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”
I’ve made the connection earlier in this blog between Jesus and early Christianity and the Jubilee, especially in Jesus’ Mission statement. Christianity wasn’t the only form of Judaism that made the connection between messianism and the Jubilee; the idea had been around in Judaism for a while.
To demonstrate various views of the Messiah and his connection to the Jubilee, I want to look at some documents from the Dead Sea Scroll first of all the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521). The Messianic Apocalypse is dated to the early first century B.C.E. and is made up of 2 fragments, the first one reads:
Continue reading “Qumran and the Messiah – Part One, The Messianic Apocalypse”
The last post on this blog was about the Not peace but a Sword saying found in Matthew 10:34-39. The impetus for that post was actually a lecture I saw recently given by Reza Aslan on the connection between religion and violence. I’ve written on Reza Alsan before. His argument is based on a few fallacies, one of which is found around the 20 Minute mark, he says:
A Muslim is whoever says he or she is a Muslim, the end.
Continue reading “Reza Aslan, Religion and Politics – Part 1 – Equivocation”
Continuing from the last post, we will now look at Nabeel Qureshi’s argument about supposed trends in First Century Judaism toward a Multi-personal God, if you haven’t read Part 1 of this series I suggest you do to get the context of what we are talking about. Nabeel Qureshi in his discussion with Miroslav Volf (at around the 28 minute mark) says:
The Orthodox Jews today do not reflect first century Hellenistic Judaism; they reflect rabbinic Judaism, which was formed from the late second century onward, from the time of Jesus that was Hellenistic Judaism a different kind of Judaism. In that time many Jews did believe in one being God with multiple persons. Now, I suggest that, for anyone who’s shocked by that statement they read the works of two Jewish scholars one is named Alan Segal he wrote a book called two powers in heaven and another by the name of Daniel Boyarin an orthodox Jew. Both of them argue that there were beliefs of plural personhood in a single being of God during that time of Hellenistic Judaism.
Continue reading “The God of Islam, the God of Judaism and the God of Christianity – Part 2”
God, the Cause of all, is one. This does not mean one as in one of a pair, nor one like a species (which encompasses many individuals), nor one as in an object that is made up of many elements, nor as a single simple object that is infinitely divisible. Rather, God is a unity unlike any other possible unity. This is referred to in the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:4): “Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.”
Maimonides, from his 13 principles of faith.
“The three words ‘El,’ ‘Elohim,’ and ‘Yhwh’ connote one and the same person, as one might say, ‘King, Emperor, Augustus'”
Talmudic Rabbi Simlai, Yer. Berakhot 9:12d, a Rabbi who in fact argued against Origen on the Trinity.
“if a man claims to be God, he is a liar.”
Talmud Yer. Ta’anit 2:1
Continue reading “The God of Islam, the God of Judaism and the God of Christianity – Part 1”
In my previous post I talked about the recent debate between Justin Bass at Bart Ehrman and how the pretence of a pure historical method is a false one. Now in this post I’d like to deal with the argument Justin Bass makes relating to Jesus’ claim to be the “Son of Man” of Daniel 7:13,14. Justin Bass says at the 22 minute mark:
The most explicit claim to Deity was Jesus’ claim to be son of man before Caiaphas the night before he was crucified … The son of man figure, if you’re not familiar with it, it comes from Daniel Chapter 7, Daniel sees in these night visions, he sees this Son of man figure, that’s definitely divine. He rides the clouds, which only God does, he is given glory and all peoples and nations worship him, and think about the context of Daniel, nobody worships anyone in Daniel except the God of Israel, but they worship the Son of Man. He is the king of God’s eternal Kingdom, this is an incredibly exalted figure, in fact Bart Ehrman says in his book about the son of man figure, ‘this is an exalted figure indeed, as exalted as one could possibly be without actually being the Lord God Almighty.’
Then later on:
In short whether Jesus says in John ‘before Abraham was I am’, or says to Caiaphas ‘you will see the son of man seated at the right hand of God,’ he is claiming to be divine, he is saying in the language of the Hebrew Scriptures that he Jesus shares the unique identity of the One God of Israel.
Continue reading “Justin Bass vs Bart Ehrman – Part 2, The Son of Man”