Oh Gosh, do I really sound like that!
Showing posts with label James G. Crossley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James G. Crossley. Show all posts
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Bird vs. Crossley - Part 1: On Premier Christian Radio
On Monday James Crossley and I discussed and debated on the programme Unbelievable on Premier Christian Radio in London. It was good fun (James was well behaved for the most part) . James and I did a web-tv interview and a two part radio programme with Justin Brierly. The first part of the radio debate is now on the PCR link above. There we discuss, did Jesus believe he was God and does the resurrection explain the origins of Christianity?
Oh Gosh, do I really sound like that!
Oh Gosh, do I really sound like that!
Labels:
Christian Origins,
James G. Crossley,
Radio
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Q and the Gentiles
I am slowly and spasmodically reading through James Crossley's book Why Christianity Happened? (you must read the one review of this book on the Amazon.com link at the bottom of the page!) and I find myself agreeing with parts and groaning at other parts of his volume.
On Q and the Gentiles (something I have thought and written about), it will take more than a footnote to H. Schurmann to convince me that Mt. 10.5-6b is part of Q and I think a better case can be made that Mt. 8.11-12/Lk. 13.28-29 does refer to Gentiles than what Crossley admits. But I do think, in general, that Crossley is correct in following Chris Tuckett about Q and a Gentile mission. Most of the mentions of Gentiles in Q are rhetorical and seem to be aimed at calling Israel to repentance (e.g. Mt. 12.41-42/Lk. 11.31-32). I surmize that Q knows of a Gentile mission, has no problem with it, but is fundamentally concerned with the renewal of Israel. A perspective that probably reflects a Judean or Galilean or Syrian provenance for the use of Q.
On Q and the Gentiles (something I have thought and written about), it will take more than a footnote to H. Schurmann to convince me that Mt. 10.5-6b is part of Q and I think a better case can be made that Mt. 8.11-12/Lk. 13.28-29 does refer to Gentiles than what Crossley admits. But I do think, in general, that Crossley is correct in following Chris Tuckett about Q and a Gentile mission. Most of the mentions of Gentiles in Q are rhetorical and seem to be aimed at calling Israel to repentance (e.g. Mt. 12.41-42/Lk. 11.31-32). I surmize that Q knows of a Gentile mission, has no problem with it, but is fundamentally concerned with the renewal of Israel. A perspective that probably reflects a Judean or Galilean or Syrian provenance for the use of Q.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)