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?”
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?”
I recently came across a blog post by a Steve Hays who was arguing with philosopher and Unitarian Dale Tuggy on John 10:30-36. Hays gave an exegesis … a bad one, but unfortunately Dale didn’t really argue against it. So I figured I’d break down his exegesis point by point:
i) The context of the Jn 10:30 is a dispute over the identity of Jesus. The context of 10:30 is a Jewish audience who recited the Shema every day. The only way Jesus could reasonably expect them to interpret his statement is an allusion to Deut 6:4. In context, the statement would inevitably trigger that association. Hence, he’s claiming to be the Lord of the Shema.
Continue reading “Hays and John 10:30-36”