Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Pentecostalism ca. 50

Expand Messages
  • Stevan Davies
    Yuri wrote (I changed subject) STEVE ... YURI ... Oh bother. If you weren t a crosstalk regular I d explain. You know perfectly well that spirit-possession
    Message 1 of 24 , Aug 28, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Yuri wrote (I changed subject)

      STEVE
      > > As I've written you before, there's time X when only Jesus had
      > > the spirit and time Y when all Christians had the spirit.

      YURI
      > This is not standard English, Steve. "Having the spirit" is not very
      > meaningful to a serious historian.

      Oh bother. If you weren't a crosstalk regular I'd explain. You know
      perfectly well that spirit-possession (exhaustively discussed
      in my Jesus the Healer... or go read Bourguignon etc.) has its
      own intraChristian vocabulary including "having the spirit".

      > > The shift from the prophet/healer model of a religious movement to a
      > > pentecostal religious movement.
      >
      > Of course this assumes that I agree with you that there was such a shift.
      > In fact, I have serious doubts about it.

      I don't. But as you know I'm just a simple bible-believing guy.
      The synoptics describe a prophet/healer and Paul/Acts a pentecostal
      movement. These aren't identical and so a shift occurred.
      You should read your bible more.

      > I will say no such thing. I don't think Paul was "pentecostal". This is
      > not how I see Paul.

      Well, it's how Paul saw Paul. I don't doubt you know exactly what
      I mean but are being cute. For others I'll summarize briefly that
      I use "pentecostal" as a word for a religious cult that focuses on
      psychological dissociative experiences attributed to "the holy
      spirit."

      > > and I'd be interested to know why.... but it's actually kind of trivial
      > > whether it happened 50 days later or 450 days later.
      >
      > "It" may have never happened.

      Nonsense. You get to 1 Cor 12 etc. etc. from synoptic Jesus somehow.
      That's the "it" that happened.

      > Luke's agenda can perhaps be described as "pentecostal", among many other
      > things. It's the agenda of stressing the miraculous works, and the
      > qualities of the "theios aner". Luke is very optimistic in regards to
      > "realized eschatology". He thinks the Kingdom is here already, and the
      > miracles and healings will just unfold on a daily basis.

      Leaving out the irrelevant Kingdom business, the rest is what we
      are talking about and the rest is in Paul. If we didn't have Paul's
      lettersm, Luke's affirmation of Pentecostal xianity would be less
      likely to be accurate ca. 50 AD. As we do have Paul's letters,
      we have confirmation of Acts (broadly speaking... but good
      confirmation for the issue in question).

      > More specifically, since Luke is so optimistic, for him, the nasty
      > business of the Crucifixion was all remedied ASAP. Hence the short 50
      > days wait for fixing up the negative aspects of Crucifixion.

      Oh, I'm willing to admit that the advent of pentecostal Christianity
      was 450 days rather than 50. Already said that. On the other hand,
      you've given me no reason I should think that except that Luke
      says so and this fits Luke's perspective and THEREFORE it must be
      in error. (Thought you were going to do this!)

      > Also Mahlon already wrote about the very special theological geography of
      > Luke.

      I didn't want to get into that... but frankly I think Mahlon's
      evidence that they all went off to Galilee is just as spurious as the
      evidence that they all hung around Jerusalem waiting for Shauvot.
      In the instance of two sets of highly dubious evidence I tend to
      select the one that pleases me. What do you do?

      Steve
    • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
      ... Steve, But how do we know that this was so at the time of Jesus? ... Yeah, sure... ... Now, here are the assumptions that I see at work here. a) Your
      Message 2 of 24 , Aug 31, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Stevan Davies wrote:

        > STEVE
        > > > As I've written you before, there's time X when only Jesus had
        > > > the spirit and time Y when all Christians had the spirit.
        >
        > YURI
        > > This is not standard English, Steve. "Having the spirit" is not very
        > > meaningful to a serious historian.
        >
        > Oh bother. If you weren't a crosstalk regular I'd explain. You know
        > perfectly well that spirit-possession (exhaustively discussed in my
        > Jesus the Healer... or go read Bourguignon etc.) has its own
        > intraChristian vocabulary including "having the spirit".

        Steve,

        But how do we know that this was so at the time of Jesus?

        > > > The shift from the prophet/healer model of a religious movement to a
        > > > pentecostal religious movement.
        > >
        > > Of course this assumes that I agree with you that there was such a shift.
        > > In fact, I have serious doubts about it.
        >
        > I don't. But as you know I'm just a simple bible-believing guy.

        Yeah, sure...

        > The synoptics describe a prophet/healer and Paul/Acts a pentecostal
        > movement. These aren't identical and so a shift occurred.
        > You should read your bible more.

        Now, here are the assumptions that I see at work here.

        a) Your distinction between prophet/healer and pentecostal movement is
        justified methodologically.

        b) This distinction is ALSO valid in regards to what was happening 2000
        years ago in Israel -- as opposed to in the XX century.

        c) What Synoptics describe is really a prophet/healer.

        d) What Acts describe is really a pentecostal movement.

        e) What Paul describes is also a pentecostal movement.

        Now, I suppose if we assume that all these are valid, then, yes, you do
        have a point.

        > > I will say no such thing. I don't think Paul was "pentecostal". This is
        > > not how I see Paul.
        >
        > Well, it's how Paul saw Paul.

        Maybe.

        > I don't doubt you know exactly what I mean but are being cute.

        I think we can do without such ad hominems. Lately, I've noticed you have
        a number of times used completely unprovoked ad hominems against me. I
        have no idea why this is so.

        > For others I'll summarize briefly that I use "pentecostal" as a word
        > for a religious cult that focuses on psychological dissociative
        > experiences attributed to "the holy spirit."

        I doubt that Paul was pentecostal. Lots of things in Pauline writings go
        against this. But we discussed this before.

        > > > and I'd be interested to know why.... but it's actually kind of trivial
        > > > whether it happened 50 days later or 450 days later.
        > >
        > > "It" may have never happened.
        >
        > Nonsense. You get to 1 Cor 12 etc. etc. from synoptic Jesus somehow.
        > That's the "it" that happened.

        I don't think things in 1 Cor 12 were written by Paul. But in any case,
        what do we find there?

        27
        Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you
        is a part of it.
        28
        And in the church God has appointed first of all
        apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then
        workers of miracles, also those having gifts of
        healing, those able to help others, those with gifts
        of administration, and those speaking in different
        kinds of tongues.

        In the Church order, first come the apostles (i.e. Paul). Then come
        prophets, and third teachers. And only _then_ come "workers of miracles",
        and "those having gifts of healing". And then, after "those with gifts of
        administration" have been duly noted, "those speaking in different kinds
        of tongues" bring back the rear.

        This sure doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement of a "pentecostal
        movement" to me -- whoever wrote those verses.

        > > Luke's agenda can perhaps be described as "pentecostal", among many other
        > > things. It's the agenda of stressing the miraculous works, and the
        > > qualities of the "theios aner". Luke is very optimistic in regards to
        > > "realized eschatology". He thinks the Kingdom is here already, and the
        > > miracles and healings will just unfold on a daily basis.
        >
        > Leaving out the irrelevant Kingdom business,

        Sure is relevant to Luke. In fact he mentions it 44 times -- that's only
        in Lk.

        > the rest is what we are talking about and the rest is in Paul.

