You are not connecting Logos with wisdom. That is my objection to your interpretation. You have not demonstrated that John had wisdom in mind when he used “ho logos” from the beginning. Your rule is imposing Philo on John’s thinking without consideration of how the word is used in NT literature. It is based off an unproven assumption that John was heavily influenced by Philo’s writings. Logos is used 330 times in the NT. It is never used in reference to wisdom. I am searching for justification of your assumption that John must have been heavily influenced by Philo and that in the isolated case of his prologue, he intended to claim that Jesus was wisdom incarnate, not God. No orthodox theologian would deny that Jesus was not only God incarnate, but that He was also those divine attributes summed up in the one man as well. That is to say that all wisdom is deposited in Christ. Paul clearly expresses this divine truth. But that does nothing to show that John was not attempting to point to the divinity of the person, Jesus Christ.
Are you saying that wisdom became a literal person? Do you believe that wisdom created the earth in cooperation with the Father, as if wisdom were some independent entity?
John never used Logos for wisdom. In fact, he only used the word sophia four times in all his writings. And everyone of those occurences are in the apocalypse. In addition, half of those uses are doxalogical.
If Jesus was wisdom in the flesh, how did he “increase in widsom” just like every other person?
This discussion is about the historic orthodox claim that Jesus Christ is God of very God. It is about the Christian view that God is triune in nature, three persons with one substance.
Do you affirm the eternal truine God, existing as Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit?
Did Jesus Christ exist as God the Son prior to His incarnation? Did He create all that is? Is He not just a Lord, but THE Lord over all that is or ever will be and has He been so from eternity past?
These are plain questions that even my 13 yr old can answer. I would appreciate a direct answer to very direct questions. Is this converation a matter of semantics and exegesis here and there, or is it as serious as I suspect it to be?