The calculations of Kevin Kilty and Mark Elliott have an after-the-fact particularity to them that belies their claim to be dealing with probabilities.
What is the “canonical approach,” and in what respect is its main supporting argument a “shell game”?
The apostles possessed more empirical supports for their faith than we can ever hope to possess, and certainly their spiritual “report cards” did not suffer for the fact.
How do the results of a debate that raged more than three centuries after the New Testament was written affect the way most Westerners read Paul’s theology? Put briefly, Augustine effected a revolution in understanding what the human predicament is, how Christ saves us from it, and what the role of justification is within the larger understanding of salvation.
A close look at both the Epistle of James and the extrabiblical traditions concerning James “the first bishop of Jerusalem” reveals several points of contact with Qumran.
Jack Poirier calls attention to four books on a topic that few readers of the New Testament understand.
This essay discusses a rhetorical device that has played an important role within postliberal writings: the idea that any appeal to the canons of logical necessity and/or conceptual consistency is in itself a defection to “another” foundation, that is, to a foundation set up in opposition to the role of Jesus Christ as the “church’s one foundation.”
Diverging views on the doctrine of original sin represent a great chasm fixed between scholars and theologians today.
Modern readers of the Book of Revelation usually assume that the key to understanding the book lies in discovering a one-to-one correspondence between the figures it presents, and real-life figures. But the correct interpretation of the four horsemen appears only when we consider the four together as a unified symbol of widespread calamity.
- Page 1 of 2