Re: [XTalk] the crucifixion by Mel Gibson vs the crucifixion byAeschylus
- Jim West wrote:
> At 10:47 AM 10/7/2004, you wrote:Only if we assume that "after (actually "according to") the flesh" means "as X was
> >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
> 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.
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