Re: The Gospels

Tina wrote:
<< My problem with John is that he sees Jesus as God, not a man, whereas the
synoptics are at least an attempt at relaying a story, laying out the facts.
>>

As I've said a few times already, it is not clear to me that the author of
John would plainly state that Jesus Is God (in fact, he doesn't plainly
state it, and though he MIGHT have, I maintain that he might not have).

And besides which, even an utter conviction on his part doesn't seem to me
to amount to a problem that we ought to have with him. What should it
matter to me if Homer (might have) thought that Zeus was a god, or Achilles
part-god?

And:
<< I have far more confidence in some of the Nag Hammadi scrolls than in
the 4 canonical gospels. >>

If this confidence is in historical accuracy, I think it might be more
closely associated with what you want to be true than with what anybody
knows to be true.

And:
<< I suggest a very interesting book called The Jesus Mysteries, the author
escapes me at the moment. Although it doesn't;'t address problems with John
specifically, it does explain where many of the mythos come from, and makes
an excellent case for Jesus being a Gnostic, the fish symbol being a prime
example. >>

It does not "explain where many of the mythos come from" but rather
postulates and hypothesizes where they came from. The distinction is very
important.

The two men who wrote the book, for whatever this information is worth to
anyone, are essentially unaffilliated with the mainstream scholarship,
secular and otherwise. They do say a few interesting and provocative things
in this book that deserve attention, but the rest of the book,
unfortunately, is such that these few are largely missed with a summary
(and, I think, easy and reasonable) dismissal of the whole.

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sun Aug 3 21:32:34 2003