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

Re: [XTalk] the crucifixion by Mel Gibson vs the crucifixion byAeschylus

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... Only if we assume that after (actually according to ) the flesh means as X was historically . But this meaning hardly seems to square up with Paul s
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 7, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim West wrote:

      > At 10:47 AM 10/7/2004, you wrote:
      > >If such parallels could be reliably established we could more easily
      > >determine what material was taken over or influenced by what sources. It
      > >is a matter of adjusting our lenses to compensate for distortions in the
      > >tradition. The reason for adjusting lenses is to be able to see more
      > >clearly.
      > I would suggest though that simply because material is similar it is not
      > necessarily dependent. Hence, similar material to the Jesus story may
      > prove nothing except that similar traditions exist. Building history on
      > similarity seems perilous.
      > >Of course Paul was at a disadvantage with respect to Peter and the rest of
      > >the Jerusalem church, particularly brother James, in the category of
      > >knowledge of Christ after the flesh, his first contact having been with
      > >the risen Christ. In other words, he could never compete with them in this
      > >category. What would be more natural then, than to declare the category to
      > >be irrelevant?
      > ah- now that makes sense.

      Only if we assume that "after (actually "according to") the flesh" means "as X was
      historically". But this meaning hardly seems to square up with Paul's statement in
      2 Cor 5:16 that he no longer views **anyone** KATA SARKA.


      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
      Chicago, IL 60626

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