Yet more theological inconsistency...

[wavy]

Personally, there is a sense in which atheism is preferable as it makes its break with Christianity out in the open.

My atheism, you mean. Atheism breaks with all forms of theism, not just Christian theism.

Eric, could I suggest that you pick up Pope Benedict's "Jesus of Nazareth"? Or perhaps his book "An Introduction to Christianity" (written as Cardinal Ratzinger).

I currently have about 20 books on my plate that I'm trying to finish but given time I might pick those up. Thanks for the suggestion. Have any excerpts that summarize the works or that give an idea of the books' approach?

One starts to realize, or at least I have come to believe, that Christian orthodoxy is the true successor of the New Testament message, and that the likes of the Jesus Seminar are floundering precisely because they only ever look at the New Testament in fragments- and therefore render it incomprehensible.

They key is to acknowledge when it's fragmentary and when it's in concert with itself, and that goes for the OT too. Imo, they are best explained as historically diverse documents cocentric around the Jesus faith and interpreting that faith in their own ways. That's not difficult to comprehend. Sifting through the details and sorting them out can be confusing and frustrating--a real piece of work; but that goes for pretty much any interest of history or religion.

'Hoodwinked'? I think not. Opening your mind, coping with your old faith and accepting the challenge of trying to understand it from an external perspective? Positively.


Kind regards,
~Eric

 

[Devekut]

Hey Eric,

There's an article I read, though directed more specifically to theologians, the question of historical criticism is unavoidable. It is titled "The Challenge of Jesus of Nazareth for Theologians", by Roch Kereszty.

The 20 page work in full can be found here: http://www.communio-icr.com/articles/PD ... ty34-3.pdf

"His book resists rigid classification into exegetical study,
systematic Christology, homily, or mystical theology; in some sense,
it is all of these. Though not a work of scholarly exegesis, it discloses
the profound unity between the Old and New Testaments, as well
as among the Synoptic, Johannine, and Pauline Christologies. It
presents no systematic christological treatise, yet it lays foundations
for a future christological synthesis. It is not a collection of homilies,
but by drawing on its insights, homilists can revitalize their preaching.
It is not a treatise of mystical theology either, yet it springs from
an intimate friendship with Christ and intends to lead its readers to
such a friendship."

As Pope Benedict himself acknowledges, the
purported effort to reach the “real†Jesus behind the crust of
ecclesiastical dogma by separating “the historical Jesus†from “the
Christ of faith,†a quest which began at the end of the eighteenth
century in liberal German Protestant circles, has produced a
confusing number of contradictory portrayals of Jesus. “At one end
of the spectrum was the anti-Roman revolutionary working
â€â€though finally failingâ€â€to overthrow the ruling powers; at the
other end, he was the meek moral teacher who approves everything
and unaccountably comes to grief.†What Albert Schweitzer
noticed in 1906, Pope Benedict extended also to the later stages of
the quest: “If you read a number of these reconstructions one
after the other, you see at once that far from uncovering an icon
that has become obscured over time, they are much more like
photographs of their authors and the ideals they hold.â€Â

Benedict acknowledges the complexity of the problems we
are facing, especially the relationship between the “historical
ground†and the “faith view†of the Gospels.10 Yet he boldly
declares his full trust in the Gospels: “I wanted to try to portray the Jesus of the Gospels as the real, ‘historical’ Jesus in the strict sense of
the word.â€Â11

"In attempting to show that the Jesus of the Gospels is the
historical Jesus, Benedict follows a way that differs substantially from
the way recent Catholic and Protestant historians have tried to
ground faith in the Jesus of the Gospels. By using the method and
resources of historical criticism, the latter established a minimum of
historical data about Jesus. Then they showed that their construct,
this Jesus of history, was so impressive as to warrant faith and
allegiance in him even today. Yet, as Schnackenburg himself admits,
the handicap of this approach is to “draw us into a continual
discussion of tradition and redaction history that never comes to
rest.â€Â

"Benedict, in contrast, finds a way to avoid the ever-changing
quicksand of the varying “Jesus of history†reconstructions and
manages to make credibleâ€â€and even plausibleâ€â€the Jesus of the
Gospels."

Of course, the book represents only a partial view of the whole of Benedict's work and thought as both a man of faith and an academic. If it strikes your interest, I do recommend reading "An Introduction of Christianity" as well.

 

[wavy]

Your approach to Christianity (whatever you perceive it to be) is entirely based on your intellect.

Didn't used to be. If you don't believe me I'd invite you to check my old post history...

Kind regards,
~Eric

 

[mutzrein]

Your approach to Christianity (whatever you perceive it to be) is entirely based on your intellect.

Didn't used to be. If you don't believe me I'd invite you to check my old post history...

Kind regards,
~Eric

Oh I know - I've followed some of your posts. And that is why I said you have been hoodwinked. As Paul said to the Galations, "who has hoodwinked you? After starting with the Spirit, you are now trying to achieve your goal by human effort." (my paraphrase).

Eric, walking in faith is not a blind and literal acceptance of what your intellect and other people tell you scripture means.

 

[Arphaxad]

Hi Wavy! :D

Based on your post about "your spiritual journey" to atheism, it sounds like you were having a real problem deciding WHAT to believe. But not to worry, as a former Fundamentalist, having accepted the finished work of Christ for yourself, in His sight you will forever be His child. He remains faithful to His promises regardless of our whims. That's why He's called "the Rock." Because we're not!

Just as an experiment, you might try PERSONALLY investigating all the many blessings of "Christianity done right." I myself don't adhere to any "canned" religious denomination. My religious "denomination" is my PERSONAL relationship with my Heavenly Father. It has no "label." I've found the Lord to be a really faithful friend even through all my failing and stumbling. Find HIM, not religion. He'll never give up on you, no matter what.

Best Blessings,
"Arph"
------------