Yuyutsu,

<<We are just discussing the same, only from two different perspectives, using different terminologies.>>

To the contrary! We are discussing Jesus and what he did from 2 radically different worldviews - Hinduism and Christianity.

Jesus performed miracles so that people would 'believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. Then, by believing, you can have life through his name' (John 20:31).

He did not perform miracles and then go to the cross to be slaughtered for the world of sinners to demonstrate he was a yogi or a Hindu Yogi. He did it to provide eternal life for all who would trust in Jesus.

Dear OzSpen,

«To the contrary! We are discussing Jesus and what he did from 2 radically different worldviews - Hinduism and Christianity.»

Not so radically different, compared for example with the atheist perspective that Jesus either never existed or never performed miracles, or with the Jewish perspective that Jesus was a scoundrel which deserved to be crucified (and where "Messiah" means a powerful king who conquers all surrounding lands and restores the nation of Israel to its former glory and beyond).

At the end of the day, Jesus was who he was. You could look at him from so many angles, but all words would only be reflections on Jesus, incomparable with his actual and ungraspable presence.

Words do not grant eternal life: it is the knowledge of God which does, rather than mumbling the correct formula. Formulas are good and important because they can inspire us to live righteously and to seek God, but left on their own they are only barren intellectual acrobatics. When trusting in Jesus brings one to dedicate their life to God, then they have eternal life through Jesus' name.

Ideas cannot save us: effective believing should consist of much more than holding and entertaining an intellectual idea that X is Y. By going on the cross, Jesus demonstrated that his teachings of love were not merely intellectual ideas. It is his living teachings that save from death, if followed, rather than merely recited.

«He did not perform miracles and then go to the cross to be slaughtered for the world of sinners to demonstrate he was a yogi or a Hindu Yogi.»

No Yogi, Hindu or otherwise, does so. I will repeat: it is a perversion. Only insecure people have this perverse need to let the world "know" who they are.

Banjo,

<<Tom Wright is a prolific writer and rather long-winded. He has written over 70 books. The paperback version of his latest book, for example, “Paul and the Faithfulness of God”, is 1,700 pages long.>>

If you read the blurb on the book, it states:

"This highly anticipated two-book fourth volume in N. T. Wright's magisterial series, Christian Origins and the Question of God, is destined to become the standard reference point on the subject for all serious students of the Bible and theology. The mature summation of a lifetime's study, this landmark book pays a rich tribute to the breadth and depth of the apostle's vision, and offers an unparalleled wealth of detailed insights into his life, times, and enduring impact".

It consists of 2 volumes as the Contents pages indicate. See: http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Faithfulness-God-N-Wright/dp/0800626834#reader_0800626834

These volumes are for serious students of Scripture from a master scholar of the biblical text who is now in older age. I have read his 3 earlier volumes in this series and when I can afford these 2 volumes I'll purchase on Kindle.

<<Wright has a good analytical mind but, apparently, an aversion to or incapacity for synthetic thought and expression.>>

You gave not one statement from Wright to demonstrate this. Are you getting it from some reviewer?

<<It's not read in the same manner as one reads a novel of fiction such as Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone with the Wind”>>

Of course not! Reading about the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami is not like reading Alice in Wonderland. They are different genre.

N T Wright is an in-depth researcher into the life and teachings of Jesus, the Apostle Paul and the resurrection of Jesus. He uses similar historical methodology to that of Geoffrey Blainey 1976. Triumph of the Nomads: A History of Ancient Australia. Melbourne: Macmillan.

Yuyutsu,

<<Not so radically different, compared for example with the atheist perspective that Jesus either never existed or never performed miracles, or with the Jewish perspective that Jesus was a scoundrel which deserved to be crucified (and where "Messiah" means a powerful king who conquers all surrounding lands and restores the nation of Israel to its former glory and beyond).>>

We are worldviews apart.

Let's leave it as that.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You quoted my statement that “Wright has a good analytical mind but, apparently, an aversion to or incapacity for synthetic thought and expression”, and commented :

« You gave not one statement from Wright to demonstrate this. Are you getting it from some reviewer? »

I gave as an example the fact that Wright’s religious treatise contains 817 pages, whereas, by comparison, Einstein’s groundbreaking paper on General Relativity contains only 58 pages.

I could have cited a number of other major groundbreaking treatises such as Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” (458 pages) published in 1859, or Copernicus’ “On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres” (487 pages) published in 1547, in which he formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun at the centre rather than the Earth.
.

You then observed :

« N T Wright is an in-depth researcher into the life and teachings of Jesus, the Apostle Paul and the resurrection of Jesus »
.

I agree that Wright’s book is the result of in-depth research into the life and teachings of Jesus and the apostle, Paul. However, as the author himself admits, there is very little evidence available for in-depth research into the claimed resurrection of Jesus. This is a highly disputed claim among historians and his research sheds no new light on the subject – apart from explaining that people were more prone to believing such phenomena in the first century than they are today.

As a result, in the absence of any objective evidence, his research in this domain is limited to the study of the BELIEF of the early Christians regarding the resurrection of Jesus. It is the study of THEIR INTERPRETATION of the open tomb, the empty shroud and the testimony of the privileged few who claimed to have seen the “transformed” and resuscitated Jesus.

And Wright to conclude:

« This BELIEF about Jesus provides a historically complete, thorough and satisfying reason for the rise and development of the BELIEF that he was and is the Son of God »

Nothing new there.

.

Banjo,

<< Wright’s religious treatise contains 817 pages, whereas, by comparison, Einstein’s groundbreaking paper on General Relativity contains only 58 pages.>>

Not Wright's inability of synthesis but for different purposes.

<<as the author himself admits, there is very little evidence available for in-depth research into the claimed resurrection of Jesus. >>

Please provide the quote with reference.

He claims “there are excellent, well-founded and secure historical arguments against" those who oppose Jesus’ bodily resurrection (Wright 2003:7).

You seem to have a bias against the bodily resurrection.

"Early Christian writers, both canonical and non-canonical” provide “substantial unanimity” and “SOLID EVIDENCE” affirming his resurrection on the third day. They meant this LITERALLY" (Wright 2003:9-10).

<<As a result, in the absence of any objective evidence, his research in this domain is limited to the study of the BELIEF of the early Christians regarding the resurrection of Jesus. >>

False! "The resurrection of Jesus, whatever it was, can and must be seen as at least a historical PROBLEM' (Wright 2003:12).

Wright's historical research, not of interpretation, led to the fact that Jesus' tomb was empty; this was “the secure historical conclusion” that was "in the same category of historical probability so high as to be virtually certain, as the death of Augustus in AD 14 or the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70" (2003:710).

<<It is the study of THEIR INTERPRETATION of the open tomb....>>

Do you claim the same for those who wrote a history of Captain Cook?

You quoted Wright: «This BELIEF about Jesus provides a historically complete, thorough and satisfying reason for the rise and development of the BELIEF that he was and is the Son of God »

That’s sloppy quoting. It’s in Wright (2003:681). The context deals with the complex and "remarkably consistent early Christian view" that Jesus was bodily raised after 3 days, demonstrating he was not a ghost.

You don't want to understand that it was FAITH founded on the FACT of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

<<Nothing new there.>>

You bet there is! It is not a leap of faith but FAITH founded on FACT