Recent comments

Comments found: 10145

Hurtado’s critique of Wright’s account of Paul’s christology

peter wilkinson → Andrew: Ferguson is wrong: this son

Andrew → peter wilkinson: Daniel 3:33 is the Masoretic

peter wilkinson → Andrew: One has to pay attention to

Andrew → peter wilkinson: Goldingay:The humanlike

peter wilkinson → Andrew: I think what all this points

Andrew → peter wilkinson: But that doesn’t identify the

peter wilkinson → Andrew: In Daniel 7:14, the word

Andrew → peter wilkinson: How is the son of man figure

peter wilkinson → Andrew: I continue to be struck how,

The resurrection of the sleeping saints from their tombs

Greg Brown → Greg Brown: In regard to εις1519, which

Greg Brown → Andrew: Thank you for your insightful

Andrew → Greg Brown: It’s an interesting argument,

Greg Brown → Greg Brown: It was no doubt due to

Greg Brown → Andrew: One way to solve exegetical

Double Post-Tribulational Pre-Amillennialism

Rich → Andrew: Andrew,

Keith Wansbrough → Andrew: After that he must be

Rich → Andrew: You do have a point. :)

Andrew → Rich: Take it up with Wikipedia.

Rich → Andrew: No Preterist timeline?? I

Andrew → Mark Edward: Partly for lack of space—I

Mark Edward → Andrew: I noticed a distinct lack of

16 reasons to think that the “age to come” is now and in history

Andrew → Philip L Ledgerwood: Thanks, Phil. I agree with

Andrew → peter wilkinson: 1. The day of the Lord would

peter wilkinson → Andrew: “I think my argument gives

Philip L Ledgerwood → Andrew: In terms of Ian’s critique, I

N.T. Wright and Paul’s eschatology (with coloured beads)

Andrew → Ian Paul: Thanks for asking. Reponse

Ian Paul → Andrew: I agree with your first four

Andrew → Chris Tilling: Hi Chris,Roughly, yes.The Old

Chris Tilling → Andrew: Great post and wonderful

peter wilkinson → Andrew: This has made me realise that

Subscribe to Recent comments