The definite article before Logos.

Michael Burgos:
Manuel, it is evident that you have not understood, nor taken the time to examine the Greek. The third clause reads kai Theos en ho Logos. The Logos possesses the article. Therefore, the third clause is a description of the Logos and not an identification of the Logos


Verse 14 is not the identity of the Logos! This is the identity of the son whom John saw and handled. The Logos was not the son!

The word/Logos belongs to God as a possession, Like *the Mules* of John Smith. The definite article shows possession and ownership that is How the word is with God and the word is God (definite article) is not another person which is just plain stupid doctrine!

Michael Burgos:
This clause tells us that the Logos is everything that God is. Secondly, should you reject my assertion and assume that the text is convertable, that is that the Logos is God and God is the Logos, you would have to do that with other texts where the article is present with only one of two subjects. For example, 1John says God is love.


You wrote:
"Secondly, should you reject my assertion and assume that the text is convertable, that is that the Logos is God and God is the Logos,"

Do you not see your blatant contradiction? You are the one who says the word is god jr! Not me! The word is with God as his creative attribute through his spoken word. That is how the word is both with God and is God. I do not have to convert anything back and forth, that is what you do.
You have defeated your own argument and do not even see how you did so..


Michael Burgos
God has the article and love does not. Therefore using your grammatical assumption you would have to agree that love is God is an equal rendering in that the phrase is convertable. Your lack of knowledge about both the original language and basic Greek grammar is evident. So to is the juvenility of your comments.



God would not be God without his creative Power through his word! But he could be God without Love! Love is something he chose to show forth to us. His power he cannot relinquish, thus his spoken creative power through his word, that is the difference between love and the word, or his word as his creative power. You have no argument!