get email updates ✉️

p.ost

(how to tell the biblical story
in a way that makes a difference)

Recent comments

Ignorance about the ignorance of the Son

Roger Sacco replied to Samuel Conner If Jesus was resurrected and his brain also,he would be thinking about things and learning new things and having new ideas…anything else is Appolynarianism. (Sat, 15/12/2018 - 21:17)
Samuel Conner Tom Wright’s “Jesus and the Victory of God” sensitized me to the possibility of thinking about the living man Jesus as a human being who had plans, intentions, etc – who thought like a human being.... (Sat, 15/12/2018 - 02:30)
peter wilkinson Carlton Wynne is an example of highly dogmatic presuppositions colliding with letting the text speak for itself. But I wonder if he meant not that John or anyone else glosses divine logos as son of... (Fri, 14/12/2018 - 19:37)

Why won’t there be marriage in the resurrection?

Phil L. Hmm. I see what you’re saying, but I think your congregation would be a lot bigger if, instead, you used this text as a basis for the new heavens and earth being an eternal free-love commune. (Sat, 15/12/2018 - 00:48)
doane Andrew, I have a hunch that something here would tie in with the ethiopian enuch. The ability for faithfull offspring to come from one who cannot produce children. Something about dead trees now... (Fri, 14/12/2018 - 02:01)

What’s wrong with the “Romans Road” to salvation?

Richard Coplin The book of Romans does not address how sinners are to be saved but rather how Christians are to stay saved. Paul wrote the book of Romans in 58 AD to people already saved. The plan of salvation is... (Wed, 12/12/2018 - 23:31)

Evangelicals and the narrative-historical method: three questions

peter wilkinson replied to Samuel Conner I appreciated your thoughts prompted by Andrew’s post, and found them helpful, as well as Andrew’s short response to you. (Wed, 12/12/2018 - 09:14)
Andrew replied to Samuel Conner Thank you. An excellent analysis. Personally it’s always seemed to me easier to establish the “under the sun” interpretation of Jesus’ teaching on Gehenna than of Paul’s doctrine of “... (Sun, 09/12/2018 - 17:07)
Samuel Conner This is very helpful; thank you! From my (former) perch in US Evangelicalism, I would suggest that, at least in that context, it would be important to carefully re-think what the churches communicate... (Fri, 07/12/2018 - 16:15)

Why did the Jews accuse Jesus of making himself equal to God?

peter wilkinson replied to john You could take a look at my second comment in “Before Abraham was, I am” in response to this. (Wed, 05/12/2018 - 08:55)
john replied to peter wilkinson ” v.19; whatever the father does, the son does - v.19; the father raises the dead and gives life, the son gives life - v.21; the father judges no one, the son has been entrusted with all judgment - v... (Tue, 04/12/2018 - 14:32)
Andrew replied to Alex I can see the sense in that reading, but it doesn’t account for the idion: “he was calling God is own Father”. Wouldn’t we expect: “he was calling God his Father (as all Jews do), and yet was making... (Sat, 01/12/2018 - 20:16)
Alex What do you think of the concessive readings of the participle poion in 5:18? “But also he was calling God his own Father and yet making himself equal to God.” James McGrath argues for this reading... (Fri, 30/11/2018 - 23:01)

In the beginning was the Word, etc.

peter wilkinson And actually, rereading what i said to which you made your comment, even if we were to accept the proposal about theos and logos according to the interpretation suggested, the alternative is not... (Mon, 03/12/2018 - 23:18)
peter wilkinson replied to Andrew The point might benefit from further exploration - certainly more than you have provided. Meanwhile I have raised numerous objections to your principle conclusions about John 1 which remain to be... (Mon, 03/12/2018 - 22:47)
Andrew replied to peter wilkinson Whatever you make of the appearance or not of the definite article, this is not how you would speak of an abstract or non personal “word”, which was no more than a “word” that God uttered.But you can... (Mon, 03/12/2018 - 22:30)
peter wilkinson replied to Andrew Yes, Logos probably refers in the first place to the word with which God spoke and creation came to be. However, in John, it is not “word” in an impersonal sense, as the first verse seems to make... (Mon, 03/12/2018 - 17:46)
Andrew replied to peter wilkinson Your depersonalisation of “Word” by using the pronoun “it” is your own editorial interpretation. John’s use of “autos” is directly linked to Jesus 1:27, and thereafter with Jesus (as it is in the... (Mon, 03/12/2018 - 16:21)
peter wilkinson There is no question that “the Word” of John 1 echoes Wisdom of Proverbs 8. The question which needs to asked is what John is doing with the association. John has certainly taken up the language of... (Mon, 03/12/2018 - 13:08)
Andrew replied to Chris How would “the word became flesh” mean “the word created a second Adam”? There’s no reference to sarx (“flesh”) in the creation accounts until we get to the creation of Eve from the flesh of Adam (... (Sat, 01/12/2018 - 20:16)
Peter I’m not sure if you’d agree with it, but I thought this was a good article on similarities and differences between Philo’s thoughts on logos and those of the 4th Gospel’s writer: The Logos of Philo... (Fri, 30/11/2018 - 23:40)
Chris Can “Word became flesh” simply mean God’s word created a second Adam, just as God spoke to create the first Adam? If word becoming flesh meant Incarnation, aren’t there clearer ways to say something... (Fri, 30/11/2018 - 03:20)

Why does Jesus give the kingdom back in the end and become subject again to God?

Mike replied to peter wilkinson You stated, “there was a time when Jesus himself was not entirely subject to God” at what time was this? (Mon, 03/12/2018 - 00:48)

Before Abraham was, I am

Andrew replied to Chris Chris, I think there’s a lot to be said for this. The question of the identity of the Christ is a major theme in the Gospel (cf. Jn. 1:20, 25, 41; 3:28; 4:26, 29; 7:26, 31, 41-42; 9:22; 10:24; 11:27... (Thu, 29/11/2018 - 12:24)
Chris The phrase could simply mean “I am the Christ”. The first I am statement in John implies this in 4:25. The book is written that all may know he is the Christ. Since Jesus typically attempts to... (Thu, 29/11/2018 - 01:47)
peter wilkinson replied to Andrew Maybe I could put it in terms of some questions, which have as their assumption that we should always look at the meaning of what Jesus says in its primary context. In the following, I am simply... (Wed, 28/11/2018 - 21:47)
Andrew replied to peter wilkinson Well, yes, it’s far less complicated if you ignore all the details. (Wed, 28/11/2018 - 09:28)
Andrew replied to Helge seekamp That’s nice. I share your enthusiasm for Isaiah 40-66. (Wed, 28/11/2018 - 09:27)
Peter Even though the author of the 4th Gospel used metaphors like light and logos, I believe he was intentionally portraying Jesus as a human who preexisted as a heavenly being–the begotten son of Yahweh... (Wed, 28/11/2018 - 03:32)
peter wilkinson I think John is far less complicated than you make him out to be. In the first place, “the Jews” understood perfectly what Jesus was claiming in John 8. The only capital offence for which they could... (Tue, 27/11/2018 - 18:28)