Primacy and Insecurity

http://kreoline.247ihost.com >mortgage calculator refinance breakeven Like billy-o

http://besting.itrello.com >saint paul traveler insurance Latin Phrases

http://bestinfo.freeweb7.com >medical insurance Heebie-jeebies - The

http://allinfo.iifree.net >st paul traveler insurance co Much Ado about Nothing

http://kreoline.247ihost.com >unemployment insurance program Filthy rich

http://besting.itrello.com >faxless cash advance no fax payday loan Stand up guy

http://besting.itrello.com >faxless cash advance no fax payday loan Stand up guy

Demos said:

"Why the heck do so many non-believers insist on using pseudo-King James English in their postings? Christians don't talk like that - and haven't since the 19th century."

Anonymous responded with

"By the way, the key phrasing was written in a religious controversy by none other than... OLIVER CROMWELL"

Just how long has it been since Oliver Cromwell died? Exactly how is this drivel supposed to have anything to do with modern Christians?

Demos was right. It wasn't even done particularly well - the short phrase from Cromwell was spliced into a pseudo-Olde-English setting about as realistic as a vinyl doublet.

BGONE,

You make many statements but I never see any references supporting them. And your website also seems to suffer from the same problem. Any reason for this????

Maybe those writters of the bible wrote these things to see if they could fool future archeologists and hoax busters. They were all in cahoots through the centuries to fool poor saps thousands of years away into giving all their money to ministers and providing jobs to intellegent people to debunk everything.
OOOH look,aliens are coming!

HL:

Everything you're talking about 'sort of' happened. Let's look at Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem. That was actually 'Pilot' Amenophis III entering Akhetaten for the trial of Amenophis IV accused by the high priest of blasphemy, claiming to be the 'son of God' while being a woman, an impossibility.

Amenophis IV had 12 disciples, representatives from the 12 tribes of foreign, non Egyptian builders, (israelites) working on 'the Tower of Babel' 'tabernacle in the wilderness' 'big house built by Cain' 'city of Jericho' and more I can't think of at the moment. All those stories were the product of different people 'interpreting' what is mentioned in the Bible as the downfall, "the unreadable writing on the wall."

The Bible is the collection, editing, and melding of those stories into one, sort of big story that has no prior to hoax buster archaeological basis. It makes all the sense in the world once that bridge is crossed. One writer saw one thing while another something different. And you're knocking yourself out because 4 Gospels aren't identical stories. And yes, different writers cheated and looked at what others had to say about the same thing.

What all writers tend to have in common is the ability to get the 'action' part of the writing. The original 'unreadable writing' actions were done in pictures so it was a matter of assigning names to the people and places involved in the action and a scenario that fit the action. Two quick examples: 1) God whacked the firstborn son of Pharaoh and then the Israelites went to the wilderness. 2) Cain killed brother Able and then went to the wilderness. Why they went to the wilderness changes from one story to the other while someone getting killed followed by the 'presumed killer' going to the wilderness is the same. Actions speak louder than words.

http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2 "proof" for the actual history from which the Bible springs. Methinks Josephus is the key 'novelist' that decided to turn it into Jewish history. Today we are willing to ignore the obvious, Judah was occupied by a foreign power interrupted only in minutes while a new one took over from the time history was recorded. Is Judah actually included in the territories listed as the 'promised land'?

There is no unexplainable, just a lot of resistance to truth.

It is apparent that whoever wrote 'the book of John' made up the story of Jesus washing the apostles' feet. First of all, the account is not mentioned anywhere else in the NT. Second, that same night Jesus was supposed to be washing those dirty feet in the gospel of John he was having the Passover Seder with his apostles in the accounts of the synoptic; The story of the Passover Seder incidentally does not appear anywhere in John's gospel because of the date of Jesus' crucifixion. In the synoptic Jesus dies on the Passover day but according to John he dies on the day before, that is on the day of preparation. That's why there's no Eucharist in the book of John either. You would think as important as the Eucharist is to the Christians we can find a token mention of it at least in John's gospel. But nothing is mentioned besides washing the apostles' feet; and you can't mistake washing feet for the Eucharist. We have the trivial story of Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on an ass in all of the gospel accounts including John’s but no mention of the institution of the Eucharist in the book of John and this guy was supposed to be the real apostle of Jesus himself who was named John.