        Maybe.

        > If we didn't have Paul's lettersm, Luke's affirmation of Pentecostal
        > xianity would be less likely to be accurate ca. 50 AD. As we do have
        > Paul's letters, we have confirmation of Acts (broadly speaking... but
        > good confirmation for the issue in question).

        Yes, but I think much in Paul's letters was written about the same time as
        Lk, i.e. well after 100.

        > > More specifically, since Luke is so optimistic, for him, the nasty
        > > business of the Crucifixion was all remedied ASAP. Hence the short 50
        > > days wait for fixing up the negative aspects of Crucifixion.
        >
        > Oh, I'm willing to admit that the advent of pentecostal Christianity
        > was 450 days rather than 50.

        How about 50 years?

        > Already said that. On the other hand, you've given me no reason I
        > should think that except that Luke says so and this fits Luke's
        > perspective and THEREFORE it must be in error. (Thought you were going
        > to do this!)

        I think Lk made it up. Lk didn't find this in the other synoptics. This
        sure makes one suspicious.

        > > Also Mahlon already wrote about the very special theological geography of
        > > Luke.
        >
        > I didn't want to get into that... but frankly I think Mahlon's
        > evidence that they all went off to Galilee

        Sure makes sense to me.

        > is just as spurious as the evidence that they all hung around
        > Jerusalem waiting for Shauvot.

        I disagree.

        > In the instance of two sets of highly dubious evidence I tend to
        > select the one that pleases me. What do you do?

        I say they all went to Galilee because they were human and were afraid.
        But maybe you think they were all Brave and Fearless Soldiers of God.
        After all, you're just a simple bible-believing guy?

        Regards,

        Yuri.
      • Stevan Davies
        ... For the bible tells me so. For the time of Jesus one can hunt down the appropriate vocabulary by determining what it was that was said about prophets. ...
        Message 3 of 24 , Aug 31, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          > > YURI
          > > > This is not standard English, Steve. "Having the spirit" is not very
          > > > meaningful to a serious historian.
          > >
          > > Oh bother. If you weren't a crosstalk regular I'd explain. You know
          > > perfectly well that spirit-possession (exhaustively discussed in my
          > > Jesus the Healer... or go read Bourguignon etc.) has its own
          > > intraChristian vocabulary including "having the spirit".
          >
          > Steve,
          >
          > But how do we know that this was so at the time of Jesus?

          For the bible tells me so. For the time of Jesus one can hunt
          down the appropriate vocabulary by determining what it was
          that was said about prophets.

          > Now, here are the assumptions that I see at work here.
          >
          > a) Your distinction between prophet/healer and pentecostal movement is
          > justified methodologically.
          >
          > b) This distinction is ALSO valid in regards to what was happening 2000
          > years ago in Israel -- as opposed to in the XX century.

          It's not a historical distinction but a logical terminological distinction.
          Prophet/healer movements are focused on one unique individual
          who has "the spirit" and pentecostal movements expect all members
          to have "the spirit."

          > c) What Synoptics describe is really a prophet/healer.
          >
          > d) What Acts describe is really a pentecostal movement.
          >
          > e) What Paul describes is also a pentecostal movement.
          >
          > Now, I suppose if we assume that all these are valid, then, yes, you do
          > have a point.

          Oh good. Since they are valid, I'm in good shape.
          ==============

          > I think we can do without such ad hominems. Lately, I've noticed you have
          > a number of times used completely unprovoked ad hominems against me. I
          > have no idea why this is so.

          I shall restrain myself in future.

          > > For others I'll summarize briefly that I use "pentecostal" as a word
          > > for a religious cult that focuses on psychological dissociative
          > > experiences attributed to "the holy spirit."
          >
          > I doubt that Paul was pentecostal. Lots of things in Pauline writings go
          > against this. But we discussed this before.

          I don't remember this discussion.

          > I don't think things in 1 Cor 12 were written by Paul. But in any case,
          > what do we find there?
          >
          > 27
          > Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you
          > is a part of it.
          > 28
          > And in the church God has appointed first of all
          > apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then
          > workers of miracles, also those having gifts of
          > healing, those able to help others, those with gifts
          > of administration, and those speaking in different
          > kinds of tongues.
          >
          > In the Church order, first come the apostles (i.e. Paul). Then come
          > prophets, and third teachers. And only _then_ come "workers of miracles",
          > and "those having gifts of healing". And then, after "those with gifts of
          > administration" have been duly noted, "those speaking in different kinds
          > of tongues" bring back the rear.

          This is another problem of vocabulary. You have evidently ignored
          my definition (above) and substituted another... for which you
          can find support. But since I have defined it you can't argue
          as you do that "tongues" is uniquely definitive of pentecostalism
          in terms of my definition.

          I'll stick with the word "pentecostal"
          because I don't know what else to call it, in J the H I used
          "spirit possession" for this, but that leads to other difficulties.
          In "pentecostal" movements now and in earliest Xianity (and in
          spirit possession groups) the wierd psychological states people
          get into are attributed to spirits and are manifested in various
          ways... gifts of healing, kinds of tongues, prophecy, workers of
          miracles, and so forth. Luke tells me that Christians had to have
          the spirit, so does Paul (Romans 8 e.g.). I'd find it pretty odd that
          apostles didn't have it but mere prophets did.

          But sure, you have here an 'organizational chart'
          featuring Paul, of course, at the top... and "prophets" (spirit
          possessed by definition) second.

          I've always been troubled by the fact that the best model for
          first century Xians are 20th century Pentecostal Xians who
          seek to model themselves on first century Xians. But I'm not
          sure why this must be methodologically unacceptable. In essence
          it presumes that to a reasonable degree the claims of 20th century
          Pentecostal Xians are rather accurate vis a vis how they are
          doing what first century Xians were doing. (Within an Xian world
          where there are dozens of groups who make such claims, all others
          refutable).

          An organizational chart within a group all of whose members
          claim spirit gifts will almost universally be found. Doesn't
          Paul elsewhere argue that all gifts are equal, using a body analogy?
          All gifts are equal but not all manifestations of gifts are
          heirarchically the same.

          > This sure doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement of a "pentecostal
          > movement" to me -- whoever wrote those verses.

          Does to me. But we are evidently a long ways apart in our
          understanding, or even definition, of "pentecostal."

          > Yes, but I think much in Paul's letters was written about the same time as
          > Lk, i.e. well after 100.

          I agree, for Acts anyhow, except I'd put that date over 40 years earlier.

          > > > More specifically, since Luke is so optimistic, for him, the nasty
          > > > business of the Crucifixion was all remedied ASAP. Hence the short 50
          > > > days wait for fixing up the negative aspects of Crucifixion.
          > >
          > > Oh, I'm willing to admit that the advent of pentecostal Christianity
          > > was 450 days rather than 50.
          >
          > How about 50 years?

          Nah. But I'll go up to 3.

          > I say they all went to Galilee because they were human and were afraid.
          > But maybe you think they were all Brave and Fearless Soldiers of God.
          > After all, you're just a simple bible-believing guy?

          You betcha. I think they had all burned bridges behind them with
          their families and stayed in Jerusalem because they didn't know
          what else to do... didn't have to go to Galilee until Joanna's money
          ran out... but fortunately the Holy Ghost showed up and sparked
          the beginning of a successful pentecostal cult that brought in
          much needed donations as folks joined up.

