2:7-8 and Contradictions?

From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Tue Sep 23 1997 - 12:43:32 EDT

Well, now that Glenn tongue-in-cheekedly, I assume and hope, raised all
these rather ridiculous options for taking EKEINOS, and asked us to put
all the really interesting discussions on 1 John on hold, then jauntered
off to 2 John to visit the elect lady which could open some very
interesting theological (oops) discussion, I wonder if we could get back
to some of that really good stuff.

Keeping the discussion on 1:8, 3:9 and 5:16 on hold some more (perhaps
indefinitely, Carl?), I'd like to pursue Jonathan's recurring theme of
contradictions/paradoxes in I John. I found it interesting that Glenn (it
was you, wasn't it?) pointed to 2:7-8 as a good example of such.

Anyhow, could you, Jonathan, state (or restate) a little more precisely
what you mean by this? Do you, for example, mean that there are
legitimate and real contradictions in John's epistle? If so, does this
mean that John can be found saying on the one hand, A is true, and on the
other hand, not A is true? This is generally what is meant by
contradiction. If so, then I certainly see no contradiction between 2:7
and 2:8. And, regarding that which is on hold, I believe I have
demonstrated there is no contradiction between 1:8, 3:9, and 5:16.

Dr. Paul S. Dixon, Pastor
Wilsonville, Oregon

On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:28:37 -0700 Glen Riddle <glen1@flash.net> writes:
>Jonathan Robie wrote:
>> At 08:58 AM 9/23/97 -0700, Glen Riddle wrote:
>> >The Divine Demonstrative, now that it has been clearly established
>> >Johannine literature (though we still await results from the
>> >and has been discovered hiding secularly in L&S, gives us new
>fodder for
>> >our canons in the theo wars. I will not sleep until we get a
>> >answer on this: is ekeinos here (clearly divine demonstrative) (1)
>> >qualitative, (2) indefinite, (3) indefinitely qualitative, (4)
>> >(5) definitely qualitative, (6) qualitatively indefinite, (7)
>> >qualitatively definite, (8) definitely indefinite, or (9)
>> >definite?
>> Christologically definite, for my money. And given my take on John
>1:1, this
>> can also be seen as a Christologically divine definite ;->
>> Seriously, Glen, how could it possibly be qualitative or indefinite?
>> Although I can tell from your tone that you don't buy it, you don't
>> another way to interpret EKEINOS in 1 John when it has no clear
>> Could you please propose another solution, and present an argument
>that your
>> approach is superior?
>> Jonathan
>> Jonathan Robie jwrobie@mindspring.com
>> POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703

>Just when i thought i had this figured out and was getting thoroughly
>blessed during my devotional meditations on the "Divine
>Demonstrative", Jon comes along with these tough questions and
>doubting. You know, I think I'm moving on ahead to II John. Anyone
>know when the lady in 1.1 got elected?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:29 EDT