All Things in Common: a book

Over the last few months I haven’t been posting that regularly, there’s a few reasons for that; one reason is that I’ve been working on a book. The book I’ve been working on is called All Things in Common: The Economic Practices of the Early Christians, which has just been published by Wipf and Stock.

Continue reading “All Things in Common: a book”

Advertisements
All Things in Common: a book

The Sermon on the Plain

The Sermon on the Plain can be broken down into three sections: the blessings and woes (20–26), Ethics (27–38), and the Parables (39–49); each section can be further broken down. Starting with the blessings and woes we see four blessings along with four concomitant woes. However, the last blessing and the last woe seems not to fit well with the first three blessings and woes. First we have the rhythm of the text. The first three blessings read:

Continue reading “The Sermon on the Plain”

The Sermon on the Plain

An interview

I recently did an interview with John Shuck on the radio show/podcast progressive spirit, also on youtube about my book “All Things in Common: The Economic Practices of the Early Christians.” I hope you enjoy it.

An interview

Will we ever get a trinitarian exegesis of John 10:34–36?

I’ve searched up, I’ve searched down, I’ve looked all over Steven Hay’s post, and I still found no Exegesis of John 10:34–36. I have asked so many times; 3 posts ago I made sure to only comment on the distractions in a comment, so that we could focus on the actual text in question—yet Steven jumped on the distractions and ignored the text. 2 posts ago I ignored the distractions, commenting only on a few side issues to focus on the actual text in question—he still refused to exegetes the text. 1 post ago I ignored everything except for John 10:34–36 and John 10:30, putting a special emphasis on John 10:34–36 and begging him to give a coherent exegesis that accounts for the text in its context. He still hasn’t done it. He certainly has posted responses; he’s brought up all kinds of arguments against my refutation of his reading of John 10:30, but all he’s really said about Verses 34–35 (which was the entire point of this incredibly exasperating exchange) is that it is, some how, an a fortiori, without explaining what the argument actually is and how it makes sense of the text in the context of Jesus responding to a charge.

Continue reading “Will we ever get a trinitarian exegesis of John 10:34–36?”

Will we ever get a trinitarian exegesis of John 10:34–36?

Hay’s non-Exegesis of John 10:34–6, where is the Exegesis?

So I’m going to go a little bit backwards here in responding to Steve Hays latest response to me. I’m going to start with John 10:34–36, which was, originally, the entire point of this exchange, and in my view the point of dispute.  I’m going to ignore all the other distractions untill we can get out of Hays an actual coherent exegesis of the text in dispute. I have a straightforward reading of that passage and I’ll give it below.

Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?

Citing Psalms 82 where beings, which are not Yahweh, are called gods.

Continue reading “Hay’s non-Exegesis of John 10:34–6, where is the Exegesis?”

Hay’s non-Exegesis of John 10:34–6, where is the Exegesis?

Where is Hay’s argument?

Me and Steven Hays have been going at it over a couple posts, and we’re kind of going in circles and I feel like the points are being lost, so I’m going to focus on the main points here. The main points in this dialogue are, in my opinion, what was Jesus’ claim that his enemies were responding to, and how did Jesus reply to their accusations.

Steven sees an allusion to the Shema in John 10:30, I don’t, in fact I don’t see any evidence whatsoever for an allusion to the Shema, the only word that is the same is the word “one” and John 10:30 uses a different form of that word. Therefore, I’m going to ask Steve Hays again, what evidence is there that Jesus is alluding to the Shema, here is John 10:30:

Continue reading “Where is Hay’s argument?”

Where is Hay’s argument?

What on Earth is Jesus saying in John 10:34–36

It looks like the debate between me and Steve Hays over John 10:30–36 is still going on. He replied to my post which was a response to a response of  a criticism of an exegesis. I think this debate is important, not only for Christology—but also for how we do exegesis. You’ll see that both me and Steve Hays have different approaches to exegesis, it’s up to you do decide which one is more consistent and faithful to the text. In this response I’m going to focus on the issues of the Shema in John 10:30, and the actual exegesis of John 10:34–36, the rest of the post (John 1, the concept of messiahship, and so on) I’ll deal with in the comment section so as to keep this debate on subject.

On the Shema in John 10:30 Hays says:

Continue reading “What on Earth is Jesus saying in John 10:34–36”

What on Earth is Jesus saying in John 10:34–36

But what does it mean? And what’s the response?

In my last post I responded to a rather bad exegesis of John 10:30-36 by Steve Hays, I say it’s bad with no disrespect, all trinitarians readings of this text are going to end up being bad exegesis. Steve has since replied to my response and I feel I would be remiss if I didn’t given his defense of his reading a good shot and a reply. So here it goes:

Some guy named Roman A. Montero–evidently a unitarian–attempted to respond on Tuggy’s behalf to a post of mine.

Not on Tuggy’s behalf, on my own behalf, I can only speak for myself.

Continue reading “But what does it mean? And what’s the response?”

But what does it mean? And what’s the response?