          Steve
        • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
          On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Stevan Davies wrote: [Yuri:] ... Steve, This sort of a reply is generally not given much value among serious historians. ... So these will
          Message 4 of 24 , Sep 2 11:56 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Stevan Davies wrote:

            [Yuri:]
            > > But how do we know that this was so at the time of Jesus?
            >
            > For the bible tells me so.

            Steve,

            This sort of a reply is generally not given much value among serious
            historians.

            > For the time of Jesus one can hunt
            > down the appropriate vocabulary by determining what it was
            > that was said about prophets.

            So these will only be hypothetical reconstructions.

            > > Now, here are the assumptions that I see at work here.
            > >
            > > a) Your distinction between prophet/healer and pentecostal movement is
            > > justified methodologically.
            > >
            > > b) This distinction is ALSO valid in regards to what was happening 2000
            > > years ago in Israel -- as opposed to in the XX century.
            >
            > It's not a historical distinction but a logical terminological distinction.
            > Prophet/healer movements are focused on one unique individual
            > who has "the spirit" and pentecostal movements expect all members
            > to have "the spirit."
            >
            > > c) What Synoptics describe is really a prophet/healer.
            > >
            > > d) What Acts describe is really a pentecostal movement.
            > >
            > > e) What Paul describes is also a pentecostal movement.
            > >
            > > Now, I suppose if we assume that all these are valid, then, yes, you do
            > > have a point.
            >
            > Oh good. Since they are valid, I'm in good shape.

            They may be valid. Or maybe not.

            ...

            > > I doubt that Paul was pentecostal. Lots of things in Pauline writings go
            > > against this. But we discussed this before.
            >
            > I don't remember this discussion.

            As far as I remember, I quoted Koester who doesn't think Paul was a
            charismatic theios aner type.

            > > 28
            > > And in the church God has appointed first of all
            > > apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then
            > > workers of miracles, also those having gifts of
            > > healing, those able to help others, those with gifts
            > > of administration, and those speaking in different
            > > kinds of tongues.
            > >
            > > In the Church order, first come the apostles (i.e. Paul). Then come
            > > prophets, and third teachers. And only _then_ come "workers of miracles",
            > > and "those having gifts of healing". And then, after "those with gifts of
            > > administration" have been duly noted, "those speaking in different kinds
            > > of tongues" bring back the rear.
            >
            > This is another problem of vocabulary. You have evidently ignored
            > my definition (above) and substituted another... for which you
            > can find support.

            Here's your definition:

            > Prophet/healer movements are focused on one unique individual who has
            > "the spirit" and pentecostal movements expect all members to have "the
            > spirit."

            Such a typology is open to question on a number of fronts. One obvious
            problem I see is that "prophets" are not generally associated with healing
            in the Tanach. In general, prophets seemed to play mostly political role,
            e.g. to criticise the King, or the Temple, and to intercede for the poor.
            Or to criticise the laxity of morals and such.

            The prophets taught. They were ethical-oriented and political. Prophets
            certainly did not perform miracles (possibly with some minor exceptions)
            which are generally a part of the healing repertoire.

            > But since I have defined it you can't argue
            > as you do that "tongues" is uniquely definitive of pentecostalism
            > in terms of my definition.

            Well, all this seeming terminological quagmire that I see in this area is
            just one reason I've never been too enthusiastic about dealing with this
            general subject.

            > I'll stick with the word "pentecostal"
            > because I don't know what else to call it, in J the H I used
            > "spirit possession" for this, but that leads to other difficulties.
            > In "pentecostal" movements now and in earliest Xianity (and in
            > spirit possession groups) the wierd psychological states people
            > get into are attributed to spirits and are manifested in various
            > ways... gifts of healing, kinds of tongues, prophecy,

            But are you really justified in including prophesy here?

            > workers of miracles, and so forth. Luke tells me that Christians had
            > to have the spirit, so does Paul (Romans 8 e.g.). I'd find it pretty
            > odd that apostles didn't have it but mere prophets did.

            The term "to have the spirit" is still quite vague for me. Sorry.

            > But sure, you have here an 'organizational chart'
            > featuring Paul, of course, at the top... and "prophets" (spirit
            > possessed by definition)

            By _your_ definition.

            > second.
            >
            > I've always been troubled by the fact that the best model for
            > first century Xians are 20th century Pentecostal Xians who
            > seek to model themselves on first century Xians. But I'm not
            > sure why this must be methodologically unacceptable.

            It may be too vague.

            > In essence it presumes that to a reasonable degree the claims of 20th
            > century Pentecostal Xians are rather accurate vis a vis how they are
            > doing what first century Xians were doing. (Within an Xian world where
            > there are dozens of groups who make such claims, all others
            > refutable).

            Yes, and this presumption is open to question.

            > An organizational chart within a group all of whose members
            > claim spirit gifts will almost universally be found. Doesn't
            > Paul elsewhere argue that all gifts are equal, using a body analogy?
            > All gifts are equal but not all manifestations of gifts are
            > heirarchically the same.

            I still find that it seems to weaken your case that in 1 Cor 12 apostles
            and prophets are very clearly differentiated from "workers of miracles"
            and healers -- who are put below them in the hierarchy. And that "those
            speaking in different kinds of tongues" are the very last on the list.

            So, Steve, perhaps you may wish to consider 1 Cor 12 an interpolation
            after all? I think this will probably strengthen your general case.

            > > This sure doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement of a "pentecostal
            > > movement" to me -- whoever wrote those verses.
            >
            > Does to me. But we are evidently a long ways apart in our
            > understanding, or even definition, of "pentecostal."

            This seems clearly the case.

            > > Yes, but I think much in Paul's letters was written about the same time as
            > > Lk, i.e. well after 100.
            >
            > I agree, for Acts anyhow, except I'd put that date over 40 years earlier.

            Let me know if and when you will find anyone in the world to agree with
            you on this -- outside of a couple of more eccentric posters to Crosstalk.

            ...

            > > I say they all went to Galilee because they were human and were afraid.
            > > But maybe you think they were all Brave and Fearless Soldiers of God.
            > > After all, you're just a simple bible-believing guy?
            >
            > You betcha. I think they had all burned bridges behind them with their
            > families and stayed in Jerusalem because they didn't know what else to
            > do... didn't have to go to Galilee until Joanna's money ran out...

            So this is the basis on which you're founding your whole general theory? I
            really don't know how seriously I should be replying to this. Perhaps you
            can clarify this further for me.

            > but fortunately the Holy Ghost showed up and sparked the beginning of
            > a successful pentecostal cult that brought in much needed donations as
            > folks joined up.

            Yes, I know that you really need the Pentecost for your theory to work.
            But sorry, Steve, I just don't see it. History is history. I will not
            compromise the scientific method just to make myself look like as a nice
            guy...

            Regards,

            Yuri.

            Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

            http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

            The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
            equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
          • Stevan Davies
            ... This is so, because they have other ways of phrasing the same thing. This was so because the consensus of our near- contemporaneous sources indicate
            Message 5 of 24 , Sep 2 3:28 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 14:56:29 -0400 (EDT)
              > From: y.kuchinsky@...
              > To: Stevan Davies <miser17@...>
              > Cc: crosstalk@...
              > Subject: Re: Pentecostalism ca. 50

              >
              > On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Stevan Davies wrote:
              >
              > [Yuri:]
              > > > But how do we know that this was so at the time of Jesus?
              > >
              > > For the bible tells me so.