Demos,

And what books written by Professors Crossan, Borg, Fredriksen and Armstrong have you read? How about any of the books listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html ?????

Demos,

I was having fun. It's cool to write in antiquated language to make a point. It certainly got your attention more than if I'd simply said, "Christians, you're wrong".

By the way, the key phrasing was written in a religious controversy by none other than...

OLIVER CROMWELL

To the Presbyterians of Scotland, Cromwell wrote, "I BESEECH YOU IN THE BOWELS OF CHRIST THINK IT POSSIBLE YOU MAY BE MISTAKEN."

In a letter to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. 1650.

QUERY (as they say in law schools):

Are all believers humorless?

I remain, Sir, your humble and obedient Servant.

Crossan is a quack and is only interested in selling "controversial" theories a la Dan Brown.

"Those who criticize the studies of contemporary NT scholars like Professors Crossan, Borg, Fredriksen and Armstrong (all On Faith panelists) typically have never read any of their books from cover to cover and typically suffer from severe "Googlelismia"."

"Concerned",

that's an interesting bit of trivia - where did you get it from? You realize, of course, that Professors Crossan, Borg, Fredricksen and Armstrong only represent one slice of the academic spectrum - there are other scholars out there with very different points of view (e.g., N.T. Wright, E.P. Sanders, Ben Witherington, J.P. Meier).

It's very easy, and quite seductive, to assume that if someone doesn't agree with us, they must not understand. In truth, many times they understand what we're saying perfectly well - they simply don't agree with us (and sometimes we could learn from them, if we'd just take the time to understand in turn why they still disagree with us).

Regarding the last post by "Anonymous"

Why the heck do so many non-believers insist on using pseudo-King James English in their postings? Christians don't talk like that - and haven't since the 19th century.

What's worse, they don't even do it well. As with this last example, they generally end up with a bizarre pastiche of the old and the new, like you'd hear at a Renaissance Festival (or in a really, really low budget thud and blunder movie).

Oh, ye self-proclaimed "Christians", I beseech

thee, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible

ye may be mistaken, that your "God" does not

exist, and that your "religion" is a fraud.

David, I've got to say, you're a fool! You say why need a degree to preach and then say leave it to those who are accredited and professional. Talking out both ends are you? Have you ever looked at B16's accredidations?

I understand that no one would take me serious when I speak authoritatively on science since I haven't any training there! Don't be suprised when people don't take your non-religious or atheistic opinions on faith any more serious than passing gas!

Ooops, the above Blog belongs on the "Harry-Potter" series of books debate. Oh well;

Enjoy Eclati-On philosophy while you can. Ya Ya.

Commentators are idiots. It never ceases to amaze how how people from both extreme ends of the sprectrum spew the same old hypocritical crap. If Cherry-picking history was an award, you simpletons would be right up there Dick Cheney and Pope Benedict. Quit reading what you want to read and challenge your ideals/assumptions once and a while, rather than resorting to out-dated old testament quotes and offensive references to Christ as an illiterate junkie (when did preaching about helping people require a freaking degree?!!). If you some how can't challenge yourself and eventually become a better human being for it, then simply leave the professional, accredited, and theological interpretations to those who know how to read. Like Prof. Crossan. (I got your back, Jeff)

I respect the desire of Pope Benedict to return to Tradition. Having ones feet planted on solid ground is reassuring.

It is also understandable to me for people to have faith in scholarship such as those on the faith panel. When we are told that the New Testament is full of wishful thinking, errors, additions, and fanciful fiction, a ring of consolation offered us by these thinkers on our bumpy journey through such uncertain life seems a good thing to grasp.

But is the New Testament "full of it?" If God is real, powerful, loving, creative, independent (of us), and determined to do the stuff His mind wants to do, who of us, leaned or no, dare deny Him such freedom of expression?

Why is a miracle such a big no-no to the mindset of today? Why cannot God know the future? Why can God not choose to become a man in Christ, and do what He must in order to open Heaven for us?

There is no more solid ground than that presented in the New Testament about the presence of God in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Is it possible that even a college of dedicated Shakespeares could have produced such an astonishing work of literature? And for what reward? Eleven of the twelve Apostles were murdered for their message!

This New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus
is the head of his catholic (universal, with a small "c" as used by the Apostles Creed) church, and His Holy Spirit is its true Pope.

