http://www.equip.org/free/DJ036.pdf

Looking at a book yesterday entitled The Secrets of the Davinci Code and had some recall of the last time I read so much horse-hockey.

This is a point-by-point rebuttal to Peter Jennings and his far left Bible "scholars" views of
what actually happened a long time ago in a country far far way. It's about 80 pages and very thorough, but amounts to a crash course in the merging of the political, media, and theological left. We have two entire generations of biblical illiterates now and they are falling for this kind of thing by the millions.

Seeing their ideas exposed for the shallow
shadowy things they are gives some ray of hope.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

We have two entire generations of biblical illiterates now and they are falling for this kind of thing by the millions

Many Libs are all about destroying what exists so they can build it again in their own likeness. Mind you, I�m not against tearing down that which is so corrupted that it can�t be fixed and thus should be torn down, but very often all something needs is a little repair work. You�re watching religion under attack from a variety of forces not the least of which is postmodernism and scientism.

As for the Da Vinci Code...yeah, it's full of balarky, but I found it to be an interesting read.

http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml

What's the Nelsonian balarky calibration on this site?

What's the Nelsonian balarky calibration on this site?

The site�s premise seems to be:

quote:

In the words of Paul Draper, naturalism is �the hypothesis that the physical universe is a �closed system� in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it. So naturalism entails the nonexistence of all supernatural beings, including the theistic God.�

Well, I always find that those who would be debunkers of religion are a bit too sure, a bit too smug, a bit too self-righteous, and a bit too ambitious. Those for whom science is the beginning, middle and end of all things should, if they were honest, recognize and admit that science falls within the context of existence and is not the same thing as existence; that is, there is more to existence than science. If you stop to consider that our daily experience of reality is 99% defined by our consciousness, feelings and thoughts � all things that science has not yet explained and probably can not explain � then you realize that, despite the fact that our lives seems to be wrapped up in the working with scientific technology and industry, that the REAL experience of our lives is beyond science.

Ok, so much for naturalism, with which you and C.S. Lewis
seem to be finding some common ground of opposition.

Then there is the quest for the historical Jesus, where the balarky gets really, really thick.

http://www.historicaljesusquest.com

This site has some Shroud of Turin analysis, which is a ploy on my part to lure Phil into discussion.


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer

This is the great-great grandpappy of the Quest for the Historical Jesus. (we're on the third quest now) A very saintly man who intended at a young age to spend the first half of his life on education (an M.D. and a P.H.D.) and the second half of his life in humanitarian service. (in deepest darkest Africa, no less.)

His conclusion was that since Jesus seemed to believe that the world was about to end, he was therefore fallible and not divine.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Here is a veritable who's who of historical Jesus scholars, some of whom are regulars on Peter Jennings Search for Jesus hours. With the exception of N.T. Wright, way down at the bottom, who was the token "conservative" (actually a moderate) to lend some credibility to the discussion, I would beg to disagree with all of them.

historicalbalarky.com

For a really good book that cuts through the balarky, I can't think of a better one than The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels, by Luke Timoth Johnson. Amazon.com gives you a sneak preview of this one . . . and don't forget to check out the reviews; I've got one on this book.

MM said: Then there is the quest fro the historical Jesus, where the balarky gets really, really thick.

When one realizes that events of today caught on video tape (Rodney King) still lead to vastly different interpretations, I'm hardly impressed if someone can throw some doubt on a story that is over 2000 years old. You'd pretty much have to be an incompetent not to be able to do so.

Whatever people believe, and I quite understand there are (and should be) a variety of beliefs out there, the bottom line is that these beliefs should be a reason to be loving and kind and tolerant and wise and discerning. No belief or belief system should be an excuse for doing otherwise.

And bottom line, the words attributed to Jesus seem fine enough to me not to quibble on some of the details.

A Fellow of the Jesus Seminar who takes issue with Timothy Johnson's book.

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpltj.html

Why is the question important? Who is Jesus?

Hmmm...

It's good to have people ask me that once in awhile. Now that I'm leaning toward inclusivism the question has changed a bit. I don't know if you know how it feels to spend 20 years worrying if your freinds and loved ones are going to hell,
but I have had that experience.

I still believe in hell, since I agree with C.S. Lewis that free will must allow for it, and hell must be done away with in the end so that hell cannot veto heaven.

My motives have changed to wishing to share the LOVE of Christ more than toward getting them to accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior, although I'll work and pray toward that goal as well.

Is the Jesus Seminar enlarging the kingdom of evil on the earth? To the extent that they are obscuring man's highest hope for joy and peace and a true relationship with the Prince of Peace and the King of Kings -yes

I believe that we are built in such a way that rest is only possible in this relationship. It is the relationship which all men are intended to have, and the source of life and love in all men, whether they acknowledge Him or not.

We spend a great deal of time talking about who George Bush or John Kerry is, but since it is the warp and woof of my existence and only in Him do I live and move and have my being, I consider it a more important question.

Phil,

I enjoyed your review and voting for it. Perhaps in some small way the Kingdom has advanced an inch, and for this I am truly great-full.

caritas,

mm <*))))><

Interesting that the author you cite, Michael, criticizing Johnson's book, never quotes from the book in question, and offers only comments general to the subject, and to the person of Johnson - Kind of using the same indiscretions he says he is unhappy with in Johnson.

