Search results

A "standing up" to preach after the baptism is completely plausible. But it just doesn't seem to belong to Acts 13. Acts 13 seems to me to be fixed solely on Jesus' resurrection. I would LIKE to believe it. My current understanding (Luke contradicts himself by applying the same passage to...

It might be helpful if you quoted some corroborating passages by different authors, rather than re-posting the same bit of John over again. E.g. Ephesians 4, 1Peter 3:22, Acts 1:9

There's certainly a difference. "Son of man" seems to indicate the unworthiness of the person. "Son of God" is a regnal title - it belongs only to kings.

My view is that it refers to his coronation as King of the Jews. Psalm 2 refers to David's coronation... it makes sense to me that this would also refer to a coronation as king. Thanks for citing. That's rare here. I read a book on textual criticism of the Bible, over 20 years ago. An...

Introduce? no. But I'm willing to give an ear to criticism. That's Apologetics 101 - if we don't seriously consider arguments against, then we cannot really answer them.

It's interesting that Luke 3 would have applied Psa 2:7 to Jesus' baptism, but in Acts it's also Luke that attributes it to His resurrection. I explain these incongruences by accepting that the NT authors played fast-and-loose with their "fulfillments" of the OT. I wonder how you explain it?

The early parts of the gospel of Luke definitely say that's what happened. As for me? I'm questioning absolutely everything. What's right and true has nothing to fear from a little skeptical inquiry.

Nothing is consistent with the whole of Scripture... not even Scripture itself. This teaching is consistent with the most mainstream system of theological thought. That's a meaningful endorsement.

Does it matter that the synoptic gospels don't completely agree with John in this regard?

That's one interpretation. The mainstream interpretation. Not the only interpretation.

Quite a lot, I think. If one were an Emanationist, then the two most important emanations of God are logos and exousia - Word and Power. It isn't for no reason that Simon Magus claimed to be the incarnation of the Power of God.

I'm not an Adoptionist, but if I wanted to make that argument, I think I'd start in Psalms 2, with David's "To day I have begotten you." For David, the declaration of his adoption was apotheotic. By virtue of becoming a divine son of God, he also ascended to the throne of Israel. That gives...

Well, I'm not much of a law-keeper, so that probably rules me out as the elder brother. I'm not God, so I don't think I fill the role of Father. I don't really see myself as a prodigal either. Where does that leave me?

This begs a question. If Jesus took apart the Law, and then put it back together as something different... ...what was it?

I'm done being told what I'm saying. You have been added my Ignore list. I won't see any of your future posts. Please have the last word.

(a) Because it's true (b) Because it was relevant to the conversation To recap, I said that I wasn't worried about being excommunicated, because it does NOT undo Baptism. NO - I most certainly did NOT say that. You have taken my words and tried to read-between-the-lines. You think I was...

No - that's your misunderstanding of what I said. What I ACTUALLY said was quite the opposite - that excommunication CANNOT undo baptism. Here, let's quote it: Can you see now? It doesn't say baptism is undone. It says baptism CAN'T be undone. If your response to this is still to tell me I...

You didn't. It seemed to me you might be implying it. I read too far between the lines, apparently.

I said I don't care what the Catholic Catechism says. Which is not a lie. No, I said that it CANNOT undo baptism. Maybe you want to re-read? You don't seem to have understood what I said, despite being quite angry about it. What I actually said, or what you confused me to say? I'll stick...