              > Steve,
              >
              > This sort of a reply is generally not given much value among serious
              > historians.

              This is so, because they have other ways of phrasing the same
              thing. "This was so because the consensus of our near-
              contemporaneous sources indicate this," might be how they'd put it.

              > > For the time of Jesus one can hunt
              > > down the appropriate vocabulary by determining what it was
              > > that was said about prophets.
              >
              > So these will only be hypothetical reconstructions.

              This is so. The historians who do not do hypothetical reconstructions
              but guaranteed-to-be-correct reconstructions are methologically
              bound to inerrant source materials and my commitment to inerrancy
              fluctuates.

              > > Oh good. Since they are valid, I'm in good shape.
              >
              > They may be valid. Or maybe not.

              Well, since I've laid out in detail one place or another my reasons
              to think they are valid, the "not" case is up to you.

              > > > I doubt that Paul was pentecostal. Lots of things in Pauline writings go
              > > > against this. But we discussed this before.
              > >
              > > I don't remember this discussion.
              >
              > As far as I remember, I quoted Koester who doesn't think Paul was a
              > charismatic theios aner type.

              Koester may be right. So what's the point? Pentecostal and
              charismatic theios aner are two different things.

              > Here's your definition:
              >
              > > Prophet/healer movements are focused on one unique individual who has
              > > "the spirit" and pentecostal movements expect all members to have "the
              > > spirit."
              >
              > Such a typology is open to question on a number of fronts. One obvious
              > problem I see is that "prophets" are not generally associated with healing
              > in the Tanach. In general, prophets seemed to play mostly political role,
              > e.g. to criticise the King, or the Temple, and to intercede for the poor.
              > Or to criticise the laxity of morals and such.
              >
              > The prophets taught. They were ethical-oriented and political. Prophets
              > certainly did not perform miracles (possibly with some minor exceptions)
              > which are generally a part of the healing repertoire.

              Paul and I agree with you, I think. That's why Paul has various
              categories for people manifesting the spirit including the
              separation of prophets from healers. So do most or all
              other pentecostal movements. So do spirit-possession cults like
              Voodoo (which are in the same general category as pentecostalism:
              focusing on altered states of consciousness attributed to spirits).

              If we are talking here about Jesus the prophet/healer I just appeal
              to the bible that says he was both and to the great consensus of
              scholarship that does the same. Who can you think of that
              says he was NOT a healer? Who says the term "prophet" is
              clearly inappropriate? So he wasn't a prophet in the Takach sense.
              I never said he was and the evidence certainly is against it.

              > > But since I have defined it you can't argue
              > > as you do that "tongues" is uniquely definitive of pentecostalism
              > > in terms of my definition.
              >
              > Well, all this seeming terminological quagmire that I see in this area is
              > just one reason I've never been too enthusiastic about dealing with this
              > general subject.

              It's not a quagmire. I've spelled out the definitions and distinctions.

              >> the wierd psychological states people
              > > get into are attributed to spirits and are manifested in various
              > > ways... gifts of healing, kinds of tongues, prophecy,
              >
              > But are you really justified in including prophesy here?

              Yes. Do you need to be reminded that prophets speak the words
              of God because the spirit of God comes into them? I'd quote 2 Peter
              but you might as well look it up.

              > > workers of miracles, and so forth. Luke tells me that Christians had
              > > to have the spirit, so does Paul (Romans 8 e.g.). I'd find it pretty
              > > odd that apostles didn't have it but mere prophets did.
              >
              > The term "to have the spirit" is still quite vague for me. Sorry.

              To have the spirit is to experience an altered state of consciousness
              within the Christian movement and to attribute it to the spirit.

              > > But sure, you have here an 'organizational chart'
              > > featuring Paul, of course, at the top... and "prophets" (spirit
              > > possessed by definition)
              >
              > By _your_ definition.

              True. But "they had the spirit" by definition is the native
              expression and you don't like that either. Why is this so hard?
              Are you claiming that it was the understanding back then that
              prophets spoke their own thoughts with no supernatural spirit
              involved?

              > > second.
              > >
              > > I've always been troubled by the fact that the best model for
              > > first century Xians are 20th century Pentecostal Xians who
              > > seek to model themselves on first century Xians. But I'm not
              > > sure why this must be methodologically unacceptable.
              >
              > It may be too vague.

              It's the single most clear model proposed since the publication of
              analogies between early Christianity and millinarian cults. One of
              the scandals of NT studies is that vanishingly few scholars propose
              any analogies at all, and leave it to be assumed that early
              Christianity was absolutely unlike any cult/sect movement that
              ever existed before or since.

              > I still find that it seems to weaken your case that in 1 Cor 12 apostles
              > and prophets are very clearly differentiated from "workers of miracles"
              > and healers -- who are put below them in the hierarchy. And that "those
              > speaking in different kinds of tongues" are the very last on the list.

              What unites them is that the phenomena are to be accredited to the
              activity of the spirit. If Paul heirarchizes them... that's
              interesting but insignificant. He also unheirarcizes them with his
              body metaphor. He's basically heirarchizing in terms of intelligible
              content and utility, which seems to be his own particular
              perspective. Reasoning from analogy would make it seem reasonable
              that the actual cult members probably would favor healers over
              prophets etc. Prophets, contra Paul, don't actually accomplish
              anything much that helps anybody directly. Healers do.

              > So, Steve, perhaps you may wish to consider 1 Cor 12 an interpolation
              > after all? I think this will probably strengthen your general case.

              Nope.

              > > > This sure doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement of a "pentecostal
              > > > movement" to me -- whoever wrote those verses.
              > >
              > > Does to me. But we are evidently a long ways apart in our
              > > understanding, or even definition, of "pentecostal."
              >
              > This seems clearly the case.

              I have no idea why. What about my definitions don't you understand?

              > > > Yes, but I think much in Paul's letters was written about the same time as
              > > > Lk, i.e. well after 100.
              > >
              > > I agree, for Acts anyhow, except I'd put that date over 40 years earlier.
              >
              > Let me know if and when you will find anyone in the world to agree with
              > you on this -- outside of a couple of more eccentric posters to Crosstalk.

              Well, I've given arguments several times in the past few days and
              nobody has bothered to respond, so there may be zero in the world
              eccentric or not. Or, on the other hand, were my arguments so
              persuasive that all but you have found them flawless and
              unobjectionable? Perhaps we shall never know which.

              > > You betcha. I think they had all burned bridges behind them with their
              > > families and stayed in Jerusalem because they didn't know what else to
              > > do... didn't have to go to Galilee until Joanna's money ran out...
              >
              > So this is the basis on which you're founding your whole general theory? I
              > really don't know how seriously I should be replying to this. Perhaps you
              > can clarify this further for me.

              It's trivial for the theory.

              > > but fortunately the Holy Ghost showed up and sparked the beginning of
              > > a successful pentecostal cult that brought in much needed donations as
              > > folks joined up.
              >
              > Yes, I know that you really need the Pentecost for your theory to work.
              > But sorry, Steve, I just don't see it. History is history. I will not
              > compromise the scientific method just to make myself look like as a nice
              > guy...

              I don't need a) the Pentecost (Luke's account) or even b) a
              particular event somewhere sometime to account for the evidence.
              I can just point to the evidence of a shift from prophet/healer to
              pentecostal and say "whatever the hell happened, something caused
              the shift." If you are greatly bothered by calling "whatever the hell
              happened" Pentecost, we can call if Zublilch. OK with me.

              Steve
            • Bob Schacht
              ... May I interject to quote the Tanach, specifically the Pentateuch? Deuteronomy 34:10 And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the
              Message 6 of 24 , Sep 2 5:04 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                At 06:28 PM 9/2/98 -0400, Stevan Davies wrote:
                >> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 14:56:29 -0400 (EDT)
                >> From: y.kuchinsky@...
                >...
                >> Such a typology is open to question on a number of fronts. One obvious
                >> problem I see is that "prophets" are not generally associated with healing
                >> in the Tanach.

                May I interject to quote the Tanach, specifically the Pentateuch?


                Deuteronomy 34:10
                And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the
                LORD knew face to face...

                See also Deuteronomy 18:15, which has Moses calling himself a prophet, a
                passage quoted in Acts 3:22

                Seems to me that Moses did a miracle or two, if I remember correctly. And
                although healing was not his forte, it was not totally without testimony:


                Numbers 21:8-9
                And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole;
                and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live."
                So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit
                any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.


                And if you (Yuri) suppose that prophets were all wry political
                commentators, I'd suggest reviewing Numbers 11:24-29.


                >>...Prophets
                >> certainly did not perform miracles (possibly with some minor exceptions)
                >> which are generally a part of the healing repertoire.
                >

                You call Moses a minor exception? He pretty much wrote the book (so to speak).


                Sorry, gotta run.

                Bob
                Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D., Director of Research
                American Indian Rehabilitation Research & Training Center
                Institute for Human Development, University Affiliated Program
                P.O.Box 5630
                Northern Arizona University
                Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5630
                phone 520-523-1342; FAX 520-523-9127
                http://www.nau.edu/~ihd/airrtc.html
              • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
                On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Bob Schacht wrote: ... Bob, Moses is a legendary figure. Hardly a historical prophet. Of course yours and Steve s point may be better
                Message 7 of 24 , Sep 4 7:02 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Bob Schacht wrote:

                  ...

                  > Seems to me that Moses did a miracle or two, if I remember correctly.
                  > And although healing was not his forte, it was not totally without
                  > testimony:

                  Bob,

                  Moses is a legendary figure. Hardly a historical prophet.

                  Of course yours and Steve's point may be better served by bringing up the
                  example of Elija/Elisha. These provide the best parallel to Jesus in the
                  OT. But we don't have a book in the OT named after Elija. So he wasn't so
                  big among those who compiled the OT.

                  So we cannot assume that the concept of prophet/healer can be seen as a
                  common concept in the OT.

                  Regards,

                  Yuri.
                • Lewis Reich
                  ... I m puzzled. I d have thought the question was not whether the individual was of proven historicity but what the attributes of the role were thought to be
                  Message 8 of 24 , Sep 4 7:40 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 4 Sep 98, at 22:02, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:

                    > Moses is a legendary figure. Hardly a historical prophet.

                    I'm puzzled. I'd have thought the question was not whether the individual was
                    of proven historicity but what the attributes of the role were thought to be as
                    reflected in writings about various personages.

                    > Of course yours and Steve's point may be better served by bringing up the
                    > example of Elija/Elisha. These provide the best parallel to Jesus in the
                    > OT. But we don't have a book in the OT named after Elija. So he wasn't so
                    > big among those who compiled the OT.

                    Again, it seems to me that that conclusion does not necessarily follow. After
                    all, we have a book in the OT named after Zephaniah, but not one named after
                    Moses. Does this mean that Zephaniah can be assumed to have been more
                    important than Moses to those who compiled the OT? There's no book
                    named after David, either. Obviously, David was less important than
                    Habbakuk.

                    Lewis Reich
                    LBR@...
                  • Bob Schacht
                    ... Ah yes. If the evidence disagrees with you, discard the evidence. In a sense it is immaterial whether Moses was historical or not. To Jesus and his
                    Message 9 of 24 , Sep 4 9:01 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 10:02 PM 9/4/98 -0400, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Bob chacht wrote:
                      >
                      > ...
                      >
                      >> Seems to me that Moses did a miracle or two, if I remember correctly.
                      >> And although healing was not his forte, it was not totally without
                      >> testimony:
                      >
                      >Bob,
                      >
                      >Moses is a legendary figure. Hardly a historical prophet.
                      >
                      >Of course yours and Steve's point may be better served by bringing up the
                      >example of Elija/Elisha. These provide the best parallel to Jesus in the
                      >OT. But we don't have a book in the OT named after Elija. So he wasn't so
                      >big among those who compiled the OT.
                      >
                      >So we cannot assume that the concept of prophet/healer can be seen as a
                      >common concept in the OT.
                      >
                      >Regards,
                      >
                      >Yuri.

                      Ah yes. If the evidence disagrees with you, discard the evidence.
                      In a sense it is immaterial whether Moses was historical or not. To Jesus
                      and his contemporaries, Moses was "real", and the concept of "prophet" to
                      Jesus and his contemporaries was defined, in part, by the perceived
                      exemplar of Moses and what they believed about him. The fact that this
                      mattered to them is established by Acts 3:22. So your objection is not
                      probative.

                      Bob
                      "Is it not extraordinary to the point of being a miracle, that so loose
                      and ill-constructed a narrative in an antique translation of a dubious
                      text should after so many centuries still have power to quell and
                      dominate a restless, opinionated, overexercised and undernourished,
                      twentieth-century mind?"
                      Malcolm Muggeridge _Jesus Rediscovered_ (1969), writing about
                      the KJV New Testament -
                    • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
                      ... OK, Lewis, but was Moses really a prophet/healer? Did he heal someone? Please refresh my memory. ... Pentateuch is the 5 books of Moses. ... But was David
                      Message 10 of 24 , Sep 5 11:33 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Lewis Reich wrote:

                        > On 4 Sep 98, at 22:02, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:
                        >
                        > > Moses is a legendary figure. Hardly a historical prophet.
                        >
                        > I'm puzzled. I'd have thought the question was not whether the
                        > individual was of proven historicity but what the attributes of the role
                        > were thought to be as reflected in writings about various personages.

                        OK, Lewis, but was Moses really a prophet/healer? Did he heal someone?
                        Please refresh my memory.

                        > > Of course yours and Steve's point may be better served by bringing up the
                        > > example of Elija/Elisha. These provide the best parallel to Jesus in the
                        > > OT. But we don't have a book in the OT named after Elija. So he wasn't so
                        > > big among those who compiled the OT.
                        >
                        > Again, it seems to me that that conclusion does not necessarily follow.
                        > After all, we have a book in the OT named after Zephaniah, but not one
                        > named after Moses.

                        Pentateuch is the 5 books of Moses.

                        > Does this mean that Zephaniah can be assumed to have been more important
                        > than Moses to those who compiled the OT? There's no book named after
                        > David, either. Obviously, David was less important than Habbakuk.

                        But was David a prophet?

                        Regards,

                        Yuri.
                      • Lewis Reich
                        ... He healed his sister Miriam by prayer (after a delay of seven days) Num 12:13. He is referred to explicitly as a *navi* (the word which is translated by
                        Message 11 of 24 , Sep 5 5:11 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 5 Sep 98, at 14:33, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:


                          > On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Lewis Reich wrote:
                          >
                          > > On 4 Sep 98, at 22:02, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:
                          > >
                          > > > Moses is a legendary figure. Hardly a historical prophet.

