On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 12:39:41 +1100 "One of the McKays" 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