theos and ho theos'--

dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Sat Mar 3 23:08:43 EST 2001




On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 12:39:41 +1100 "One of the McKays"
<musicke at ozemail.com.au> writes:
> Greg said:
> If in John 1:1c QEOS is a proper noun, then we have the 
> _grammatical_difficulty of explaining how the Word can 
> be God and be "with" God.
> 
> This is one reason why most scholars have and are 
> continuing to move away from viewing QEOS in 1:1c as 
> definite.
> 
> Who are these "most scholars?" Sounds hard to prove,
> to me.
> 
> The idea of the Word being "with God" and being "God"
>  is a problem for some theological systems, but not a 
> problem at all for others.

David:

If QEOS in 1:1c is definite, then it must refer to TON QEON of 1:1b,
identifying the LOGOS as God the Father.  This, of course, militates
against hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON in 1:1b which suggests the LOGOS is
separate from God the Father.  This poses a problem for any reasonable
theological system.

Paul Dixon



More information about the B-Greek mailing list