Buzzard and his side-kick should have stuck to this text (vs the schma) in their debate with Brown and the joker who sat next to him if he felt it necessary to approach Theologically rather than Christologically. Speaking of straight text – you are right – Paul is clear in ICor8:6. Trin exegesis is horribly forced and painful – which is why they look so silly, confused and are easily mis-led (hence, a GOP congress….). I am not interested in moving from straight text in my reading of scripture unless the context provides otherwise (Heb1:10 – 12 would be a great example of the context providing a much wider application than the straight text). Zarley’s exegeis – which heard 30 years ago in Bible College – is forced and really just painful. Why then can’t Jesus be called god? That is easily the most natural reading of Thomas stmt in Jn:20. My point re Jn10:30 is simple – men are called gods. Adoptionist brand – though I am not opposed to considering). My Christology is Biblical Unitarian (Dynamic Monarchian) nominally including the virgin birth (vs. Please note – you are preaching to the choir! You obviously have not been reading my rather vigorous interactions with Rivers et. Thanks for the follow-up – and thanks for creating one of the nerd corners of the world where I fit right in…:-)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |