From: Edgar Foster (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 08 1998 - 11:14:29 EDT
One short comment:
> Edgar Foster wrote:
> > At issue is the enfleshment of the LOGOS and the way in which his
> > "own" responded to him (John 1:10-13). Despite the rejection of
> > Messiah, the light continues shining and the darkness **still** "has
> > not" (aorist) overtaken it. But even prior to the LOGOS becoming
> > flesh, PANTA DI' AUTOU EGENETO.
> > Since PANTA DI' AUTOU EGENETO, FWS existed PRIOR to the fleshly
> > appearance of the LOGOS. The light is an associative aspect of the
> > LOGOS' ministry, yet it also preceded the tenting of the LOGOS with
> > humans (John 1:3, 4). Therefore, the "shining" of light is an
> > process. The darkness' inability to "overtake" TO FWS is not
> > however. It HAS failed to KATELABEN.
> Nice work, Edgar, and I would only take issue with what you see is 'at
> issue' above. That consideration is not at all at issue because it
> has not been contextually introduced yet [at 1:5]. That [theological]
> consideration is to be see in the 'light' of 1:5, and not vice-versa,
> George Blaisdell
Carl chastises me for the same reason. It seems that 1:5 cannot be
read in the light of 1:14. I respectfully disagree. I tend to side
with Borchert here, who says that we must keep in mind that 1:1-5 is
written from a *post-resurrection* perspective (Cf. John 2:19-22;
20:28-31). It is penned from a victory perspective. John has the
enfleshment of the LOGOS in mind, even as he writes 1:1-5.
My two cents anyway,
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:42 EDT