quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb] . . .It is my attempt to say to Jim, is this what I hear you saying because this is what I think I hear you saying and I want to make sure I understand you before proceeding with the wrong notion of what I think I hear you saying when in fact I am proceeding with .... and so on and so forth.

I didn't introduce it that way because, some of this is kind of tedious, and I wanted to be a rascal just for sport

pax!
jb [/qb]

OK, that clarifies . . . sport!

The most salient issue then is what happens to our Christology and I highly recommend Luke Timothy Johnson's answers to the Jesus Seminar and the issues raised there involve both overactive analogical and dialectical imaginations in all sorts of relationships, one to the other, not otherwise congruent with a distinctly Catholic, transrational hermeneutic, which employs a grounded extrarationality.

I hope some of you took the time to follow JB's reflections, above. He uses the language of what I've come to call pro-level philosophical discourse, but, take your time . . . it's worth it. If things hold up at that level of analysis, it doesn't necessarily mean they're true, but it certainly means they can't be dismissed out-of-hand. If they don't hold up, forget it, especially regarding theistic kinds of schemas.

From Brad: Okay, thanks, Phil. I gotcha. And I do understand the absolutely pivotal role of Jesus� divine nature.

Right . . . if Christianity is to maintain that it has a unique message, and isn't another variant of Hinduism, that is.

After all, there aren�t many choices left if he wasn�t divine, not all of which are necessarily deal-breakers:

1) The apostles did not accurately record the story of Jesus and/or embellished it so radically as to turn it into no better than a fairly tale

2) Jesus was a lunatic, delusional, or a harmless crank who thought he was god

3) We are all divine, it�s just that Jesus was a "purer" form of it or came to "actualize" his divine nature

You've laid it out pretty well, I believe; there are several heresies I could add to the mix, but that's neither here nor there.

So why, then, did the early Church proclaim that he was God incarnate? Here are a few sketchy responses (as I'm not a Russian essayist ). You have to kind of take them all together, as to hold any of them in isolation is incomplete.

1. Jesus' own discourse :
a. allusions to himself as the Son of the Father -- in parables and conversations
b. his speaking of God as "Abba" (Daddy), which implies a familiarity with God unknown to the Jews, who regarded God as a mostly transcendent "Other" in a manner similar to how Islam does.
c. his reference to himself as Son of Man, which resonates with Daniel's Messiah, coming on the clouds of glory.

(Virtually all scripture scholars agree that Jesus used this language.)

2. The experience of the Apostles Peter, James and John with Jesus on Mt. Tabor, where they heard a voice from heaven referring to him as "Beloved Son." Peter mentions this again in his Epistle.

(This one is a lot more debatable, but the fact that it's recorded in the Gospels and Peter's Epistle certain points to some kind of amazing experience.)

3. Jesus forgave people their sins (not committed against him, personally).

(Little doubt that he expressed this. As the objectors in the Gospels noted, only God can forgive sins.)

4. Jesus' manifestation of exclusively divine attributes. E.g., calming storms, multiplying loaves and fish, raising people from the dead.

(Hearsay evidence only, but, again, the preponderance of these stories from a variety of disparate sources suggests that there's probably fire to account for the smoke.)

5. Jesus' resurrection from the dead.

(Minimally, one has to concede that no body was found, as it would have refuted the faith of the early Church. Again, no airtight evidence aside from the early witnesses, however, but how else to explain the birth of the early Church? And then there are the millions of people through the ages who believe they've encountered the risen Christ.)

6. Jesus' ascension.

(He didn't "go away." He "disappeared." The understanding of the early Church is that he became fully integrated with the Logos, taking his seat at the "right hand of the Father." This language refers to divinity and nothing else.)

7. He sends the Holy Spirit.

(As one of JB's favorite authors, Donald Gelpi, puts it, only God can send God the Holy Spirit. If you think you can do so, go ahead and try. This experience of the Holy Spirit was a living reality in the early Church, and still is to many Christians.)

