Re: blind faith

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: john v. omlor: "Quick responses on Muriel..."
• Previous message: AntiUtopia: "phoebe and allie"
• Maybe in reply to: Brendan McKennedy: "blind faith"
• Next in thread: Malcolm Lawrence: "Re: blind faith"

Thanks for the clarification of your ideas, Brendan.  

<<What I did say was
that certain Gnostic sects USED the Gospel of Mark to prove that Jesus was a
homosexual>>

Dude, you can Use any text to say Anything, especially if you're a gnostic
type :)  

<<As for your assertation that anything radical probably isn't true, I would
apply
that to the idea that Jesus "rose from the dead," and stick with noted
Historians
for my own knowledge.>>

I think you know I was referring to textual claims :)  We have pretty good
documentation for textual claims of the resurrection, but pretty spurious
documentation for textual claims of the homosexuality of Christ.

<<And by the way, the idea that Abraham is a subsequent folk deity based on
Brahman
is not my own...It's a very well-accepted thesis in the realm of Religious
History.
 Of course it's not provable, but it makes perfect sense in Historical
context.>>

gawd, thank you, that was my point.  "Of course it's not provable" is a true
statement because "there's no textual or achaeological support for this
belief" is also a true statement.  

You know, similar stories can arise independently of one another... :)

Jim 

• Next message: john v. omlor: "Quick responses on Muriel..."
• Previous message: AntiUtopia: "phoebe and allie"
• Maybe in reply to: Brendan McKennedy: "blind faith"
• Next in thread: Malcolm Lawrence: "Re: blind faith"