At 01:03 PM 03/27/00 -0500, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>1. GOT was composed before all these traditional hallmarks of Christianity
>came about. So they are absent because of this.
>2. GOT was composed after most of these traditional hallmarks of
>Christianity came about, but the compilers of GOT (who admittedly made use
>of some very early sources) chose to disregard and omit all these because
>of a certain theological reason of their own.
>Myself, I vote for #2. It is simply inconceivable to me that _all_ of
>these traditional hallmarks of Christianity were completely absent at any
>time, but especially at any time post-Easter.
To which I responded:
> So you should vote for #1, should you not?
To which Yuri responded:
>What makes you think I should vote for #1?
Sorry. Because you mentioned possible omission of material *from GOT* in
#2, I carried that over to your rationale and read it as "completely absent
[from GOT]" rather than "completely absent [from Xianity]". I see where
you're coming from now, although it should be pointed out that, although
you find it inconceivable that "_all_" the traditional hallmarks should be
missing from early Xianity, you *don't* find it inconceivable that the
several _apocalyptic_ hallmarks that Ron mentioned should be missing. In
fact, you've insisted that it be so. So it must be the passion and
resurrection hallmarks that you're focusing on in this argument. And I
think it's quite correct to say that Thomas was virtually the opposite of
Paul in this respect - the one stressed the resurrection to the exclusion
of all else, while the other ignored it.