LOGOS

Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Thu Feb 24 00:01:35 EST 2000


In a message dated 2/23/2000 11:14:37 PM Central Daylight Time, 
baldeagl at airmail.net writes:

<< Considering that John's authorship of Revelation has been questioned
 by some, and given that it was written later than the Gospel, what
 justification would there be for importing possible meanings from
 Revelation back into John's gospel?
 
 It seems to me that John very clearly does not refer to a pre-existent
 Christ in the prologue, but rather refers to the "word" of God.  As
 has been discussed here, that carries much depth of meaning depending
 upon the viewpoint of the reader, be he Greek, Hebrew, Alexandrian or
 whatever. >>

(1) Revelation was not possibly written  by the author of the gospel or the 
epistles.  See R.H. Charles _Revelation_, vol I.  In the intro. he details 
the differences in language which make it clear that this was not by the same 
author.  Also, as you said, it was written much later.

He doesn't refer to the pre-existent Christ in the prologue (I assume you are 
referring to 1.1-14).  Will you acknowledge that to whomever or whatever he  
refers, this LOGOS is pre-existent?

QEOS HN hO LOGOS. hOUTOS HN EN ARCHi PROS TON QEON . . .


gfsomsel



More information about the B-Greek mailing list