larswilson wrote:
> The SYNTAX of this in modern concept

If you feel you know your Greek well enough to post on syntax, the
perhaps you would care to explain for us why the Trinitarian is
required to have John use a definite article in Jn 1:1c. In point of
fact, the Trinitarian, and John, would never use the definite article.
For if the definite article was used, then it would be a statement of
absolute singularity, that is, Jesus in the one and only person of the
Godhead. But John, nor the epistles, so discribe the incarnate Christ.

There is also the matter of the preposition epi in Jn 1:1b. Coupled
with the lack of the definite article in 1:1c, "with" in 1:1b denotes
equality of relationship. This is the object of the Johannian gospel,
"I and the Father are one." "My Lord and my God." "He who has seen
Me, has seen the Father." "No man has seen God at any time; the only
begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
"I AM."

And last but not least, in Jn 12:41, John makes the emphatic statement
that Jesus is YHVH as revealed in Isaiah's vision of Isa 6.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <89901E33-3A4C-1CFE-5927-0CC432344EE6@srcbs.org>,
Mike Rhodes says...

>On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:48:34 +0000 (UTC), Matthew Johnson
> wrote:

>>In article
>><68E7C9D5-D961-37CB-AEDA-2320A996C56E@srcbs.org>, Mike
>>Rhodes says...

>>[snip]

>>>It would seem

>>It would? To whom? Not to me.

>>> that Christ came to correct this error by Moses.

>>That is an absurd proposal.

>That a man was murdered (not punished properly) for picking
>up sticks on the Sabbath? No, they didn't know what to do
>with him. No, it is not an absurd proposal.

>You expect perfection from Moses.

No, that is not my mistake. It is yours.

> But need I remind you Christ was with God when the law
>was delivered.

No, you don't "need to remind me". I already knew this. You
need to remind yourself of this, and think how strange it
would be for Christ to deliver the Law to a man who,
according to your twisted interpretation, "didn't know what
to do with it".

>Christ said the law was made for man, not man for the law.
>Moses made an error then, and it really messed up the Jews
>thereafter.

Hardly.

>The lawful Jews remain frightened of the Sabbath.

Where did you get this idea?

> THAT is NOT Proper! A sense of conscience should've
>warned them to a tempering of their desire for 'perfection'
>un