Those are the kinds of considerations the early Christians had in mind when they affirmed Jesus as the Son of God.

My existential standpoint is that if a god thinks it absolutely necessary that I be sure of something, She is going to make this fact absolutely plain.

So what would you add to the above? Just curious. What do you think God could do to establish some kind of credibility for modern/post-moderners that wouldn't be open to suspicion or doubt? There are always reasons to believe, and reasons not to, leaving the matter open to faith, which is where the real (experiential) "proof" comes from. Even Asher, a Moslem, experiences divinity coming through Christ via his devotional experiences of Him. What more important than such experiences anyway?

It�s too difficult for me to make such leaps of faith � it feels dangerous, uncertain, and open to manipulation if I do. And if one looks at some of the "new church" stuff that�s floating out and about, one might see that others are having this trouble as well.

Yes, OK. But you will acknowledge, too, the hundreds of millions who've found their lives anchored, stabilized and brought to peace by opening themselves to faith in Christ. That's certainly the more prevalent story, historically. Besides, there are lots of other ways to account for the "danger" and "uncertainty" you refer to . . . like the Ego letting go of its grasp for control and self-sufficiency, which don't exactly make us happy, imo. But, yes, faith is an opening to "uncertainty," but what's the alternative? Those are the terms for any kind of pathway in life.

Not talking about Jim here, but surely you�re run into people who have no problem at all being a Christian (or perhaps being a minister) and believing that Jesus was just a very wise man who didn�t rise from the dead.

Those aren't really Christians, Brad, and I daresay they have precious little going to characterize Jesus as they do. Basically, they create him in their own image and likeness, which is what feels comfortable to them.

Addenda to my post to Brad about the divinity of Christ, above. See the following links for more info. Some are from more evangelical and fundamentalist sources, but they all make similar points.

http://www.markdroberts.com/ht...rces/jesusdivine.htm

http://www.valwaldeck.com/divinity.htm

http://www.whatsaiththescriptu...vinit_of_Christ.html

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/christ-divinity.htm

quote:

The argument the early apologists used to defend this apparently indefensible doctrine has become a classic one. C.S. Lewis used it often, e.g. in Mere Christianity, the book that convinced Chuck Colson (and thousands of others). I once spent half a book (Between Heaven and Hell) on this one argument alone. It is the most important argument in Christian apologetics, for once an unbeliever accepts the conclusion of this argument (that Christ is divine), everything else in the Faith follows, not only intellectually (Christ's teachings must all then be true) but also personally (if Christ is God, He is also your total Lord and Savior).

The argument, like all effective arguments, is extremely simple: Christ was either God or a bad man.

So what would you add to the above? Just curious.

Actually, in all honesty, my thinking and grounding has not progressed to the point where I think I can handle that question with the skill that is needed. I remember reading one of your books and thought it quite good. The world has certainly known no shortage of religious charlatans and expanded tails of real events (the Buddha's life is literally plastered with tall tales), but at this stage what I find most compelling of all is two things:

1) The lucid, coherent, original words of Jesus point to genius, not eccentricity

2) The conversion/testimony of Paul. While the original disciples could have arguably been so pissed off as to have wanted to stick it to the Romans by continuing the story of Jesus, Paul's conversion, the circumstances of his conversion, and the tone and tenor of the words that flow from him point to a clear connection with something. There is not the facile stench of weak enlightenment. Rather, there is real depth there that seems both original and surprising for that time.

What do you think God could do to establish some kind of credibility for modern/post-moderners that wouldn't be open to suspicion or doubt? There are always reasons to believe, and reasons not to, leaving the matter open to faith, which is where the real (experiential) "proof" comes from.