Sometimes we moderns transform God into just a mere god, with no hands, no feet, no mind to speak, no heart, no love, no tears to weep.

Those who criticize the studies of contemporary NT scholars like Professors Crossan, Borg, Fredriksen and Armstrong (all On Faith panelists) typically have never read any of their books from cover to cover and typically suffer from severe "Googlelismia".

Crossan is sort of this bitter fellow with strong anti church opinions. He preaches to the choir.

I think I'm leaving this discussion. There are usually 6 anti-Catholic church contributors and 1 pro-catholic church contributor. Meanwhile there smug atheists cutting and pasting their accusations. I don't see how a could discussion could arise here.

Believer ... me thinks Crossan has found his match. Check mate goes to you. That interpatation of his about the many mansions was "like a very bad joke."

Religion is crossing your fingers and hoping never to die.It makes no sense but what you gonna do?
It's better than nothing.
Priests tell us that crossing our fingers will get us into heaven providing we REALLY BELIEVE,and are nice to people.(Little boys? Lets not go there}
So what the heck,maybe it'll work.
But then again what kinda fruitcake walks around with his fingers crossed all the time?
I am not so scared of dying that I'll behave like the village idiot!
Forgedaboudit!

Wake up BELIEVER:

It's capitalism at it's very best, create a market and then fill it.

Gun of hell to head creates the market. Sacraments fill the market. While you're there getting those sacraments don't forget to "render to God." In the beginning that was mandated by law, tithes, taxes paid to God.

PAGANPLACE: "There are many rooms in my father's house" is Jesus authorizing the starting of religions other than the one He started?

There are many rooms in my house too. Have I just invited the world to start religions? Prove I'm not God before you answer. Guess you'll just have to faith that.

The big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to hell.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

Starting religions have everything to do with "the big money" and nothing significant otherwise. PT Barnum said it. I believe it. That's that. PT said, "there's a sucker born each and every minute" and he raked in the sucker bucks to prove it without claiming divine license.

You know, Believer, on this:

"As an aside, his interpretation of the passage he quotes from John is pretty bad ("Then, at the start of his next chapter, John has Jesus make this deeply enigmatic promise: “In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places” (14:2). I take that to mean that there are diverse forms within the full spectrum of Christianity."

Gotta wonder if a guy like that wasn't thinking of something even bigger than different brands of the particular religion that was built around him.

I think the presumptions that this stuff is necessarily about who has "primacy" might just be a major source of the problems Christians have getting along with each other, never mind everyone else in the world.

Dr. Crossan says:

"The papacy and hierarchy of Roman Catholicism have failed both its community and its tradition by refusing their sacramental vocation as envisioned in John’s gospel."

This sounds nice (and may even be true) - but it's inconsistent with virtually everything else Dr. Crossan says. A sacrament is not simply a symbol - the word is used to describe an act that mediates God's grace. The Pope understands the Catholic church as actually having a sacramental role - that it serves as a mediator to bring God's grace to man. The concepts of "sacrament" and "sacramental" are central to that understanding, and to his recent comments.

I'm not a Catholic - but I understand the traditional Catholic view of the nature and role of the church. Given that view, the Pope's comments are completely understandable and unsurprising (even though I, as a non-Catholic Christian, don't agree with them).

Dr. Crossan's rejection of the traditional understanding of the Christian faith reduces the meaning of term "sacramental" to nothing more than "symbolic" or "meaningful" or "religious." Because he rejects any real significance (as opposed to symbolic, emotional or psycholigical) to the church's claims, he sees it as no more than arrogant verbal posturing - because he's in essence rejected theology, he can't understand it as part of a genuine theological debate.

By appealing to a "sacramental" role to support his argument, when he has rejected the basis for any real mediation of God's grace to man, Dr. Crossan is playing with words in a way that's fully as bogus as what he's accusing the Pope of here.

As an aside, his interpretation of the passage he quotes from John is pretty bad ("Then, at the start of his next chapter, John has Jesus make this deeply enigmatic promise: “In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places” (14:2). I take that to mean that there are diverse forms within the full spectrum of Christianity. I consider Roman Catholicism one of those “dwelling places”—a rather big one, to be sure, but, then, there is nothing in John about size counting towards precedence.")