                          LBR:
                          > > I'm puzzled. I'd have thought the question was not whether the
                          > > individual was of proven historicity but what the attributes of the role
                          > > were thought to be as reflected in writings about various personages.

                          Yuri:
                          > OK, Lewis, but was Moses really a prophet/healer? Did he heal someone?
                          > Please refresh my memory.

                          He healed his sister Miriam by prayer (after a delay of seven days) Num 12:13.
                          He is referred to explicitly as a *navi* (the word which is translated by
                          *prophetes* in the LXX) in the text (Deut. 34:10), in fact as the greatest
                          *navi*.

                          Yuri:
                          > > > Of course yours and Steve's point may be better served by bringing up the
                          > > > example of Elija/Elisha. These provide the best parallel to Jesus in the
                          > > > OT. But we don't have a book in the OT named after Elija. So he wasn't so
                          > > > big among those who compiled the OT.

                          LBR:
                          > > Again, it seems to me that that conclusion does not necessarily follow.
                          > > After all, we have a book in the OT named after Zephaniah, but not one
                          > > named after Moses.

                          Yuri:
                          > Pentateuch is the 5 books of Moses.

                          The Pentateuch is often referred to as such, however, it is not named after
                          Moses.

                          LBR:
                          > > Does this mean that Zephaniah can be assumed to have been more important
                          > > than Moses to those who compiled the OT? There's no book named after
                          > > David, either. Obviously, David was less important than Habbakuk.

                          Yuri:
                          > But was David a prophet?

                          That might depend on how you define the term; if I am not mistaken, a
                          Muslim would likely answer yes. In any event, I'm not sure whether his status
                          as a prophet is relevant to the question, which I took to be whether having a
                          book named after one is an appropriate index of how important a particular
                          personage was to those who compiled the OT.

                          Lewis Reich
                          LBR@...
                        • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
                          ... Thanks for this reminder, Lewis. I think we can safely say that Moses was not primarily a healer, although he was certainly a prophet. And yet he was also
                          Message 12 of 24 , Sep 8 7:45 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Sat, 5 Sep 1998, Lewis Reich wrote:
                            > On 5 Sep 98, at 14:33, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:

                            > > OK, Lewis, but was Moses really a prophet/healer? Did he heal someone?
                            > > Please refresh my memory.
                            >
                            > He healed his sister Miriam by prayer (after a delay of seven days) Num
                            > 12:13. He is referred to explicitly as a *navi* (the word which is
                            > translated by *prophetes* in the LXX) in the text (Deut. 34:10), in fact
                            > as the greatest *navi*.

                            Thanks for this reminder, Lewis.

                            I think we can safely say that Moses was not primarily a healer, although
                            he was certainly a prophet. And yet he was also more than a prophet, he
                            was a great founding figure.

                            But it is clear to me that the prophets and the healers do not necessarily
                            fall into the same category in the Tanakh. Most of the prophets clearly
                            are not healers. So the category Prophet/healer certainly doesn't seem
                            like something that we need to take for granted.

                            Best,

                            Yuri.
                          • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
                            On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Stevan Davies wrote: [Yuri:] ... Steve, Are you aware of any Christians anywhere anytime who claimed _not to have_ the spirit? Everyone has
                            Message 13 of 24 , Sep 8 8:23 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Stevan Davies wrote:

                              [Yuri:]
                              > > I still find that it seems to weaken your case that in 1 Cor 12 apostles
                              > > and prophets are very clearly differentiated from "workers of miracles"
                              > > and healers -- who are put below them in the hierarchy. And that "those
                              > > speaking in different kinds of tongues" are the very last on the list.
                              >
                              > What unites them is that the phenomena are to be accredited to the
                              > activity of the spirit.

                              Steve,

                              Are you aware of any Christians anywhere anytime who claimed _not to have_
                              the spirit? Everyone has the spirit. So having the spirit thing is pretty
                              well meaningless as a category -- because it is so broad.

                              > If Paul heirarchizes them... that's interesting but insignificant.

                              I think it is rather significant because it clearly seems like a snub to
                              list the speakers in tongues well below everyone else. Even administrators
                              -- the office workers -- are put above. So it is not likely that the
                              author of this passage was describing a "pentecostal movement".

                              > He also unheirarcizes them with his body metaphor. He's basically
                              > heirarchizing in terms of intelligible content and utility, which seems
                              > to be his own particular perspective.

                              Well, he's the boss. It's hardly just a particular perspective. It's a
                              determinative perspective.

                              > Reasoning from analogy would make it seem reasonable that the actual
                              > cult members probably would favor healers over prophets etc. Prophets,
                              > contra Paul, don't actually accomplish anything much that helps anybody
                              > directly. Healers do.

                              But Paul, i.e. the Big Boss, doesn't think much of them. Hence it was not
                              a pentecostal movement.

                              > > So, Steve, perhaps you may wish to consider 1 Cor 12 an interpolation
                              > > after all? I think this will probably strengthen your general case.
                              >
                              > Nope.

                              So then you have these problems above.

                              ...

                              > > Yes, I know that you really need the Pentecost for your theory to work.
                              > > But sorry, Steve, I just don't see it. History is history. I will not
                              > > compromise the scientific method just to make myself look like as a nice
                              > > guy...
                              >
                              > I don't need a) the Pentecost (Luke's account) or even b) a
                              > particular event somewhere sometime to account for the evidence.

                              Well, this sounds much better to me already.

                              > I can just point to the evidence of a shift from prophet/healer to
                              > pentecostal and say "whatever the hell happened, something caused
                              > the shift." If you are greatly bothered by calling "whatever the hell
                              > happened" Pentecost, we can call if Zublilch. OK with me.

                              The difficulty here as I see it is as follows. One may get a suspicion
                              that you may have designed your categories of "prophet/healer" and
                              "pentecostal" just in such a way so that there will be a fundamental
                              difference between them -- just such a difference that will need this
                              seemingly problematic shift/Pentecost/Zublilch thingy to have taken place.
                              In other words, the question may be asked, Is this
                              shift/Pentecost/Zublilch thingy really so necessary for understanding
                              early evolution of the Christian movement? Perhaps dispensing with the
                              thingy may clarify things more than will be the case otherwise?

                              Just some thoughts...

                              Regards,

                              Yuri.
                            • Lewis Reich
                              ... Certainly, he was more prophet and teacher than healer. Jewish tradition regards him as Moshe rabbenu , lit. Moses our rabbi - in this context, I
                              Message 14 of 24 , Sep 8 10:41 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 8 Sep 98, at 22:45, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:

                                > I think we can safely say that Moses was not primarily a healer, although
                                > he was certainly a prophet.

                                Certainly, he was more "prophet" and teacher than healer. Jewish tradition
                                regards him as "Moshe rabbenu", lit. Moses our "rabbi" - in this context, I
                                think most accurately translated as "teacher".

                                > And yet he was also more than a prophet, he
                                > was a great founding figure.

                                With a caveat that Jewish tradition regards Abraham as clearly the pre-
                                eminent founding figure. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are revered as the "fathers"
                                (generally rendered in English as "patriarchs" - the traditional texts refer to
                                them as "Avraham avinu", "Yaakov avinu", etc. "avinu" means "our father") , not
                                Moses, although it is Moses who is the paradigmatic man of God and lawgiver.


