In my readings of L.T. Johnson, i have been somewhat, or at least i feel, enlightended on the subbject of the historical non-supernatural Jesus and the Jesus seminar. In this first part of the Journey i have been challenged to reflect on my faith and my beliefs in light of this so called quest.
in doing so i have decided that to simply believe in a higher being, that being GOD, it takes faith and the belief in the supernatural of some kind. so it is just not a stretch for me or my faith to believe in a supernatural birth or anything supernatural about what Jesus did or still does in peoples lives.
So weather or not the church throughout the ages has implemeted doctrines and had any kind of secret ambition, i don't care or believe, but i do know that we have writtings of works a hundred years old and we also have people who do biographies on people more than a hundred years old and we believe them, so after finding the dead sea scrolls, couldn't we view them in light of how we do stuff today, luke, though he may have gathered stories about Jesus or mark who even probably knew Jesus, wrote things after he died, it is safe to say that their sources are as good as the ones we use today to write a biogaraphy of a dead person. why cant what they say be literal of Jesus...
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with what you said. Why can't they say anything literal about Jesus? In the book we're reading for our review, Funk said "People don't want the historical Jesus, they want the cultic one," or something similar to that. And that made me angry, yet it's true. Many people, including Christians, conjure up their own ideas about Jesus based on what they WANT to believe, not necessarily on what the Scriptures say. Sad but true.
Post a Comment