From: Peter Phillips (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Feb 07 1998 - 09:59:13 EST
I don't agree that we limit ourselves on b-greek to what the Bible reveals
of Jesus. Surely on b-greek we limit ourselves to discussion of the text.
The Bible reveals one Jesus to me and evidently another Jesus to several
other people. What matters here is what the original Greek means - how we
then decide how that relates to a historical/eternal being is immaterial.
Get the Greek right whether it refers to a camel, a rope or a saviour!
And then discuss the theology in housegroup!!!
From: Jonathan Robie [SMTP:email@example.com]
Sent: 06 February 1998 22:34
To: Jim West
Cc: Lavopc@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: nt humor.
At 04:24 PM 2/6/98 -0500, Jim West wrote:
>Well the doctrine of inspiration is a theolgical dogma and quite out of
>place on an academic list; but the historical Jesus is a subject of
>interest well suited to a discussion of the NT and its literature- for
Er, if I understand that correctly, you are saying that asserting the Bible
gives an accurate picture of Jesus is a theological dogma, but calling the
accuracy of its portrayal into question is not? And the one is appropriate
here and the other is not?
I don't buy that. Neither issue is a question of Greek language or the
Greek text. Neither belongs here.
>hardly a soul would argue that the center of the NT is not Jesus.
No, but many would argue whether the Jesus of the New Testament bears any
similarity to the Jesus of the Jesus Seminar, the Jesus of the Historical
Jesus Movement, etc. On B-Greek, I think we have to limit ourselves to what
the biblical text reveals about Jesus.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:02 EDT