Did Jesus Christ preexist His birth in Bethlehem?

[AVmetro]

Many believe He did (e.g. Trinitarians, JWs, Mormons et al). Some do not (e.g. Christadelphians, et al).

I hold the view that He did. In this thread I would like to discuss, in particular, the prologue of John {1:1-18}, the first chapter of Hebrews {1:1-13) in addition to a few others as I believe these emphatically demonstrate that Christ preexisted His entrance into the world of humanity.

I have argued my postion on Jn1:1 here if one needs something to work with.

God bless

[Jezz]

IronMetro:
Many believe He did (e.g. Trinitarians, JWs, Mormons et al). Some do not (e.g. Christadelphians, et al).

I hold the view that He did. In this thread I would like to discuss, in particular, the prologue of John {1:1-18}, the first chapter of Hebrews {1:1-13) in addition to a few others as I believe these emphatically demonstrate that Christ preexisted His entrance into the world of humanity.

I think the preexistence of Christ is quite obvious. One of the most obvious passages to prove it is John 8:58 and its earlier verses. If the "I am" passage wasn't a direct claim to be God (and I believe it was, but as that is not the topic of debate for this thread I won't go into it in detail), at the very least it must have been a claim to pre-existence. Also, earlier in that thread Jesus claimed to have seen Abraham - the Jews themselves pointed out the apparent absurdity of this, if Jesus' existence began with his humanly birth.

I also have a theory which I am not sure whether or not is orthodox, but which I thought might be relevant for this thread for discussion. It pertains to the identity of "the angel of the LORD", which appears frequently in the OT. The Hebrew word used for angel here, mal'ak, has a primary meaning of "messenger". So the angel of the LORD is YWHW's messenger.

What is a messenger? Someone who brings the message, or the word of the one who sent them. Thus, the angel of the LORD was the one who brought the Word of God to people in the OT. I don't think it's much of a jump from there to conclude that "the angel of the LORD" and the Word of God were one in the same - ie, Jesus in his preincarnate form. If this theory is correct, it is obvious that Jesus pre-existed his birth (I'd go further and say that it establishes that Jesus is God too, but as this is a thread about pre-existence and not deity of Christ, I won't go into that here).

One Biblical observation I've used to support this theory is that those who saw the angel of the LORD always claimed to have seen God. But the Bible claims elsewhere that noone has ever seen the Father and lived. We know, however, that people could see Jesus and live.

Thoughts?

[Sher]

Jezz:

One Biblical observation I've used to support this theory is that those who saw the angel of the LORD always claimed to have seen God. But the Bible claims elsewhere that noone has ever seen the Father and lived. We know, however, that people could see Jesus and live.

Thoughts?

I've merely skimmed this article ... bookmarking it for a future read when I am more awake (so no appearance of support for it, or the entire site, is intended) ... and I have read this article previously (scroll down or search for "Cases of Christophany in the Old Testament" ... but the whole article is good) ... both of which seem to give great support to what you are sayng here ...

... which also goes hand-in-hand with the Christophany appearances. Somewhere I have a list I will need to dig out ... but starting with the very creation of the world ... we are told over-and-over that ALL things were created by and for Him, to the walk in the garden (Gen 3:8), through speaking with Noah, The "Man" who appeared to Abraham along with His two companions in Genesis 18 said to be "the Lord" in v.22, etc.

Christ is evident throughout the OT ... something so obvious that it really escapes me how anyone misses it.

:shersig:

[AVmetro]

I also have a theory which I am not sure whether or not is orthodox, but which I thought might be relevant for this thread for discussion. It pertains to the identity of "the angel of the LORD", which appears frequently in the OT. The Hebrew word used for angel here, mal'ak, has a primary meaning of "messenger". So the angel of the LORD is YWHW's messenger.

I know that the ECF, Justin Martyr, held that view. Also, This piece covers it rather well if you need a basic overview.

God bless

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 03:26 PM post located here
IronMetro:

Many believe He did (e.g. Trinitarians, JWs, Mormons et al). Some do not (e.g. Christadelphians, et al).

I hold the view that He did. In this thread I would like to discuss, in particular, the prologue of John {1:1-18}, the first chapter of Hebrews {1:1-13) in addition to a few others as I believe these emphatically demonstrate that Christ preexisted His entrance into the world of humanity.

I have argued my postion on Jn1:1 here if one needs something to work with.

