From: Lee R. Martin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 16 1996 - 01:51:16 EDT
> In conclusion, EN AUTW EKTISQH TA PANTA grammatically may or may not include the
> one in the context. In other words, one cannot make a theological statement from
> the use of TA PANTA. I suppose one _could_, but one should do so with knowledge
> of the weakness of the statement. The farthest one can go with this verse
> recognizing the limitations of the grammar is to say that Christ was involved in
> the creation of all things. But whether or not Christ was also created (or,
> begotten) by the Father must be determined elsewhere.
I am aware of the usage that you have so fully explained, and I totally
agree. Thank you for very helpful and complete data.The text does NOT
say that Christ was created. I was trying to point to the poetic,
veiled nature of the language that Paul is using in this passage.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:53 EDT