In article , lsenders{at}hotmail.com
says...
>
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> And that is a good hint that _despite_ what has prevailed
>> in Western theological circles since the Germans of the 19th
>> century, perhaps we should _not_ assume that John got this sense
>> of 'Word' from the Greeks; perhaps he got it from the
>> Aramaic 'memra' in the inter-testamental writings, as
>> Khrapovitsky suggested in the 19th century.
>>
>Certainly there is that aspect to be considered, but there is another
>which is better.

Although you may have a point here, I do not see that it is 'better'. Neither
will many others, for the reasons I give below.

>The Hebrew, "Dabar" as used in 1 Sam 3:21.

But this word is _so_ heavily used, with _so_ many meanings! It has one of the
most _frustratingly_ wide semantic ranges of any word in Biblical Hebrew! So
even if it is used just as you say in 1 Sam 3:21, there is still a lot of work
to do to show that that sense is at all relevant to John 1:1.

>This term *always* refered to deity in the mystery religions of area.

But since there are so many other senses, this is a long way from helpful.

Besides: what are you really referring to when you say "mystery religions of 
area"? Did you mean "mystery religions of that area"? The
mystery religions were
much later than the time when 1 Sam was written. And there are many, many
problems with assuming that Scripture borrows terminology from the very depraved
Canaanite religions of _that_ time!

>Of all
>the disciples, John appears to have been the only one who had a
>"graduate" level rabbinical training.

How did you reach _this_ conclusion?

>I place "graduate" in quotes for
>a reason.  Only when one learns the rabbinical training paradigm can he
>come to understand much of the relationship between the disciples and
>Jesus, their rabbi.

And even when that has been learned, not all who have learned it will agree with
you, that John showed that level of training.

>I believe John was the only disciple who was
>invited to continue his religious training beyond the age 12.

But WHY do you believe this? What grounds do you have for the belief other than
your own unrestrained speculation?

>That the
>disciples were in their mid to late teens (except for Peter) this
>leaves enough time for John to wash out of his "graduate" level
>rabbincial training, having returned to the family business.  I feel
>this plays a certain part in why the emphasis of John's gospel is so
>different than the other 3.

Yet one need not share your assumption to understand that different emphasis. So
this does not really support your claim that he had this 'graduate' level
training.

>> > yet that stated, they were certainly acquainted with the term.
>>
>> I have yet to understand _why_ people are so certain of this...
>>
>Because there was no tv at the time.  People talked.  People discussed.
>This is evidenced by the crowds that followed Jesus, that sought Him
>out in the temple to learn what it was He was teaching.  The "logos"
>concept, though many perhaps did not actively inquire after the
>philosophical meaning, would have heard it discussed or used, whether
>in the market place or in the temple area, the market place of idea's.

That does not follow. The ideas discussed by academic philosophers such as Plato
and Philo did NOT always filter down to the common people, or even to the
partially educated classes. The _way_ people 'talked' and 'discussed' was often
very different, having nothing to do with such academic ideas as the 'Logos'.

Besides: yes, there was no TV at the time, but that does NOT mean that people
had the time to sit and 'talk'. Not at all. The majority still had to work hard
to scrape by, as Peter Brown documented so well in his history of Late
Antiquity.

>> >I would like to briefly summarize four reasons
>> >that James Boice gives as to why it matters that
>> >Jesus Christ is, indeed, God.
>>
>> But why would we care what reasons this Boice gives?
>
>For the same reasons you quote the fathers.

Oh, I _wish_ I could believe you understood these reasons!

>It is a reference.  It
>adds to the mix the profit from other theologians labors.  I thought it
>interesting and I wanted to give credit where it was due.

All good motives. But how did your citation of Boice actually achieve any of
them? After all: the 'four reasons' you gave showed that Boice _himself_ did not
profit from the labor of previous theologians where he could have most profited.

[snip]

>THAT is why it is so important that we understand that
>Christ is
>> God.
>>
>Specifically, it is important because "In Him was life and the life was
>the light of men." (vs 4)

Then why did so many assume that 'life' and 'light' here refer to the Holy
Spirit, not to Christ? And why did so many _claim_ to understand this verse 1:4,
yet _deny_ that Christ is God?

>"I am the light of the world" (8:12) is a most important concept

Yes, it is, but that still does not establish that 'light' in 8:12 is being used
to refer to the same thing/person as in 1:4.

In fact, Loren, no matter how hard you try, you _cannot_ establish this without
reference to the Tradition. But since you claim to live by Sola Scriptura, you
can do this only surreptitiously, claiming (for example) to know that John
reached 'graduate' level.

[snip]


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( 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.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/11/05 10:54:31 AM