God bless

Here is something I posted on another thread here, that I think is applicable. [greek]egeneto[/greek] in John 1:14, incorrectly translated "was made" in the KJV, is in the Second Aorist, Middle Deponent, Indicative mood. Which means that the subject was the doer or performer of the action. And who is the subject of John 1:14? The [greek]logoV[/greek].

• Jhn 1:14 And the Word [greek]logoV[/greek] was made [became] [greek]egeneto[/greek] 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.

When Jesus prayed in John 17:5, "glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." People who deny Jesus' preexsistence say this was sorta, kinda like the gleam in God's eye. Forgetting for the moment that, "glory" is NOT "gleam," had that been Jesus meaning, would He not have said that?

Also it is ridiculous to assume that Jesus was asking to return to a pre-life state, i.e. gleam in God's eye, when He prayed in the garden that the cup of death be taken from Him. John 1:14 clearly refutes this grabbing at straws. This assumption also forces the question, "Was Jesus no longer a gleam in God's eye after His incarnation?"

Note that in John 1:14 Jesus is the doer or performer of His becoming. The only way this could be was if Jesus did exist before His incarnation as much more than the thought, idea, plan, or simply the spoken word of God, or the incredibly weak "gleam in God's eye."

[Ron Macy]

IronMetro,

I just noticed this thread last night. I suspected it was in response to my thoughts in the "no bible writer teaches the trinity" thread. I copied out the other thread you posted and am working my way through the thoughts in it.

I'll respond when I am done.

Thanks,
Ron

[Thomas2003]

Dear Jezz,

The Scripture teaches and the orthodox creedal position is that Jesus Christ was begotten from eternity. The focal point is simply this manifestation of His birth in Bethlehem of the virgin Mary - His union in the incarnation is eternal.

Thus, the image of God in whom Adam was created is Jesus Christ. He is the first and the last, the Alpha and Omega.

There is a good expression in John 3:13

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

Cordially,

Thomas

[Jezz]

Thomas2003:
Dear Jezz,

The Scripture teaches and the orthodox creedal position is that Jesus Christ was begotten from eternity. The focal point is simply this manifestation of His birth in Bethlehem of the virgin Mary - His union in the incarnation is eternal.

Thus, the image of God in whom Adam was created is Jesus Christ. He is the first and the last, the Alpha and Omega.

There is a good expression in John 3:13

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

Thomas,

Please excuse me, but I'm not quite sure what point you are making here. I agree with what you said. Is there something I wrote which made you think otherwise?

[Ron Macy]

IronMetro:

In the thread you referenced as a foundation of your understanding of the preexistence of Jesus, you contributed the following objection and response:
= + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = +
Objection:

The Greek word logos, although masculine, does not entail a personal being based upon the gender influenced rendering of "He", but should be honestly translated as "it". See William Tyndales's version of the John.

Response:

This objection is essentially fallacious as the immediate context is the prime factor in deciding the rendering of "He" in reference to the 'Word'.

They are, in fact, correct in that the 'gender' of a Greek word has little bearing on the actual "sex" of the subject itself. There are three possible genders for Greek words which are masculine, feminine, and neuter.

If Trinitarians apply the same "sex based on word gender" principle that CDs allude to then the 'neuter' terms would be referenced with an 'it'.
= + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = +

Logos is a masculine noun and, as I understand it, it is appropriate for masculine nouns to be associated with it. What you didn’t cover in your response is the fact the gender of a noun in no way guarantees personality. It isn’t even a personification. It is just grammar. Why didn’t you mention that in your response?

One definition for logos I found is “the rational structure of knowledge” about something. (OK, the quote is from Isaac Asimov whom I wouldn’t consider spiritual or a Biblical expert, but he definitely doesn’t have a doctrinal ax to grind.) This definition is illustrated by its use in modern language: biology, geology, theology, etc. To apply this definition to John 1, I think of the the word, “plan.” “In the beginning was the plan (of salvation), and the plan was with God, and the plan was divine.” Jesus was the focus of God’s plan and ultimately the Kingdom of God.

It is through Jesus the Kingdom and its inhabitants are prepared. At least that is what I understand Paul to be communicating in Romans 8:20-22. All creation was made with the thought in mind it would one day be redeemed by the blood of Jesus.

I believe viewing logos in John 1 as a reference to God’s plan for the salvation of mankind is appropriate and entirely reasonable. As such it does not require Jesus to have existence before His birth.