In this context, the night before he is crucified Christ refers to his death, and says "I go to prepare . . . and if I go, I will come again." His Father's house is where he is going - away from His friends and disciples - and where he will take them after His return. The Catholic church cannot be one of the "dwelling places" - that is, not unless Dr. Crossan is willing to locate it in heaven!

What a contrast - this old grumpy German Pope compared to John Paul II who reached out to others and whose face showed the glow of love.
Catholics will revert back to parental, punitive purveyors of perpetual guilt under the current Vatican leadership. Get out those rulers, Mother Superiors, your traditional roles are back.

Uh Huh wrote: "Prof. Crossan, please don't let your intellectual arrogance condemn you to an eternity in Hell."

Fearmonger.

Professor:

"When leaders—be they Presidents or Popes—reach insecurity and uncertainty they often assert ascendancy and primacy."

Did you say "insecurity and uncertainty" both?

You don't suppose thinking about http://www.hoax-buster.org makes their, president and pope, both of their heads hurt? The pope I can understand but our president has faith. "Go to your churches, temples, synagogues and mosques and pray" is what the president ordered us to do, 9-11-2001. Faith clears up all "insecurity and uncertainty" doesn't it?

"So we really only have two choices -"

Why only two?

Seems to me it's the ecclesiastical establishments which most resemble the Pharisees of Jesus' time. They too believed they and only they, were in possession of the Absolute Truth and that there were "only two choices" - their way or the highway.

Humility is the first step to wisdom, and the first step to humility is the realization that the things we don't know vastly outnumber the things we do.

Regards

A Hermit

The basic problem is the Catholic pope "cult" culture that has grown over the centuries i.e. only the pope "talks" to God and the pope cannot error in matters of dogma.

Hmmm, well history and realism are catching up with cults of any kind.

One definition of a cult:

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader

e.g. 1 )Muslims and their Mohammed, and the clerics, ayatollahs, imams and "angel freaks" who follow the illiterate, warmongering, hallucinating Arab's koranic ways 2) "Jesus Freaks" like Bob Jones' followers 3) "Latin Mass /Catholic only/"angel loving" Filiciders brainwashed by the likes of B16 and the previous all white male, "celibate, "aarpie", European "charismatics" called popes.

Then there are the foundations of this pope "cult" culture.

What reality and history now conclude:

Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and pagan sects. These embellishments also include all the scriptural references to papal authority and Rock foundations.

e.g. See Professor Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus:

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20
Since Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:

x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani (sp?)
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=B16

Come now Prof. Crossan, as you are one who does not believe in the divinity of Jesus, or in His bodily resurrection, or in His miracles, why do you bother putting on a show and pretending that you believe in God at all?

If God is simply a construct of the human mind, then what is the purpose of religion? If God is not omniscient and omnipotent, then why bother trying to figure out who God is? He would be little better than us in that case - perhaps no better.

If however, God is the omniscient, omnipotent Creator, then His nature defines the Truth - and that Truth would be absolute, the suggestion that an omnipotent God varies with the vagaries of human society is ludicrous.

So we really only have two choices - an omnipotent, omniscient God, or atheism. Take your pick Prof. Crossan. I choose God, who has revealed His Truth through Jesus Christ and through His One Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church.

Prof. Crossan, please don't let your intellectual arrogance condemn you to an eternity in Hell. Please understand that God is infinitely bigger than you, and that you owe him your submission and service.

Repent Prof. Crossan.

Don't forget what the Pharissee said, "be care lest you find yourself fighting against God".

You fight Christs Church so much because you can't reconcile your own faults with what the Church teaches. "Pride goeth before the fall".

Perhaps you should go back and do a study on what the "keys" mean in both old and new testaments.

I really do not quite understand why he would do this, but I believe he saw the divisions within Christianity today and sought to bring all religions of Christ closer to one semblance of common thought. However, by doing so, he must be aware that we could go back to a time when the Catholic Church used it's power for it's own human purposes and not those of the will of Christ. Maybe we should all look mostly at the words describing the actions of Christ during his time on Earth, and try to emulate those words. Not so much the words written by men for humanity, who after seeing Christ could not fully understand or believe what they had seen, but understood that through him they could change the thoughts of humankind, and so embellished many words spoken by Christ, and even added their own words to direct humanity in a way they ignorantly believed Christ had meant, and themselves had wished.