Re: Gramcord notes on the article

From: Williams, Wes (Wes.Williams@echostar.com)
Date: Fri Jan 02 1998 - 14:44:44 EST


        Jonathan wrote:
> "And the Word was a god". Consider this as an "indefinite and
> qualitative"
> statement; to me, there is a difference between having the qualities
> and
> attributes associated with "God" and having the qualities and
> attributes
> associated with "a god", e.g. a member of the large and not
> particularly
> exclusive club to which the Greek gods belonged.
>
        Jonathan,

        Let us consider the statement about Prince Charles; "Charles is
a prince." What do I mean?

        Princely character? (Charles emulates the qualitites of what a
monarch should be). Or,
        The son of a monarch?

        (1) Charles is of princely character but not the son of a
monarch.
        (2) Charles is of princely character and the son of a monarch.
        (3) Charles is crass but also the son of a monarch.

        The issue is not that the LOGOS had the qualities "associated
with a god." He _was_ God/god/a god (QEOS). As such, he would have the
qualities and characteristics associated with 'God.'

        If we exclude choice (3) by mutual agreement (i.e. we agree that
the Word is not of ungodly character), then choices (1) or (2) still
ascribe the qualitites and characteristics associated with 'God' (the
archetype) to the LOGOS by the reading "a god." Being qualitatively "a
god" makes it so by inheritance from the class. The difference would be
_degree_. This comes from context.

        There are two basic contexts here, the theological and the
linguistic. I am pleased with this thread that by clearly understanding
the linguistic context, we see the plausibility of various
interpretations in the theological context. This rather than theological
understanding driving our understanding of the linguistic context.

        Sincerely,
        Wes Williams



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:46 EDT