In summary, 2nd century Logos-theology taught that God's Logos was always part of God but later became a distinct Person. In 4th-century Nicene theology, the Son is the Father's only Mind. In Arian theology, the Father and Son are two distinct Minds. Did the Nicenes or the Arians follow the Logos-theologians in this regard? To explain in more detail: When the Church became Gentile dominated in the second century, the Apologists explained Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy. In this philosophy, the Logos always existed as part of God but became a hypostasis (a distinct Person or Existence) when God decided to create. Through the Logos, the high God created and communicated with the creation: > “Ever since the work of Justin Martyr, Christian theologians had > tended to use the identification of the pre-existent Son with some > similar concept in contemporary Middle Platonism as a convenient > philosophical device” (Hanson, p 22-23). > > “They used to great effect several features of contemporary Greek > philosophy to enable them to construct their doctrines of God. They > identified the pre-existent Christ, thought of as manifesting himself > on critical occasions throughout the history of the Jewish people, > with the nous or **Second Hypostasis** of contemporary Middle > Platonist philosophy, and also borrowed some traits from the divine > Logos of Stoicism (including its name).” (Hanson Lecture ) > > "Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century had three > words for something that really exists, and exists in itself, as > distinguished from an accident or a quality. The words are ousia, > hypostasis, and hyparxis. ... As the fourth century progressed, > hypostasis became, more and more, the one term that was the center of > controversy." (Lienhard ) Logos-theology remained the dominant teaching right into the fourth century: > "The theological structure provided by the Apologists lasted as the > main, widely-accepted, one might almost say traditional framework for > a Christian doctrine of God well into the fourth century, and was, in > differing form, the basic picture of God with which the great majority > of those who were first involved in the Arian Controversy were > familiar and which they accepted" (Hanson ). Almost all delegates to Nicaea in 325 were from the East and the East maintained Logos-theology: > “Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half > of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19). > > "The great majority of the Eastern clergy (at Nicaea) were ultimately > disciples of Origen. … they were simply concerned with maintaining the > traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church" (Frend, > W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. See also, Bible.ca). Alexander and Athanasius taught that the Son is the Father's only Logos or Wisdom. In other words, only one Logos existed: > “In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom > of the Father” (Ayres, p. 54). > > Alexander stated that if, as Arius claims, there once was when the Son > was not, then “there was once when God was without wisdom, power, > brightness, and so on” (Anatolios, p. 87). > > Athanasius argued similarly that the Son is “present with Him (the > Father) as his Wisdom and his Word” (Ayres, p. 46). > > Athanasius wrote: “There is no need to postulate two Logoi” (Hanson, > p. 431), meaning two minds. > > “He (Athanasius) is appalled at the Arian statement that the Son > exercises his own judgment of free-will” (Hanson, p. 428). Origen, Arius, and the 'Arians' taught two Logoi. In other words, the Father has His own mind apart from the Son: > Origen argued that “Father and Son are two … in subsistence > (hupostasis), but are one in likemindedness, harmony … and … will” > (Williams, p. 132), implying two distinct minds. > > “Arius also talks of two wisdoms and powers, speaking of a Logos that > was not distinct from the Father's hypostasis, after whom the Son is > designated Word” (Ayres, p. 55). “God's own power and wisdom is the > source of Christ.” “The proper power of God Himself … is natural to > him and coexistent with him unoriginatedly” (Ayres, pp. 53-54, quoting > Asterius, a prominent early Arian). > > Asterius, a prominent early Arian, wrote: “There are … two Wisdoms, > one God's own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son > who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides > the Son” (Hanson, p. 13). My question is, therefore, did the Nicenes or the Arians follow second-century Logos-theology? The Nicenes taught one mind and the Arians two. Did Logos-theology teach one or two minds (Logoi)? I put a similar question to Bryan Litfin, a theologian who wrote in Logos-theology. He said: > The general idea of the Logos Theology is that there is only one > mind, which belongs to God. ... In his one, single mind, there is an > eternal existence which goes by several names. In particular, it can > be called Word, or Wisdom. What happens in Christian theology, due to > the 2nd century Logos Theologians, influenced by Stoicism and by > John's Prologue, is that the abstract Word/Wisdom of God comes to be > "hypostasized" as a separate Person, the Second Person of the Trinity. > He only becomes a Son when God decides to create the cosmos. Then > later, he becomes incarnate for salvation (at the virginal > conception). So the Word/Wisdom is eternal, residing in the eternal > mind of God. But Sonship is temporal, and so is Incarnation. If I understand this correctly, it seems to say that in Logos-theology, there is only one mind in God, which means that the Nicenes followed Logos-theology in this regard, while the Arians deviated from Logos-theology. Further insight will be appreciated.

> 1In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. 2he was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through him, and without him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. John 1:1-3 BLB We are told in v14 that 'the logos became flesh'. This refers to Jesus and his subsequent conception and birth through Mary. This question seeks to determine if it can be shown biblically that the logos referred to in John 1:1-3 is *not yet*, Jesus. IOW, Jesus, born through Mary and the HS, is *not* being referred to in John 1:1-3.