Ron

[Jezz]

Ron Macy:
I believe viewing logos in John 1 as a reference to God’s plan for the salvation of mankind is appropriate and entirely reasonable. As such it does not require Jesus to have existence before His birth.

Ron,

I have not seen enough of your posts to know your doctrinal position on this, and it is not immediately clear to me from this post. It seems to me you could be trying to make one of two points:

1. That you don't believe that Jesus was prexistent, or
2. While you believe that Jesus was prexistent, you don't feel that John 1:1 supports this theory in and of itself.

If your position is the first one, I'll have to refer you to John 8:58, as per my opening post in this thread - "Before Abraham ever was, I am!" At the very least, this is a claim to be in existence before Abraham was born - ie, a claim to prexistence. Also, the next bit will still apply to you.

If your position is the second one, please read the following extract from a translation from Genesis (see here for the complete chapters):

And the Word of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created them.

At the time of Christ (and even earlier), most Jews did not speak or read Hebrew - they spoke Aramaic. Consequently, the scriptures were translated into Aramaic so that they could be understood by the general populous. They are called (Aramaic) Targums. They were considered authoritative by the Jews of their day.

The above quote comes from one of the Targums. It shows that the Jews of the day considered the Word of the Lord to be equal to God, and existing since the time of creation. The Word of the Lord appears frequently in the Targums, in places where the Hebrew refers to YHWH. Typically, it is used where YHWH appears on the Earth (for example, it was the Word of the Lord who spoke to Moses from the burning bush).

With this background, it seems obvious that John (who was a Jew of his day and undoubtedly was familiar with the Aramaic Targums) was referring to the belief reflected in these Targums - ie, that the Word of the Lord was God, and was with God in the beginning.

[Ron Macy]

Jezz:

You referenced the Targums and it’s rendering of Genesis 1:27 to support the idea the Jews of Jesus day believed the Word of the Lord was equal to God.

Let me mention a few things about the Jews when Jesus walked the earth and the Jews of today. You may have noticed many Jews, today, will not write the word, God. They often will write G-d. This is out of great respect and reverence to not only the title, God, but to the person who holds that title, whom we know as YHWH.

I am sure you are familiar with the fact the Jews in Bible times would not pronounce the name, YHWH, but would instead use the word, Adonai, Lord. That respect has been brought into the modern translations by using the word, LORD, in all capitals, when the word was YHWH in the Old Testament.

You may even know Matthew, the gospel writer who focused his message to the Jews, is the only person in the New Testament who ever used the phrase, kingdom of heaven. Other writers and even occasionally, Matthew, used the phrase, kingdom of God, instead.

All of these are occurrences of the figure of speech known as metonymy. It does not show the Word of the Lord was equal to God. The phrases Word of the Lord and presence of the Lord are metonymic for God.

That reminds me, by your use of logic, here. The Presence of the Lord is also equal to God, but you made no mention of it. Why was that?

I also go back to the thought, when A is equal to B, A cannot be B. The Word of the Lord being equal to God is, of necessity, separate and distinct from God. If not, equality is meaningless.

With this background it is not so obvious John was trying to say the Word of the Lord was God. I don’t believe John was saying it at all.

I will get to your thoughts about John 8:58. I want to see what else comes up about John 1, first. I appreciate your patience.

Ron

[Ron Macy]

Jezz,

I forgot to mention, I do not believe Jesus existed as a person before His birth. Which means I don't believe John 1 supports the theory.

Ron

[Sher]

07-17-2003 @ 05:57 AM post located here
Sher:

I've merely skimmed this article ... bookmarking it for a future read when I am more awake (so no appearance of support for it, or the entire site, is intended)

This actually turned out to be a pretty good article I'd recommend it for this topic.

EDIT:

Who Was the Angel of the Lord? by Jim Kerwin © 2002

Introduction

Two Memorable Bible Studies

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, [Jesus] expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself....

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?...

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written...

(Luke 24:26-27,32, 44-46)

Two of the most fascinating Bible studies ever to occur transpired on the first Easter. The risen Christ appeared to two distraught disciples on their way home to Emmaus. In order to encourage them, He revealed things in Holy Writ their eyes had never seen. Later, toward day's end, for the benefit of these two and all the assembled disciples, He repeated the theme, and “He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” (v. 45 nasb). Along with the many Messianic passages He must have highlighted in the Psalms, the Books of the Prophets, and in the various types of the Old Testament, an important theme of His discourse must have been the Angel of the Lord.