                                > But it is clear to me that the prophets and the healers do not necessarily
                                > fall into the same category in the Tanakh. Most of the prophets clearly
                                > are not healers.

                                I think that's exactly right.

                                > So the category Prophet/healer certainly doesn't seem
                                > like something that we need to take for granted.

                                The first-century healer mentioned in the Talmud, Hanina ben Dosa, certainly
                                was not regarded as a prophet.

                                Lewis Reich
                                LBR@...
                              • Anne Quast
                                ... He didn t cure Miriam. He talked to God. It was God s decision. Moses prayed that Miriam would be cured, but he didn t heal her. We just covered this
                                Message 15 of 24 , Sep 9 6:53 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 22:45 8/09/98 -0400, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >On Sat, 5 Sep 1998, Lewis Reich wrote:
                                  >> On 5 Sep 98, at 14:33, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  >> > OK, Lewis, but was Moses really a prophet/healer? Did he heal someone?
                                  >> > Please refresh my memory.
                                  >>
                                  >> He healed his sister Miriam by prayer (after a delay of seven days) Num
                                  >> 12:13. He is referred to explicitly as a *navi* (the word which is
                                  >> translated by *prophetes* in the LXX) in the text (Deut. 34:10), in fact
                                  >> as the greatest *navi*.
                                  >

                                  He didn't cure Miriam. He talked to God. It was God's decision. Moses
                                  prayed that Miriam would be cured, but he didn't heal her. We just covered
                                  this in our Bible study Tuesday night!
                                • Stevan Davies
                                  ... You can blend them together if you like by changing the nature of the discussion and so we can agree that the origins of Christianity are such that there
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Sep 10 12:26 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > From: y.kuchinsky

                                    > The difficulty here as I see it is as follows. One may get a suspicion
                                    > that you may have designed your categories of "prophet/healer" and
                                    > "pentecostal" just in such a way so that there will be a fundamental
                                    > difference between them

                                    You can blend them together if you like by changing the nature
                                    of the discussion and so we can agree that the origins of
                                    Christianity are such that there was one prophet/healer and then,
                                    some time after His death, there were hundreds.

                                    > -- just such a difference that will need this
                                    > seemingly problematic shift/Pentecost/Zublilch thingy to have taken place.
                                    > In other words, the question may be asked, Is this
                                    > shift/Pentecost/Zublilch thingy really so necessary for understanding
                                    > early evolution of the Christian movement? Perhaps dispensing with the
                                    > thingy may clarify things more than will be the case otherwise?

                                    It's not only unnecessary (logically) but downright annoying. I would
                                    prefer to have good evidence that Jesus brought about spirit
                                    accredited ASC experiences in his followers and not to have to
                                    have this happen after his death. Do you have any good evidence
                                    to this effect? If not, then we are still stuck with a man who was
                                    said to be a prophet and a healer and to have the spirit and around
                                    whom a group gathered and, when he died, the members of that group
                                    collectively adopted the roles he formerly occupied uniquely. At
                                    the moment that's what all the reliable evidence tells me happened.
                                    (I'll point out that even if I adopt your interpolations and dating
                                    hypotheses all that occurs is the movement of the shift/pentecost
                                    back a couple generations. The same "it was this and became that"
                                    historiography will pertain.)

                                    Steve
                                  • Jacob Knee
                                    Can anyone recommend anything written on the theological use of the concept of rest in early christianity. My curiosity has been aroused by thinking about
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Sep 11 4:45 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Can anyone recommend anything written on the theological use of the concept
                                      of 'rest' in early christianity.

                                      My curiosity has been aroused by thinking about the 'resting' material in
                                      the Gospel of Thomas and it's use in early christian Jordan/baptismal
                                      traditions.

                                      Came across this quote from Gospel of the Hebrews (quoted by Jerome):

                                      'And it came to pass when the Lord came up out of the water, the whole fount
                                      of the Holy Spirit descended upon him and rested on him and said: 'My Son,
                                      in all the prophets I was waiting for thee that thou shouldest come and I
                                      might rest in thee. For thou art my rest; thou art my first begotten Son
                                      that reignest forever.'

                                      I thought of Gospel of Thomas 2 and the difference in wording between the
                                      Greek and Coptic about reigning and resting.

                                      Any recommendations for further reading about 'resting'? (Wasn't someone
                                      asking about GThomas and baptism - slightly curious if baptism is in mind
                                      why - as I remember it - maybe wrong - there is no mention of either the
                                      Jordan or Spirit - is Spirit mentioned in GThomas at all?)

                                      Rambling on as ever - but help appreciated nevertheless!,
                                      Jacob Knee
                                    • Jacob Knee
                                      Forget the question about spirit - rather than have a quick glance at Valantasis index (which is what I did) - I went to Stevan s web site and searched the
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Sep 11 5:01 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Forget the question about spirit - rather than have a quick glance at
                                        Valantasis' index (which is what I did) - I went to Stevan's web site and
                                        searched the translation (which is what I should have done in the first
                                        place!).

                                        Still interested in 'rest' though

                                        Best wishes,
                                        Jacob Knee


                                        > -----Original Message-----
                                        > From: owner-crosstalk@...
                                        > [mailto:owner-crosstalk@...]On Behalf Of Jacob Knee
                                        > Sent: 12 September 1998 00:46
                                        > To: crosstalk@...
                                        > Subject: rest/Jordan (GT 2)
                                        >
                                        >- is Spirit mentioned in GThomas at all?)
                                        >
                                        > Rambling on as ever - but help appreciated nevertheless!,
                                        > Jacob Knee
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                      • Stevan Davies
                                        ... Paul s Letter to Hebrews often uses rest in a sense similar to the sense it is found in Thomas and Matthew 11:28-29. Otherwise not in the NT. If you
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Sep 12 1:48 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          > From: "Jacob Knee"

                                          > Can anyone recommend anything written on the theological use of the concept
                                          > of 'rest' in early christianity.

                                          ""Paul's" Letter" to Hebrews often uses "rest" in a sense similar to
                                          the sense it is found in Thomas and Matthew 11:28-29. Otherwise
                                          not in the NT.

                                          If you do not know about the WWW Bible Gateway it is
                                          a wonderful source for word-searches. I use it daily.
                                          http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible

                                          Another wonderful source for word-searches is
                                          http://www.webcom.com/cgi-bin/glimpse
                                          which will give you citations from every early Christian text and
                                          gnostic text you ever heard of and a hundred more.

                                          One could write a whole dissertation on "rest" from these
                                          two resources alone.

                                          > Any recommendations for further reading about 'resting'? (Wasn't someone
                                          > asking about GThomas and baptism - slightly curious if baptism is in mind

                                          Davies on Baptism in Thomas
                                          http://www.miseri.edu/davies/thomas/seven.htm
                                          some folks think this is a pretty strong case... I don't anymore.

                                          > why - as I remember it - maybe wrong - there is no mention of either the
                                          > Jordan or Spirit - is Spirit mentioned in GThomas at all?)

                                          Alas, no. Implied in 13/108 if you make an enormous effort.