One of the clear problems that any Supreme Being has is the same problem any political candidate has: How do you get your message out without it getting distorted? In the case of ontological matters beyond our imagination and ability to comprehend, the problem becomes one of communicating without overwhelming. But even the simple things are difficult for us. I still see "Bush Lied" bumper stickers on cars. How is a Supreme Being to get Her fantastic message across reliably enough without literally taking over our minds and getting in our face and thus dissolving us as distinct beings?

However it works, it seems that reality gets "sprinkled" with events that are always suggestive, and can only ever be suggestive because how does one go about proving the existence of a Transcendent reality to space-time creatures? To have it sufficiently explained is for us to come back with a tale that no one would believe. They would think we are mad. We, no doubt, would think we were mad. And so some degree of separation is not only necessary, but logically necessary.

Thus one is left to take a look around at reality and play "what if?" We become inured to the flat-out astonishing fact of existence itself. And from this somewhat deadened vantage point we try to ask quite large questions such as "Does ultimate reality talk back, and if so, how might She do so?" And then we look at Jesus and the resurrection and wonder if. "Is that what I would do if I were God?" "Is it elegant enough? Ingenious enough? Compassionate enough? Right enough? Creative enough? Large enough?"

In many was Jesus and the resurrection fit that standard. Whether it is all true or not is a really good question.

Yes, OK. But you will acknowledge, too, the hundreds of millions who've found their lives anchored, stabilized and brought to peace by opening themselves to faith in Christ. That's certainly the more prevalent story, historically.

I acknowledge. I not only acknowledge, but the benefit of the doubt, all else being equal, six of one half a dozen of the other�the tie goes to the Redeemer. We have only this one reality in hand. We have no others to compare it to. So we are limited in what we can say about the meaning of trends, but it is clear that we evolve, that there is motion towards. Therefore, when we see motion we can't simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit our pet theory of the way things ought to be. We have to look at life and take it at face value to some extent. The existence of something must count for something. We just don't know how much.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
If things hold up at that level of analysis, it doesn't necessarily mean they're true, but it certainly means they can't be dismissed out-of-hand. If they don't hold up, forget it ...[/QB]

Exactly. Every time we make an additional assumption, whether empirical or rational, there is another exercise to go through, which has traditionally been called scholastic notation.

Scholastic notation got its name from the exercise in scholasticism of taking notes and leaving some space in the margins to indicate: 1) impossible 2) improbable 3) implausible 4) uncertain 5) possible 6) plausible 7) probable 8) certain.

Every time I suggested. just for argument's sake, "Let's assume that ..." --- there was an additional exercise required, which is precisely that of applying the scholastic notations, and various assumptions would have ranged all over the modal probability map from impossible to certain.

In highly speculative abductions, we should never mistake logical possibilities for existential certainties, even if our hypothesis is otherwise externally congruent with observable facts and internally consistent with our logic. Sometimes, very often, our conclusions are embedded in both our definitions and our premises, and we are really dealing with a tautology. Now, tautologies are not necessarily false, they just cannot claim to have added any novel information and lack coercive explanatory adequacy. What we really have erected, then, some with their perspective and I with mine, might better be described as heuristic devices, which are just conceptual placeholders or hatracks for our ideas and beliefs. And such schemas do not even rise to the level of being called an hypothesis unless they lend themselves to falsification.

So, what I submitted was just a heuristic device and one that didn't even include scholastic notations. You may actually have fun, now, trying to apply those notations to each element in your own heuristic, and each element in my own, which, let me tell you, was still LARGELY abstracted from the concrete realities under consideration.

The other lesson is --- one might nurture a tad more self doubt in life and a great deal more self-criticism before articulating overly dogmatic statements about such a thing as an individual's belief system much less that of an entire community of believers.

This has been stimulating and fun. Thanks, Phil, for the invite. This isn't, however, "what I do" anymore, and my task is considered done, here, and my work (and play) finished.

