Malachi151

Sure. Provide examples where you believe that the influence is specifically Greco-Roman. Every instance I can think of can be much better explained as an influence from Judaism. Now getting into a discussion of the influences on Judaism is another matter as well of course.

But, just for fun:

Usages of "Savior" in the OT:

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...=all&bookset=1

Usages of "Divine" in the NT: (I don't see Jesus being called divine)

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...=all&bookset=2

As for "Son of God", there appears to be quite a progression in Jewish literature, from the OT works to the 2nd century BCE - 1st century apocalyptic works, and the early Christian works. Of course, Isaiah 5 also provides a likely influence. Furthermore, the term is always associated with purely Jewish traits whenever it is used in the NT works.

mountainman

Hey all you Tertullian tangentiators!
What if the Tertullian is Eusebius' pseudonom?

Picky picky comments over Archarya's BC&H "Scholarship"
have their own hypotheses, which themselves are not
immune to question.

Examine your own postulates before you go forth
on the Holy Holy Crusades of BC&H tedia against
the comments of the "lesser informed infidels".



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

When (if ever) did Judaism have a healing god/tradition
greater than the cult of Asclepius (500BCE-500CE)?
Who was "The Healer" of antiquity in accordance to
the archaeological record?

Jesus pops up in the fourth century.
He is depicted in an emperor-centric cult.
Jesus does no healing at Nicaea.
A huge controversy rages for generations.

Asclepius, ubiquitous for a millenium, is
finally stamped out by the christians.




Best wishes


Pete Brown

Yellum Notnef

oh sorry. I didn't see that post.

Amaleq13

She apparently isn't quoting anything despite the use of quotes so, technically, you are correct.

However, unless there exists some other translation of Tertullian, she clearly has blown the alleged paraphrase since what she writes is the exact opposite of what Tertullian actually wrote. That isn't quoting and it isn't paraphrasing.

For me, this is less about the analysis than the apparent complete misrepresentation of the original source. There is no need to argue that point when the evidence is so clear. The actual text says the opposite of the alleged paraphrase.

She would have been better off avoiding such a blatant change of what Tertullian actually wrote and, instead, focusing on why the "more refined" folks thought such a thing to be true. Offering such a misleading and inaccurate alteration of his words simply introduces a completely unnecessary error that ultimately distracts from the point she wants to make. It is counterproductive at the very least.

Geetarmoore

Weren't they both written by the same guy?

rigorist

But it's not a "quote". It's a paraphrase. Note the lack of quotation marks or indented text. It is only a quote in Ms. Acharya's work.

At least we know now Ms. Acharya's source--the old Catholic Encyclopedia, not any of the actual, y'know, extent works of Tertullian.

Geetarmoore

Nevermind. I think I understand now. I'll agree - misleading, and I was mislead.

Yellum Notnef

But why the hell would the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia phrase it like that?

Amaleq13

As a point of clarification, Geetarmore quoted a portion of my post that I chose to remove at, apparently, the same time he (my apologies if I got that wrong) quoted me. I removed it because I thought it was redundant and unnecessary to my point.