(continue reading here: http://www.parbarwestward.org/frmAOTL.htm)

:shersig:

[Socrates]

This is from Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum's audio tape, The life of Christ from a Jewish Perspective, transcribed at http://icgod.com/Main.htm#1.%20The%20‘LOGOS’. Dr F is a Hebrew Christian or Messianic Jew and founder of Ariel Ministries www.ariel.org/.

1. The LOGOS John Chapter 1.

The Gospel of John is often accused of being the most Gentile of the four Gospels. But a more careful study of his Gospel shows that it is just as Jewish if not more so than some of the others. John begins his Gospel with the famous sentence in verse 1 of chapter 1, “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Now most of you probably know that the term John used here is the Greek word Logos which in English would mean “Word”. But because he used the Greek term logos many commentaries on John at this point go into a rather lengthy deviation to explain what exactly logos meant in terms of Greek philosophy. They may take a few pages to do it or they may take many pages to do it depending on the size of the commentary, but in the end they all say basically the same thing.

And what they say is this; That the logos in Greek philosophy had two concepts. These were the concept of reason and the concept of speech. After telling us that in Greek philosophy the logos had these two concepts of reason and speech they then try to point out that what John is doing in these first 18 verses of his gospel, is to show how Jesus comes to fulfil the goals of Greek philosophy.

In that by reason he was the very idea of God and that by speech he was the very expression of God. That’s all well and good to know but what these commentators forget is that by profession John was not a Greek philosopher, but he was a Jewish fisherman. What he really has in mind is not Greek philosophy, but the Jewish theology of that day. In the Rabbinic literature of that day there was a concept that they had developed called the Memra. It is an Aramaic term that means “word”. And since John was writing his gospel in Greek, he of course needed a Greek term to translate the Jewish word Memra. The only Greek term he could use adequately was logos but when he says logos, he does not mean the logos of Greek philosophy, but rather, the Memra of Jewish theology, and we will see this very quickly.

Now if you read through the Rabbinic literature of that day you will discover that the Rabbis taught six things about the Memra. Six things were true about the Memra, and all six things come out one way or the other in these 18 verses.

First of all, the rabbis said the Memra was sometimes the same as God, but sometimes distinct from God. They did not try in their writings to explain away the obvious paradox. How could the Memra on the one hand be the same as God, but on the other hand be distinct from God? They taught both statements as being true, and left it at that. Notice how verse one reads, “In the beginning, was the word, the word was with God”, therefore he was distinct from God, but then he says, “the word was God”, meaning he is the same as God. Like the rabbis at this point, John does not try to explain away the paradox. How could this word be with God, distinct from him, but then at the same time be God? This is explained later only in the terms of the tri-unity, in that the One he is writing about is distinct from God in that he is not God the father, nor is he God the Holy Spirit, yet he is the same as God in that he is God the Son, the second person of that tri-unity. Only in that way, in terms of the tri-unity, could this paradox of the Memra be explained.

The second thing that Rabbis had been saying about the Memra was, The Memra was the agent of Creation. Whenever God created, it was always by means of, or through the Memra, by means of his word. Without the word, the Memra, nothing would exist that now does exist. In verse 3 John says, “all things were made by or through him, and without him was not anything made that had been made.” What the rabbis had said about the Memra, John says is true of this logos. He is the agent of creation. All things were made by or through Him and without Him nothing would exist that now does exist.

The third thing that the rabbis had been teaching about the Memra was that the Memra was also the agent of salvation. Whenever God saved, it was by means of the Memra. For the most part, in the Rabbinic writings the concept of salvation was in the realm of the physical.

Whenever God saved Israel physically such as the exodus, out of the land of Egypt, He did so by means of His Memra, by means of his word. In verse 12 however, we are given a more spiritual dimension of the same truth. In verse 12, “But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name.” Concerning this logos, John says in verse 12, it is those who believe on him, those who receive him; those are the ones who become children of God; they are the ones who receive spiritual salvation, because this one is also the agent of salvation.

