Re: [XTalk] Re: Dating Paul
>--- In email@example.com, "Gordon Raynal" <scudi1@c...>Hi Steve,
>> ......... And thank you very much, but Coptic
>> Christianity is quite alive and well! As a matter of fact ............
>> Gordon Raynal
>> Inman, SC
>I was intrigued by your mention of Coptic Christianity. Due to my
>ignorance I could not perceive how they fit into the thread. I seem
>to recall that they are something called "monophysite". I had thought
>that was some wording change on the Trinity formula or some such.
>Would be interested to learn more about this. Thanks
I'm no expert on Coptic Christianity, to say the least... and so "experts"
chime in! My point was that the movement moved in lots of directions and
not just the one that "Luke" centrally focuses on in this "Jerusalem to
Rome" movement arc... Peter and Paul as the new Romulus and Remus of Pax
Christi "triumph!" (to speak rather metaphorically). Just searched the web
to refresh my memory and it is John Mark who is credited among the
traditions for spreading Christianity to Alexandria, first in the reign of
Claudius (41-44 C.E.) From reading materials I rather wonder if initial
connections were made with Jewish folk in Africa when Jesus was alive...
hence the importance of Simon of Cyrene? Don't know? Not enough
information! But I wonder???
Alexandria, of course, would become a great bastion of Christian scholarship
in the centuries to come and Egypt was noted as an important writing center
both for those who supported the later move towards Nicene orthodoxy, as
well as those who went in "gnostic" sorts of directions. The modern Copts
are Nicene Trinitarians and hail that connection to Mark. It has been
awhile since I read all that later wrangling over such as monophysites! At
any rate it would have been quite interesting if such as the author of Mark
had gone on and written "an Acts" and the author of Matthew and John had
done the same. If they had, we might actually know a lot more about that
first century than we do!
Thanks for the note,
- (from the site you mentioned):
"Half Shekel - the currency of the Jerusalem Temple
At the Great Temple in Jerusalem the annual tax levied on Jews
was 1/2 shekel per male. The 1/2 shekel and shekel were ... the
only coins accepted by the temple."
I'm confused. The Tyrean half-shekel contained an image of Melqarth,
yet it was acceptable at the Temple? Practically speaking, it may
have been the most stable non-Roman currency, but I was under the
impression that the reason the Herodian coinage - as well the shekel
minted 66-70 by Jewish revolutionaries - contained no human image,
was a supposed ban on "graven images". What's the story? Money win
out over principle, no such principle, or was the principle not so
Mt. Clemens, MI