From: Alan B. Thomas (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:38:34 EST
> Therefore, whether viewed as a result of the grammar
> of 1:1c. or in
> connection with the context, specifically 1:1b,
> there are two G-gods here.
> There is no grammatical difficulty with this
> conclusion, only a theological
I think Charles is quite right to question the
conclusion of the PN in the paragraph immediately
preceding this one, but this paragraph does make an
important observation (G-gods).
The implication that English students tend to think of
is whether or not we are confronted with "the God and
a god" or do we have "the God with God." Beginning
with this presupposition will lead to a theological
To introduce "a god" is most remarkable in light of
John's writings, but one might go so far as to examine
whether or not we have "the God with a God." This I
believe can be seriously addressed in John's writings.
Satan himself is called hO QEOS, but not in the sense
of an eternal being. One can not seriously entertain
that the LOGOS might have been a created being, but
whether the LOGOS is "a God" may have grammatical
The introduction of a non-Johannine concept as "a god"
in relation to the LOGOS can only be supported in a
Alan B. Thomas
"Actually, there was no final "s" on "toward," but
now it's acceptable. Languages just change."
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:52 EDT