|
Post by rick on Jan 7, 2007 17:20:18 GMT -5
THEO 312: Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography by John Dominic Crossan From Library Journal Based on Crossan's acclaimed and controversial The Historical Jesus ( LJ 2/1/92), this elegant new reconstruction popularizes and occasionally elaborates on that earlier work. Gone is the massive documentation. What remains is an engrossing, often startling exploration of key themes, in which Crossan weighs scriptural texts against anthropological, historical, and literary standards, sifting through accrued layers for evidence of earlier (if noncanonical) sources. He acknowledges his naturalistic assumptions ("I presume that Jesus... could not cure... disease"), which, together with his critical method, cause him to dismiss the virgin birth, say, or the passion/resurrection narratives, as historically invalid. Yet he also offers nuanced, powerful readings of Jesus' teachings. Bound to disturb some people and stimulate others, this is recommended for all libraries where lay readers are likely to be interested in the issues raised. - Elise Chase, Forbes Lib., Northampton, Mass. TB Vick, Texas THEO 312: A Feminist Introduction To Paul by Sandra Hack Polaski Book Description Sandra Hack Polaski introduces readers to the letters and world of Paul, encouraging a critical appreciation of Paul and his writings that does not require a choice between commitment to the scriptures and integrity as a modern feminist. In conversation with the leading interpreters of Paul and considering possible responses to Paul-conformist, resistant, rejectionist, and transformational-Polaski forges her own theory of how to interpret Paul. ... THEO 312: Q Thomas Reader by John S. Kloppenborg Two texts at the heart of today's quest for the real Jesus, July 23, 2003 Reviewer: Peter Kirby "petermkirby" (Placentia, CA United States)
|
|
|
Post by valpotentate on Jan 8, 2007 8:20:22 GMT -5
I studied Crossan's controversial work in theology courses at Valpo. A very difficult and aggressive look at Christianity and I confess that I had some major problems with many of its premises. However, it is a strong example of the issues that arise from use of the historical-critical method and as such is a valuable tool. Ultimately, I was able to view it in a healthy, Christian context as simply one perspective in the vitally important critical debate.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 8, 2007 8:31:53 GMT -5
I studied Crossan's controversial work in theology courses at Valpo. A very difficult and aggressive look at Christianity and I confess that I had some major problems with many of its premises. However, it is a strong example of the issues that arise from use of the historical-critical method and as such is a valuable tool. Ultimately, I was able to view it in a healthy, Christian context as simply one perspective in the vitally important critical debate. Good for you! I hope you still believe in the miracles Jesus performed and in the virgin birth. You can't be a genuine Christian if you don't. Just a CINO.(Christian in name only)
|
|
|
Post by valpotentate on Jan 9, 2007 16:27:20 GMT -5
All right, I'll play devil's advocate. Why would someone not be a genuine Christian if they believe Mary had sex before giving birth to Jesus?
Or is this just a joke on RINOs?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 9, 2007 16:43:54 GMT -5
All right, I'll play devil's advocate. Why would someone not be a genuine Christian if they believe Mary had sex before giving birth to Jesus? Or is this just a joke on RINOs? Read some Church History about the plethora of heretics such as the Gnostic's and others who tried to redefine what the Apostles were taught by Jesus, and who tried to redefine who Jesus was. Many of these heresies are still around. Being a Christian is not just a warm and fuzzy feeling. You must believe. (You can't believe that Jesus was just a good man and a prophet just like other good men and prophets - Jesus is God!) And you must know what beliefs define genuine Christianity. The Creeds of the early church were written primarily as a response to all of the wacko's who attempted to redefine Jesus in their own image. The true Church, the body of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, slapped them down, condemned them, and excommunicated them, as there were many different kinds of heresy. There is an intellectual object of Christian faith and one cannot believe anything they want and still be a genuine Christian. Again, it is just as important to know what you believe as it is that you believe. Even the demons believed that Jesus was the Son of God.( according to Scripture) We are to worship God with all of our minds. And what we believe has to be in accordance with the Truth as it has been infallibly revealed to us through Scripture, the Church, and the Apostles. Any deviation from it is falsehood pure and simple. This Truth is objective, never-changing, and is not subject to revision by those who don't like certain aspects of it.
|
|
|
Post by valpotentate on Jan 10, 2007 8:09:37 GMT -5
Another answer from Rick that has nothing to do with the question. Thanks for the theology lesson.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 10, 2007 8:20:58 GMT -5
Another answer from Rick that has nothing to do with the question. Thanks for the theology lesson. It had everything to do with your question. You asked why someone who does not believe in the virgin birth is not a Christian. I told you why. If you don't believe that, you are a heretic and should not parade around as if you are a Christian. History repeats itself. There are certain essentials to the faith that you can not just pick and choose. Not believing any one of these disqualifies you from being a Christian. The virgin birth was narrated in Scripture. There are many reasons why the virgin birth is essential to a genuine understanding of what Christianity is. Knowing why the virgin birth is important and integral to the Christian faith is absolutely necessary to be a true believer.
