6,282 reputation
1426
bio website
location East Coast USA
age
visits member for 1 year, 11 months
seen 12 hours ago

My undergraduate degree was in fine arts. Later, I became a largely self-taught web designer while also pursuing Biblical studies (M.Div). I am now mainly inactive with web design, but when I do still dabble with CSS (or LESS), I tend to seek pushing it to its limits. Such dabbling is now a very part-time hobby as I work on my Ph.D. studies in Systematic Theology, which has found me spending more of my "free time" being active on the Biblical Hermeneutics SE site. This meta question of mine will reveal a lot about where I come from regarding that topic.


16h
comment Does the Greek of John 20:28 undermine the notion of the trinity?
Just as a side note, even if that passage were shown to have Thomas addressing "two persons" (as the quote you give notes), that would not "undermine the notion of the trinity," because there are two Persons within the Trinity that Thomas could be addressing. There are enough other passages to still uphold the doctrine had this one not. However, H3br3wHamm3r81's answer showed it does added support Trinity, rather than simply being neutral.
Jan
24
revised 2 Sam. 2:9: אֶל and עַל
Tweak some wording
Jan
23
comment 2 Sam. 2:9: אֶל and עַל
@Davïd: Well, I guess I look at as n = 3 since there are three instances in this verse. But it is all with one verb and in one verse, so yes, precarious. That is why I stated "possibility." From your answer, it sounds to me like this interchange of prepositions could possibly still be good fodder for further PhD work to discover whether there are any "purposeful" reasons behind some or any of the instances, or at least something more solid as to "why." Even the quote from Ernst Jenni you give shows tentativeness and uncertainty on that, which hints that more research may be needed.
Jan
23
answered 2 Sam. 2:9: אֶל and עַל
Jan
23
comment 2 Sam. 2:9: אֶל and עַל
Your assumption about Ishbosheth's throne being "in Jerusalem" is factually mistaken, as 2 Sam 29:8 clearly states it was in Mahanaim which was east of Jordan, "located along the border between Manasseh and Gad’s tribes" (Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, 1988). David was in Hebron (2 Sam 2:11), and would not retake Jerusalem from the Jebusites for another 7 1/2 years or so (2 Sam 5:5-7). So while this does not defeat the possibility of the author using the terms as you have suggested, it does eliminate any relation to Jerusalem with Ishbosheth.
Jan
16
comment How does the reader of Isaiah and Daniel reconcile these end-time prophecies?
@Bagpipes: I agree Isa 63 shows the Isa 34 judgment of Edom comes before the events of Isa 63 which references those, but I would disagree if you are placing the reference of Isa 34 and 63 before those of Dan 11:41. Rather, they would happen after Edom has been spared from the king of the North. Isa 34 and 63 happen in conjunction with the "end" of that king in Dan 11:45, when "Michael" stands for Israel as Dan 12:1-4 summarizes and indicates.
Jan
16
answered How does the reader of Isaiah and Daniel reconcile these end-time prophecies?
Jan
13
awarded  Citizen Patrol
Jan
8
comment Where was Jesus when he received word of Lazarus' illness?
I don't believe I ever argued that "literary dependence" would "add reliability," only that one cannot assume unreliability because of dependence. But the sum of my whole critique is that whether dependent or not, it is not "meaningless to place Jesus anywhere" at that time, dismissing the question, because in the context of the Biblical narrative he was considered to be "somewhere," whether one considers that narrative historically accurate or not. So simply in the context of the text alone, without regard to its formation, the question has meaning.
Jan
6
comment Where was Jesus when he received word of Lazarus' illness?
Yes, I noticed, though para 3 includes the premise from 2. My original critique was purely on the non-sequitur conclusion of the intertextual position. It does not necessarily follow that a literary relation to Luke still makes the account itself unfactual/unhistorical (no matter who wrote it or when it was written). One could craft a historically accurate story of George Washington (1st U.S. president for any non-U.S. readers here) while being fully dependent upon other source material to do so, even if some of those sources only mentioned hypothetically what might have later become actual.
Jan
6
comment Where was Jesus when he received word of Lazarus' illness?
Granting an oral (or written) source may (1) be "subject to error," (2) "not divinely inspired," and (3) "not ... historically impeccable" does not lead automatically to conclude it did err or was merely "literary." So your conclusion that "from a historical perspective, it is meaningless to place Jesus anywhere at the time of receiving news about Lazarus" dismisses the account as being unhistorical (and dismisses the OP's question) without evidence that it should be taken as unhistorical. Now your just added K. L. Yoder link at least sources a case for considering literary dependence.
Jan
6
comment Where was Jesus when he received word of Lazarus' illness?
@GreatBigBore: I believe rhetorician is counting inclusively. So Day 1 (messengers travel to Jesus and He is told of Lazarus being sick, but Lazarus in fact died during time messengers were traveling); Day 2 & 3 (Jesus stays put); Day 4 (Jesus travels to where Lazarus was and resurrects him). Thus dead "four days," not necessarily more than 72 hours and up to 96 hours, but theoretically a minimum of just over 48 hours, which can span four different calendar days (though I suspect it probably is over 72 hours being noted, with some partial days consisting of a number of hours on Day's 1 & 4).
Jan
6
comment Where was Jesus when he received word of Lazarus' illness?
In addition to the Lazarus connection @JackDouglas questions, I would like more explanation of the leap in logic from (1) John's gospel not being written by him, but rather being "loosely" based on Luke's (which I disagree with, but will run with here), and (2) Luke's hypothetical resurrection mention, to (3) a conclusion then of dismissing the account in John as factual. A factual oral tradition or other lost written source can just as easily explain the inclusion in John. Just because Luke does not affirm the same account does not make John erroneous, even if John were loosely based on Luke.
Dec
30
revised Translation of Romans 5:12
Added grammatical considerations
Dec
29
answered Translation of Romans 5:12
Dec
22
comment Who was “speaking in David”?
@Jas3.1: I added a parenthetical note after my phrase. Most of the references to "God" in the first chapter of Hebrews and in my post are to "God the Father" (the Son's "appointment" by another of 1:2 and 3:2 indicate this) but at the same time, I believe because of the Trinity, any action by any Person of the Trinity is also an act of the "Godhead," and so there is a participatory aspect of all Three in each One's actions. Each Person is an individual agent of action for the Godhead in total. So I would classify the "Godhead" as "He" also, since They work in perfect unity as One.
Dec
22
revised Who was “speaking in David”?
Added some clarity on my view of Spirit
Dec
19
answered Who was “speaking in David”?
Dec
19
comment Is Romans 3:24-26 original to Paul?
@Davïd Jas 3.1 and I have discussed inspiration extensively in our private chat. I hold a model of verbal plenary inspiration. It sees Scripture as both the human's (Paul's here) and God's words, both as authors. Some actually being dictated/recorded (i.e. Moses recording some of God's words of Law), much not, but all still as much God's words. I put "(and God)" in parenthesis to emphasize that if one holds verbal plenary inspiration, then such challenges are also presupposing what God would say through the human author.
Dec
18
revised Is Romans 3:24-26 original to Paul?
Added more evidence of analysis points