Re: [John_Lit] A Grammatico-theological Question
- This response from Paul gets more directly at my
> The predicate construction may easily be understoodThank you Paul, for that explanation. This is
> as an adjective,
> as it is most commonly understood in Greek. This
> would describe the
> Logos as divine or godly, rather than "a god",
> (which would actually
> be an unusual rendering.) Yet, there *is* support
> in the OT and NT
> for calling men "gods". The term was not understood
> to mean the same
> as "the God", HO QEOS. Jesus Christ himself pointed
> this out in John
interesting to me if somewhat disconcerting. I would
have preferred to hear that there is a legitimate
grammatical reason for preferring "what God was, the
It's also interesting to learn that the translation
"and what a god was, the word was" is not a usual
rendering of the Greek.
Incidentally, does this make it an impossible
rendering? Your following point makes me think that
you imply that it is possible:
> "Jesus answered, 'Is it not written in your own Law,Lurking in the background to my question is the
> "I said: You are
> gods"? Those are called gods to whom the word of
> God was
> delivered--and Scripture cannot be set aside. Then
> why do you charge
> me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent
> into the world by
> the Father, said, 'I am God's son'?" NEB
Pauline reference to "the god of this world". John
uses a parallel expression: "the ruler of this age".
I suppose that I'm trying to get a handle on the
Johannine Christology by thinking about the status of
other spiritual beings referred to in the New
Since the term "god" can refer to human beings and
angels, then what does it imply here in John 1:1c?
Is the Logos superior to "the god/ruler of this
world/age" by virtue of being the "only-begotten" son?
Does this make him a sort of superior angel or
something intrinsically greater?
What does the term "only-begotten" imply? A
Does the term Logos, on the other hand, suggest
eternal existence? Or does it imply a coming into
existence at the moment of creation, when God 'spoke'?
If the Hebrew-scripture background here is speculation
on the female figure Wisdom, then one would suppose
that the Logos came into existence at creation as the
first of God's creatures.
P.S. No, I'm not some crypto-Jehovah's Witness -- in
case anyone was wondering.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
- In a message dated 9/18/2000 5:39:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[Responding to Leonard, who wrote:]
<< > Antonio, no matter how highly elevated a creature is, no matter how
> to God a creature comes, he is still infinitely -- yes, infinitelyinferior
> to God. If this were the case for Jesus it would have been incumbent onthe
> NT authors to make this point perfectly clear. Now there are texts inwhich
> they do not do so, and in fact many of them confound Jesus quitedeliberately
> and quite thoroughly with God. If it is true that Jesus is not God, eitherThe only problem is that Luke and the other synoptic writers did not
> these writers were terribly misled, or they are terribly misleading.
have to contend with a 20th century highly orthodox chap from America
who is so infatuated with trinitarianism that he has to force it on the texts
at all price. Leonard, why don't you take a close look at Peter's speech
in Acts 2:22-36 again and see if you find any support at all for your
This is as close to Luke's and the early Jerusalem church's Christology as
we will ever get, and Jesus is never called or likened to God. He is a MAN
(v.22) SENT by God (v.22) to fullfill God's plan for humanity (v.23). God
resurrected him (v24) and MADE him into LORD and MESSIAH (v. 36).
How do you explain that somebody who is God (as you claim Jesus is) has
to be made Lord and Messiah by God? >>
Antonio, it seems you didn't read my post carefully enough (which makes me
wonder how carefully you read the biblical texts that challenge your
understanding). What I said was that "there are texts" in the NT in which
Jesus is thoroughly confounded with God. This is quite compatible, logically,
with the existence of other texts in which he is not (and was carefully
formulated precisely so as to accommodate these). The Acts text you cite is
clearly one such, and, in Chalcedonian terms, it could be said that it is
simply talking about Jesus as man, under which formality he is of course
thoroughly subordinated to, distinct from and inferior to God. My only point
is that there are other texts in which the NT authors, or most of them,
express a kind of fuzzy identity between Jesus and God. So the God-Man
construct of the later patristic writers and church councils seems to me to
do justice the whole of the biblical evidence about Jesus while you seem able
to handle only one side of the paradox. Keep trying though! It is wonderful
that you invest so much mental effort in the search.