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

3069Re: [gthomas] motivations

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Smith
    Aug 4, 2000
      >
      > Andrew,
      >
      > But one can argue that this is how Matthew and Luke really imagined the
      > Historical Jesus to have been. So do you really think the way they came up
      > with their picture of Jesus was so radically different from the ways our
      > modern scholars come up with their own pictures of Jesus? Because in both
      > cases personal presuppositions may play their roles.
      >

      Yes, of course it was radically different! Are you suggesting that Matthew
      and Luke were critical scholars in the modern fashion?

      > So please observe the personal presuppositions in the above snippet of
      > Steve's. According to him, the "earliest sources" (Paul) advocate "freedom
      > from the Law". But how can we be sure that everything in Paul was really
      > written by Paul? A presupposition that is certainly questionable, although
      > almost never questioned.
      >

      Paul's attitude to the law isn't a personal presupposition of Steve, it's
      the general consensus of modern scholarship. He's simply taking the standard
      datings of the gospels and epistles and showing that they point to quite a
      different model of early Christianity. And nobody thinks that everything in
      the Pauline letters was written by Paul.

      <snipped>
      >One may indeed wonder how
      >could back-to-the-Torah movement be happening at the same time as the
      >let's-dump-the-Torah movement..

      If it began with anomian or antinomian elements this isn't such a problem.
      Some parts of the movement maintain the original attitude, other parts slip
      back into nomian Judaism.

      <rest snipped>

      I'm sorry that I haven't got time to address all of your points, except to
      mention that Thomas does have an apocalyptic *protology* .

      What makes your posts so difficult, Yuri, is that you argue so broadly using
      phrases like "It's my opinion that", "in my view", etc. and so you end up
      not arguing but just asserting. You very rarely ground anything in a
      specificic piece of text or a critical observation, so your theories are
      seldom taken seriously, especially since you are working uphill with most of
      them.

      Best Wishes

      Andrew Smith
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic