By 'entity' do you mean 'person' ?

@NigelJ, Yes, by 'entity' I mean a person.

@NigelJ, Are you implying the Son of God is not the Logos? That contradicts Rev 19:13.

You have stated 'The Son become flesh' which scripture does not say.

One may also say 'the life the eternal' 'which was with the Father' 'was manifested'. 1 John 1:2.

@NigelJ - Are you denying the fact that the Son of God pre-existed his human life as the Angel of the Lord who was gloried with God before the world was made?

@NigelJ, I didn't misquote a single thing. John 1:14 says, "the Logos was made flesh".

I suggest that the question lacks clarity and detail.

@NigelJ, count me mystified; I clearly wrote "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."

The Son became flesh according to John 1:14 That is your personal opinion. It is not the text that you are referencing.

@NigelJ, gotcha. That was not my quote of John 1:14, but my header above the passage which describes the Logos as the Son of God.

But that is not what the scripture says. That is what you say. God was manifested and the life the eternal was manifested. That is what scripture states.

NigelJ, Rev 19:13 tells us that Jesus is named the "Word of God". How can you deny this?

You could quote 1 John 3:5 (He was manifested . . . . to take away our sins) but you will then need to find the antecedent.

Then I shall leave you to it. Regards. I look forward to edifying answers. I am not making any accusation. I am pointing out that the text does not say what you say it means.

The reason that many misunderstand Trinitarian doctrine is due to them not being careful enough about the actual words of scripture which often convey the Deity, as such, and Divine Nature, as such, which will often refer to the One God, One Deity, and will not refer to a specific Divine Person. That is why I have pointed out the above. This is also the answer to your question, by the way and I shall ponder whether I wish to prepare an answer. Regards.

I'm not getting involved here, the question seems clear. But I am not sure how this is a BH issue instead of an C.SE one?

'The Son become flesh' -- The Logos is called The Son... It's the same.

@YHWHSTRUTH, so does Luke 1:35 describe the Logos merging into Mary's womb?

-1 Because you embellish the question with unnecessary definitions such as Proverbs 8:30. If you want an objective answer, you shouldn't interject your beliefs, which are fundamentally at odds with the passage in Luke. For example, why speak of wisdom and ignore the angel which wisdom (presumably) was involved in creating?

@RevelationLad, Using your logic, I perceive you to be interjecting your beliefs into your answer, which I humbly believe are at odds with the whole of Scripture.

You ask about Luke 1:35. There is no Scriptural connection with Luke 1 and Proverbs 8. One exists in your mind, but that shouldn't color you question.

@RevelationLad, Proverbs 8 confirms the pre-existence of Christ, which directly reinforces my question about Luke 1:35.

@OneGodOneLord The WORD dwells in the Tabernacle of David's Son, as The Son of YHWH who created Adam in the beginning, hence Luke 3:38. 2 Samuel 7:11-14: "...I will give you rest from all your enemies. YHWH declares to you that He Himself will establish a house for you. 12And when your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13He will build a house for My Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he will be My son...."

Are you asking if the Son impregnated Mary with Himself?

@NigelJ I'm kinda confused by your comments—taken literally, they sound to me to imply that Jesus did not exist (at least as a distinct person of the Trinity) prior to His incarnation. But, I feel like this doesn't fit with your many other answers on the site, so am I just misinterpreting what you're saying? (I apologize if so, of course!)

@JoshGrosso Again, you are saying 'Jesus' in relation to an existence prior to the birth in Bethlehem. 'Jesus' is the name given to a baby. The Word was in the beginning. And God was the Word. The life the eternal was with the Father - and was manifested. He who was named Jesus, is also called 'The Son of God'. You are confusing matters (important matters) by inaccuracy. Feel free to use my business email address on my profile. Regards.

@NigelJ, do you believe that the Son pre-existed his human life as the Angel of the Lord? And if so, do you believe that the Angel of the Lord is co-eternal with the Father, or that the Angel of the Lord was created by God as the first of his works on Day 1?

@JoshGrosso The Second Person of the Trinity never had the name 'Jesus' applied to his identity until the angel told Mary that she would give birth to a son, who was to be called Jesus and named that when 8 days old. At his birth, angels told shepherds this baby was the Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. John tells us of the Word, who became flesh, the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Some answers here might help: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/104729/…

@NigelJ I guess I don't personally see an issue with identifying His prior existence with the name "Jesus", given that He has always been (albeit not in human form before the incarnation), and because His statement in John 8:58 doesn't qualify specific names. Cf. Hebrews 13:8 (although I suppose "yesterday" is ambiguous).

@Anne I should add that I'm definitely not trying to make any particular Christological statements here, like whether or not the angel of the Lord is Jesus or not. I'm just trying to understand why using "Jesus" to refer to the pre-existing Word of God is problematic, if that makes sense :-)

@JoshGrosso The problem is that the Bible never speaks of Jesus during the Word's pre-incarnational state. It only introduces us to Jesus at the incarnation. The reasons for that are profound, but important, if we are to give due reverence to the Second Person of the Trinity. Nice to see you back, commenting!

@OneGodOneLord Your right that the Angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. Where your wrong is the fact that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. Read Matthew 1:20-21. Also, since the Angel of the Lord is Jesus Christ He is co-eternal with His Father, as well as the Holy Spirit. Finally, the angel of the Lord was not created by God the Father on any day. The three persons of the Trinity are one in nature and three distinct persons. Just like we share the same nature as our parents but yet we are all distinct persons. All humans/animals have the same nature as its father.

@Mr.Bond - But surely we have a beginning from our parents, despite sharing the same nature with our parents? Likewise, the Angel of the Lord had a beginning, yet he shares the same nature with the Father as both are gods, that is divine persons.

@OneGodOneLord But Jesus did not have a beginning according to Johb 17:5, "And now, glorify Thou Me "TOGETHER" with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee BEFORE THE WORLD WAS." Also, John 1:1-4, John 8:58-59, Isaiah 9:6, Micah 5:2, as well as many others. Where is your proof that the Angel of the Lord had a beginning? TAOTL first appears as TAOTL at Genesis 16:7. And if you read the rest of Genesis 16 you will discover that Hagar identifies Him as God at vs13. He also appeared at Genesis 17 and Genesis 18, as well as other places in the OT. He never appears in the NT.