Andrew replied to davo I don’t understand the distinction between “literal” and “temporal”. Jesus didn’t mean that Nicodemus should literally be born again, which would be impossible. But he meant that he should really be...(31 October, 2019 - 11:12)
davo replied to Andrew According to John, Jesus says that those “who are in the tombs” will come out, either for life or for judgment (Jn. 5:28-29). Why should this not be taken literally?
As to one’s reward that’s...(31 October, 2019 - 04:52)
Andrew replied to davo Not convinced.Paul and the New Testament generally are more clearly dependent on Daniel 12:1-3 than on Ezekiel 37. In Daniel resurrection is part of national renewal, but individuals are in view.It...(30 October, 2019 - 14:02)
Rich replied to davo Davo,
Your comments here are right on! The resurrection was a progressive 40 year event (Israel’s second 40 years of wondering in the desert) in the first century - hence the present passives...(30 October, 2019 - 13:00)
peter wilkinson replied to Andrew A resurrection of the dead which no one saw, passages from 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15 which require meaning to be read into them, two parousias. Isn’t this straining interpretation? (28 October, 2019 - 10:20)
Andrew replied to peter wilkinson On what grounds can you say that it was unseen?Duh! No one saw it!Where does this seem plain?I think the limited resurrection is plain from the reliance on Daniel 12:1-3, the function of resurrection...(27 October, 2019 - 09:24)
davo Did Paul imagine that the dead in Christ would literally emerge from their tombs, in the manner of the “saints who had fallen asleep”, who came out of their tombs after the resurrection of Jesus and...(27 October, 2019 - 05:49)
peter wilkinson replied to Andrew We can’t say that the resurrection of the martyrs was immaterial or non-bodily, but we can say that it was unseen
On what grounds can you say that it was unseen?
it seems plain that...(26 October, 2019 - 18:27)
Andrew replied to peter wilkinson So it could have been a non-physical resurrection - a spiritual resurrection. But this seems to be diluting the meaning of resurrection as 1st century Jews would have understood it.The resurrection...(26 October, 2019 - 17:47)
peter wilkinson You provide a link to your immediately preceding item in the opening sentence of this post. I was trawling through this and older posts with a view to working up into a fuller argument some ideas on...(26 October, 2019 - 16:47)
Andrew replied to Andrew Yeah Genesis 3:15 was the verse I was thinking of. Some scholars have pointed out that linguistically Paul’s writings don’t match up with Genesis 3:15 but more likely his eschatology...(25 October, 2019 - 22:38)
Andrew replied to Andrew Thanks.You can see what I think of Genesis 3:15, if that’s what you’re referring to, here.I don’t think Jesus had in mind any sort of successful war against Rome, only the disaster...(25 October, 2019 - 22:07)
Andrew That’s really interesting! I commented on the previous post about what it meant to crush satan. More scholars are starting to see Paul’s eschatology less about the Genesis and more about...(25 October, 2019 - 18:34)
Alex Jesus was the incarnate wisdom of God in the specific sense that through his suffering and death he catalysed or triggered or initiated a profound and far-reaching transformation of the historic...(29 October, 2019 - 18:54)
Andrew replied to James Mercer …how might something like this scenario play out today, I wonder?I think the challenge is to imagine a good future for the secular world. Probably not a “Christian” future, though a Christ-...(25 October, 2019 - 22:13)
James Mercer replied to Andrew Yes, that makes sense. A previous (unrecorded) repuduation of paganism as the act of repentence on which the forgiveness of sins is predicated and assumed. And yet Cornelius and his family and...(24 October, 2019 - 12:26)
Andrew replied to James Mercer Hi James. I’m still pondering your previous comment about historical obsolescence!
It’s a good question. Peter does not here say that “forgiveness of sins” is granted to Cornelius and his household...(23 October, 2019 - 21:07)
James Mercer Hi Andrew. Working my way through Acts, I was drawn back to this earlier post of yours. A question, which I hope doesn’t appear too absurdly naive: In the paragraph concerning Cornelius and his...(23 October, 2019 - 17:36)
David replied to Andrew Thanks Andrew! Appreciate the ongoing effort to shed light on the subject.(25 October, 2019 - 18:15)
Andrew replied to David Good question, David, and a tricky one. Here’s an attempt to answer it.(25 October, 2019 - 16:14)
David Thanks for this post Andrew. Have very much appreciated your articles and insights since having discovered your site in the last 18 months (or so — time flies).
With respect to this post and the...(25 October, 2019 - 00:39)
Andrew replied to Andrew Thank you, Andrew—though it feels like I’m talking to myself.Paul is speaking about the threat of division and disruption from people who serve “their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery...(24 October, 2019 - 19:57)
Andrew Great post Dr. Perriman, very thought provoking. I’ve been studying Paul a lot lately, and was wondering if you had any thoughts on Romans 16:20? It’s so abrupt that some scholars think...(24 October, 2019 - 17:00)
Dines replied to Phil L. Hi Phil, despite my letter was lost I have tried to reconstruct the essential points that I made. I went to a pc and restored the webpages containing the scripture references, despite I had written...(21 October, 2019 - 13:50)
Dines replied to Phil L. Hi Phil and thank you. I wrote a longer letter to you and those interested. I published it just now but it came up with an error. I spent several hours writng it amd believe it to be of big...(21 October, 2019 - 11:33)
Marc Taylor replied to Dines No one has manipulated the text when Thomas referred to the Lord Jesus as “My God” in John 20:28. What those who deny the Lord Jesus is God so often do is manipulate what Thomas meant in order to...(21 October, 2019 - 02:43)
Marc Taylor replied to Phil L. a. Only God is the proper recipient of worship.
b. The Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of worship.
c. Therefore the Lord Jesus is God. Simple, straightforward and true.
p.s....(21 October, 2019 - 01:52)
Phil L. replied to Dines Hi Dines,
I appreciate what you’re trying to do, here. Taking a lot of time to point out to Marc all the clear areas of differentiation that Jesus himself brings up.
You have to...(21 October, 2019 - 01:48)