andrewneileen

Hello

My feeling on this is that the divide is more of a waking up and a backlash by reformed evangelicals to the new perspective on Paul and that this perspective is now on the wane. It probably depends on where you are in the world. It's difficult to see reformed evangelical doctrine loosing out because it has the history and tradition and Christians feel secure in tradition. I also think that there are differences with classic Christadelphianism in the area of Israel and that the newer evangelical thinking here hasn't sufficiently thought through the significance of AD70 for its understanding of what Jesus and the apostles were doing. They may have rightly rejected supercessionism but what they have put in its place isn't right. But I do think that this 'split' is where the interface is for Christadelphians doing theology; it is just that they are few and the danger is that people generally won't have Christadelphian writing to use and just read the evangelical stuff. It is a regretable irony that as evangelicals have written more on Israel focused theology in the NT that Christadelphians have concentrated on printing more devotional, introductory and sentimental writing instead of developing their heritage.

A

Hello

The book was published on monday at 6.99 GBP (231 pages, PB) and no discussion has been had yet about an e-version. Should there be one, it would be downloadable from iTunes bookstore which is the favoured eBook store for LULU books like REASONS. The book has eleven authors. And the essays are:

Introduction: Faith in the Modern World

Reasons for Seeking
Philosophical Arguments
Fine-Tuning
The Origin of Life
Consciousness
Morality
The Problem of Evil

Reasons for Believing
Textual Criticism
The Old Testament and History
Bible Prophecy
Israel: God’s Chosen People
The Historical Jesus
The Resurrection of Jesus

Epilogue

The book was reviewed by 10 reviewers.

Andrew

Hello

This subject is vexed in the standard text-critical "introductions" and the better guides are the doctoral monographs which tend to be more even-handed on the relative use of the Hebrew and OG Scriptures in a NT writing. Further, as noted in the thread, standard intro's factor out inspiration; philosophically, there is quite a bit of work to do to describe how God can samesay what we have in a NT writing. Where such a writing has lexical and grammatical identity with the LXX in a stretch of language, there is a prima facia case for the 'use' of OG textual material by a NT writer (provided we can exclude later harmonization), but such usage on the part of, say, Luke, requires further description and justication (and doctoral studies on Luke's use of the Jewish Scriptures (e.g. Litwak) are even-handed as to the use made of Hebrew and/or Greek, making different judgments on a case by case basis). If we factor back in inspiration, such 'use' of OG material cannot be simply transferred to God in a claim like 'God quotes from/uses the OG and/or the LXX' or even 'The text quotes from the OG and/or the LXX', taking 'the text' as a metonymy for either the writer of God.

The EJournal publishes case studies on the topic see http://www.christade...racts/Body.pdf.

A.