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?”

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

John 10:33-39 – Part 2

In Part One of this post series I began a rebuttal of an argument positing that John 10:33-39 is actually supporting Trinitarian theology. Looking closely at the form of the argument and the scripture from which it is quoting. In this post I’ll look more at the bigger picture in John.

The Defender of The Trinity makes an argument as to why we should go with a Trinitarian interpretation as opposed to a Trinitarian interpretation:

A reason why John 10:33-39 shouldn’t be interpreted in a Unitarian way is because this is the third time in the Gospel of John where it records the details of WHY the Jews wanted to kill Jesus. It makes sense and fits with together which each other and the rest of the Gospel of John that in all three instances it was because the Jews interpreted Jesus’ statements as a claim to full deity.

The three passages are John 5:17-18; John 8:56-59; and here in John 10:33-39.

Continue reading “John 10:33-39 – Part 2”

John 10:33-39 – Part 2

John 10:33-39 – Part 1

I recently read an argument from a staunch defender of the trinity (since I don’t know who the writer of this blogpost is from now on I’ll just call him The Defender of the Trinity) claiming that the passage in John 10:33-29 actually strengthens the case for the full deity of Jesus (i.e. Jesus is Yahweh). I found that to be a bold statement given that on face value the passage seems to be arguing the exact opposite. I’ll quote the passage in question from the NRSV:

33 The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” 39 Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands.

Continue reading “John 10:33-39 – Part 1”

John 10:33-39 – Part 1

The Prologue of John, The Logos, The Creation, Philo and Wisdom – Part 2

This is a continuation of The Prologue of John, The Logos, The Creation, Philo and Wisdom – Part 1. In this post we’ll be looking at some instances Philo of Alexandria used the concept of the Logos (or The Word) in his writings and see if we can’t learn something about the Prologue of John from how Philo uses this concept.
What are the features of the Word according to John in his prologue? I would argue they are as follows:

1. Was from the beginning with God
2. Being Divine
3. All Creation coming to be through him/it.
4. When incarnated revealed the Father

So let’s see if we can look to see if there are similarities in Philo’s works. In his work “The Allegorical Interpretation II” Philo says:

Continue reading “The Prologue of John, The Logos, The Creation, Philo and Wisdom – Part 2”

The Prologue of John, The Logos, The Creation, Philo and Wisdom – Part 2

The Machine gun filled with blanks approach to Trinitarian Apologetics

The Machine gun filled with blanks approach to Trinitarian Apologetics.

I recently read a series of blog posts talking about texts compiled by Dr. Horrel of DTS (and other theologians), 117 of them in all, that supposedly support the doctrine of the Trinity. I call this the Machine gun filled with blacks approach to Trinitarian Apologetics because, like a machine gun, many arguments and texts are shot out, but each one ends up being a blank. In other words each one isn’t really an argument for the trinity, it’s a text which only supports the trinity when bound with all sorts of unfounded assumptions, so in the end none of the bullets actually hit. 0+0+0 117 times, or even a million times, still =0. Here are some assumptions made:

Continue reading “The Machine gun filled with blanks approach to Trinitarian Apologetics”

The Machine gun filled with blanks approach to Trinitarian Apologetics