Text of 1 Tim 3:16

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Hello Michael

>Well, Jan, I have never claimed to be a Biblical scholar :-) I am sure 
>you are correct in your above statement.  The texts that I used to 
>derive the statement I made above show several sets of texts together, 
>all of which show the Greek wording of -Theos-.  However, according to 
>other sources that I have, we are both wrong. 

Not really. "He" is a perfectly acceptable translation of "hos". It's 
really the relative pronoun in Greek.

>The original text may not acutally state Theos, as you have indicated, 
>but since God became (was made) flesh (John 1:14),

Well, this is what is disputed isn't it?

What became flesh was logos, the word of God. This is the incarnation 
of God. Does it mean that God became flesh? My answer: yes and no 
(should cover all bases).  

>I do disagree with the idea which suggests that the New Testament 
>Greek texts did not portray any Christological statements.  I am 
>sorry, but I just do not agree with this statement. 

That's very well, because I never made such a statement and would 
consider it absurd if somebody said it!

There are, as you say, quite a lot of christological statements in the 
NT. However, a "high" christology can only be found in John, and even 
those statements aren't very easy to understand today.

If we should have based our christology entirely on the synoptics, or 
the earlier letters, it would look wildly different. I don't mean they 
disagree, simply that the divinity of Christ is not even hinted at in 
pauline letters (pastorals excluded) or the synoptics. It's quite 
difficult, but an interesting topic, to reconstruct how the early 
christians came to develop the idea of the divinity of Christ.


Cheers,
- Jan
-- 
          http://home.sol.no/jansh/wteng/jwindex.html