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

Re: [GTh] Dating evidence.

Expand Messages
  • BitsyCat1@aol.com
    In a message dated 06/07/2002 3:22:12AM, michael@etwebsite.com writes:
    Message 1 of 73 , Jun 7, 2002
      In a message dated 06/07/2002 3:22:12AM, michael@... writes:

      << Well, I have One. There is a weak argument which is accepted by some and
      others do not. That is the quote of Thomas saying 17 inside the Pauline
      letters,
      Specifically 1st Corinthians 2:9,

      Isaiah 64:4
      For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by
      the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath
      prepared for him that waiteth for him.

      1 Corinthians 2:9
      But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered
      into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love
      him.

      As much as I'd like to agree with you John, the fact the Paul says it's
      "written" would suggest to me he was refering to the Isaiah quote rather
      than Got 17. Darn though, you got my hopes up anyway. :)

      I would say however that since Paul hunted early Christians and looked for
      such materials as evidence of their guilt, he of all people would be likely
      to have access to these kinds of documents assuming they were already
      circulating in his lifetime.
      >>

      Well, having checked numerous sources on this, the general agreement of
      those sources is that it was not Isaiah. The New Interpreters Bibles and some
      of the more weighty analysis say that over the centuries, there have been
      many explanations
      for 1st Corinthians 2:9(Basically they say that they were all wrong)

      I believe that Clement had stated he thought it was ISaiah (the reference
      books say he was in error), they generally end in agreement. That either this
      is such a loose interoperation of Isaiah(As to not actually be Isaiah) and
      made up(Which the Paul purists would abhor)

      Presumably Paul would not be so careless, or they come right out and say"
      WHERE DO these words actually Appear?"

      So perhaps it is a Paul would not misquote so badly his source Argument.(
      By the Theologians)

      Nevertheless it would appear to be the Thomas Saying rather than ISaiah.
      As well it authentic Pauline.( Which can not be said for all that is
      attributed to Paul)

      I believe at least One Newer Bible cites Thomas for this verse and I
      have seen the
      Argument presented on the Web from Published accounts as well.

      That is if the majority of Searchers are correct and this is not
      Isaiah, then
      it would seem to be Thomas.

      In any case, The original location is not in question. Thomas might
      have altered
      Isaiah and place within the Sayings List the be Altered slightly again by a
      Cynic sage
      to his own purpose, then quoted by Paul.

      We all know what happens when you extract several times down
      several authors. However, I would say Paul purists would have less trouble
      with Paul quoting Thomas than, severely misquoting Isaiah. (As an it is
      written)

      Nevertheless the failing of the argument is not this point, but
      in the end you have to decide if Paul is quoting Thomas, or Thomas is quoting
      PAUL.

      That in my opinion is the weakness of the argument rather than
      the Old testament source.

      Regards JOHN MOON
      2401
      Crescent DR

      Springfield, TENN. 37172

      johnmoon3717@...

      I cannot recall if it is PAtterson or Davies that writes that this
      is Thomas.
      It has not come up for about a year. Presumably they have done more research
      on the
      Saying than I. I. Shall re check for the sources.
    • DaGoi@aol.com
      In a message dated 6/13/2 7:41:00 AM, Mike wrote:
      Message 73 of 73 , Jun 16, 2002
        In a message dated 6/13/2 7:41:00 AM, Mike wrote:

        <<That Jesus
        originally had five disciples is attested also in Jewish writings,
        apparently independently, and among the five names there given is 'Mattias',
        as I recall.>>

        Most scholars I've read have discounted this list of disciples as being late.
        Ill find some references and send em along later.

        Bill Foley
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.