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