I've read one of Johnson's books, and am fond of N.T. Wright as well. At least what they show is that scholarship is never the air-tight container for such matters as it often claims to be.

From the review cited by Michael: . . . Instead of trying to build a plausible, historical Jesus construct out of elusive and shadowy evidence, says Johnson, we ought to be satisfied with the Christ of faith, the Son of God character of the Gospels and of Roman Catholic dogma. This is what he means by "the real Jesus" � the one the institutional Church thinks its owns the copyright on.

I wonder if we read the same book??!!!

Johnson makes a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course, but the erroneous assumption of the historical Jesus researchers is often that you have to have an accurate picture of the former in order to have the latter. That's simply not true, and we see this in our human relationships all the time. I really don't need an accurate knowledge of my wife's childhood and teenage years to relate to the person she is now. (This point, btw, is why it's so stupid to focus on Bush and Kerry's military service 30 years ago.)

Johnson's "Real Jesus" is the one to whom the Church relates in faith. The New Testament introduces us to this Person; that is it's primary purpose. That the Jesus seminar people want to take this faith-oriented document and pick it apart for historical information, then require that their research somehow provide a critique of the Jesus of faith is obviously a most unusual proposition. That they disagree among themselves as to the methods and results should also tell us that we've nothing close to "hard science" here.

What Johnson does, then, is not so much question the findings of the historical Jesus researchers -- he does this somewhat, but as he is a scripture scholar, he recognizes the importance of their inquiry. Rather, what he does is offer a devastating critique of the assumptions they have concerning the relevance of their work in terms of Christian faith and doctrine. I'm in agreement with Johnson on this.

For an excellent discussion of this topic, see Jim Arraj's essay on the Jesus of history and faith:
http://www.innerexplorations.c...mortext/original.htm

Arraj is always a good source for discussion of this topic. I am presently listening to an audio book version of C.S. Lewis' Case for thr Christian Faith by Richard Purtill. Lewis wrote pre-Vatican II
but with post-conciliar attitudes and sensibilities. He was inclusivist. He also said that mysticism does not nullify the religion it came from. The second historical Jesus quest was taking place during Lewis' fertile period, and he was familiar with the issues. He named it faith "A" and faith "B" for the historical and faith aspects of Christianity.

He was not unfamiliar with Eastern Religion, as he was in dialogue with one of his former students, Bede Griffiths. He wrote that the only religions which satisfied man in both the head and the belly were Hinduism and Christianity, but that
Christianity was more "clear."

He went on to explain that religion must be both "thick" and "clear," Thickness being the answer to emotional needs and clarity being the rationality which is necessary.I found the thick in the Charismatic movement and the clarity from theology and the twelve step experience, although the steps help me with the emotional part as well.

It's humbling for me to recall that when I admitted my need for help nine years ago, and asked someone to help me through the twelve steps,
I had to admit that I did not have the answer. When I told him that the Course in Miracles was the wrong God-concept and he ought to adopt my religious views, he calmly stated that his belief had kept him sober for ten years, and if mine were working then how come I could not quit,

Aldous Huxley named Bill Wilson as the greatest social architect of the twentieth century
for coming up with the Twelve Traditions. The second tradition states:

"For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority, a loving God as He may express himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern."

By extention I might say that about Christianity as well. Earlier this summer I was reading Hans Kung's The Church, and it came home to me that the relationship to heretics and schismatics has been absolutely essential to the growth and development of the Church.

So, let them rant about the historical Jesus!
At least they are talking about Him and refocusing some of the rest of us on what we believe and adding another voice to the "group conscience" or
"group consciousness."

The Good Shepherd is perfectly capable of guiding and directing his lost sheep.

caritas,

mm <*))))><

http://www.postmodernpreaching.net/Cultural1.htm

This offers a solution that I think I can live with.

C.S. Lewis understood modernism, and Christianity was already passing from Britain as he wrote. This is why he put the message in the form of children's books which their modernist parents would allow them to read, and perhaps they would be prepared for conversion at a later point in their lives.

--------------------------------------------------

The liberal theologians are attempting to recast Christ as radical feminist, Marxist revolutionary,
environmental and gay rights activist, and advocate for the social outcast.

He was for everyone. He was for people. He was for God.

Liberal theologians have many schemes for redistribution of wealth. So did Lewis, and he gave two thirds of his income to charity. He's living so loudly that it drowns the others out and I can't hear them.

caritas,

mm <*))))))><

http://www.ntwrightpage.com

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wr...Early_Traditions.htm

I don't know if Wright was ever in the Jesus Seminar, but his seven points now refute much of their theory. It seems that he apprehends the magic and the mystery. He has been willing to change his mind. His Jesus is supernatural and miraculous, rather than a two dimensional cardboard fundamentalist cutout or a 21st century style radical revolutionary figure.

I'm not a bible scholar. I don't understand Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic, or Sanskrit for that matter, so I must rely on bible scholars and seek
God (G ood Orderly D irection) on which I am to choose.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

A book about the historical Jesus, and a book I have not read - about Peter.

The Real Jesus book is a good read.


The Real Jesus

Peter's Story: A New Gospel