5592Re: [GTh] Beyond Belief ...
- Jun 8, 2003
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Beyond Belief ...
> > ... as I recall (and while opinions most certainly vary), the
> > Diatessaron seems to "log in" at appx. 175 C.E. That sounds a little
> > late for people to be asking (Thomas #53) if "circumcision is
> > necessary" (remember ... this question was settled by Paul & Barsabbas
> > in or around 49 C.E.)
> Barsabbas? Well, at any rate, the range of meanings of the Greek loan-word
> 'ophelei' used in Th53 doesn't seem to have included 'necessary'.
> it meant 'advantageous', 'beneficial', 'profitable', etc. - something
> necessity. Even after Paul, a Christian audience might still have been
> asking, "OK, circumcision isn't necessary, but isn't it (at least)
> advantageous?" Or: "We know it isn't necessary to be Jewish, but isn't it
> helpful?" This continuing question might be taken to favor post-Paul
> though I'm myself agnostic on the dating isssue.
Doesn't the answer to the question about circumcision in Thomas suggest that
the point isn't just that circumcision is unprofitable to Christians but
that it was never
of any value as a physical rite?
This would be similar to the position of the "Epistle of Barnabas".
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>