Rebecca:
As I understand Philo with regards to 'Logos' ... he speaks in terms of a cosmic, metaphysical influence, rather than a physical, bodily (human) manifestation of any sort. In fact, I thought Philo (as influenced by Plato) was of the opinion that the body was a tomb or sepulchre of the soul.
I cannot imagine that his conceptualization of the LOGOS would ever have involved incarnation into a human body (place of decay/tomb).
Unless you can reference a source showing that Philo considered bodily (human) incarnation of the Logos a possibility, then your insistence that Hebrews / 1 Clement reflect Philo's ideas of LOGOS is unfounded.

Medini:
I gave you referenced examples where Philo speaks of angels on earth as manifesting the Logos and referenced examples of where he uses terminology applied to humans like Moshe for the Logos. These indicate that Philo's conceptualization is more complex than you think.

Nonetheless, your request has no logical merit to it because the degree to which Philo would have accepted the idea of the "Logos made flesh" is immaterial to the point here - namely, that everything you claim in Hebrews and Clement (or other NT or early church sources) as indications that the Son/Logos/JC in those sources is considered as G-d (we really are not even touching on Trinity here since such claims, if true, could support a Oneness Pentacostal view just as a Triune one) is said explicitly by or is acceptable to Philo with regard to the Logos/Son as "a god" and not G-d in any sense, proving that NONE of your claims from these texts are solid supports for the Deity of JC, but merely for his "deity" at most.