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 would argue that the best summation of Christian ethics is found in the sermon on the plain in Luke 6:20–49. What I love about the sermon on the plain is just how radical it seems on the surface, it seems almost impossible; however, when you think about what it’s saying, and think about it deeply—it makes sense. Probably my favorite example of this is found in Luke 6:34–35 (NRSV):
If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
Continue reading “Jesus against Hillel on Usury”
The book by John Howard Yodar named the politics of Jesus written in 1972 was extremely influential and remains influential; anyone who wants to understand contemporary political theology should read this book. The name can be misleading given the modern concept of what politics are. Modern politics generally have to do with the State, who controls the state, what the role of the state is, what state laws are and so on, but what Yodar is talking about could be more described as a social ethic.
Continue reading “The Politics of Jesus – A Review”
In a recent episode of the Dividing Line James White along with Daniel Wallace respond to some Muslim apologists who attack a Trinitarian reading of John 1:1, honestly some of the arguments given by those Muslim apologists are rather weak. However, the response by James White, and Daniel Wallace are also quite weak. Daniel Wallace quotes from his book Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics. I’ll just take the quote and show why I think it’s problematic.
Daniel Wallace says:
Continue reading “John 1:1, James White and Daniel Wallace sneaking theology into grammar”
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”
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”