theos and ho theos'

GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Thu Mar 1 22:17:41 EST 2001


In a message dated 03/01/2001 11:38:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
a_b_thomas at yahoo.com writes:

<< 
 I think Charles is quite right to question the
 conclusion of the PN in the paragraph immediately
 preceding this one, but this paragraph does make an
 important observation (G-gods). >>


Charles' conclusion was merely the affirmation that the conclusion of others' 
was/is correct. When specific grammatical evidence is introduced, then a 
grammatical discussion can proceed. Until such time, we are simply adding 
"voices" to one side or the other. 
 
 
<< The introduction of a non-Johannine concept as "a god"
 in relation to the LOGOS can only be supported in a
 theological construct.  >>


That one could consider the concept non-Johannine in light of John 1:18, 
20:17, and a host of other Johannine texts is something I would say is the 
result of a particular theological construct. But just as there was no value 
in introducing such thoughts in the first place, there is no value in my 
continuing this type of theological back-and-forth beyond giving my simple 
objections this one and final time.

Of course, off-list discussions of Johannine theology are always welcome...

Best regards,

Greg Stafford




More information about the B-Greek mailing list