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

[gthomas] Re: Q2 and Thomas

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grondin
    ... Damn! I thought only Paul Miller was listening! But seriously, I m afraid that I d become so concerned about the lack of traffic on the list lately that I
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 19, 1999
      Bill Arnal:
      >Perhaps you should read the work you're criticizing Mike --
      >you'd thereby avoid making irrelevant points. I hate to
      >sound snotty about this, but I am SO sick of hearing these
      >same criticisms over and over again, when in fact they
      >don't touch the substance of the arguments for
      >stratification. The stuff is in print -- read it!

      Damn! I thought only Paul Miller was listening! But seriously, I'm afraid
      that I'd become so concerned about the lack of traffic on the list lately
      that I allowed my ignorance to take its head. There are indeed reasons for
      believing that "Q2" was a later addition to "Q1", and I apologize for
      saying otherwise. But I'm surprised at your suggestion that many others
      have made the same mistake. You mean I'm not the first to be aggressively
      ignorant about the stratification of Q?

      Mike

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
      http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
    • Stevan Davies
      ... No sooner said than done. GTh 77 Jesus said, It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am all things. From me did all things come
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 19, 1999
        > >...77a is arguably the most anciently attested of all the Thomas
        > >sayings, fitting as it does with that host of pre-gospel "Jesus
        > >the Pantocrator" material, albeit first-person and not third-person.
        >
        > Could you specify some of this "Jesus the Pantocrator" material, Steve?
        >
        > Mike

        No sooner said than done.

        GTh 77
        Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them
        all. It is I who am all things. From me did all things come forth, and
        unto me did all things extend.

        1 Cor 8:6
        yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came
        and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
        whom all things came and through whom we live.

        Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on
        earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or
        authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

        Heb 1:2
        but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he
        appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

        John 1:3
        Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made
        that has been made.

        Steve

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
        http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
      • William Arnal
        ... Hurray! ... Yes indeed, which is why I get so cranky about it (and for which I, uh, uh, apologize). This sorta thing appears in PRINT with amazing
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 19, 1999
          At 12:31 PM 7/19/99 -0400, Mike Grondin wrote:

          >Damn! I thought only Paul Miller was listening! But seriously, I'm afraid
          >that I'd become so concerned about the lack of traffic on the list lately
          >that I allowed my ignorance to take its head. There are indeed reasons for
          >believing that "Q2" was a later addition to "Q1", and I apologize for
          >saying otherwise.

          Hurray!

          >But I'm surprised at your suggestion that many others
          >have made the same mistake. You mean I'm not the first to be aggressively
          >ignorant about the stratification of Q?

          Yes indeed, which is why I get so cranky about it (and for which I, uh, uh,
          apologize). This sorta thing appears in PRINT with amazing regularity.
          Kloppenborg, in particular, is constantly being "refuted" on the grounds
          that "wisdom and apocalyptic are not incompatible" or that "the a priori
          assumption that Jesus [!!] cannot have been an apocalyptist is anachronistic
          and theologically motivated" etc. -- I fear that sheer repetition will turn
          all this irrelevant argumentation into FACT, so that no one will actually
          bother to read the quite different arguments on which the hypothesis is
          actually founded.

          Sorry to blow off on this -- the appropriate targets really are elsewhere.

          Bill
          __________________________________
          William Arnal wea1@...
          Religion/Classics check out my web page, at:
          New York University http://pages.nyu.edu/~wea1/


          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
          http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
        • Stevan Davies
          ... Bill ... Bill Arnal has written a brief summary of Kloppenborg s case that he is too humble and self-effacing to mention. It s on the WWW off my Thomas
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 19, 1999
            >> You mean I'm not the first to be aggressively
            > >ignorant about the stratification of Q?

            Bill
            > Yes indeed, which is why I get so cranky about it (and for which I, uh, uh,
            > apologize). This sorta thing appears in PRINT with amazing regularity.
            > Kloppenborg, in particular, is constantly being "refuted" on the grounds
            > that "wisdom and apocalyptic are not incompatible" or that "the a priori
            > assumption that Jesus [!!] cannot have been an apocalyptist is anachronistic
            > and theologically motivated" etc. -- I fear that sheer repetition will turn
            > all this irrelevant argumentation into FACT, so that no one will actually
            > bother to read the quite different arguments on which the hypothesis is
            > actually founded.

            Bill Arnal has written a brief summary of Kloppenborg's case
            that he is too humble and self-effacing to mention. It's on the WWW
            off my Thomas homepage at
            http://www.miseri.edu/users/davies/thomas/billklop.htm


            Steve

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
            http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.