And words are not always mean to be written down.
Christ was strongly against secrecy. Words that are specifically meant NOT to be written down would be, by definition, secret. What good is a secret word? Words were meant to be written down. Truth is not hidden.
And once words are written down, they can be changed, mistranslated, etc (scribal errors/lies due to misunderstanding, etc)
Yes, they can be changed, which is precisely why the writer of Hebrews tells us that the word of God is alive. He is showing us the difference between true scripture and false, which I have given the details of in a previous post. In short, scripture that has not been tampered with will "go to the bones" while falsified scripture will not provide that effect. It's as simple as seeing night from day. The New World Translation, for instance, is nothing but falsified scripture, or darkness. How do we determine that? By observing the fruits of the ones who follow it.
Can you not provide what I am asking/
I did provide what you asked, but you are not accepting it, and you still have not answered my first question, "what is the difference between the use of the word logos at John 1:1 and Hebrews 4:12 ?" Every single translation of John 1:1 has a capital "W" when rendering the word "logos." The word "logos" doesn't mean Christ by default, it actually means "a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech" by default. Our posts for example would fit under the term "logos." However, when you take a look at the translations of Hebrews 4:12 you see the vast majority rendering a lower case "w." This is because the scholars understood that what was being referenced was the written word, which was originated by The Word. They are saying that the written word of God is alive because it's empowered by The Word of God. There is a clear difference in the term being used in John 1:1 and Hebrews 4:12.
Well, the process of scripture actually starts with HEARING the Spirit.
What does hearing the Spirit sound like? What does wind sound like? What does water taste like?
Then it is written. But we weren't talking solely about scripture, because I agree that the Word of God is the source of scripture (but not all that is written is scripture, even in the bible)... but we were talking about the Word of God. The Truth, the Image of God: All being Christ.
All 66 books in the RCC cannon are fully scripture. I don't see how you can say that a certain part of the book is scripture and a certain part is not. The book is either usable as scripture or it's not. There is no inbetween as you seem to be implying.
We are not given anyone or anything to look at other than Christ, to see and know God.
Yes, the Word as the orginator of the written word, or scripture.
Father and Son are titles, roles. Not names. That is why they each HAVE a name, as well as roles, as well as titles. Same as God is a title, and not a name.
"Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name". The Father's name is The Father. He has many names actually, but the best name for Him is the Father. The Holy Spirit's name is the Holy Spirit and the interesting thing about that is there are no other names given for the Holy Spirit (except for titles such as "Advocate, "Comforter" but no names such as Jesus, Yahweh/etc). The Holy Spirit is unique in that respect and it's because it doesn't want any credit, never has and never will. However, it needs to have a designation and that's the Spirit/Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost, not the Word of God, not Yehoshua, not Immanuel , not Christ. It's astounding for me to see you deny the Holy Spirit's existence simply because you believe it lacks a name.
I am not denying the Spirit.
Saying that the Spirit and Christ are the same person IS denying the Spirit. It's saying that the Spirit, the third Element of the Trinity, doesn't exist and never did. You are subtracting God (3-1) and therefore denying him his own existential nature. It's no small matter.
what does that have to do with Paul saying that the Lord IS the Spirit?
Have you looked up the Greek word for "IS"? It means " I exist, I am " which would tie in with my previous posts. It is not saying that he is the same person as the Spirit, but is saying that the Spirit exists in the same way as The Lord Christ. It's assigning the Spirit it's proper Eternal status as compared to the Word who was there in the beginning and WAS God. The Word IS God, and the Spirit IS the Word and they all existed in the beginning and created the heavens and the earth (Elohim). The Spirit that hovered over the waters in Genesis 1:2 was not the person of Christ, it was the person of the Spirit.
I am not, however, getting involved in a trinity debate.
The question asked in this OP is answered by Trinity theology quite eloquently. The Spirit is with us while we await the return of the King who gives us strenth to live in this barbarous world. The Spirit is NOT the King, the King of Kings is the King.