Corpus-Paul

["John Brand" <jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca>]

Date sent:              Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:33:40 -0600
From:                   "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT comcast.net>
To:                     Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> 
> John Brand wrote:
> > I agree that mashiach is specific to Hebrew thought and although my
> > specific point appears to have failed, the more general affinities
> > among the quest of cultures is widely recognized. It is not uncommon
> > to meet with the resistance apparent in the responses on this list.

Jeffrey responds:
> 
> Yes, and the logical force of this is what?  

John responds:
I suppose the logical force of what I am saying is that I am not 
entirely satisfied with the refutations to my initial objection which 
was that we should go beyond thinking of the Gentile contemporary 
with Palestinian Judaism as being a product of 'paganism.' There were 
well developed systems of thought that I think Paul took the time to 
familiarize himself with and to incorporate into the argument of his 
letters. IMO this is the reason for Paul's success in missionizing 
the Gentile world. And, it is the reason why his ideas could be taken 
in directions other than he intended such as we see IMO in the 
development of Medieval Christianity (i.e. that Augustine may have 
brought together ideas from Mani, Plato, Cicero and Christ to form a 
hybrid foreign to the original intent of the apostles).

We hear from writers such as John Spong that Christianity is in need 
of change but there appears to be a reluctance to move in the 
direction of recognizing the legitimacy of other faith quests so that 
change might be possible. 
 
Jeffrey writes:
There was a fellow named
> Garner who kept saying the same thing when he proposed again and again
> that the earth was hollow and was illuminated from the inside by a
> small sun.  He explained this as due not to the fact that his ideas
> were nonsense, but to fear on the part of the academy of what else
> they'd have to give up if they accepted his view.

John responds:
I am not convinced by the ad hominem argument and wouldn't say that 
my thesis is quite as outlandish as Garners but respect your opinion. 
Change in any situation happens in recognizable stages: Denial, 
resistance, understanding, exploration and commitment.

I have been defensive in my interaction with others who have held to 
the similarity of cultures idea because of fear. I wanted to protect 
my own orthodoxy. However, I am not convinced that orthodoxy can be 
protected or that it should be protected. My conservative thinking 
posits a resurrected Christ who claimed to be 'truth.'  I think there 
are more creative ways to approach culture. For example, the first 
century apologist Justin Martyr held that Christ as Logos permeates 
all cultures:

" . .We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God. And we 
have declared above that he is the Word of whom every race of men are 
partakers and those who lived reasonably are Christians even though 
they have been thought to be atheists as among the Greeks, Socrates 
and Heraclitus, and men like them." (First Apology, 18)

I think that we can move into culture with confidence in a living 
Christ who will make himself real to those from other cultures once 
they begin to see that He has been the one toward whom their quest is 
driven.

John wrote:
> > Oddly, the similarities I am suggesting are used by other schools of
> > thought to posit a Hellenized Christianity which adapted itself to
> > the Greco-Roman culture inorder for it to gain power.

Jeffrey responds: 
> How does "use" by conspiracy theorists to prove their theories show
> that these similarities are, as you want to claim, somehow genetically
> related? Such "proofs" are also used by those who believe in the
> authenticity of the Protocols of the Elder's of Zion to posit a Jewish
> conspiracy adaptation to its surrounding culture to take over the
> world.

John responds:
The similarities are 'obvious' to the conspiracy theorists and at the 
same time 'obviously not' to the orthodox. That is just the way the 
chips fall. I would opine that orthodoxy seeks to protect itself and 
that the conspiracy theorists see this as an opportunity to move in 
with further attack (such as we witnessed in the Ludemann Seminar). 
Why not welcome the conspiracy theorist as a friend and learn from 
his worldview? This is all that I am saying. We could do evangelism 
better by being less defensive of our weltanshauung.

Regards,

John Brand