Have a Happy & Holy Easter after a deeply moving Triduum ...

pax, amor et bonum,
jb

quote:

3) We are all divine, it�s just that Jesus was a "purer" form of it or came to "actualize" his divine nature

Granted, #3 may be saying nothing or it may be saying everything. There are real differences in states of things or we are all just on a continuum.

Just an aside to my own thoughts. [Yes. I'm talking to myself. Get out the rubber room.]

Are we all just a "journeyman" Jesus on this earth? Are we just like him just not as polished? Strangely, isn't the orthodox idea that we will be like god in heaven one day? Isn't it orthodox to say that god is in us? Isn't the orthodox call to be as saints now? And yet we'll raise all kinds of hell if we go around calling ourselves god. So where is that baby bear "just right" point?

It may be that Jesus was both human and divine. And it may be that we are too in a way. So what's the substantive difference?

This is not an invitation to debate the nature of Christ, but to considering the difference between something being fundamentally different and something being just more of the same, higher up on a smooth continuum. A quantum leap as opposed to a smooth curve. My first thought is that the answer is both. That's what makes the most sense to me. We get caught in the either/or battle, but it seems to me that both are likely true in some way. And then � whamo � the potential genius of the Creator revealed itself. Of course. The tiniest components that make up nature can be either a discrete particle or a wave.

Yes, more New Age hogwash, but perhaps food for thought. Nothing I plan on defending. No new Church of the Quark will be started anytime soon.

Phil,
"If you think you can do so, go ahead and try. This experience of the Holy Spirit was a living reality in the early Church, and still is to many Christians.)"

Interestingly enough, this fellow does seem to have the ability to send the Holy Spirit. At one time, he had an address to send to for requests and he would send you a crucifix as well as a hard copy of his web site. He seems to have dropped the address a couple of years ago. For some, myself included, he had great "Ju Ju" in his ability to send the Holy Spirit. I assume I'll hear all about "Kundalini" but I see no distinction myself.

http://www.chrmysticaloutreach.com/pages/1/index.htm

And, I'd say, the best place to do that is within the church community, inquiring through participation so that one is more convicted, one way or the other, along various fronts. IOW, not to wait until all, or most, of one's intellectual ducks are in a row before joining a communion of people who impart something we cannot generate alone as individuals.

You sound exactly like JB, WC. And indeed, take that as a compliment. A have a friend who goes to one of those "new-agey" type of churches. It seems the appeal is that there is not harsh "judgmentalism". No claims of superiority. Etc., etc. And thus we see Christianity running into and mixing with many modern notions. And I would agree with y'all that Christianity doesn't have to be ripped up by the roots to accommodate new social fashions. "Love thy neighbor" is about as "inclusive", non-judgmental, and squeaky-clean PC as you can get. And I would agree that there are parts of Christianity where the rubber hits the road, parts that are pretty much non-negotiable. And no doubt I would disagree with most of you about what those parts are. But I agree that there are parts. And I certainly don't agree that, say, because Christian doctrine may disagree with a certain "enlightened" stance on homosexuality that this then justifies one to start ripping Christianity up by the roots and giving it a makeover. I ain't saying that is what Jim is doing, but I'm familiar with the dynamic. But I will say that I think if Christianity is true, as true as the blueness of the sky or the warmth of the sun, that it will endure. And in this context I don�t see battles over orthodoxy as important as some of you perhaps do. Can love be corrupted? People can, but can love be? Isn't it more likely that man-made things and ideas are more readily subject to corruption and thus shouldn't we sometimes ask what and whom are we serving when we are circling the wagons around orthodoxy?

Well, that's my bias, openly stated.

