MR ALAN R CRAIG <CSRT29A@prodigy.com> wrote:
>John is *not* using
>theos to `identify' the Logos' person, but to describe his *nature.*
>Mind you, if (because of your Trinitarian theology) you do read into
>this that Jesus, by virture of his being described as "divine," that he
>must therefore also be God, that is fine. Although I would not myself
>come to that conclusion, the point is, that when one does arrive at
>that conclusion (as Wescott above), it is only ones theology that can
>tell one so, not this Scripture.
We need to be sure to leave this verse in the Jewish context in which it
arose (even if this passage is not written specifically to early Jews).
We need to keep in mind Judaism's strict monotheism. What would it mean,
in this context, to make a distinction between being divine and being God?
I'll admit that some systems of belief may allow one to participate in
divinty without being fully God, but I can't see how that can be read
into the text here.
I'm bringing up som often quoted passages on Christ's divinity here, but
take into consideration Colossians 1:15-22 and 2:9-15. Also,
remember I John 5:20. The trinity may not be explicity here, but the
trinitarian doctrine is certaintly not any more logically palatable than
what's given in the text.
The text simply says Qeos hn ho logos. The Word, clearly Jesus, is
equated to God. Whether we want to say the Word was Divine or the Word
was God, we are saying the same thing.
- Re: John 1:1
- From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>