The fourth thing the rabbis had been saying about the Memra was that the Memra was the means by which God became visible in the pages of the Old Testament. As you read through the OT, you find that periodically God takes on some type of a visible form. This is often referred to in Jewish literature as the Shekinah. When the rabbis spoke of the Shekinah, it emphasised a visible manifestation of God’s presence. Whenever the invisible God became visible, whenever the omnipresence of God took on a localised form, this visible localised form was the Shekinah Glory. On most occasions it appears as a light or as a fire, or as a cloud or some combination of these three things. That is not the only way it appeared, but in the majority of cases that is the way it appeared — light, fire or cloud. And this was the visible manifestation of God’s presence, this was the Shekinah, and the Shekinah was frequently connected with the glory of God hence the title Shekinah Glory.

Notice what he writes in verse 14, “And the word became flesh”. The word that back in verse one was in the beginning with God, was God, at a certain point in human history, became visible. But this time not in the form of a light, or of a fire, or of a cloud, but this time the word became flesh and John continues to write, “and dwelt among us.” Now of the two words that are often used to describe “dwelling” in Greek, John does not use the regular word for dwelling in verse 14.

Instead he uses a unique word that is really a borrowed word from the Hebrew, it is a word that comes from the word Shekinah. When the Greeks came in contact with the Jewish world after Alexander the Great they came in contact with this word Shekinah, and realised what it conveyed. They liked the term and wanted somehow to incorporate the term into the Greek language, because in Greek mythology, you had the Gods periodically coming down from Mt Olympus in some visible form and intermingling with human beings.

There was one problem and the problem was this; The Jews have a letter in their alphabet the Greeks do not have. The letter shin with which they made the “sh” sound. In English you have to combine two letters “s” and “h” to get the “sh” sound, but in Hebrew just one letter is enough. However, in Greek you cannot combine any number of letters to get that “sh” sound. The Greeks had a hard “s”; they could say “s” but they couldn’t say “sh”.

But what they did was to take the Hebrew word for Shekinah and incorporate it into Greek. They Hellenised it and the Greek word used here is skeinei which is the Greek or Hellenised form for Shekinah. Literally, it does not mean to dwell, but to “tabernacle”. It has its origins in Exodus 40 where the Shekinah Glory in its visible form took up its residence within the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle and for centuries it tabernacled with Israel. But now the Shekinah Glory has returned. (It disappeared from Israel in the days of Ezekiel) Now it has come back, this time in the form of flesh and once again it has tabernacled among us. You notice how in the next ( - - -unintelligble - - - ) said with the glory of God, “we beheld his glory, glory of the only begotten from the Father full of grace and truth.” The clear statement of verse 14 is that the one John is going to be writing about, Jesus of Nazareth, is the new, visible manifestation of God’s presence. Once again God is in visible form, this time as a man in flesh, and he dwelt, or tabernacled among us. So he was the new visible manifestation which came by means of the word, by means of the Memra.

The fifth thing the rabbis had said about the Memra was that the Memra was also the agent of revelation. Whenever God revealed himself, he did so by means of his Memra, by means of his word. In verse 18 John writes, “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father has declared him.” According to verse 18, one of the ministries of the logos is to come to declare, to reveal the Father. The main theme that runs through the gospel of John is, Jesus the Messiah the Son of God, but John also has several sub-themes that run through his gospel and one of these sub-themes is that Jesus came for the purpose of revealing the Father to men.

That is why John more than Matthew, Mark and Luke combined, tells us more what Jesus taught, while the others seem to be more concerned with what Jesus did. John is more concerned with what Jesus taught and said. We have more discourses in John than in the other three gospels. In these discourses, what Jesus is doing, is revealing the Father to the people of Israel. That is why it is John, rather than Matthew, Mark or Luke that records the question one disciple asked, “Show us the Father,” and Jesus turned to the disciple and said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” All that is true of the nature of the Father, is true of the divine nature of the Son as well, therefore he is the revealer of the Father. The same point is made by the writer to the Hebrews chapter one verses one, two and three, where the writer says that “while in the past, God had revealed himself in various ways (in various portions), has in these last days revealed himself by means of the Son.” He is the agent of revelation.

The sixth and last thing the rabbis had been teaching about the Memra, is that the Memra is also the means by which God signed his covenant in the Old Testament. Of the various covenants made in the OT, either with the world in general, or with Israel in particular, these were signed and sealed by means of the Shekinah Glory.

Now this sixth point does not come out as clearly as the other five points do, but he does hint at it in verse 17 when he says, “The Law was given by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” The Law came as the result of the Mosaic covenant, which was signed and sealed by the Shekinah Glory, in the book of Exodus chapter 24. The new manifestation of grace that came with the Messiah is the result of the new covenant, which will be signed and sealed by the death of the Son of God, the Logos or the Memra.

