tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post2182537219292366648..comments2024-03-28T13:18:18.245-07:00Comments on Foster's Theological Reflections: Karl Rahner on the Trinity Qua Relations (Weedhacker)Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-9398658020461725032021-01-16T13:15:37.840-08:002021-01-16T13:15:37.840-08:00https://www.academia.edu/12875042/Hebrews_13_8_and...https://www.academia.edu/12875042/Hebrews_13_8_and_the_Sameness_of_Jesus_Christ_An_Evaluation_of_Approaches_and_a_Preferred_Solution_part_1_Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-20839803684352816462021-01-16T12:59:16.319-08:002021-01-16T12:59:16.319-08:00Firstly, the verse does not say that Jesus always ...Firstly, the verse does not say that Jesus always existed. Jesus Christ was a man, who lived on earth: an historical figure. He did not become Jesus Christ until he was given that name by a human (ultimately from God). Secondly, the verse says "yesterday," which implies the past, not eternity. "Yesterday" is a temporal category, so unless the person believe that Christ has lived in eternity past, the verse does not establish that he's always existed.<br /><br />Thirdly, what does the context suggest? Why were these words written?Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-59418630420297708522021-01-16T10:16:01.765-08:002021-01-16T10:16:01.765-08:00How would you explain Hebrews 13:8 to a person who...How would you explain Hebrews 13:8 to a person who believes Jesus is God? <br /><br />"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."<br /><br />Many point to this scripture as showing Jesus always existed. Therefore he is GodThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16351960096953117269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-31019212510969354572015-10-18T13:25:56.842-07:002015-10-18T13:25:56.842-07:00Matt13weedhacker,
Trinitarianism does lean toward...Matt13weedhacker,<br /><br />Trinitarianism does lean towards modalism or tritheism (social Trinitarianism): we find both tendencies in Trinitarian writers. We also find Neoplatonic or Middle Platonist ideas in the early creeds (Nicaea and thenceforth); that is why it's so hard to unravel Trinitarianism. How many people today have a command of Platonic thought, or even a familiarity with it?<br /><br />Medieval theologians-philosophers tried to resolve the logical problem of if A, B, and C all = D--then why don't they = one another? But I still have trouble understanding the supposed reply to this logical conundrum. <br /><br />At the end of the day, 1 Timothy 4:1-3 undoubtedly explains how the Trinity developed. It is a doctrine of men.<br /><br />Thanks!Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-76673211948710215782015-10-18T11:14:38.007-07:002015-10-18T11:14:38.007-07:00I agree. There are "mysteries" in the re...I agree. There are "mysteries" in the real sense of a sacred secrets, that will, or have been revealed, and then there are "mysteries", which are simply excuses for mistaken/faulty doctrines, to hide behind.<br /><br />I still think that "Tri{3}nity" is "Modalism" modified. <br /><br />And that is the real reason WHY the LOGICAL end EFFECT of the "Tri{3}nity" is the same as, (or functions as), "Modlaism" = confusing the "Persons", (so-called), into 1.<br /><br />I think "Modalism", (the first simplistic 3-in-1 and 2-in-1 confusion heresies), came first chronologically. <br /><br />And that Tertullians "Tri{3}nity", came next.<br /><br />And, (as you point out Edgar), the later, (more gradual rise), of the co-equalized co-eternalized version of the Pro-Homoousians, came after that.<br /><br />Both, were, (in my opinion), a polarized reaction and attempt at making, (i.e. modifying), the pre-existing "Modalism", (or the simplistic 3-in-1 concepts), conform CLOSER, (in their mistaken eyes), to the Scriptures, by the instrumental means of Non-Scriptural metaphysical concepts.<br /><br />And because it was based on the, (modified of course), basic structure of simplistic 3-in-1 confusion, it becomes, just a more complex 3-in-1 confusion. <br /><br />In an attempt to make EFFECTIVELY all 3, the 1 Jehovah, the 1 and the same God, the 1 God of the Bible, ("our Father who art in heaven" YHWH).<br /><br />To me, it's imperfection betrays it's, (un-inspired), origin! <br /><br />It's a "doctrine of men," and not God's.Matt13weedhackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16643587467702969643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-51891810927330275902015-10-18T08:12:01.146-07:002015-10-18T08:12:01.146-07:00The Trinity doctrine does not make sense to me, an...The Trinity doctrine does not make sense to me, and it seems logically contradictory, although it's not that easy to point out the formal fallacies in Trinitarian reasoning. Granted, some things are "mysterious" in the biblical sense of MUSTHRION; however, I believe that approach is often used as an escape clause by Trinitarians.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-7762839856632157942015-10-17T19:41:17.901-07:002015-10-17T19:41:17.901-07:00In my discussions with Trinitarians it usually end...In my discussions with Trinitarians it usually ends up as "its a mystery;" that's fine. Unless, that is, you definitions are enough to create a self-contradiction.Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683592785735127212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-68838749214928265302015-10-17T10:06:57.608-07:002015-10-17T10:06:57.608-07:00"There is nothing in my experience that helps..."There is nothing in my experience that helps me understand<br />the concepts Rahner is working with; thus they do not help me<br />understand the doctrine of the Trinity (140)."<br /><br />This about sums it up for me. They just keep digging the whole deeper and deeper, and become vaguer and vaguer, the more they write.<br /><br />The reason they can't make 3 = 1, or 1 = 3, (or "monad" = "triad"), is simply because 3 doesn't = 1, and 1 does not = 3 etc.<br /><br />The whole doctrine is based on a faulty premise. One could argue with the Tri{3}nitairans that the 3-in-1 Modalistic theory is also a "divine simplicity." A very very simple divine simplicity.Matt13weedhackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16643587467702969643noreply@blogger.com