Date: Thu Mar 01 2001 - 22:17:41 EST
In a message dated 03/01/2001 11:38:57 AM Pacific Standard Time,
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). >>
Charles' conclusion was merely the affirmation that the conclusion of others'
was/is correct. When specific grammatical evidence is introduced, then a
grammatical discussion can proceed. Until such time, we are simply adding
"voices" to one side or the other.
<< The introduction of a non-Johannine concept as "a god"
in relation to the LOGOS can only be supported in a
theological construct. >>
That one could consider the concept non-Johannine in light of John 1:18,
20:17, and a host of other Johannine texts is something I would say is the
result of a particular theological construct. But just as there was no value
in introducing such thoughts in the first place, there is no value in my
continuing this type of theological back-and-forth beyond giving my simple
objections this one and final time.
Of course, off-list discussions of Johannine theology are always welcome...
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