Well, as they say. Everybody�s got an opinion � as did the people who originally settled on the creeds. Like it or not (and I happen to like it, actually), in this more democratic age, people want and need to come to their own conclusions about things. And I�m very much of the belief anyway that if our beliefs are to be anything more than just rote inheritances, we need to explore them anew.<br /><br /> But to distort the orthodox claim toward the end of that appeal just seems a different, and somewhat dishonest, tact.<br /><br />Well, certainly at some point this becomes somewhat of an administrative or authority matter. But let me just say, as you well know, I have absolutely no problem with questioning orthodoxy openly and vigorously. Some might say that doing so is a type of vandalism, the equivalent of throwing eggs on the Mona Lisa, but I say if the original ideas are solid, they will not only stand up to challenges, they will be stronger for having had the debate. And if this debate has to happen every so often then so be it. And really, if we are dealing with such huge personal issues as salvation, I can�t imagine not facilitating discussion on everything and anything.<br /><br />Here I think Henri Nouwen says what I�m trying to say so much better:<br /><br />

quote:

Teachers can only be teachers when there are students who want to be students. Without a question, an answer is experienced as manipulation, without a struggle, help is considered interference, and without the desire to learn, the offer to teach is easily felt as oppression. Therefore, our first task is not to offer information, advice, or even guidance, but to allow others to come into touch with their own struggles, pains, doubts, and insecurities�in short, to affirm their life as quest.<br /><br />That is quite a difficult task since it runs counter to the mainstream of education that wants to give knowledge to understand, skills to control, and power to conquer. In religious education, we encounter a God who cannot be understood, we discover realities that cannot be controlled, and we realize that our hope is hidden not in the possession of power but in the confession of weakness. As long as a religion is perceived by the student and treated by the teacher as another field to be mastered�with competition, grades, and rewards�only hostility and resentment can be expected. The main questions of religion�Who am I? Where have I come from? Where am I going?�are not questions with an answer but questions that open us to new questions which lead us deeper into the unspeakable mystery of existence.<br /><br />What needs affirmation is the validity of these questions. What needs to be said is: "Yes, yes indeed, these are the questions. Don�t hesitate to raise them. Don�t be afraid to enter them." Teaching religion, therefore, is first of all the affirmation of the basic human quest for meaning. Teaching means the creation of the space in which the validity of the questions does not depend on the availability of answers but on their capacity to open us to new perspectives and horizons. Teaching means to allow all the daily experiences of life such as loneliness, fear, anxiety, insecurity, doubt, ignorance, need for affection, support, and understanding, and the long cry for love to be recognized as an essential part of the quest for meaning.<br /><br />This quest, precisely because it does not lead to ready answers but to new questions, is extremely painful and at times even excruciating. But when we ignore, and thus deny, this pain in our students, we deprive them of their humanity. The pain of the human search is a growing pain. When we prevent that pain from entering into consciousness, we suffocate the forces of human development. In our technocratic and commercial world, where the constant suggestion is made that for all human pains�loneliness and death included�there is a booklet, a pill, or an insurance company, the whole of existence easily becomes plastic. Then death begins to show itself in boredom, undirected aggression, or self-destructive violence.<br /><br />When we put a heavy taboo on the great questions of life, we become servants of death.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: w.c.,

Brad, it seems you're kind of straw-manning us in your points about the importance of exploring our religious heritage and raising new questions. We've been doing that all along in Christian history; we do that daily on this discussion board.

No amount of exploration and questioning can change the fact that the Church did and still does believe that Jesus is the incarnation of the Word, Logos, or Second Person of the Trinity. So that's a given. Questioning why this was/is believed and whether that makes sense is another matter, and I think that needs to go on (and you've been doing it rather regularly here for some years now). It's even understandable that the answers to the questions might not satisfy, in which case, one will conclude that they just can't buy it, or they can buy only part. What's not acceptable is to say that the Church never meant to teach the parts one doesn't buy, or that it never even taught this in the first place. See the difference? No one here is denying the point that Nouwen is making.

Anyway, I laid out quite comprehensively last night the factors contributing to the Church's proclamation of the divinity of Christ. So far as we know, this had already happened before any of the books of the New Testament were written (around 46 AD). I did this to demonstrate that it is beyond question that the early Church believed this, and that their belief was merely arbitrary or without substance.

