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

Re: [XTalk] Re: now transition from Jesus to Christ

Expand Messages
  • Robert J McElwain
    Message text written by INTERNET:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com ... historicity, rather than any direct value for the actual historicity (or lack thereof). Oh,
    Message 1 of 32 , Oct 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Message text written by INTERNET:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
      >Bob Schacht wrote:
      >This seems to be an argument about the *modern* *perception* of
      historicity, rather than any direct value for the actual historicity (or
      lack thereof). Oh, btw, do you have any evidence for this "tendency"?
      Bob Schacht
      University of Hawaii
      ***************************************************************************
      ****

      I think it's just standard historical method, but then, I'm not a scholar.
      As for evidence, it's one of those things one has to see and experience on
      their own. However, next time you read any scholar whom you know to
      believe that the actual Gospel writers were not Matthew Mark Luke ad John
      but then goes on to critique and compare the various "Jesus quotes" among
      the four Gospels, ask yourself if this makes sense.

      Blessings,

      Robert J. McElwain
      Prairie Village, Kansas
      Westar Institute Associate
    • 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.