Whoa, Paul, I was only commenting on your logic, i.e.,
> > > From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>,
on
> > 8/21/96 10:23 AM:
> >
> > > Furthermore, theos cannot be definite in Jn 1:1c because Sabellianism
> > > then follows, for then the theos in 1:1c is the same as the definite
ton
> > > theon in 1:1b.
The claim that "theos cannot be definite in Jn 1:1c because
Sabellianism then follows..." simply doesn't "follow." I assumed you didn't
actually intend to make that statement "as is" and hence, the <wink> indicating
that what you wrote and what you meant don't follow, and I was giving you the
benefit of the doubt to revel with you in your slip. I am not particularly
interested in dogmatic theological arguments with you or anyone else in this
forum in this vein.
Best wishes,
-------------
Mike Phillips
mphilli3@indy.tdsnet.com
A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging;
it is the skin of living thought and changes from day
to day as does the air around us. - Oliver Wendell Holmes
-------------
Mike Phillips
mphilli3@indy.tdsnet.com
A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging;
it is the skin of living thought and changes from day
to day as does the air around us. - Oliver Wendell Holmes