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

Re: [Gnosticism2] _ three queries re eisenman tome

Expand Messages
  • Tsharpmin7@aol.com
    In a message dated 9/2/2005 6:52:17 PM Central Standard Time, jn1947@yahoo.com writes: was looking over my notes on eisenman s james the brother of jesus
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 2, 2005
      In a message dated 9/2/2005 6:52:17 PM Central Standard Time, jn1947@... writes:
      "was looking over my notes on eisenman's 'james the brother of jesus' and realized i had some questions about the text

      1/ what kind of points do we give eisenman for pretty much 'forgetting' mary magdalene ? in his VOLUMINOUS book, he hardly mentions her at all. eisenman hypothesizes that the first human to see the resurrected jesus was james the just

      2/ do we have any reason to agree with the author's assertion that paul//saul was a member of the herod family ?

      3/ could the following possibly be true ? eisenman avers that the works of josephus were - - at one time - - included as part of holy writ in bibles used by greek orthodox denomination. i don't recall the author giving specifics as to when this  allegedly  took place.

              =    =     =     =     =     =     =     =     =    =     =
      * * * *  "I believe because it is impossible"   (tertullian)    **** "for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ ; for it is the power of God unto salvation"  (romans 1:16) * * * *
      hi Julie,  I'm unfamiliar with the Eisenman text you're referring to, so i may be sticking my neck out here with these opinions.
      to the 1st question its my understanding that the oldest gospel text, Mark, did not contain any resurrection narrative in its earliest known form, and this is an exceedingly odd omission if the author believed, or was in any way aware of, Jesus resurrected from the dead.   although i think it probable that the Jesus story was formulated around an actual person, the resurrection aspect of the story was most likely a later embellishment amongst numerous embellishments.  so who was or was not allegedly present for the resurrection is probably meaningless in the strictest historical sense.
      i have no ideas about your 3rd question.  as to your 2nd question i confess this is the 1st time i've come across that assertion, and nothing in my limited studies would seem to support that.  quite the contrary actually.  without trying to disparage Mr. Eisenman's repute, i would cautiously point out what my wife has told me time and again: controversy sells books.  she's an editor at a large publishing house and has occasionally been pressured from above to goad authors toward some rather unseemly speculations.  in her office its called "the juice factor."
      your friend,
      Crispin Sainte III
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.