JR,

If you are going to add things like that in brackets (thus enabling the use of my observation with the annotations as a weapon) I'm going to ask questions.

You say "given the inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible". Does that mean that an atheist would become a believer if they lost that perception?

I believe for once this subject could be properly discussed by totally ignoring [not reacting] side issues by unbelievers and their sarcasm. This then would give a proper basis for understanding how believers perceive the Total Christ.

Oh Boaz, how you give yourself airs!

>>Foxy.. I saved you from further gnashing from Pericles canines:)He was going after you, but quickly diverted to his preferred prey.. 'me'<<

Foxy had already excused herself by virtue of her apology.

>>I say 'You just keep coming back with the same inaqequate and invalid refutations.. hence the continuance of such debates<<

I recall you saying on the UNCHR thread that it is up to the claimant to provide proof. All you are doing here is producing the weakest possible prima facie evidence, and then asking me to disprove it. Sorry, but the same rules apply - it is not up to me to prove you wrong, it is up to you to defend your stated position with proper evidence.

And what exactly have you produced?

That tired old chestnut, the writings of poor old Flavius Josephus, who was not even born at the time of the claimed crucifixion. As an eyewitness therefore, he is a non-starter. As a reporter, his reference to John is almost en passant.

And as a person - honestly Boaz, if you needed an ally, would you trust him? He became a spy for the Romans against his own people, for goodness' sake.

I won't even mention the disputed reference to Jesus - I am sure that you would yourself have long realized that this is a later, political addition. The change in writing style is a dead giveaway.

Boaz, if that's all you've got, well... it really ain't much at all, is it?

Incidentally, I don't know where your translation comes from, but mine says nothing at all about the "Word of God".

>>We have compelling internal and external evidence for the facts of the account.<<

Compelling, Boaz? By what stretch of the imagination is one paragraph compelling?

Especially as it contradicts the Gospels.

Or did you think that no-one would notice that small point?

Good grief Perilous.. talk about mixing up things..



1/ LUKE
a) Contradicts 'the gospels'? err.. Luke IS a Gospel.. and how does it (specially the passage I quoted) contradict the others?
b) Luke 3:3 "The Word of God came to John" which version are you reading ?

2/JOSEPHUS. I made no reference to the 'disputed' reference about Jesus, and the change in style in 'that' reference are not a sign of a later addition. Based on some very scrupulous study of the issue, the disputation is not for the whole passage, but for some elements of it, in particular those elements which are particularly supportive of Christian theology.
Feel free to consult the Arabic version, which looks like
a) It is a dumbed down "Islam friendly" version of the original, or that
b) The Josephus in Latin was a 'smarted up' version of what the possible original the Arabic is based on.

In BOTH cases, you have a reliable external report of the historic reality of Jesus of Nazareth. The apparent theological embellishments are not what you would expect from a pagan writer, but you never know.. eh. Putting them aside you still have a Jesus of history.

PROOF... P, the Human Rights thing is adversarial, I am not charging you with anything..I am making statements and claims about something separate. I say 'compelling', because (contrary to what the Rotten one said, about Rowlings) Luke in particular was 'meant to inform a promonent Roman official about factual events', not entertain people with ghost stories like Harry Potter.

In any court of opinion, it is neccessary to evaluate evidence on the basis of motives. What possible motive would Luke have for fabricating his gospel ? Specially when writing to a Roman Official who (if he found he was being hoodwinked) could have probably arranged a dubious fate for his deceiver.

Your "show me show me, c'mon prove it prove it..c'mon"... attitude smacks wayyyy more of outright bias than open mindedness.

The Total Christ

“mjpb” said, “It seems strange to wield scripture to convince people who don’t accept it as a source of authority.”

I am not trying to convince anyone about anything! I started this thread on “The Total Christ” [22 February] in response to Peter Sellick and “Waterboy” who claimed that Pierre Teilhard SJ (1881-1955) “does not represent mainstream theology.” I asked “Where is mainstream theology?” and “Who are mainstream theologians?”

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.

Or are the most “mainstream” theologians [for Catholics] the thirty 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!

“Beware of the cutters,” said St Paul (Ph.3:3). Beware of those – said Teilhard - who would cut the TOTAL CHRIST down to the Mediterranean dimensions of the Nazarene![1] We need to advance from “the Jesus of History” [the Nazarene] to “the History of Jesus” [the Total Christ] which extends from BEFORE the beginning [15 billion years ago?] to BEYOND the end of time. Even Pontius Pilate began to sense that Jesus came not only from Nazareth! He asked “Where DO you come from?”(John 19:9).

PHILO rightly said [25 February] – “I believe this subject could be properly discussed by totally ignoring side issues by unbelievers.”
___________________________________________________________________

[1] Gabriel Allegra OFM 1971 “My Conversations with Teilhard on the Primacy of Christ – Peking, 1942-45” Franciscan Herald Press

Crikey - they're talking in tongues!