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

[gthomas] Re: Passion of Jesus [and GOT?]

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    I m ending this discussion on thomas list with this post. Clearly most of this is off topic, as the moderator already noted. If Tom is interested to discuss
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 5, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm ending this discussion on thomas list with this post. Clearly most of
      this is off topic, as the moderator already noted. If Tom is interested to
      discuss these matters further, there's the loisy-l, where everything goes.

      On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Thomas A. Kopecek wrote:

      > > Sure. Crucifixion was the big turning point after which Jesus became
      > > truly divine.
      > Again: I don't follow. Let's just take the speeches in Acts 13, Acts
      > 2, and Acts 1 straight. It appears to me that Jesus can be construed
      > at his resurrection to have become a resurrected man, not divine,

      I see, Tom. So according to you a resurrected man is not divine?
      Resurrection implies no divinity at all? Please keep in mind that Jesus
      was resurrected AND ascended up into Heavens. So you think this is not
      divine? Really...

      > unless you are presuming that Jews and Christians who believe in a
      > general resurrection of the dead think that all will become divine.

      Are you so sure that they think that all will not become divine?

      It seems to me like you're now striking out on some new and even more
      irrelevant tangent, as if previous discussion was not irrelevant enough...

      > > Basically, there seem to be two things at stake in this discussion. 1.
      > > Adoption at resurrection. 2. Resurrection at Crucifixion (minus the tomb
      > > burial). Both of these ideas are well supported from various texts.
      > > Recently I've posted an analysis of Mt 27:52-3 in Synoptic-L that provides
      > > yet more support.
      > "Yet more"? I haven't seen any posts about resurrection at the
      > crucifixion, but I may have missed something.

      I recommend you read Ehrman who explains these things quite well.

      Also you complain that I'm not offering long enough explainations about
      the theories that Loisy formulated. Well, how is it my fault that you
      still haven't read the most important biblical scholar of the XX century?
      Here I am, providing you summaries of his theories, but instead of just
      going and reading the book for yourself, you're making all these demands.
      Perhaps you should show a bit more personal initiative? And the same with
      Ehrman. Instead of giving me credit for alerting you to this exciting new
      research, I'm getting complaints from you. This is not scholarly attitude,
      Tom, I'm sorry.

      Please try to understand that I'm only trying to bring you up to speed
      about all those things that you've missed before. The real biblical
      historical scholarship.

      > If so, what? I don't subscribe to Synoptic-L, so I'll have to be told
      > where to go on its archive webpage: does it have one?

      Here's my post with this new evidence,

      synoptic-l: Mt 27:52-3, the Tomb Burial, and primitive Mt,




      Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

      Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

      The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
      equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.