Recent content by JudgeRightly

Enrico Norelli writes, "Some fragments also remain, some of them probably spurious, of many writings of Peter of Alexandria, bishop there [in Alexandria] from 300 to 311. In a treatise On the Divinity he insisted that Christ did not abandon his divinity when he became a man. In another work, On...

Gonna push back just a little bit here, not because @ttruscott is right (his interpretation is definitely wrong), but because there's nothing inherently wrong with the translation he used. Let's look at the context. I've included the relevant verses here: To the Chief Musician. To the tune of...

"Obvious" is not an objective standard, and it is certainly not textual warrant. You keep asserting the exception. You still have not justified it. If it does not need defending, then defend it. So far all you have done is repeat that your exception is “obvious,” “common sense,” and...

Why not both?

That is a retreat. First you said, “If this is correct, then the unity-of-the-Trinity problem is resolved.” Now you say, “I do not claim to have solved the problem. I only presented a theory.” Fine. Then Clete’s point stands. The article proposes a theory, but it does not establish that the...

That's a convenient way of saying you can't answer it. Then it should be easy for you to defend it. But you still have not. You keep repeating the caveat as though repetition turns it into a principle. It doesn't. No one disputes that children are less developed than adults. What you...

Did God want Adam and Eve to partake of the tree? Or did He want them to love Him? The tree is the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil is the law. The strength of sin is the law. The sting of death is sin. Love is the commitment to the good of someone. So yes, if a...

For context (Warning: foul language ahead):

By the way, from what I'm hearing, the Angel Studios version of "Animal Farm" is absolutely terrible and no one should watch it. And on top of that, Angel attacked the fans when they received backlash for it not being faithful to the original story. Angel went public and have now destroyed any...

Essentially, yes, with important caveats. Unlike Arthur, however, I’m happy to actually explain those caveats rather than just wave around ‘common sense,’ emotion, and current custom as though that settles anything. Some of those yes, others no. Let's back up a moment, so we have a better...

You still have not answered the question. You say the issue is “which interpretive horizon best does justice to the nature of Scripture?” Fine. By what standard do we judge that? You say your participatory, sacramental, medieval-style reading does better justice to Scripture. But that is the...

Fair enough. But that still means your earlier claim that he “passed untouched” was not established. And here is another video, from someone who does not even agree with my conclusion, showing the contact from a couple different angles: I disagree with some of his analysis, but I respect...

You still didn’t answer. “Medieval Christians read Scripture differently” is not a standard. It is a historical claim. Were they right? Were they wrong? Could they be corrected? And by what standard? That is the question you keep dodging.

Fair enough. But that's a very different claim from what you said before. You said he was “far enough away to pass untouched.” Now you’re saying the footage is not conclusive. So your earlier claim wasn't established. Or he moved because the vehicle was moving into him. That's the point...

True, by itself. But that cuts both ways. Open Theists are not “denying Scripture” merely because we refuse to accept the Classical Theist interpretation of passages where God repents, relents, tests, investigates, responds, or says “now I know.” The accusation was that Open Theists deny...