The Total Christ

We have come a long way since 22 February when I started this thread [page 1] in response to Peter Sellick and “Waterboy” who agreed that Pierre Teilhard SJ (1881-1955) “does not represent mainstream theology.” I asked “Where is mainstream theology?” and “Who are mainstream theologians?”

On 25 February I asked [page 8] – “Are they [for Catholics] the members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? That was formerly known as “the Holy Office” – formerly known as “the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition." That last-named body issued “Lamentabili Sane” [“Syllabus of the Errors of the Modernists”] on 3 July 1907. That was followed by “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” [“On the Doctrine of the Modernists”] issued by Pope Pius X on 8 September 1907.”

Alternatively, I asked – “Are the most “mainstream” theologians [for Catholics] the 30 eminent members of the Church’s “International Theological Commission”? The ITC recently re-considered the doctrine of “Original Sin.”

Teilhard dared to re-consider that doctrine in 1922 and he was then “silenced” by the “Holy Office” for the remaining 33 years of his life. In fact, he is still officially “silenced” 53 years after his death!

What, if anything, do today’s “mainstream theologians” [Catholics and/or Non-Catholics] have to tell us about “the TOTAL CHRIST”?

What, if anything, does the “TOTAL CHRIST” mean to today’s “mainstream theologians”?

“There is only Christ,” said St Paul. “He is everything and in everything” (Col.3:11).

What did the Apostle to the Gentiles mean by that?

This is some kind of Turing test isn't it?

Bugsy, I think you're on to something here.

Perhaps it's some kind of amalgam of the Turing Test and the Infinite Monkey Theorem. Whatever it is, it's looking more like 'total crap' than 'total Christ'.

Pericles.. I always reserve the right to share credit where credit is due :) and if you questions get better..I don't mind recognizing that.

THINGS YOU MISSED.

1/ Josephus is writing long after the events, from a secular/Roman perspective. I find the two accounts are absolutely 2 versions of the same event, told from the perspective of the writers.

2/ Clearly Matthew saw importance in the events as he saw them.. and those to accounts do not actually contradict each other. As I said.. that they are NOT exactly the same is testimony to the authenticity of them.

3/ I cannot see any point in Matthews alleged 'embellishment'.. no point at all in adding such details. He just told it as it was.

Matthews style is without question 'colorful' and as to his reliability, I don't find reason to question it, specially when we have 3 other gospels to compare with.

Matthew says TWO blind men were healed.. Mark says 'A' blind man was healed.. is this Matthew 'embellishing' ? or it is that Mark was not interested in that detail of 2.. his point was "Jesus healed a blind man miraculously" Do we exclude Matthew or Mark ? then, what about John ? and Luke? they all report many instances of healings.. John most clearly.

A serious student of evidence (such as my buddy Simon Greenleaf) would laugh out of court the suggestion that all of these stories are mere fabrications. Its plainly absurd.

PATRONISATION for CJ and Bugsy :) 'clever, informative and inspiring contributions to this serious topic'...well done boys

Personally, I couldn't give a ha'penny jizz for your internet-assembled philosophies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQiyltvIcEQ

Interesting rebuttal, Boaz. But in case you had forgotten, the position under question is your statement:

>>the account of Luke.. who in all respects has demonstrated an attention to detail and accuracy which can in many cases be verified externally<<

In support of this, you offered a paragraph from Josephus. However...

>>Josephus is writing long after the events, from a secular/Roman perspective<<

Hardly supportive of your case, I would think.

But the foundation of your belief is that "two versions of the same event must prove that the event took place" plus "the fact they disagree in detail is evidence that they must be independent, therefore reliable"

I hope I have not misrepresented your position - please correct me if I have.

Remember, you claim "detail and accuracy which can in many cases be verified externally". Josephus, in your own words - "they disagree in detail" - clearly fails this test.

Your "buddy" Simon Greenleaf was in your position exactly: a committed Christian, with a history of activity within the church, intellectualizing about how such preposterous stories could be accepted as fact. He, as you, leveraged the "balance of probabilities" argument beyond its reasonable limits, and resorted - as you do - to the "why would they make it up?" argument.

As I have said on many occasions, we have no way to understand the inner motivations of such people. However, there is also a "balance of probabilities" argument that says that if you were intent on starting or fostering a religious movement, writing a set of documents that support your position is exactly what you would do.

But - back to the point.

Instead of presenting "detail and accuracy which can in many cases be verified externally", you offer a paragraph from a document produced, long after the event, by an individual with heavily freighted motivation.

Only you could possibly believe that this represents evidence of any kind, I'm afraid.

And even you, in the clear light of day, have to admit that it is fundamentally circumstantial and extremely unconvincing to anyone not addicted to their beliefs.