From: Ron J Macy (ronmacy@juno.com)
Date: Sun Feb 01 1998 - 14:33:11 EST
B-Greek,
My basic question was: Is it determined linguistically or theologically
that Logos was a person in John 1:1?
I gather that I might have just as well asked which is more important on
an airplane, the left wing or the right wing? (smiley face, wink) (I
don't draw well!)
What I wanted to do was stay within the bounds of the list. I just wasn't
sure where such a question fell. I wasn't trying to be unfair or assume
something for linguistics that may not be there. Nor do I think that
theological interpretation is invalid.
Nick Corduan wrote:
>>>
But why must a theological understanding be valid only if demanded by the
grammatical or syntactical traits of the Greek morphemes?
>>>
That question confuses me just a little. It almost suggests language
(grammar and syntax) may not have any bearing on theology. That sounds
like one could believe what he wants in spite of what the language says.
I trust that is not what you intended.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>>
But why should John make such a big deal about introducing the concept of
LOGOS, then surreptitiously change what it refers to a few verses later
without telling us?
>>>
That is part of what I am trying to understand. I don't see the change in
verse 14 as being surreptitious. In fact, I am not sure it is a change at
all. That is why I wondered whether Logos was something more encompassing
that Jesus.
Is it possible that Logos refers to the wisdom of God and somewhat by
extension to God's plans for creating the universe? Knowing that Adam
would sin and that God would need to provide a way to redeem mankind that
plan also had Jesus in mind. Is it possible that Logos in John 1:1 refers
to such a plan and that in verse 14 the part of the plan that had to do
with Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us?
This is what I am wondering and why I asked if the personality issue had
a linguistic base or if it is more on the theological side. If there is
no specific linguist base for Logos being a person (in verse 1) then I
would understand the argument to be mostly theological and not
necessarily a part of the discussion for this list.
If there is a linguistic foundation, I would like to know what it is.
Again, thank you for your insight.
Ron Macy
Bible Student
Aurora, IL 60506
ronmacy@juno.com
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:01 EDT