Re: The Gospels

tina carson wrote:

> My Dear, Dear Jimmy,
>
> Do you know what I hate about dating women? When they're losing an
> argument, they change the subject, resort to insults, and bring up
> irrelevant topics. Are you sure you're not a woman?
>
> 1) I stated from the beginning that I was only going to tackle one
> topic at a time, the fish symbol. You keep throwing in everything but
> the proverbial kitchen sink.

I'm only responding to what's in your posts, which is the Thesis itself
and the Fish symbol.

>
>
> 2) Why is my research "hack" and otherwise illegitimate while yours is
> scholarly? Simply because mine disagree with you and yours supports
> your belief? I would have though name-calling beneath you, but I
> guess not.

This should be evident from my posts (the historical information I
provided, the nature of the Gospel texts, etc.) -- it's not about "my"
research vs. "yours" because neither of us have done direct research,
just read the work of other scholars.

>
>
> 3) I've read if not the identical, then certainly similar things to
> what you refer. I approached the topic years ago with a search for
> truth, no hypotheses involved. Apparently, unlike you, I did not have
> a knee-jerk opinion of scholars who disagree with church-sanctioned
> beliefs. My opinions have been formed, not handed to me in Sunday
> school. I respect those who disagree with me, but don't find it
> necessary to call down those who believe in the type of Jesus I
> believe never existed.

Come, be honest. You knew what you were looking for. As I said I've
read scholars from across a pretty wide variety of religious and
political affiliations, and I have found scholars I respect across the
boards -- many of whom don't share my beliefs. It's not about the
content, but about the proof you offer as support of the content.

You haven't addressed once the content I've suggested.

>
>
> 4) As far as my sources not being "respected", I think that the Jesus
> Seminar, made up of hundreds of the top Bible scholars in the entire
> world garner some respect. They consider the Gospel of Thomas and the
> Secret Gospel of John to be older and closer to the original Jesus
> than the 4 canonicals, and they're both gnostic texts.
>
> Now stop being so bigoted against those who disagree with you.
> tina

I could just as easily say the same thing about you :).

Now there is some scholarly opinion about the "age" of the Gospel of
Thomas -- some respected scholarship supports dating it in the 1st
century, very early. But so far as it being "closer to the original
Jesus" -- how could anyone know simply based upon historical research?
We have conflicting, incomplete information. Saying it all comes down
clearly on one side is bigotry itself.

Which I'm not -- I've admitted the difficulty of the data, its
ambiguity. You are not.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Aug 6 17:02:09 2003