Of course, the telling factor is not that list of "evidences" I presented, but the way Jesus communicates the presence of the divine. Were that not the case, the rest would be empty arguments that would have been long forgotten.

quote:

Originally posted by Hoahao:
[qb] Phil,
"If you think you can do so, go ahead and try. This experience of the Holy Spirit was a living reality in the early Church, and still is to many Christians.)"

Interestingly enough, this fellow does seem to have the ability to send the Holy Spirit. At one time, he had an address to send to for requests and he would send you a crucifix as well as a hard copy of his web site. He seems to have dropped the address a couple of years ago. For some, myself included, he had great "Ju Ju" in his ability to send the Holy Spirit. I assume I'll hear all about "Kundalini" but I see no distinction myself.

http://www.chrmysticaloutreach.com/pages/1/index.htm [/qb]

Greetings hoahoa.

Are you saying you received some kind of "shaktipat" from Jim Marion? Tell us more, please.

We do make a distinction between the kundalini process and the Holy Spirit on this forum. We have an entire forum dedicated to exploring this topic, so check out what's there.

By Johnboy, and thanks for making a round. You win the prize for the meatiest posts, as usual. I'm grateful for the perspective you've shared, which has been very clarifying.

Brad:

What I'm getting at is that one can't really question orthodoxy with any thoroughness without direct participation. Since the church community is a vitality unto itself, the body of Christ, no amount of reading can offer such a vantage point.

I like Jim Marion Am grateful for the sharing of his views with us, which we have a right to agree and/or disagree with. We must honor and respect the free will and freedom of the mind that God has given to us.

May the Comforter lead us in all truths, for we shall know the truth, and the truth shall set us free.

In our ever changing lives who knows if some day Jim may return to the days of being a simple, humble Monk.

God bless you Jim.

What I'm getting at is that one can't really question orthodoxy with any thoroughness without direct participation.

I think that�s a valid point to some extent, WC. And I don�t believe I�ve ever suggested otherwise.

Phil said: No amount of exploration and questioning can change the fact that the Church did and still does believe that Jesus is the incarnation of the Word, Logos, or Second Person of the Trinity. So that's a given.

Well, there�s a whole complicated chain of events that leads to, and is implicit in, the words "That�s a given". It seems like people like Jim aren�t so ready to take the "That�s a given" as the final word. And if you think about it, if someday the Jims are in the majority, then "That�s a given" could mean something else entirely. I think everyone implicitly knows this and is what fuels both the defense of established orthodoxy and the assertion of heterodoxy.

Phil,
The site I posted is Lawrence Richardson's. I've actually received what I consider "blasts" of the spirit from both Richardson and Marion.
I'm not sure how far Jim would wish me to go in explenation, but his prayers on my behalf have resulted in some energy flows as well as emotional improvement for me over the years.
I'll check out your forum regarding Kundalini Vs Holy Spirit but it may take a few days.

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
[qb] Phil said: No amount of exploration and questioning can change the fact that the Church did and still does believe that Jesus is the incarnation of the Word, Logos, or Second Person of the Trinity. So that's a given.

Well, there�s a whole complicated chain of events that leads to, and is implicit in, the words "That�s a given". It seems like people like Jim aren�t so ready to take the "That�s a given" as the final word. And if you think about it, if someday the Jims are in the majority, then "That�s a given" could mean something else entirely. [/qb]

No it wouldn't! They might decide that they don't think the dogmas are worth the ink that expresses them, but history is history! Saying the Church never taught what it, in fact, taught, is as ludicrous as saying that John Hancock didn't really sign the Declaration of Independence.