For example: John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word (Logos)..." Even though this is the 4th gospel (Matt, Mark, Luke, John), it identifies the Logos as existing before the creation of the world, before time began. Would it therefore be the first mention, not the first time logos is used in the New Testament; Matt. 5:37 "let your statement...."

From what I understand, Biblical Unitarians believe that the pre-incarnational existence of Jesus (as trinitarians propose it) is actually a notional existence in the mind of God. In other words, the Logos was not a person but only the notion (sure foreknowledge) of a person. In John 17:5 Jesus says: > And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. It appears that the glory Jesus is asking to be returned to is the glory of the Father's own self. I doubt anyone thinks the Father's glory is notional. Do Biblical Unitarians think Jesus was asking to be glorified notionally just like he was before the world was? If so, is he now glorified only notionally at the right hand of God just like before?

>All things came into being **through** him, and apart from him not even one thing came into being that has come into being John 1:3 Are we given any indication that the logos made anything? Or is it simply that God is the *sole Creator* and does so *through* His logos/word? What is the Biblical basis for the logos being *only the means* for God's creating process? And explicitly, that the logos did not, could not, make anything of itself. As an example using the same word *dia*, >More than that, we also rejoice in God *through* our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Rom 5:11 We note we are rejoicing IN GOD not in Jesus - it is made possible *dia* (through) Jesus. Jesus is the means, the manner etc. by which the joy is expressed or realised.

Both Athanasius noted that Arius taught two Wisdoms. Athanasius wrote that in Arius’ theology, > “There are … two Wisdoms, one God's own who has existed eternally with > God, the other the Son who was brought into existence. … There is > another Word in God besides the Son” (RH, 13). Alexander similarly wrote that Arius stated, > “Nor is he the Father's true Logos nor the Logos by nature, nor his > true Wisdom” (RH, 16). > > “He came into existence himself through the proper Logos of God and > the Wisdom which was in God, in which God also made everything and him > (the Son) with it” (RH, 16). In Lorentz's summary of Arius’ theology, he said: > “There are two Logoi and two Wisdoms (Sophiae), and several powers of > God. … Arius distinguished between an original Reason (Logos) or > Wisdom immanent from eternity in the Godhead and the Son who was not > immanent in the Godhead but created, and who could only be given these > titles loosely or inexactly.” (20) Why is it significant that Arius taught “two Logoi and two Wisdoms”? Was this a deviation of some kind? (All references are to RPC Hanson's book, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - The Arian Controversy 318-381

Lelio Sozzini (uncle of Socinus) wrote *Brevis explicatio in primum Johannis caput*, a commentary on the meaning of the Logos in John 1:1–15, and it was published in 1562. Sozzini held that the 'beginning' of John 1:1 was the same as 1 John 1:1, and both were about a new creation, not a Genesis creation. His nephew (Socinus) then also wrote a longer *Brevis explicatio* which expanded on the original. Have either of these works been translated into English?

John 1:1 is > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word > was God. Many Christians believe that the Word here = a person (Jesus, or the second person of the Trinity), and the reason generally has to do with the grammatical and semantic progression of John's prologue to 1:15. Yet, 1 John 1:1 is > That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have > seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our > own hands—this is the Word of life. Here, the Word apparently isn't a 'who' but a 'that'. How do those who hold the Word in John 1:1 is a 'who' explain 1 John 1:1's Word being a 'that'?

I once heard that the word of God is things themselves. But I can't find the source. If someone knows and can tell me, I would be very grateful! We know that in the Gospel of John, the Word of God is logos and the Word became flesh. We have also heard that many people in history say that they saw God in a vision and that God spoke directly to them, where the "word" was a voice. So, are there any arguments for and against the idea in the title, such as in the texts of the Bible, the Fathers, theologians and philosophers?

The first known mention of the "logos" was by Greek philosopher Heraclitus who lived around 535 - 475 BC. The idea was subsequently developed further by other philosophers such as Aristotle. The Author of John's Gospel picks up on this "logos" idea and claims that the logos "was in the beginning with God", that the logos "was God", and that the logos "became flesh and dwelt among us". I've always suspected that a lot of information is lost when translating Johns Gospel to English where they translate "Logos" as "Word". "Word" is such a mundane word compared to "Logos" which is rich in meaning and comes loaded with 500 years of philosophical baggage. This leads me to wonder, what is the relationship between the "logos" of Greek philosophy and the "logos" as used in Johns Gospel? Why did the author of Johns Gospel use that particular word? Was it their intention to import all of the Greek philosophical baggage that was associated with the term into Christianity? Or were they attempting to completely redefine the word? Most (English speaking) Christians I've spoken to don't seem aware or concerned by the fact that this Greek word "logos" has much more significance than the English word "Word". Some Christians I've spoken to reckon that all that Greek philosophy is irrelevant and that we should only focus on the "Christian" meaning of the word, which is simply "Word", nothing more or less than that. Personally I dispute that this is the "Christian" meaning, and I reckon that there are a lot of deep connections to be had between Christianity and Greek Philosophy if we ponder "logos" within it's original cultural context and meaning. Summary question: **What is the connection between the "Logos" of Greek philosophy and the "Logos" of John's Gospel?** Are they meant to be the same thing? Are they meant to be entirely different? Are they supposed to be similar but not identical?

Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God." Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated." So why did the Christian view not follow this definition and instead make the leap to describing logos as part of God?

When the First Ecumenical Council was summoned by Emperor Constantine I at Nicea, in 325 CE, Eusebius of Caesarea came with his local Creed, convinced that it would be accepted, or anyway used as a basis for general Creed of the Catholic Church. Here it is: > “We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things > visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, **the Word of > God** [***ho logos tou theou***], God from God, Light from Light, Life > from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all > the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made; > Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and > suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, > and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we > believe also in One Holy Ghost” (Eusebius of Caesarea, Letter on the > Council of Nicaea , @ Catholic Encyclopedia – **emphasis** added) If that phrase had been included in the Nicene Creed (without any pre-existent personal overtone, but simply stating that *ho logos tou theou*, in accordance with John 1:14, "became flesh", *sarx egeneto* – the logos being an essential attribute of the One and Only God - it would have clarified the Catholic doctrine on this essential point without resorting to the unbiblical "consubstantial" (*homoousios*) Then why wasn’t the Logos included in the Nicene Creed?

John 1:10 says: > He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. It is made clear in the context that the "he" who was in the world is the same "he" who was in the beginning with God (v.2), the same "he" through whom all things were made (v.3), the same "he" in which was the life lighting all men (v.4), the same "he" who came unto his own and was not received (v.11), and the same "he" through whom we may receive the right to be called children of God (v.12). Of the three "he" in verse 10 the first is 3rd person singular and the last two are 3rd person singular, masculine. How do those who deny that Jesus preexisted his incarnation as a personal being handle the inspired usage of all of these 3rd person personal pronouns in describing the one who made the world and was later made flesh and dwelt among us?

I already searched in case my question has been questioned. But I cannot find it. From this link I read : > Question:
What does incarnate mean? How was Jesus God incarnate? > > Answer:
The Latin verb incarnare meant “to make flesh.” When we say > that Jesus Christ is God “Incarnate,” we mean that the Son of God took > on a fleshly, bodily form (John 1:14). > >However, when this happened in > the womb of Mary, Jesus’ earthly mother, He did not stop being deity. > Although Jesus became fully human (Hebrews 2:17), He retained His > status as God (John 1:1, 14). > > **How Jesus is able to be both man and God** > **simultaneously is one of the great mysteries of Christianity** To me, I don't find that *"The Logos is able to be both man and God simultaneously"* is a mystery at all. Here is why :
1. The Logos is God, eternal, infinite.
2. The Logos took on a fleshly, bodily form 3. However, when this happened in the womb of Mary, The incarnated-Logos earthly mother, The Logos did not stop being God.
4. So there are two existencies of one Person (The Logos), The Logos who still as fully God (without a form) and The incarnated-Logos as a fully human being inside the womb of Mary. To me, it's not a mystery because the Logos as God (without a form) is omnipotent. So, even if (for example) I add another Logos existency in a form of Theophany who appear somewhere in Timbuktu while at the same time the same Person as a human being (incarnated) inside the womb of Mary ... to me it's not impossible. Because the article said that *"How The Logos is able to be both man and God simultaneously is one of the great mysteries of Christianity"*, then it seems my four-points-opinion above is not correct. So my question is:
*In what way is the "great mystery" of it in the point of view of Christianity ?* PS:
whenever I read "Jesus" name in the article above, my mind "shift" to the eternal Logos, not to the incarnated-Logos inside Mary's womb.

Jesus is the fleshly expression of the logos... The word became flesh. It seems there are other aspects of the logos that *are not* Jesus. God is always doing things, saying things *apart* from through Jesus. > Rev 19:13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is > called The **Word of God**. Jesus is called the Word, but that doesn't require him to be the 'whole' word. > Rev 1:1 God gave His word to Jesus (the Word) to give to John. > > John 17:7 Now they have come to know that everything You have given > Me is from You; for the **words which You gave Me** I have given to them. These passages seem to express there is still the 'word of God' apart from 'The Word' Jesus.

Lots of interesting thought here, but no one seems to want to go back and ask about the 'logos'. John 1... A word used over 300 times in NT, but never referred to as a person. Words like statement, account, message, story, news, saying etc have been used to better fit the context. From the context of John's writings, why does 'word' have to be a person? Why does it have to have to be capitalised? - it is not capitalised in any other place apart from John 1. (John 6:30, 10:35, 18:32 and 327 others) Any reference for Jesus being God is based on inference only. He never said he was... pointing out that he *had* a God many times. If Jesus is God, then we have two Gods. John 20:17 'I go to my Father and your Father, my God and your God'