                                          Steve
                                        • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
                                          ... Steve, It is the category prophet/healer that is in doubt AFAIC. The real question in my mind would be, Would he have been primarily a prophet, or a
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Sep 15 10:41 AM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Stevan Davies wrote:

                                            >
                                            > > From: y.kuchinsky
                                            >
                                            > > The difficulty here as I see it is as follows. One may get a suspicion
                                            > > that you may have designed your categories of "prophet/healer" and
                                            > > "pentecostal" just in such a way so that there will be a fundamental
                                            > > difference between them
                                            >
                                            > You can blend them together if you like by changing the nature
                                            > of the discussion and so we can agree that the origins of
                                            > Christianity are such that there was one prophet/healer and then,
                                            > some time after His death, there were hundreds.

                                            Steve,

                                            It is the category prophet/healer that is in doubt AFAIC. The real
                                            question in my mind would be, Would he have been primarily a prophet, or a
                                            healer?

                                            > > -- just such a difference that will need this
                                            > > seemingly problematic shift/Pentecost/Zublilch thingy to have taken place.
                                            > > In other words, the question may be asked, Is this
                                            > > shift/Pentecost/Zublilch thingy really so necessary for understanding
                                            > > early evolution of the Christian movement? Perhaps dispensing with the
                                            > > thingy may clarify things more than will be the case otherwise?
                                            >
                                            > It's not only unnecessary (logically) but downright annoying. I would
                                            > prefer to have good evidence that Jesus brought about spirit
                                            > accredited ASC experiences in his followers and not to have to
                                            > have this happen after his death. Do you have any good evidence
                                            > to this effect?

                                            Of course. The healings themselves would provide good evidence that those
                                            "healed" were probably so on the basis of their accredited ASC
                                            experiences.

                                            > If not, then we are still stuck with a man who was
                                            > said to be a prophet and a healer

                                            But what was his primary function? We would need to answer this to
                                            understand the Historical Jesus.

                                            > and to have the spirit and around
                                            > whom a group gathered and, when he died, the members of that group
                                            > collectively adopted the roles he formerly occupied uniquely.

                                            Why uniquely? There were no other healers in Israel? Or other prophets?

                                            > At the moment that's what all the reliable evidence tells me happened.
                                            > (I'll point out that even if I adopt your interpolations and dating
                                            > hypotheses all that occurs is the movement of the shift/pentecost back a
                                            > couple generations.

                                            If you accepted my interpolation hypothesis, you would have an easier time
                                            showing that the real Paul was "pentecostal".

                                            > The same "it was this and became that" historiography will pertain.)

                                            The shift seems to be in question. I don't see any major shift such as you
                                            outlined. OTOH I see a shift from the primarily Jewish to primarily
                                            gentile-oriented traditions. This was a really big and important shift.
                                            But it seems to be invisible in your analysis.

                                            Regards,

                                            Yuri.
                                          • Mahlon H. Smith
                                            ... Steve: Please check the URL on this or give me the name of the site. I keep getting a search failed notice when I enter the URL above. Thanks, Mahlon --
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Sep 16 6:34 AM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Stevan Davies wrote to Jacob Knee:
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Another wonderful source for word-searches is
                                              > http://www.webcom.com/cgi-bin/glimpse
                                              > which will give you citations from every early Christian text and
                                              > gnostic text you ever heard of and a hundred more.
                                              >

                                              Steve:

                                              Please check the URL on this or give me the name of the site. I keep
                                              getting a "search failed" notice when I enter the URL above.

                                              Thanks,

                                              Mahlon

                                              --

                                              *********************

                                              Mahlon H. Smith,
                                              Associate Professor
                                              Department of Religion
                                              Rutgers University
                                              New Brunswick NJ

                                              http://religion.rutgers.edu/mhsmith.html
                                            • Stevan Davies
                                              ... I must have cut-and-pasted the address from a search I did and not from the form itself. Form itself is http://www.gnosis.org/gnosis/search_form.html It s
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Sep 16 11:57 AM
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                > Stevan Davies wrote to Jacob Knee:
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > > Another wonderful source for word-searches is

                                                > > which will give you citations from every early Christian text and
                                                > > gnostic text you ever heard of and a hundred more.
                                                > >
                                                >
                                                > Steve:
                                                >
                                                > Please check the URL on this or give me the name of the site. I keep
                                                > getting a "search failed" notice when I enter the URL above.
                                                >
                                                > Thanks,
                                                >
                                                > Mahlon

                                                I must have cut-and-pasted the address from a search I did
                                                and not from the form itself. Form itself is

                                                http://www.gnosis.org/gnosis/search_form.html

                                                It's a grand resource. If this address doesn't work, lemme
                                                know and I'll keep trying.

                                                Steve
                                              • Jacob Knee
                                                Just a quick note to say thanks for the URLs and reference to your piece on Thomas and baptism. best wishes, Jacob
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Sep 18 6:26 AM
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Just a quick note to say thanks for the URLs and reference to your piece on
                                                  Thomas and baptism.

                                                  best wishes,
                                                  Jacob

                                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                                  > From: owner-crosstalk@...
                                                  > [mailto:owner-crosstalk@...]On Behalf Of Stevan
                                                  > Davies
                                                  > Sent: 12 September 1998 21:49
                                                  > To: crosstalk@...
                                                  > Subject: Re: rest/Jordan (GT 2)
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > > From: "Jacob Knee"
                                                  >
                                                  > > Can anyone recommend anything written on the theological use of
                                                  > the concept
                                                  > > of 'rest' in early christianity.
                                                  >
                                                  > ""Paul's" Letter" to Hebrews often uses "rest" in a sense similar to
                                                  > the sense it is found in Thomas and Matthew 11:28-29. Otherwise
                                                  > not in the NT.
                                                  >
                                                  > If you do not know about the WWW Bible Gateway it is
                                                  > a wonderful source for word-searches. I use it daily.
                                                  > http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible
                                                  >
                                                  > Another wonderful source for word-searches is
                                                  > http://www.webcom.com/cgi-bin/glimpse
                                                  > which will give you citations from every early Christian text and
                                                  > gnostic text you ever heard of and a hundred more.
                                                  >
                                                  > One could write a whole dissertation on "rest" from these
                                                  > two resources alone.
                                                  >
                                                  > > Any recommendations for further reading about 'resting'? (Wasn't someone
                                                  > > asking about GThomas and baptism - slightly curious if baptism
                                                  > is in mind
                                                  >
                                                  > Davies on Baptism in Thomas
                                                  > http://www.miseri.edu/davies/thomas/seven.htm
                                                  > some folks think this is a pretty strong case... I don't anymore.
                                                  >
                                                  > > why - as I remember it - maybe wrong - there is no mention of either the
                                                  > > Jordan or Spirit - is Spirit mentioned in GThomas at all?)
                                                  >
                                                  > Alas, no. Implied in 13/108 if you make an enormous effort.
                                                  >
                                                  > Steve
                                                  >
                                                • Paul Miller
                                                  Steve wrote: Davies on Baptism in Thomas http://www.miseri.edu/davies/thomas/seven.htm some folks think this is a pretty strong case... I don t anymore. ...
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Sep 18 8:13 AM
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Steve wrote:
                                                    Davies on Baptism in Thomas
                                                    http://www.miseri.edu/davies/thomas/seven.htm
                                                    some folks think this is a pretty strong case... I don't anymore.
                                                    ---------------------

                                                    Steve have your views on GThomas changed significantly from some of your
                                                    material posted on the GThomas Homepage? If so could you give us a summary
                                                    of what those changes are?

                                                    Thanks.
                                                    Paul Miller
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.