is saying, "In the beginning was the Reason, the Logic, the Meaning, the Governing Principle—who is also a Person."



3. Alternative Renderings?


Translating Logos more expansively might have helped today’s readers, but would have seemed speculative or awkward to 17th-century translators:
  • “Reason” might suggest rationalism or abstraction.
  • “Wisdom” would overlap with Proverbs 8 but isn’t quite the same.
  • “Logic” sounds too cold and modern.
  • “Meaning” is profound but abstract.
No single English word captures the full scope of Logos. Perhaps something like “Divine Reason”, “Living Word”, or even “the Mind of God” would hint more clearly at John’s intended depth—but these are interpretive paraphrases, not translations.




Summary​


The KJV translators chose “Word” for Logos out of linguistic accuracy, theological continuity, and respect for tradition. However, they inevitably left layers of meaning untranslated, especially the rational, cosmic, and personal aspects of Logos that John’s audience—particularly Greek thinkers—would have heard loud and clear.

If you're explaining this to others, it’s often helpful to say: "‘Word’ isn't entirely inaccurate, but Logos meant so much more: divine logic, the principle of reality, the very mind of God expressed in human form.”

Mat 5:32

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause [logos] of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mat 5:37

But let your communication [logos] be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Mat 7:24

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings [logos, plural] of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Mat 7:26

And every one that heareth these sayings [logos, plural] of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

Rev 1:9

I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word [logos] of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Why not substitute the word "God, or Gods, where logos is plural" in these verses?
Because of the context.

In short, the translators of the King James Bible used “Word” to render logos in John 1 because of tradition and because it reflected one of the legitimate senses of the term. However, as your and several other examples show, logos is a versatile word. In the Septuagint it translates a key Hebrew concept, while in the New Testament it ranges from an ordinary term for “message” (as in Romans 10:17) to a highly exalted title for Christ (as in John 1:1–18). Thus, the word logos is used through biblical literature both as a descriptive term for God’s spoken word and as a deeply philosophical idea bridging Jewish thought and Greek philosophy as John was clearly doing in the first chapter of his gospel.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Why is logos translated "word" if it does not mean "word"?

Because "word" has a sphere of meaning that overlaps the literal translation of the word "LOGOS," and I imagine "In the beginning was the logic/the reason" doesn't quite roll off the tongue, but that's just me speculating.

If it means "God" everywhere, why not translate it "God" everywhere?

Because it doesn't mean "God," per se, let alone everywhere.

Yet it can be used to refer to God, specifically the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
"Christ hater?"
Christ-hater, I did not say "Christ hater"; rather, I said "Christ-hater". Good grief, it is easier for a rich man riding a camel to enter into the kingdom of God through the eye of a needle than it is for your generation to become aware of hyphens!
Why "was" past tense?
Are you trying to ask a question?
If that is an accurate translation, then the word had been God but is no longer God,
Nowhere does the Bible say anyone or anything had been God but is no longer God.
thus the word is something else after it ceased to be God.
Nowhere does the Bible say anyone or anything ceased to be God.
What is the word now?
The Word is God; God is the Word. Then. Now. Forevermore.
Logos means message or communication or saying.
"Logos" is a word, and thus, it doesn't mean anything. Because words don't mean; only sayers of words (which is to say, persons) mean. And they (persons) do so by means of words they say. Words don't say anything; rather, they just kind of sit there passively and "wait" to be said by some person(s) who might choose to mean something by saying them, kind of like how rocks sit their passively "waiting" to be thrown into the river by someone who enjoys ducks and drakes.

In John 1, it is God -- through His penman, John -- Who is saying the word, "logos". Words don't say themselves, so the word, "logos", doesn't say itself; the word, "logos", doesn't say anything. And so, the word, "logos", doesn't mean anything. Thus, the question you need to ask is: What does God mean by His word, "logos"?

The fact is God, by His word, "logos" -- or better, by His phrase, "ho logos" -- means The Truth and The Logic, Who is Jesus Christ.
The message was God
If by your words "message", "communication", and "saying", you are referring to truth -- nay, to The Truth (which Jesus says He, Himself, is, in John 14:6) -- then I can't say I have a problem with that.

And, here are some interesting messages (and true ones, at that (and thus, truths)):

  1. A is A (a dog is a dog; a cat is a cat),
  2. A is not ~A (a dog is not a non-dog),
  3. Either P or ~P (every proposition that is not true is false/every proposition that is not false is true).
Those three messages -- those truths -- are the laws of logic. 1) Identity, 2) Non-contradiction, and 3) Excluded Middle (Bivalence). Those truths -- the laws of logic -- are logic.
Why pollute scripture?
jneiJM.gif
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
And, here are some interesting messages (and true ones, at that (and thus, truths)):

  1. A is A (a dog is a dog; a cat is a cat),
  2. A is not ~A (a dog is not a non-dog),
  3. Either P or ~P (every proposition that is not true is false/every proposition that is not false is true).
Those three messages -- those truths -- are the laws of logic. 1) Identity, 2) Non-contradiction, and 3) Excluded Middle (Bivalence). Those truths -- the laws of logic -- are logic.
Interestingly, it is this specific use of the English word "logic" that makes it a less than great translation of the Greek "Logos". Logos would have to do with the proper use and application of the rules of logic rather than referring to the rules themselves. That would be the Greek word "logikē", which happens to be specifically the word that we get the English "Logic" from.

Having said that, in common usage, the English words "logic" and "reason" are used more or less as perfect synonyms and so it isn't wrong to translate either Greek word into either English word, depending on the context.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Logos would have to do with the proper use and application of the rules of logic rather than referring to the rules themselves.
Thanks for the reply!

To me, that would seem a bit problematic at first glance, since the Logos is Christ. At least, it would seem strange to me to think that, say, Mr. Smith's or Mrs. Jones's occasional, proper use/application of those rules is somehow God/Christ, Himself. (I'm not saying, though, that I can presently just flat-out reject or deny it, without further study.)

Whereas, since Christ does refer to Himself as "the Truth" -- and since I don't know which (if any) truths (true propositions) ought to be thought of as excluded from being the Truth -- at present, I figure that those truths that are the laws of logic would be included in the the Truth. In other words, I don't know that it should not be thought that (among other truths) the truth that A is A is the Logos, nor that the truth that A is not ~A is the Logos, and so on.

It's been a long time since I read any of Gordon H. Clark's work. Despite his being a professional Calvinist -- and therefore, a professional errorist -- he wrote a lot of interesting stuff in this area of thought (regarding the nature of "the Johannine Logos", truth, persons, faith, knowledge, etc.) which (to my thinking, at least) did not seem to necessarily imply or be implied by, or tainted by, his Calvinist ideology. An impression I got while reading his stuff is that he had some bold hints of (if you will) "iconoclasm" going on in his analysis of certain in-vogue ways of thinking about such questions, which was easily quite to my taste. Anyway, it was in Clark's writing where I first met with the idea that the Logos has to do with logic. I definitely want to revisit his writings again, one of these days.
 
Top