John chapter One- Logos and God's Reason

[cascherman]

Okay, I recently came across a debate where a Catholic and a non-trinitarian were discussing the ‘logos’ or ‘word’ mentioned in John chapter one (some may be familiar with the debate I am talking about).

The argument by the non-trinitarian was that logos is simply talking about God’s reason. As in, In the beginning was (God’s) reason, and reason was with God, and reason was God… skip, skip, skip to verse 14… and God’s reason begat (maybe not specifically the word begat but that meaning) flesh that dwelt among us.

Pretty much this person was claiming that bibles before the 1500’s said ‘it’ instead of ‘he’ when referencing ‘the word’ and later it was changed to he because ‘everyone’ assumed it meant Christ. And they say this is a false assumption because it means something else.

Does this argument hold any water? Or is there, once again, a simple answer to this?

 

[Yerusalyim]

Nope, that arguement holds ZERO reason either linguistically, or philosophically. In Greek Philosophy the word LOGOS represents the idea of the perfect example of something, not “reason.”

Having said that, the OT refers to the Messiah as the WISDOM of God, but that’s not some inanimate thing.

Besides…the “reason” was with God, and the “reason” was God…doesn’t make sense…unless you want to call Christ “reason”…even then…the “reason” is divine and is God just because of the given statement.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

I firmly believe that the Logos is love.

God so LOVED the world that He sent His only begotten Son.

God sent LOVE into the world.

Jesus is LOVE Incarnate.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

I firmly believe that creation was created by the Beginning, that is, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Jesus is the Beginning and End.

So the creation history of the first three chapters of Genesis are understood through Jesus.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Logos is in fact “Reason”. I don’t understand the “reason” for thinking otherwise. Jesus Christ is the reason of God and it is Jesus Christ in two legged upright walking mammals that make them human.

CDL

 

[Nita]

Logos is in fact “Reason”. I don’t understand the “reason” for thinking otherwise. Jesus Christ is the reason of God and it is Jesus Christ in two legged upright walking mammals that make them human.
CDL

Hi Gregory,

Could you clarify the underlined portion?
My first reaction is to disagree since, to my understanding, it is the presence of a human body infused by God with a created human soul that makes us human. But I checked your profile and see you’re a religious instructor, so I think I’m probably missing something in the meaning of your statement.

Nita

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nope, that arguement holds ZERO reason either linguistically, or philosophically. In Greek Philosophy the word LOGOS represents the idea of the perfect example of something, not “reason.”

Not quite true. The Greeks considered speaking and reasoning to be the same thing, and the same word could represent either one – when Paul says, “Come, let us reason together” he uses “logos” in that sense.

There is no objection to the interpretation of this passage in the Gospel of John as a presentation of God as an infinite intellect or intelligence.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Logos is in fact “Reason”. I don’t understand the “reason” for thinking otherwise. Jesus Christ is the reason of God and it is Jesus Christ in two legged upright walking mammals that make them human.

CDL

Speaking for myself, I do agree that logos means reason for the Greeks.

I am thinking in terms of the Word of God becoming Flesh and this is not a Greek idea, but a Divine action.

The Logos is the Second Person of the Trinity.

He is not a philosophical construct.

The Holy Spirit used human words to convey Divine Realities.

Jesus is Love Incarnate.

Honestly, I am not saying I am correct, but that this is my understanding. The Good Lord knows I could be wrong. And I am sure that the my thoughts here are incomplete.

Is there an official dogma for this?

Thanks!

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Hi Gregory,

Could you clarify the underlined portion?
My first reaction is to disagree since, to my understanding, it is the presence of a human body infused by God with a created human soul that makes us human. But I checked your profile and see you’re a religious instructor, so I think I’m probably missing something in the meaning of your statement.

Nita

The Logos is that divine spark that makes an animal a human being. I do realize that in saying this I’m leaning toward my Alexandrian forebear, Athanasius, and my entire theology is more Eastern than Western but I do believe that the human spark is actually divine. The fall is really a rejection of the Logos. The Incarnation is the return of the Logos to humanity making humanity at least potentially human and back on track to become divinized.

CDL

 

[Nita]

The Logos is that divine spark that makes an animal a human being. I do realize that in saying this I’m leaning toward my Alexandrian forebear, Athanasius, and my entire theology is more Eastern than Western but I do believe that the human spark is actually divine. The fall is really a rejection of the Logos. The Incarnation is the return of the Logos to humanity making humanity at least potentially human and back on track to become divinized.

CDL

Thanks for the explanation. I have never heard that explanation before and would like to read Athanasius’ writings about it. Which of his work/s would be best to read regarding this subject?

Nita

 

[GregoryPalamas]

“The Divine Dilemma and It’s Solution in the Incarnation” It is the best work on the Incarnation outside of St. Anselm’s, ever penned. He wrote it prior to Nicaea when he was in his 20’s.

CDL

 

[cascherman]

okay, but in regard to john 1, logos is used. when we read the bible it has ‘he’ describing ‘the Word’ further, starting at verse 2 after verse 1. (“He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.” but, could it work like this ----> “Reason was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through God’s reason, and without God’s reason nothing came to be”)

Now the argument I heard was prior to the 1500’s some bibles only included ‘it’ as in God’s Reason not (necessarily) being a person. So…

Number 1: Does “it” being replaced with “he” still allow the verses to make sense using the idea of God’s reason as the Word not a person.

and Number 2: Was logos just universally understood as the Son (but didn’t necessarily have to be the Son), and so ‘he’ was used instead of ‘it’?

 

[cascherman]

Also, I researched the greek word used for ‘Him’ in these verses and it comes out to ‘Autos’ meaning: Himself, herself, itself or he, she, it. So hypothetically ‘it’ could have been used in verse two instead of ‘he’ if one wanted to argue that john 1:1-2 is not referring necessarily to the Son (or a person for that matter).

Lemme know.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Also, I researched the greek word used for ‘Him’ in these verses and it comes out to ‘Autos’ meaning: Himself, herself, itself or he, she, it. So hypothetically ‘it’ could have been used in verse two instead of ‘he’ if one wanted to argue that john 1:1-2 is not referring necessarily to the Son (or a person for that matter).

Lemme know.

Are you asking me? If so, Logos refers to BOTH God’s Reason and God’s Son. Reason is who and what He is.

CDL

 

[vern_humphrey]

Are you asking me? If so, Logos refers to BOTH God’s Reason and God’s Son. Reason is who and what He is.

CDL

If we translate logos as “word” the opening of the Gospel doesn’t make sense. “In the beginning was the Word.”

What word? “Howdy?” “Gee?”

On the other hand, if we translate logos as “reason” or “intelligence” it does make sense – the opening sentence says God is an infinite reason or intelligence. And this intelligence was made flesh.