Search results

I loved NT Wright's How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels I couldn't put it down! I want to read Thielman's NT theology too. I'm still reading Beale's.

bump? _

That made me laugh!!! FYI... you can be a non-dispo and Amill without believing in a covenant of grace or works (or redemption). I are one!

Do the gospel accounts record the exact words of Jesus or the exact voice of Jesus? Did they possible use the same words and put them in different contexts with different meanings?

I am referring to academic in the sense of evangelical academia. The fundie view in my estimation is much too simplistic and doesn't account for the facts that are clearly present in the text. Again, to say it another way, it is simplistic (chalking up everything to supernatural) and does not...

por ejemplo, I evangelize and I'm a supra-lap. But I preach an unattractive gospel. I think it mirrors Jesus' presentation very much.

Hey... my folks live in Ocala... I'm not sure that your math is accurate or at least conveys what you want it. For instance, Mark starts the passion week in chpt. 11. So 11-16, 6 of 11 chapters. Wowza! But most of it is on his teaching and kingdom ministry. Only 2 of 11 are on his death...

Time to fess up... I just finished reading N. T. Wright's book How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels. It was an excellent read. If you would rather watch a 1 hr lecture that summarizes the book well, you can watch it online: http://www.calvin.edu/january/2012/NTWright.htm ...

My point it to emphasize the 4 over the epistles for a start. Also to understand Jesus' ministry (the story of the 4) with more than just his death. Yes the story is climaxed at his death, but the story as a whole is not his death, it is about "God becoming king." His death achieves that. But...

1) I do not believe I said that his teaching was the primary focus of the gospel accounts. What I meant to drive at is that there should not be this divorce between his ministry and his death. The former pointed to the latter and the latter accomplished the former. 2) I'm not sure why you...

Suggesting neither (had to see that coming ;) ) As to #1, the creeds included only what they needed to include to handle the debate of the day. They were more for apologetical value than for church teaching. As to #2, I'm not saying to throw away the creeds. My point for using the creeds...

But what is in the creeds skip right over the majority of the evangelists' stories. It goes from birth to death without mention of X's life achievements or purposes. The creeds certainly served a specific purpose to the apologetic answer of its time, but have we Christians picked up on the...

At the risk of probably offending someone here... I don't think it is that they hold a higher view of Scripture. I think they hold a less realistic and less academic view of Scripture. Or to say it another but different way. I think they hold a much too narrow view of Scripture that does not...

I'm just surprised I'm the only supra who has voted so far. Where are you guys???

Considering the way David treated Saul as presented in Samuel (benevolent), it should not surprise us that the political motive behind it was to show that Saul was never mistreated or ill-conceived nor was he ousted from his throne by David. The negative picture of Saul was of his own actions...

AGain... this does not say what has long been proposed. If anything, the people chose to have a king besides God. So God gave them a king they deserved. But it never said that Saul was chosen by the people nor did it say that they chose him based on his looks or stature.

Where does it say that the people chose Saul and chose him b/c he was tall and good looking no less?

Why is it that I hear so many people give the reason that Saul was chosen to be king was that he was good looking and taller than everyone else? Did not God choose Saul? Saul was presented as king before the people even saw him. Why do people keep pushing this agenda?

I'll answer the question not needing everything defined for me. In my opinion, there is a difference (how big or small I'm not sure, but I have my opinions on that as well) between the evangelical understanding of inerrancy/infallibility and the fundamentalist view. So... the answer is NO.

What translation are you using??? It should be (and is) Judas of/from James i.e. son of James. Now if you are referring to Jude 1, that's different. But that is also a different James and Jude/Judas altogether (probably).