peter wilkinson replied to Andrew Phil’s interpretation of Jesus’s response to the Jews who confront him doesn’t make sense to me. He explains Jesus as saying: “if the ones to whom the word of God came can be called “gods,” how is it...(Wed, 21/11/2018 - 18:31)
peter wilkinson replied to Andrew In response to your first paragraph, where you say: “How is it true that he identifies himself with God but not true that he claims to be the same person as God?”, I provide three statements from my...(Wed, 21/11/2018 - 18:01)
Andrew replied to peter wilkinson I didn’t completely ignore John 10:33. I noted the accusation that he was making himself God and then said that “Jesus did not respond directly to the charge…”. But as Phil Ledgerwood notes, Jesus...(Wed, 21/11/2018 - 16:21)
Peter replied to Andrew It seems the author of John is teaching a spiritual reign of Jesus on earth prior to the worldwide resurrection and judgment, i.e. He is already reigning since he is with his people via the Spirit....(Wed, 21/11/2018 - 13:00)
Andrew replied to Peter That’s a good point. So how would we characterise Jesus’ vision for Israel according to John? What, for example, does this tell us about the expectations of John’s community?Jesus said to...(Wed, 21/11/2018 - 12:25)
Andrew replied to peter wilkinson
Jesus was not, anyway, claiming to be the same person as God. He was claiming a relationship which was as close as father and son - and it was a relationship, not just a status.
I’m confused. You...(Wed, 21/11/2018 - 12:18)
peter wilkinson replied to Phil L. I haven’t ignored 20.36; I referred to it, and possibly a third meaning in my previous comment (before the one you have responded to). It’s all open and above board. The fact is that Andrew has...(Wed, 21/11/2018 - 07:09)
Peter Andrew, you wrote, “[John] sees no prospect of Israel’s restoration as a nation.”
It seems to me that John sees no earthly millennial kingdom in the midst of the nations, but he does see a future...(Wed, 21/11/2018 - 04:27)
Phil L. replied to peter wilkinson I was going to stay out of this exchange and just listen, but I feel like I had to say something about this:
But Jesus seems not to make the distinction about himself: “If he called them gods to whom...(Wed, 21/11/2018 - 02:41)
peter wilkinson replied to Andrew It’s true that claiming to be equal does not mean claiming to be the same as. But that is not the accusation against Jesus.
The meaning of “equal with God” in the accusation of the Jews in John 5:18...(Wed, 21/11/2018 - 00:25)
Andrew replied to peter wilkinson Philo does not suggest at all that the person who makes himself or herself equal to God is claiming to be God.If a minister acts in a way that exceeds her authority and claims to be equal to the...(Tue, 20/11/2018 - 22:58)
peter wilkinson I certainly agree that Jesus is redefining what it means to be in relationship with God. I may not have fully understood the short extract from Philo which you have presented, but I can’t see that it...(Tue, 20/11/2018 - 22:03)
Andrew replied to Brian Dockery Matthew 25:31-46 describes a judgment of the nations according to how they have treated Jesus’ disciples, the least of these his brothers. Those Gentiles who tend to the physical needs of the...(Wed, 21/11/2018 - 17:42)
Andrew replied to SDsc0rch This was also suggested here. It’s an attractive idea. The difficulties with it, as I see it, are: 1) the past tenses (“he called them gods to whom the word of God came”); and 2) the fact that in the...(Wed, 21/11/2018 - 16:39)
SDsc0rch you don’t see a parallel between the evil “counsel of god” and the jews? the “counsel” had been given authority and failed to be faithful - so had the jewswarning!(Wed, 21/11/2018 - 06:15)
Andrew replied to Malcolm Smith Malcolm, the second part might be incorrect if I’d said what you said I said. But I didn’t. I didn’t say “men in general” and “women in general”. I said that complementarians have “...(Tue, 20/11/2018 - 11:49)
Malcolm Smith “Traditionalists or complementarians have generally argued both that men and women are biologically different and that men should have authority over women.”
The second part is incorrect. We don’t...(Tue, 20/11/2018 - 11:02)
peter wilkinson replied to Phil L. It’s not going to be possible, Phil, in a comment thread on another topic to fully address your questions, but thank you for asking them. I think I’ve sketched out the outlines of a case, bolstered...(Tue, 20/11/2018 - 07:41)
Phil L. replied to peter wilkinson I am very sorry about Brexit, but we have Trump, so I have to parcel out my compassion carefully so as not to exhaust myself.
I was tempted to start disagreeing, but it occurs to me that I should...(Tue, 20/11/2018 - 01:39)
peter wilkinson replied to Phil L. I seem to be conducting conversations on two fronts, as well as trying to make my phone behave itself.
Just briefly, by way of also being predictable, I see the divinity of Jesus all over the NT,...(Mon, 19/11/2018 - 23:24)
peter wilkinson replied to Andrew Thanks for the clarification. Of course, if the Greek church built a “Platonist Christology” on John’s thesis that the logos became flesh, then that would have been a misreading of John. Nevertheless...(Mon, 19/11/2018 - 22:26)
Phil L. replied to peter wilkinson I can appreciate that. Predictably, I disagree that this doctrine was important to anything in the apostolic writings or the life, message, or hope of the church. I think that the biblical data for...(Mon, 19/11/2018 - 22:03)
Andrew replied to peter wilkinson
I differ in some key respects from the line promoted on this blog, and find that John’s gospel is not an anomaly, nor influenced by Greek thinking. John 1 is a Hebrew reworking of Logos, not the...(Mon, 19/11/2018 - 21:51)
peter wilkinson replied to peter wilkinson When I greeted you as “John”, Phil, I meant “Phil” and not “John”. My salutation was derailed by the intense “John” thinking that is going on. Either that or it was predictive text. My phone...(Mon, 19/11/2018 - 19:56)
peter wilkinson replied to Phil L. And it’s always also good to see you too, John. As far as I can see, diversity in views about Jesus before Nicea (or even afterwards) isn’t really an issue: certainly not with me. I was using the...(Mon, 19/11/2018 - 19:45)
Phil L. replied to peter wilkinson Hey Peter, good to see you.
I do not mean to imply that, prior to Nicea, the view that Jesus was God did not exist, nor do I even mean to imply that Nicean trinitarianism did not exist prior to Nicea...(Mon, 19/11/2018 - 19:06)
peter wilkinson replied to Phil L. Phil - the logic of your final paragraph seems to be that in the early centuries, because the early church did not employ later Greek formulations of the Trinity, therefore they did not believe in...(Mon, 19/11/2018 - 18:27)
Peter replied to Phil L. I think it’s unlikely Targum writers would borrow from a Christian source or from Philo’s platonic logos.
Regarding Ronning’s Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology, Craig Evans wrote, “There...(Tue, 20/11/2018 - 04:16)
Phil L. replied to Peter I wonder which is the chicken and which is the egg, here. Since the concept of Memra is primarily found in the Targum, it could be that the idea of Memra was borrowing from Logos as opposed to the...(Mon, 19/11/2018 - 19:09)