Wow, we keep coming to this wall on different threads, and I don't think it has anything to do with philosophy, history or any other academic discipline. The common demoninator seems to be when the word "dogma" is used -- like it's a "hot-button" of some kind for you. Maybe your protest is more against authority or authoritarianism than Church history? It would be good to have some clarity about that.

quote:

Originally posted by Hoahao:
[qb] Phil,
The site I posted is Lawrence Richardson's. I've actually received what I consider "blasts" of the spirit from both Richardson and Marion.
I'm not sure how far Jim would wish me to go in explenation, but his prayers on my behalf have resulted in some energy flows as well as emotional improvement for me over the years.
I'll check out your forum regarding Kundalini Vs Holy Spirit but it may take a few days. [/qb]

Hoahoa, please do check with Jim before sharing anything he and you might deem confidential. Note that we do have a "Transformative Experiences" forum where many have shared parts of their story.

I'm familiar with Lawrence Richardson's writings and enjoyed a book by him years ago. Thanks for referring us to his site.

No it wouldn't! They might decide that they don't think the dogmas are worth the ink that expresses them, but history is history! Saying the Church never taught what it, in fact, taught, is as ludicrous as saying that John Hancock didn't really sign the Declaration of Independence.

Hey, I didn�t invent postmodernism. I�m just reporting on it!

Wow, we keep coming to this wall on different threads, and I don't think it has anything to do with philosophy, history or any other academic discipline. The common demoninator seems to be when the word "dogma" is used -- like it's a "hot-button" of some kind for you. Maybe your protest is more against authority or authoritarianism than Church history?

Oh, if we sat down I would tell you eye-to-eye what I think is real about Christianity and what I think is embellishment. But I have no stake in this discussion other than to analyze and commentate on what I see as the dynamics of it. Christianity is 2000 years old and I hardly think my opinion, even if I did differ regarding core doctrine (which is not necessarily a given), is going to make a difference. After all, I�m not the one writing books. But I am the one commenting about those who write the books and those who critique the books. You and WC seem to think by my commenting on this that I�m on some kind of crusade. Well, if anything this show the touchiness of the defenders of orthodoxy, which is one of the dynamics that I might make a mental note of, as well as some of the loose techniques and somewhat careless (disingenuous even?) techniques of those who wish to deconstruct it. I�m nobody�s friend in this here debate and really didn�t expect to be.

Well, if anything this show the touchiness of the defenders of orthodoxy, which is one of the dynamics that I might make a mental note of, as well as some of the loose techniques and somewhat careless (disingenuous even?) techniques of those who wish to deconstruct it. I�m nobody�s friend in this here debate and really didn�t expect to be.

Geez, Jim Marion called me a "defender of orthodoxy," too. Fine. If a "defender of orthodoxy" is one who says that it is historical fact that the Church has taught from the first century on that Jesus is the incarnation of God in an exclusive way, so be it. You don't even need to be a Christian to say that, however. Any honest atheistic historian will acknowledge as much. For some reason, you're missing this point, which is hardly controversial. And if one is not willing to concede that little bit, any other discussion points relating to how we might understand Jesus are sure to deteriorate into a confusing muddle.

For some reason, you're missing this point, which is hardly controversial.

Phil, I see you attempting to frame "the point" in a particular way, as if setting up a hoop that I�m supposed to jump through. But all I�m saying is that the point is not my point. Jim�s point are his points. Your points are your points. My point, assuming I have one, is a bit in the direction of "the winners write the histories and therefore orthodoxy may be worth probing and questioning, even orthodoxy that appears to be rock-solid and obviously correct."

To concede (and I have so little knowledge in this area) that the church taught this or that is beside my point. We�re probably just both talking about different things.

My point, assuming I have one, is a bit in the direction of "the winners write the histories and therefore orthodoxy may be worth probing and questioning, even orthodoxy that appears to be rock-solid and obviously correct."

Which is to say you're interested in probing whether the Church that emerged out of the first century is the one intended by Christ? OK. That is an interesting topic. But to construe the issue as "winners vs. losers" a la Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code isn't a very good way of framing the issue, I'm afraid. I wonder if you really do want to go there? I'm willing.