tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post6021843117331292589..comments2024-03-28T00:08:14.247-07:00Comments on Foster's Theological Reflections: John 10:30--In What Sense the Father and Son Are OneEdgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-15479191235440431712017-08-08T07:41:36.179-07:002017-08-08T07:41:36.179-07:00The text is extremely weak evidence for supporting...The text is extremely weak evidence for supporting Trinitarianism. Novatian was battling modalism, so he invoked John 10:30 to show that the Father and the Son are not one person. In waging that battle, he called attention to the neuter gender use at 10:30 also. I think Tertullian makes a similar comment about the neuter, maybe in Adversus Praxean. As you know, 1 Cor. 3:8 also has the neuter. Notice that Novatian makes an argument that the Son is "inferior" to the Father, so he cannot be the Father.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-51189786022524968792017-08-08T02:13:34.071-07:002017-08-08T02:13:34.071-07:00Tri{3}nitarians twist this text into a quant-itati...Tri{3}nitarians twist this text into a quant-itative (numerical thing-ed-ness) text, rather than a qual-itative (harmony, unity, agreement) "one-ness" text.<br /><br />Lit., “I and the Father, one [= neuter singular] we-are [= masculine plural].”<br /><br />“I and the Father, we are at one” or: “The Father and I, we are at one.”Matt13weedhackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16643587467702969643noreply@blogger.com