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?”
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?”
On James white’s “The Dividing line” James recently criticized a Debate between Unitarian David Barron and Trinitarian Turretinfan. He criticizes first of all that many Unitarians only focus on the Unitarian against Trinitarian debate, fair enough, many of them are unbalanced. But what about their actual arguments. James white Calles David Barron a sophist, and claims to deal with his main argument. Here is the argument that James white criticizes:
Continue reading “James white vrs David Barron and Sophistry”