On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:53:24 +1100, you wrote: > >Sue wrote > >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! > >Sue, I have no problems with recognising my contibutions when they come from >you. All the arrows are where they should be. It is only when it comes back >from Andrew that the problem starts.
But I don't think this came back from Andrew??? [SB] > > >> >>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 [? NOT 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] I think both of these statements are a long way from suggesting that the >words in John's gospel are the words of Jesus. SB: I agree with you that each of these scholars is conceding that the words might not be the actual words of Jesus... >A:Even Spong who you find so >difficult has said in his book, This Hebrew Lord, "But no one, I am >convinced, understood the deep inner meaning of Jesus of Nazareth better >than did the author of the Forth Gospel." > SB: In this case, he and you need to treat this gospel in its entirety with integrity, including John 14: 6. Also, it seems to be at odds with your assertion below that "The scholars are pretty well united that it is John's gospel that has missed the mark." >>[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] Perhaps that's one of the reasons I am a Christian. >> >>[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. > >No arguments from me on this one. > >>[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. >> >[A] Once again, I have not much to argue with here, other than to say I was >merely trying to point out that Christianity's claim of superiority because >of its proclomation of a gospel of love has not always been evident in the >way it has been practiced. I don't think we have the rights to identify >examples of the lack of love in other religions when our own has such a >violent history. But I agee that throughout its history there have been some >leading lights within Christianity. Several comments from me on this last paragraph: 1. I agree: to claim that Christianity is a superior 'religious system' on the basis of John 14: 6 is missing the point. The verse is about the person Jesus, and not the system. The Parable of the Wedding Banquet speaks to me about not relying on a system, heritage or association for entry into the Kingdom of God. 2. Would you not agree that the 'leading lights' have been those closest to Christ's true message - or in the closest relationship with Him? 3. The all-important thing in communicating the Gospel is to make sure the manner of transmission matches the message [ie it must be spoken in love]. I believe the majority of 'modern missionaries' are very aware of this. To accuse missionaries of bigotry for taking John 14: 6 seriously is to fail to see that for them NOT to spread the Gospel of God's grace is the UNloving thing to do. >Grace & Peace (and love) >Allan > >>[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 ------------------------------------------------------
