[b-greek] Re: theos and ho theos'--

From: dixonps@juno.com
Date: Sat Mar 03 2001 - 23:08:43 EST


On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 12:39:41 +1100 "One of the McKays"
<musicke@ozemail.com.au> writes:
> Greg said:
> If in John 1:1c QEOS is a proper noun, then we have the
> _grammatical_difficulty of explaining how the Word can
> be God and be "with" God.
>
> This is one reason why most scholars have and are
> continuing to move away from viewing QEOS in 1:1c as
> definite.
>
> Who are these "most scholars?" Sounds hard to prove,
> to me.
>
> The idea of the Word being "with God" and being "God"
> is a problem for some theological systems, but not a
> problem at all for others.

David:

If QEOS in 1:1c is definite, then it must refer to TON QEON of 1:1b,
identifying the LOGOS as God the Father. This, of course, militates
against hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON in 1:1b which suggests the LOGOS is
separate from God the Father. This poses a problem for any reasonable
theological system.

Paul Dixon

---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 18:40:21 EST