tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post8179837607481742437..comments2024-03-28T22:55:23.525-07:00Comments on Foster's Theological Reflections: Eikon in Colossians 1:15 (Christ)Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-27475522809014344492023-08-07T16:18:11.410-07:002023-08-07T16:18:11.410-07:00Some thoughts on Colossians 1:15:
https://justpas...Some thoughts on Colossians 1:15:<br /><br />https://justpaste.it/apztrNincsnevemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06888282878602282770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-15502156476727332052017-06-18T12:03:24.193-07:002017-06-18T12:03:24.193-07:00Hi Kas,
No worries, my friend. I envy (not covet)...Hi Kas,<br /><br />No worries, my friend. I envy (not covet) your poetic writing ability. If you like lexical semantics, Silva's book is a good one. <br /><br />Yes, the misconceptions associated with John 1:1. :) <br /><br />I have never read Silva comment on that verse, but not too long ago, Caragounis and Jan Van der Watt wrote a thorough article on 1:1. See http://www.bsw.org/filologia-neotestamentaria/vol-21-2008/a-grammatical-analysis-of-john-1-1/525/<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />Edgar Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-42774749295981154962017-06-17T04:57:32.814-07:002017-06-17T04:57:32.814-07:00Hi Edgar,
My mistake. I have dyslexia, and when ...Hi Edgar,<br /><br />My mistake. I have dyslexia, and when I read "fallacious appeals to words in order to prove Jesus' deity" my mind transposed it to "fallacious appeals to word order to prove Jesus' deity".<br /><br />Since John 1:1c is the only verse I'm aware of in which it has been fallaciously argued that word order shifts the meaning to one that supports Jesus' "deity", I assumed that Silva spoke to that fallacious though popular desperation, I mean misconception;-)<br /><br />~KasAlethinon61https://www.blogger.com/profile/09826280552590911315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-3125049613405918722017-06-16T18:20:16.007-07:002017-06-16T18:20:16.007-07:00Kas,
Silva makes some general comments about tryi...Kas,<br /><br />Silva makes some general comments about trying to establish serious theological points by appealing to words like eikwn and so forth. I do not remember him commenting on Jn 1:1, but my statement was based on a book I'm now reading: See http://www.zondervan.com/biblical-words-and-their-meaningEdgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-36677331105766900402017-06-16T04:38:06.770-07:002017-06-16T04:38:06.770-07:00"It's also funny that Moises Silva recogn..."It's also funny that Moises Silva recognizes many of these factors, including fallacious appeals to words in order to prove Jesus' deity."<br /><br />Are you referring to John 1:1c? Where does Silva make that observation? If it's a good one I'll have to add it to my series on John 1:1 :-)<br /><br />~Kas<br /><br />Alethinon61https://www.blogger.com/profile/09826280552590911315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-78139237853727289822017-06-13T08:31:32.118-07:002017-06-13T08:31:32.118-07:00Hi Kas,
Very well-stated remarks, and I like the ...Hi Kas,<br /><br />Very well-stated remarks, and I like the point regarding presuppositionalism and TAG. Once you get to the heart of Trinitarianism, it becomes evident that philosophical baggage drives the whole enterprise, including how the Bible is interpreted. It's also funny that Moises Silva recognizes many of these factors, including fallacious appeals to words in order to prove Jesus' deity. Yet he too holds the presuppositions of Trinitarianism firmly in place as does Craig, etc. <br /><br />One reason I moved on (for the most part) from Trinitarian discussions is because I found myself getting nowhere in these interminable discussions.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />EdgarEdgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-26141129415554752932017-06-13T04:21:29.057-07:002017-06-13T04:21:29.057-07:00Hi Edgar,
I think that trying to squeeze ontology...Hi Edgar,<br /><br />I think that trying to squeeze ontology out of εἰκὼν is about like trying to squeeze water from a rock. Adam was made in the image of God, and Jesus is his corrective counterpart. <br /><br />To repeat with minor edits what I once said on Trinities: <br /><br />IMO, the reason Trinitarians argue the way they do about this verse and others has little to do with the texts themselves, and everything to do with the nature of Trinitarianism: It's presuppositional in character, meaning that the later doctrine forms the very context within which the biblical texts are understood. <br /><br />Greg Bahnsen, who was a student of Cornelius Van Til and a proponent of Van Til’s presuppositional approach to apologetics, would ask the atheist how the uniformity of nature and inductive principle comport with the atheistic worldview. His contention was that things like the rules of logic, the inductive principle, the uniformity of nature, math, science, etc., don’t make any sense in a worldview which holds that there is no god but only “matter in mindless motion.” For the presuppositionalist, the coup de grace to atheism is that without God you couldn’t prove anything at all, because there would be no reason to expect nature to be uniform, or for the rules of logic to be real, etc. We couldn’t even trust our own minds in an athiest’s universe. Reasoning itself only make sense if God exists. Thus, every atheist who even debates the existence of God has already lost the argument in doing so, because he is assuming what can only be true if God exists.<br /><br />That argument (the Transcendental Argument for God, or “TAG”) can be quite compelling. However, something un-compelling but very similar seems to go on in the minds of Trinitarian apologists (albeit subconsciously). The problem is that their Christology is presuppositional in nature, but they often don’t realize it. This makes discussions with our Trinitarian friends challenging, because they believe that their approach is like that of a William Lane Craig when they’re really Christological Van Till-ians in disguise.<br /><br />This, I believe, is why these arguments over what this or that text may be saying are always so challenging and frustrating. Jesus’ begotten-ness, his sonship, his kingship, his authority, his priesthood, his miracles, his status as savior, his death, resurrection, and exaltation, etc., don’t make sense to a Trinitarian apart from the Trinitarian worldview. The nature of the belief makes it impossible for them to accept an alternative view of Christ, possibly from even understanding it at all.<br /><br />I should add that Unitarians seem to suffer from similar interpretation-shaping and blind-spot-inducing presuppositions, and so conversations with members of these groups can be equally frustrating. Indeed, in my experience conversations with Unitarians can sometimes be even more frustrating, because we enter them with a certain expectation of common ground, but end up engaging in a dialogue that is no less stymied in the end. <br /><br />~KasAlethinon61https://www.blogger.com/profile/09826280552590911315noreply@blogger.com