Allan, I'm not sure what's going on here! I received two copies of this, 3 minutes apart, but with different headers, or at least, one had the heading "re: The Bible' and the second, no heading, just a number and a diffrent one at that.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:36:48 +1100, you wrote: >Greetings Sue > > >> >>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] > >[AL] Does that mean that you are not gettinf the arrows when it comes to >you? They are certainly there when it comes back to me. In fact the ones that have come today and yesterday have the arrows, but the one you sent on Thursday had none, even though it didn't come from Andrew. >> >> >>> >>>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 I thought that was my very point. I do honour John's gospel in its >entirety and refuse to dishonour it by treating verses such as 14:6 as >literal statements that stand on their own as authorative words of Jesus. >You may have misunderstood my intention in saying that it was John's gospel >that missed the mark. I was refering to the likelihood of the words being >the actual words of Jesus, not that John's gospel was in any way inferior to >the synoptics. In fact, it is my favourite gospel. I can see that now. I thought "missed the mark" was derogatory. Our disagreement seems to be who is doing this gospel the greater disservice: you by disputing the authenticity of a particular verse or I by insisting on the integrity of the whole, and seeing John's theology implicit in the synoptics, as Witherington maintains. This is the only comment I've added to our discussion this time round, so read no further if, like me, you're short of time! As we've probably exhausted this topic, let me sign off by wishing you 'God's Grace, Peace, Joy, Love, Hope', Sue > > > >>>[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? >Absolutely! > >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 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 ------------------------------------------------------
