Comments on: Another Take on the Prologue to the Gospel of John http://analytictheology.com/2007/08/another-take-on-the-prologue-to-the-gospel-of-john/ Mon, 28 Jun 2010 05:10:08 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: jon http://analytictheology.com/2007/08/another-take-on-the-prologue-to-the-gospel-of-john/comment-page-1/#comment-37 jon Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:19:25 +0000 http://analytictheology.com/?p=39#comment-37 Hi David, Really interesting post. I was wondering though if the prospect of an "end" is really being hinted at by the author. It seems to fit in with everything else you've said (especially with the part of Revelation) but reading the passage alone we don't necessarily conclude there being an ending, despite an obvious beginning. I think that it might be possible to argue through Zeno's paradox of the infinite divisibility of time that there cannot be any end, but there can be a first moment of the new earth (if that makes sense-my apocalyptic theology isn't very sharp). If we accept that time is infinitely divisible then we must concede that between the two points of old earth and new earth (or even earth as it is now and the end of the world) there must be another state of the earth that is neither, a logical impossibility. If we concede though that only one of these moments is fixed then the paradox seems to be resolved. Also, I have to ask, how was it studying under John Searle?! jon. Hi David,
Really interesting post. I was wondering though if the prospect of an “end” is really being hinted at by the author. It seems to fit in with everything else you’ve said (especially with the part of Revelation) but reading the passage alone we don’t necessarily conclude there being an ending, despite an obvious beginning.

I think that it might be possible to argue through Zeno’s paradox of the infinite divisibility of time that there cannot be any end, but there can be a first moment of the new earth (if that makes sense-my apocalyptic theology isn’t very sharp). If we accept that time is infinitely divisible then we must concede that between the two points of old earth and new earth (or even earth as it is now and the end of the world) there must be another state of the earth that is neither, a logical impossibility. If we concede though that only one of these moments is fixed then the paradox seems to be resolved.

Also, I have to ask, how was it studying under John Searle?!

jon.

]]>