2,947 reputation
21542
bio website brucealderman.info
location Kansas
age 46
visits member for 3 years, 2 months
seen 3 hours ago

I've been a Christian since 1985, and a member of East Heights United Methodist Church in Wichita since 1994, though I no longer live in Wichita. My theology is Wesleyan/Arminian, but I don't think all Christians must share this view.

I believe that the Bible is inspired but not inerrant, that it was written to teach us about God and not the physical universe.

I believe faith is not an intellectual pursuit but a transformation of our entire being.


May
20
comment Are women really saved by childbearing according to 1 Timothy 2:15?
@Kazark: It turns out Witherington doesn't either, at least not exclusively. Witherington says the unusual structure of the sentence, including using "she" in the subject and "they" following the verb, contributes to his conclusion that this is intended to point to Christ's birth.
May
18
comment Are women really saved by childbearing according to 1 Timothy 2:15?
@Kazark: Gill's commentary (linked in your answer) makes this same case, that this refers to a specific birth: "and the sense is, that notwithstanding the fall of man by the means of the woman, yet there is salvation for both men and women, through the birth of Immanuel, the child born, and Son given; at whose birth, the angels sung peace on earth, good will to men; through the true Messiah, the deed of the woman, through the incarnate Saviour, who was made of a woman, there is salvation for lost sinners: he was born of a woman, and came into the world in order to obtain salvation for them".
Apr
11
comment Was Moses the probable author of Genesis?
@RonMaimon: I never noticed the doublets--not their significance, anyway--until someone pointed out the pattern to me. Accusing others of willful blindness is not likely to help the conversation.
Apr
6
comment What are the arguments in favor of Markan priority?
Just another angle on rough edges: Most translations won't show it (Young's Literal Translation does), but Mark often writes in ungrammatical Greek, switching from present to past tense and back--sometimes in the same sentence. Matthew and especially Luke don't make the same grammatical mistakes.
Apr
6
comment What are the arguments in favor of Markan priority?
Thanks for the thoroughness of this answer.
Apr
3
comment How can the Pastoral Epistles not be Pauline?
That Wikipedia article appears to have been written from a particular point of view. This one is a little more balanced.
Apr
3
comment How can the Pastoral Epistles not be Pauline?
I'll try to add more early church references; while the canon wasn't fully settled until the 4th century, the 13 letters with the name Paul at the top were not disputed.
Mar
20
comment What are the arguments in favor of Matthean Priority?
This is a very thorough explanation.
Mar
19
comment What are the arguments in favor of Matthean Priority?
Markan priority doesn't necessarily require a Q document.
Mar
18
comment Did Luke use Josephus as a source?
@FrankLuke: I'm not looking for live chat. Please see here for what I'm envisioning.
Mar
16
comment Did Luke use Josephus as a source?
Fair enough. I don't want to hijack the comments, but I'd be interested in discussing more about early vs late dating, and which gospels relied on which. Would you be interested in discussing this in a chat room? (That goes for @Jon too.)
Mar
15
comment Did Luke use Josephus as a source?
@Frank: If you date Luke-Acts pre-64, then what does that do to its relationship with the other synoptics? Mark makes a reference to the First Jewish-Roman War as a contemporary event ("let the reader understand" in Mark 13:14), which would place Mark sometime between 66 and 73. So was Luke the earliest gospel? Or do you understand Mark 13:14 differently? (If so, please take a shot at this question.)
Mar
8
comment Is John 7:53-8:11 original to John's gospel?
I'll make further comments in chat.
Mar
8
comment Is John 7:53-8:11 original to John's gospel?
I'm not so sure his comments aren't germane. It seems this question is premised on the assumption that textual criticism can determine what is inspired. If we don't make that assumption, how would we reach that conclusion?
Mar
8
comment Why did the witnesses lay their coats at Paul's feet?
Also, it would have been widely understood that Hellenized Jews had the power in Jerusalem. The Romans, after all, had allowed Temple worship to continue only on the condition that the Romans got to choose the High Priest.
Mar
8
comment Why did the witnesses lay their coats at Paul's feet?
I think it was established fairly early that Christianity was a branch of Judaism. Roman historian Suetonius wrote of the time of Emperor Claudius (circa 50 AD), "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." Acts 18 refers to Aquila and Priscilla, two Christian teachers who were expelled at that time.
Mar
8
comment Is John 7:53-8:11 original to John's gospel?
@swasheck: This question is asking about biblical inspiration. Is it your contention that only the "most probable original text" is inspired?
Mar
8
comment Is John 7:53-8:11 original to John's gospel?
What is the rationale for claiming the canon should consist of our best reconstruction of the original documents, rather than the documents as they have been passed down to us?
Mar
8
comment Is John 7:53-8:11 original to John's gospel?
@Lance, yes, but they usually defend it due to style analysis, not ancient documentary support.
Mar
8
comment Does the “lost leaf” theory for Mark's abrupt ending fail if written on a scroll?
I can't say for certain, but my understanding is that papyrus was not likely to tear while it was new. Bookbinding techniques were less reliable, and a page could get missed while sewing them together.