Good point Dr. Owen. In K. Rudolph's big book on ...

2008-04-11T08:08:00.000-07:00

Good point Dr. Owen. In K. Rudolph's big book on Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism there is a fascinating examination of Paul's writings and how it is not unreasonable to deduce that some of his theological points may be seen as similar to certain points made by some of the gnostics. I believe this would primarily be in the area where Greek philosophical language is used to communicate the full implications of the Gospel -- and in that comes a kind of synthesis which if mixed too much the Greek way, ends up being 'Gnostic.'

Fascinating article. Thanks for sharing it.There'...

2008-04-10T20:14:00.000-07:00

Fascinating article. Thanks for sharing it.

There's much to ponder here, but in the meantime there are some points that stand out as questionable. I'll raise only one for now. Chilton writes: " ... a spiritual view [of the resurreciton] is clearly represented from Paul in the first century."

N. T. Wright demolishes the purported clarity of this pillar of "orthodox" (and largely left-leaning) academic scholarship in the second part of his massive book The Resurrection of the Son of God (pp. 209-398). If Wright is right, then Paul's theology of resurrection is deeply Jewish and, by definition, BODILY. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Platonic or Gnostic visions of "spiritual" (i.e., disembodied) postmortem existence. And so it is compatible with what we affirm in the Apostles' Creed when we say: "I believe in the resurrection of the body."

Comments on Anglican Centrist: Gospel According to Pagels - Chilton

Good point Dr. Owen. In K. Rudolph's big book on ...

Fascinating article. Thanks for sharing it.There'...