Why is Jesus called the Word, the Logos of God?

[MissKate13]

Why is Jesus called the Word (Logos) of God?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

And the Word became 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. (John 1:14)

He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (Rev. 19:13)

************************************
The short answer to the OP question would be because Jesus was the embodiment of God’s message to us.

If I speak a word, that word is a part of me, is it not? If I respond to a post from you, you associate that post with me. They are my words. You cannot separate me from my words. They are an “exact representation” of me. Yes, you are reading them from a phone or computer screen, but those words belong to me. I am in control of them and responsible for them.

It is no different than the relationship between God the Father, and His Son, Jesus, the Word. The words Jesus spoke were from the Father (John 12:49). Jesus was the embodiment of the words spoken by the Father, the Father’s words in the physical body of Jesus.

Just as I cannot separate my words from me, Jesus, the Word of God, could not be separated from the Father. Just as I can send my words out in a forum post, the Father sent His words out in the body of Jesus.

This is why Jesus would say “I and the Father are one” John 10:30). It is why he could say “…You, the Father, are in Me, and I am in You” (John 17:21). It is why Jesus would say, “…Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father…” (John 14:9). And why He would say, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38)

This is why I believe the Father is YHWH, the Son is YHWH, and the Holy Spirit is YHWH. Each has a role. The Father is greater in position. He controls both the Son and the Spirit, who is the power behind the words of the Father.

Why did Jesus pray to the Father? Why did he submit to the Father’s will? The answer is simple. The Father was in control of His Word, just as we are in control of our words.

The Father, His Word (the logos) and His Spirit have always existed as the ONE and only true YHWH! They cannot be separated!

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #21]

... Jesus is the way God manifested Himself to the world.

O I completely agree, not the only way, scripture says "the heavens declare rhe glory of God" but the main and most important way because Jesus revealed so much of his Father.

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #21]



Can the sun be separated from its rays?

I dont believe the bible likens Jesus to sunrays and his Father to the sun but (sticking to scripture rather than human thinking) the bible does say Jesus is the "vine" and Jehovah is the "cultivator". So a more scriptural question might be:

Can a cultivator be separated from his vine? (See John 15:1)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #4]

Again, you do not address what I posted about the word. You answered the topic question but ignored all of the points I made in my OP. Instead, you redirect. What you wrote in your post has nothing to do with the OP.

Oh yes it does. Read it again.

[MadJW]

Why is Jesus called the Word (Logos) of God?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

And the Word became 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. (John 1:14)

He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (Rev. 19:13)

************************************
The short answer to the OP question would be because Jesus was the embodiment of God’s message to us.

If I speak a word, that word is a part of me, is it not? If I respond to a post from you, you associate that post with me. They are my words. You cannot separate me from my words. They are an “exact representation” of me. Yes, you are reading them from a phone or computer screen, but those words belong to me. I am in control of them and responsible for them.

It is no different than the relationship between God the Father, and His Son, Jesus, the Word. The words Jesus spoke were from the Father (John 12:49). Jesus was the embodiment of the words spoken by the Father, the Father’s words in the physical body of Jesus.

Just as I cannot separate my words from me, Jesus, the Word of God, could not be separated from the Father. Just as I can send my words out in a forum post, the Father sent His words out in the body of Jesus.

This is why Jesus would say “I and the Father are one” John 10:30). It is why he could say “…You, the Father, are in Me, and I am in You” (John 17:21). It is why Jesus would say, “…Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father…” (John 14:9). And why He would say, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38)

This is why I believe the Father is YHWH, the Son is YHWH, and the Holy Spirit is YHWH. Each has a role. The Father is greater in position. He controls both the Son and the Spirit, who is the power behind the words of the Father.

Why did Jesus pray to the Father? Why did he submit to the Father’s will? The answer is simple. The Father was in control of His Word, just as we are in control of our words.

The Father, His Word (the logos) and His Spirit have always existed as the ONE and only true YHWH! They cannot be separated!

Not "God-the-Word" but the word of God.
He spoke for God, carried out His (not 'their') will.
It's better worded "the Word was divine" rather than "the Word was God".

[MissKate13]

[Replying to MadJW in post #33]

The Greek term “theos” is defined as GOD.

[MadJW]

[Replying to MadJW in post #33]

The Greek term “theos” is defined as GOD.

Θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, equivalent to God's representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges, John 10:34f after Psalm 81:6 () (of the wise man, Philo de mut. nom. § 22; quod omn. prob. book § 7; (ὁ σοφός λέγεται Θεός τοῦ ἄφρονος ... Θεός πρός φαντασίαν καί δοκησιν, quod det. pot. insid. § 44); πατήρ καί μήτηρ ἐμφανεις εἰσί θεοί, μιμούμενοι τόν ἀγεννητον ἐν τῷ ζοωπλάστειν, de decal. § 23; ὠνομάσθη (i. e. Moses) ὅλου τοῦ ἔθνους Θεός καί βασιλεύς, de vita Moys. i. § 28; (de migr. Abr. § 15; de alleg. leg. i. § 13)); of the devil, ὁ Θεός τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (see αἰών, 3), 2 Corinthians 4:4; the person or thing to which one is wholly devoted, for which alone he lives, e. g. ἡ κοιλία, Philippians 3:19.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to MadJW in post #33]

The Greek term “theos” is defined as GOD.

This is true. I think "ho theos" is the God. The True God is also identified by name.

That is significant as there are pagan gods also mentioned in scripture


JW

[onewithhim]

[Replying to MadJW in post #33]

The Greek term “theos” is defined as GOD.

And the first "theos" in John 1:1 is preceded by the article for THE, as in the only one. The second "god" in the verse has no article, meaning that this "god" is just a powerful, important individual (which the word "god" means). He is not THE God, which is the Father only. John's audience knew that "god" is a word meaning powerful and respected and important, just as governors and judges and even angels are. (See John 10:34-36 and Psalm 82:1 and 6, which Jesus was referring to.)

"'I myself have said, 'You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.'" (Psalm 82:6)

So, Jesus was and is a powerful, important person, but not God Almighty.

[Difflugia]

The second "god" in the verse has no article, meaning that this "god" is just a powerful, important individual (which the word "god" means).

An important distinction that you repeatedly fail to make is the difference between what something could mean and what something dogmatically does mean. The author is introducing and describing a novel theological concept and expecting to be understood, but you're insisting that we treat one of those words metaphorically because it's been used that way somewhere in the Bible. The word "god" doesn't mean "just a powerful, important individual." It's sometimes metaphorically used to mean that as a form of hyperbole, but you're telling us to believe such within a discussion about God. That's like claiming that in a discussion about baseball, home run is being used metaphorically because it sometimes is. It's possible, but hardly likely, especially because the only apparent reason for your assertion is that you're uncomfortable with the theological implications.

[MadJW]

The second "god" in the verse has no article, meaning that this "god" is just a powerful, important individual (which the word "god" means).

An important distinction that you repeatedly fail to make is the difference between what something could mean and what something dogmatically does mean. The author is introducing and describing a novel theological concept and expecting to be understood, but you're insisting that we treat one of those words metaphorically because it's been used that way somewhere in the Bible. The word "god" doesn't mean "just a powerful, important individual." It's sometimes metaphorically used to mean that as a form of hyperbole, but you're telling us to believe such within a discussion about God. That's like claiming that in a discussion about baseball, home run is being used metaphorically because it sometimes is. It's possible, but hardly likely, especially because the only apparent reason for your assertion is that you're uncomfortable with the theological implications.

As it did with Moses-Ex 7:1: And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

[Difflugia]

As it did with Moses-Ex 7:1: And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

That's exactly my point: that's one metaphorical use six hundred years earlier in a different language and in a context that supports the metaphor. It's poor justification for John's author using the metaphor in a context that doesn't.