So what John is doing in these 18 verses then, is not showing how Jesus fulfilled the goals of Greek philosophy, but showing that he came to fulfil the Jewish Messianic hope. The very things the rabbis had been teaching about the Memra, is true of this Logos that John will be writing about.

We can summarise what John wrote here in these 18 verse in four simple points.

Number 1, the Word. The Logos, the Memra came in visible form.

Number 2, sadly, the world in general didn’t recognise him.

Number 3, even more sadly, his own Jewish people didn’t recognise him either.

Number 4, those Jews and Gentiles who did, have become the children of this new Shekinah Glory Light.

This then is one example of several that will follow, that if you look at a passage from the Jewish frame of reference it was written in, you can get the full impact of what the writer was trying to say.

[AVmetro]

Ron Macy stated:

In the thread you referenced as a foundation of your understanding of the preexistence of Jesus, you contributed the following objection and response:

Actually, the point of the below cited from my argument was that the "gender" of the 'Logos' is irrelevent to whether or not it is "personal". See below:

Ron Macy:

Logos is a masculine noun and, as I understand it, it is appropriate for masculine nouns to be associated with it. What you didn’t cover in your response is the fact the gender of a noun in no way guarantees personality. It isn’t even a personification. It is just grammar. Why didn’t you mention that in your response?

I think you've taken things a bit turned around as that was my point. Let me give you a little background. I have had CDs in the past cite early English translations which referrenced the 'Word' with an "it". Their argument being that this necessitated that the 'Word' be impersonal.

"It is just grammar" is something with which I wholly agree. As I stated in my reply, the primary basis for determining personality is the context.

One definition for logos I found is “the rational structure of knowledge” about something. (OK, the quote is from Isaac Asimov whom I wouldn’t consider spiritual or a Biblical expert, but he definitely doesn’t have a doctrinal ax to grind.) This definition is illustrated by its use in modern language: biology, geology, theology, etc. To apply this definition to John 1, I think of the the word, “plan.” “In the beginning was the plan (of salvation), and the plan was with God, and the plan was divine.” Jesus was the focus of God’s plan and ultimately the Kingdom of God.

Out of curiosity, was that Asimov's BIG guide to the bible?

I drew my definition of 'Word' from passages such as 1John1:1-2, Rev19:13 et al. Not to exclude the context as a factor. Christ could very well be called "Word" on account of His being the "plan of God". There is nothing wrong with that definition. Yet the definition you have given {in a less nuanced form} does not necessitate that the Word not denote the person of Christ.

It is through Jesus the Kingdom and its inhabitants are prepared. At least that is what I understand Paul to be communicating in Romans 8:20-22. All creation was made with the thought in mind it would one day be redeemed by the blood of Jesus.

I don't see how this (Rom 8) would change anything. I can {and do} agree with the above 100% and yet have it not change my theology one degree.

I believe viewing logos in John 1 as a reference to God’s plan for the salvation of mankind is appropriate and entirely reasonable. As such it does not require Jesus to have existence before His birth.

I don't believe the whole of the context supports this interpretation. And I am also speaking of those verses which precede vs14.

You referenced the Targums and it’s rendering of Genesis 1:27 to support the idea the Jews of Jesus day believed the Word of the Lord was equal to God.

...8<...

All of these are occurrences of the figure of speech known as metonymy. It does not show the Word of the Lord was equal to God. The phrases Word of the Lord and presence of the Lord are metonymic for God.

That is actually very supportive of our point. The Jews used the word "Word" to denote 'YHWH'. Ergo, simply go through the prologue of John's gospel and subsitute 'Logos' with 'YHWH' and you'll see what Jezz and others are coming across with.

...8<...

I also go back to the thought, when A is equal to B, A cannot be B. The Word of the Lord being equal to God is, of necessity, separate and distinct from God. If not, equality is meaningless.

Not at all. Especially taking into consideration that we are Triunitarians. The above might be object to Sabellianism but certainly not to our theology.

Do you have Buzzard and Hunting's book?

With this background it is not so obvious John was trying to say the Word of the Lord was God. I don’t believe John was saying it at all.

Here is a question which I will probably not go into much more than this; Why do you think John referred to the 'Logos' as 'theos'?

God bless