Re: Vatican

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Tue Nov 15 2005 - 23:10:22 EST

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: RFaussette@aol.com
  To: janmatch@earthlink.net ; asa@calvin.edu
  Cc: panterragroup@mindspring.com
  Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:15 PM
  Subject: Re: Vatican

  In a message dated 11/15/2005 2:36:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, janmatch@earthlink.net writes:
    his book Hidden Gospels, Jenkins explodes the myth of the Gospel of Philip as a reliable or contemporary source for the life of Jesus:

    · Not a first century document at all, scholars date the Gospel of Philip to the third century, about 200 years after Jesus lived, and therefore no product of the disciple named Philip in Acts, unless he lived to be at least 310! This would be as far removed from us as the American Revolution, and certainly not to be preferred over the canonical Gospels, which even by later dates assigned by some scholars (80-100 AD) are far closer to their source.[30] The Nag Hammadi document was penned no earlier than 350 AD.[31]

    · The Gospel of Philip is a Gnostic text, and Gnostic thought would have no place in first century Palestinian Judaism. A Jesus teaching Gnosticism in this setting would not have been Teabing’s influential person – he would have been ignored and shunned.
     ....." Much more here: http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm

    The Nag Hammadi texts are dated to the late fourth century. See here: http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm

    ~ Janice

  You're all going to have to get out of the box and it hasn't hit you yet. You see, if the creation was not 6 days, then it is myth/allegory.

  Knowing that it's fruitless to argue with Rich, I'll point out for the benefit of others that this claim is purest non sequitur. There are certainly other choices between than "6 days" and "myth/allegory." We might think of Barth's description of the Genesis accounts as "saga." They are fundamentally theological statements that indeed contain some mythic elements but are hardly pure myth. No critical OT scholar regards them as "history as it really happened" & I think very few would see them as "allegory."

  & of course the claims that we must see it Rich's way are just bluster.

  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Tue Nov 15 23:13:17 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 15 2005 - 23:13:17 EST