He was a major "heresy" fighter, and had some interesting takes on the whole Christianity thing. Wrote commentaries and lectures. Had things to say about the Logos doctrine, which I have always found fascinating given the Greek origin.
Plus this is more or less how I look every evening, beard, big book, and everything:
I decided to watch the linked presentation. Tabor sees a line of Christianity more like James than Paul. He sees Theophilus following Paul's Romans first two chapters but not the idea of the total inability of the flesh to committ to doing what is right. This can be seen as a more Jewish version of early Christianity.
I brushed off cobwebs on a corner of my bookshelves and found a copy of Theophilus. Dusting it off I found marks I made reading it long ago. I reviewed it and realized I remain sympathetic. Faith is first trust in the creator and seeking the good of creation.
I do not see either Paul or Jesus having ideas foreign to this.
He was a major "heresy" fighter, and had some interesting takes on the whole Christianity thing. Wrote commentaries and lectures. Had things to say about the Logos doctrine, which I have always found fascinating given the Greek origin.
Plus this is more or less how I look every evening, beard, big book, and everything:
He was a major "heresy" fighter, and had some interesting takes on the whole Christianity thing. Wrote commentaries and lectures. Had things to say about the Logos doctrine, which I have always found fascinating given the Greek origin.
Plus this is more or less how I look every evening, beard, big book, and everything:
About Tolkin Philo remarked that he builds a world in which thought can happen without proposing dogmas or set messages. I hope I am not misrepresenting Philos observation and making it into something I seek.
Some people may seek dogmas and wrest them from a book while others might seek the opening of questions and uncertainty. I am not one to long for dogma so read all sorts of things as question creating. I read Romans that way. I see it as full of unresolved aspects. It is an overarching summary of Christian ideas and as such a sort of template for most Christian theology. It has inspired but is actually full of questions. When does one realize actual faith? What is this living for flesh or living in spirit? Is his description of personal inability him as writing, a believer or something he left behind? ( I do not think it was left behind) how close to universalism does Paul get? Religious authors like often to lock these questions into dogmas more rigid than Paul's thought. It may be that Paul respected limits of his knowledge and left questions open.
This subject and presentation brings to mind the question of who all receives mercy from God? What sort of faith is the connection. As described by Theophilus it could be all sorts of people who recognizing some glimpse of God's goodness respond by seeking goodness. That of course could extend far beyond the limits taught by Chick comics. Well such extention is not spelled out. Neither is it spelled out in Paul. I see in Paul mercy on the foundation of Jesus spread widely through the world not limited to official Christianity. I see that clearly in Jesus teaching. But it is not a doctrine it a possible idea in the thought world these men are speaking within.
Tabor spoke of two different strands of Christianity, after Paul or James. I doubt those were completely separate nor the only influences. Power and authority grew and the hope of Christianity got increasing locked within areas of special access. Luther tried to reverse that but got tangled in his antisemitism perhaps making the problem worse.
