From: John M. Sweigart (jsweiger@cswnet.com)
Date: Sat Dec 12 1998 - 10:19:10 EST
Help me out here. I don't even remember my last query! They say that
Alzheimer's allows one to hide your own Easter eggs!
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> At 7:43 AM -0600 12/12/98, John M. Sweigart wrote:
> >Good morning Carl:
> >Three observations off list since I do not want to start up a
> >theological thread. I agree with your analysis of the balancing of the
> >members of the introduction. It may even be chiastic in structure.
>
> I thought of that; I've often admired this wonderfully concise formulation
> that underscores the importance of the resurrection for the empowerment of
> Jesus as the Christ while leaving so many questions about the birth of
> Jesus unanswered.
> Incidentally, I wrote at such length as I wrote in the hope of forestalling
> objections from those who might feel offended by the 'apparent' ignorance
> of or unconcern with so important a doctrine as the virgin birth or the
> pre-existence of Christ. It strikes me as wonderful that this little
> two-verse snippet states what Paul seems to think is theologically
> IMPORTANT about the identity of Jesus and omits so much of what later
> theologians seem to have thought was equally or far more important.
>
> >Secondly, the idea of the king and/or whole nation of Israel being an
> >adopted son vis a vis the Suzerain/Vassal concept is a very helpful area
> >of study that has helped me a great deal in formulating relationship
> >between Old Covenant and New Covenant matters. Many shy away from the
> >material because they think it some ways impugns Christ's eternal
> >Sonship formulated in the early church's creedal battles. The verse
> >under consideration I'm sure could be such a battleground.
>
> Precisely. What came to bother me specifically in the course of the latest
> skirmish between trinitarians and JWs over Colossians 1:15 was the lack of
> clarity in the thinking of either side over what the biological metaphor of
> the generation of the Son might really mean in literal terms.
>
> >Thirdly, it has always fascinated me that the term Son of God was
> >included in the Roman letter since the Emperor could be elected to the
> >position Son of God after his death. I shake and tremble at the thought
> >that my position in heaven could be determined by politicians!
>
> In view of the current political crisis in the US, I shake and tremble at
> the thought that my position even on earth may be determined by politicians
> who care not a whit about the rank and file voters of this country.
>
> Thanks very much for your note, John. Good to hear from you. By the way,
> I'm sorry I didn't answer your last query, but I couldn't find any
> satisfactory answer to it.
>
> Best regards, Carl
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics/Washington University
> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
> cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:10 EDT