In need of some religious expertise....

[Sigurd]

To bring me further confusion of the matter, John 1:1 has the whole "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" verse... which while I'm well aware does not actually clarify what books ought to be seen as the 'word' (apocrypha etc), it does suggest the scripture shares some sort of common essence with or in God while being distinct, kind of like with the elements of the Trinity.

The Logos John is speaking of is Jesus Christ.
Think about it ---

* In the beginning the Word was (I AM).
* The Word was with God
* The Word was a God

Then the clue in verse 14:

So the Word became flesh and resided among us and we had a view of his glory...
(NWT)

Then in Revelation we find this:

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
(KJV Rev 19:11-14)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Logos John is speaking of is Jesus Christ.
Think about it ---

* In the beginning the Word was (I AM).
* The Word was with God
* The Word was a God

Then the clue in verse 14:

So the Word became flesh and resided among us and we had a view of his glory...
(NWT)

Then in Revelation we find this:

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
(KJV Rev 19:11-14)

Now, why didn't I try to explain it like that?

[Rhyfelwyr]

@Sigurd: thanks for two very insightful posts.

I had pretty much accepted that the Word was indeed the promise/message of Christ, but those posts were helpful in consolidating the idea, it's always a good idea to appeal to the Book of Revelation when dealing with Reformed folks.

I may/may not come back to this after some more reading...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

@Sigurd: thanks for two very insightful posts.

I had pretty much accepted that the Word was indeed the promise/message of Christ, but those posts were helpful in consolidating the idea, it's always a good idea to appeal to the Book of Revelation when dealing with Reformed folks.

I may/may not come back to this after some more reading...

It's not so much the promise/message, it's more intangibable than that.

It comes back to Exodus, "I am, I am".

If John really did write Revelation as well he was probably dosed, and his Gospel certainly seems to show some evidence of that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's not so much the promise/message, it's more intangibable than that.

It comes back to Exodus, "I am, I am".

If John really did write Revelation as well he was probably dosed, and his Gospel certainly seems to show some evidence of that.

Yeah I know, I was trying to put something into words when they can't really do justice to it, but you know what I mean.

And don't dis John, I like my end-time prophecies.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah I know, I was trying to put something into words when they can't really do justice to it, but you know what I mean.

And don't dis John, I like my end-time prophecies.

I shall "dis" John for as long as he dissagrees with Mathew, Mark, and Luke, . Really though, I'm dissing Jerome and Augustine the Bishops that decided Revelations should be in the Bible.

Oh, those darn Bishops!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes, I am gently teasing.

Anyway, more seriously.

I picked up Alastair McGrath's book on Evangelicalism today. He's very erudite and tallented (Read Dawkins' God, or the Dawkins Delusion), but he glossed over this issue somewhat. Scripture is inspired by God, but authored by God AND Man. He made the comparison between that and Christ as God-and-Man, but I was dissapointed that he didn't then draw the distinction that only Christ, as perfectly united Man-and-God is infallable.