On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>>
>> The syllogism goes like this: Time started in the beginning (when the
>> universe was created). Jesus was in the beginning. Thus Jesus is eternal.
>If we are really going to engage in a discussion based upon the language
>of the text, particularly Jn 1:1, it seems important that we note that
>John 1:1 says nothing about JESUS being "eternal", but only the LOGOS.
>There is nothing in the text of Jn 1:1 (or even anywhere else in the
>Prologue) that suggests that the historical personage Jesus of Nazareth
>was "in the begining" with God.
Dear Jeffrey,
I used "Jesus" in the sense of Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum, but you are of
course right. So I hasten to change the clause to: "Thus the Word is
eternal.". But what about the language and the text? Beliefs cannot be
handled in the way we handle data in the natural sciences. But it is a
scientific principle that words and expressions we use should be definable,
so they may be falsified or at least logically discussed.
When I hear that the the clause "In the beginning was the word" means that
the Word is "pre-temporal" or that "time did not exist in the beginning" I
fully respect those saying it, but in all sincerity I ask for definitions,
because I cannot see that the conclusion follows from the premise. On the
other hand, It seems to me that taking Col 1:15 in the partitive sense as
"the firstborn of all creation" and Rev 3:14 as "the beginning of God`s
creation" has a much stronger backing. So why can«t we define the words we
use and discuss these questions in the light of lexical semantics, grammar
and syntax?
I will conclude by quoting Carl«s wise words, written july 9:
<But perhaps we've talked too sternly about avoiding
<theological issues when most of us are really aware that we're trying to
<avoid theological firestorms, precisely because the line between the
<academic and the existential discussion on this list is so thin!
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo