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

Re: 1 Cor 15 Kerygma, the historical Peter, and the transition from Jesus to Chr

Expand Messages
  • RSBrenchley@aol.com
    In a message dated 02/10/05 22:20:14 GMT Daylight Time, crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com writes:
    Message 1 of 32 , Oct 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 02/10/05 22:20:14 GMT Daylight Time,
      crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com writes:

      <<Your answer here is that there are two passages which suggest that Jesus
      became the Messiah and the Son of God after his death and resurrection. The
      said passages are Romans 1:1-4 and Acts 2:36.>>
      Doesn't Phil 2:9-11 also suggest that Jesus did not become Lord until
      after the resurrection?


      Regards,

      Robert Brenchley
      Birmingham UK


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Rikk Watts
      PS I m away until Sun PM. Take care Rikk
      Message 32 of 32 , Oct 13, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        PS I'm away until Sun PM.

        Take care

        Rikk


        On 12/10/05 10:44 PM, "Bob Schacht" <bobschacht@...> wrote:

        > At 04:58 PM 10/11/2005, Rikk Watts wrote:
        >
        >> ...Having just read his response (thank you John for the heads-up on JECS), I
        >> was pleased to see that he too is very skeptical of what he calls the "Chaos
        >> School of the Early Church" (i.e. that there was no mainstream Christianity
        >> but rather a plethora of divergent groups, as per Mack, and I suppose
        >> Ehrmann). I suppose these authors might accuse Stark of imposing a unity
        >> where there isn't one, though IMHO I think his case makes more sense. And
        >> that charge can easily be turned such that they are simply reading the
        >> post-modern diversity mantra of North American educational institutions back
        >> into the first century.. . .
        >
        > Isn't there an awful lot of room between "chaos" and "monolithic"? --
        > unless, I suppose, chaos means *any* diversity of opinion. My own view,
        > based on what I've read of Tom Kopecek's study of the soteriology of the
        > first centuries, is that there were 4 main varieties of early Christianity
        > (4 does not look like chaos to me) by some time in the early second
        > century, and of course at least 2 at the time of Paul.
        >
        > But rather than digress with an argument over *which* four, I'll ask
        > instead why "unity" would be necessary for Stark's argument-- or rather,
        > perhaps ask whether this "unity" was allegedly assumed by the mathematical
        > model, or whether it was part of Stark's attempt to explain the apparent
        > growth rate. Mathematically, Stark's model depends only on an *average*
        > growth rate. There can still be major variations in different places.
        >
        > Bob
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
        >
        > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.