On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:27:37 +1100, Allan wrote: > Allan,
To overcome the problem with your program, I've identified our old contributions by putting our initials in brackets at the start of each paragraph, and my latest comments are prefaced 'SB'. Just in case someone else is reading this and is totally confused! >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sue Bolton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "aleggett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:42 PM >Subject: Re: The Bible. > > >Hi Allan, > >[S]Thank you for your reply. >I read the attachment you sent on John 14:6, and wish to ask you some [should have >been 'a'] >question and make a few comments: > >[S]When you say that "Most Biblical scholars today will argue that it is >unlikely that any of the words in John's gospel that are supposedly >said by Jesus are unlikely [likely- my mistake SB] to have come from his mouth", >could you >qualify that? By "most scholars" do you mean most members of the Jesus >Seminar, or...? > >[A]Certainly the members of the Jesus Seminar are united on this point, but it >is not new and Catholic Scholars going back to the early 20th century raised >doubts about the authenticity of the Jesus sayings in John's Gospel. Rudolf >Schnackenburg in his 1965 3 Volume commentary on John's gospel certainly >supports it as does, I believe, (although I can't be certain of it,) Raymond >Brown. SB: I found this today: "I have no difficulty with the thesis that if Jesus ... could have read John he would have found that gospel a suitable expression of his identity". Raymond Brown, "Did Jesus Know He was God?" Biblical Theology Bulletin 15 [1985], p78, cited in Ben Witherington III, The Christology of Jesus [Minneapois, Fortress, 1990], p277, cited in Lee Strobel, "The Case for Christ", Zondervan, 1998, p138! Witherington: "When you're dealing with the gospel of John, you're dealing with a somewhat interpreted picture of Jesus, but I also believe it's a logical drawing out of what was implicit in the historical Jesus." p138, idem. > >[A]There are at least 2 very stong arguements for this. The first one is that >the words of Jesus in this Gospel are always of the same literary type as >the auther himself. The second is that the Jesus of John's gospel stands in >stark contrast to the Jesus of the synoptics. In the synoptics, the central >proclomation of Jesus is the Kingdom of God. John only refers to this once >in 3:3,5. In John, the central proclomation of Jesus is himself. (I am.....) >As our lecturer put it at college, in the synoptics, there is a sort of >messanic secret that is not openly revealed until the crucifixion (in Mark's >Gospel at least) whereas in John's Gospel J seems to be running around >everywhere proclaiming himself as the incarnation of God. Either the >synoptics have managed to capture the essence of Jesus sayings or John has >but it is difficult to claim that both of them have unless Jesus had a split >personality. The scholars are pretty well united that it is John's gospel >that has missed the mark. SB: That last sentence is a strong statement! See quotations above. > > >[S]Although you've said elsewhere that we cannot pick and choose what >parts of the Bible we take seriously, you don't recognise the >integrity of John's gospel. Eg John 20: 30-31 says: > >"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his >disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written >that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and >that by believing you may have life in his name." > >[S]The Greek word translated here as 'believe' apparently occurs 98 times >in this gospel. You say, "Jesus is seen as *an* expression of God's >love", whereas the author of this gospel clearly believes that he is >*the* expression of God's love. I don't need to remind you of John 3: >16! > >[S]You say, "The way of love is universal. It is not restricted to any >belief structure or religion........ The way of love is advocated by >other religions also as being the way to complete fulness of life." > >[S]I agree that the capacity to love and be loved is universal, part of >our humanity, but Christianity is the only world religon that makes >love the #1 priority and teaches that it is initiated by God. Only >Sufis, Bahais, and certain nineteenth century forms of Hinduism come >anywhere near that, and they have all been influenced by Christianity >to a greater or lesser extent. SB: I majored in Indian history at uni years ago, and read many primary sources indicating that influence, particularly strong in the 19th century. I'm sure you're aware of Bahai's claim to be inclusive of Christianity. Sufiism from its earliest days owed much to Christian ascetism, as well as to Buddhism and Neo-platonism. However, the point I was trying to make was that, even in these softer religions, agape love is not central, as it is in Christianity. > >[A]I don't entirely disagree with you here although I don't know enough about >other religions and their teachings to go to far into it. I have, however, >found a number of teachings and sayings that have come from different >traditions that speak loudly of the importance of love. I'm also unsure of >your statement about the influence from Christianity. It is really only in >later times that I can see a strong reference to the centrality of >unconditional and sacrificial love being proclaimed generally in Christian >teaching. SB: Surely it is central to all the books of the NT? I'm not saying that the NT churches were perfect, obviously not according to the Epistles and Revelation, but Christ's love was certainly central to their teaching. >[A]Our history books tell us that fear has been a more central theme >and certainly the actions of such things as the crusades, inquisisition, >burning of witches, torturing people into conversion etc hardy speak of a >religion that was motivated by love. SB: Such events indicate either an ignorance of the central message, forgetfulness, wilful disobedience, or a combination! Francis of Assisi travelled to the Holy Land during the early 13th century to Crusade to redress the wrongs of the Crusades. Many Christians in Northern Ireland are attempting to redress the lack of agape obvious in the Troubles, and so on. Isn't that our mission? At the same time, it's not natural to love our enemy. It would have been quite natural for people in 'Christendom' to feel aggrieved at what had happened in the Holy Land with the coming of Islam. The capacity to respond in love comes from Christ/God, not from the teaching itself. > >[S]What's more, it is only Christ who taught that we have to love our >enemy and gives us the capacity to do so. [There's a Buddhist teaching >about love appeasing hatred, but is that possible through meditation >alone?] > >[S]Please understand, in saying that "Christ is the Way...", I'm not >saying I believe only "Christians" are "saved". "No one comes to the >Father except by Me" is a mystery I leave to God and Eternity! > Peace and Joy, Sue Sue Bolton Sydney, Australia ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