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Jan 10, 2007 9:44:14 GMT -5
Rick, give some other examples of heretics that you think believe that Mary had sex to conceive Jesus. Also, explain some other texts where you find this heretical information, and if its not a text but a particular evangelist or pastor that you've heard. Don't just spit out information without some textual evidence of what you mean, this maybe why a previous poster was confused or questioning you about this. Also, stay on the topic at hand, you started with theology textbooks, then got on a tangent about something else..bring it back to Crossan or another theologian, otherwise you sound like an evangelist yourself.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 10, 2007 10:51:20 GMT -5
Rick, give some other examples of heretics that you think believe that Mary had sex to conceive Jesus. Also, explain some other texts where you find this heretical information, and if its not a text but a particular evangelist or pastor that you've heard. Don't just spit out information without some textual evidence of what you mean, this maybe why a previous poster was confused or questioning you about this. Also, stay on the topic at hand, you started with theology textbooks, then got on a tangent about something else..bring it back to Crossan or another theologian, otherwise you sound like an evangelist yourself. There are many sources regarding the heresies of the early church. Heresy can be defined as a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas. St. Augustine fought against Pelagius for one example. There are many, many others. I'll let you do your own research on them. But this should help get you started: 1. www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm 2. www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm 3. www.sundayschoolcourses.com/heresy/ This is no tangent. The reason I cited the books used in the Theology class was that they do not look at Christianity from an Orthodox viewpoint. They veer out into the wacky world of speculation and rewritten history. It is important to know what actually happened in those days just after Christ's crucifixion. For the first few years, Christians didn't have a whole lot of time to defend and articulate the true meaning of Christianity. Instead, they were fighting for their lives while being persecuted and sent to the lions for the entertainment of the masses.(Kind of a super bowl) Afterwards, the Church was attacked on all sides from various groups within and outside the Church attempting to claim Christianity and rewrite what it meant to be a Christian. The Creed was written as a response to many of those heretics. There was one heresy which began in North Africa by a bunch of folks who claimed that anyone who lied to save their necks couldn't later be leaders or priests in the church. They argued that only "pure" Christians should be leaders in the church. There was much back-and-forth about that issue and the leaders of the Church finally concluded that the teaching was heresy and Novatism Novatianism was beaten down. After all, we all are still sinners. There are many churches today who believe the things that the early church and those, many of whom were peers of the Apostles, condemned. From source 1. above:
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 10, 2007 11:03:07 GMT -5
You don't have to go very far. First, start with atheists. Then with many liberal Christians who believe in open theism and who don't believe in miracles. Thomas Jefferson did not believe in any of the miracles (virgin birth by implantation from the Holy Spirit being one of those miracles)and removed all references of miracles from his own Bible. Then you have many of the founding fathers of our country who were primarily Deists, not Christians, who believed in God but that he was only transcendent, not immanent - just an observer who did not get involved in the daily affairs of his creation. (They were strongly influenced by modernity) And then you have the author of the book used in a Valparaiso University theology class who admits he does not believe in the virgin birth. This guy is everything but a Christian. That is heresy! It is an unpardonable sin, the kind mentioned in Scripture. When you sin against the Holy Spirit(who implanted the divine seed in Mary's womb) by claiming you don't believe that really happened, you cannot be forgiven and you certainly are not a Christian.
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Jan 10, 2007 13:11:40 GMT -5
Its a good thing I only had to read Crossan for the sake of a varied opinion and not because he's factual. I didn't understand his thinking, nor did I care for it, but I still read it because the man had an opinion and voiced it without going on a rampage about being right or wrong. Sadly, you still are missing the fact that you're preaching at all of us as though you were called to be our church pastor. IF you wanted to be an evangelist..you should have gone on to a divinity school and become a pastor. We don't all agree with your opinion because you push it on us as though its the only way to be a Christian. Thank God I'm a liberal and can think for myself, if I had to follow your ways, I'd be excommunicated for the liberal thinker I am.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 10, 2007 13:14:11 GMT -5
Its a good thing I only had to read Crossan for the sake of a varied opinion and not because he's factual. I didn't understand his thinking, nor did I care for it, but I still read it because the man had an opinion and voiced it without going on a rampage about being right or wrong. Sadly, you still are missing the fact that you're preaching at all of us as though you were called to be our church pastor. IF you wanted to be an evangelist..you should have gone on to a divinity school and become a pastor. We don't all agree with your opinion because you push it on us as though its the only way to be a Christian. Thank God I'm a liberal and can think for myself, if I had to follow your ways, I'd be excommunicated for the liberal thinker I am. It's not that you must agree with ME. It's what the Church, the Apostles, and Scripture has always taught. You can choose not to believe it. That's your right. But you are at odds with Scripture, that's all. No big deal. Whether you agree with me, I don't really care.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 10, 2007 13:54:58 GMT -5
valporun wrote: Who is we? I think I made it clear that the biblical account of the virgin birth and Jesus' miracles were not an opinion, especially my own. They are essential beliefs of any genuine Christian. Are you telling me as a theology major from Valparaiso University, that you don't believe either of the following to be true: 1. Virgin birth. 2. Miracles of Jesus
|
|
|
Post by valpotentate on Jan 10, 2007 14:06:40 GMT -5
I singled out the virgin birth issue because I was surprised you mentioned it. Typically the virgin birth debate is taken to mean that anyone who denies it is denying that God planted the divine seed in Mary. That is clearly how you took it. However, the debate can also be over whether Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant. This debate is not about the divinity of Jesus, but is rather about the "perfection" or "purity" of Mary. In all honesty, arguing that Mary had sex but still received the seed of God could potentially weaken Jesus' perceived divinity, as it could more easily be argued that Jesus was Joseph's son. However, it still does not reach the level of heresy. The issues involved in the debate (the Hebrew word almah) can be found here. Wikipedia: AlmahAs an aside, why does studying the work of an unorthodox theologian at Valpo bother you? The work was not presented as "gospel", just as an opposing viewpoint in the historical-critical debate. When I read Mein Kampf in German History I wasn't being taught to become a Nazi was I?
|
|
|
Post by valpotentate on Jan 10, 2007 14:34:16 GMT -5
The ELCA Lutheran church, of which I am a member, recognizes the debate over this issue. Do Lutherans believe Jesus was born of a virgin?Again, I brought this debate up because typically it is not considered a major component of the Christian faith (understanding that the debate is not over Christ's divinity).
|
|