BaptistLife.Com Forums.

I just reread pages 198-200 of Worthen's book to see if there was something Sandy got that I missed on first reading.

Worthen gives inerrancy a fair shake, even quote Packer and Pinnock, and talks about Howard Colson's 1960's BSSB attempt to bring some modern thought into Sunday School lessons for the people in the pew he called godly.

But these good faith efforts were hijacked by the birchism of Pressler and Jesse Helms. Worthen comes to the same conclusion 80 percent of fair minded literate folks have come to regard the takeover.

How Sandy misrepresents that in good conscience is quite annoying to put it mildly.

Hope some of you folks will look at the same passage to help me if I'm missing something.

especially the closing paragraphs

http://www.christiancentury.org/blogs/a ... nversation

Ed: Sandy as so often is the case, when reading your last two post and starting to think, well Sandy has it right this time and then I get to the disparagement of Fox in the first version and then in the second you sound quite arrogant in your critique of Biblical scholars of non Christian traditions, when you say " It is quite clear that the idea of turning an itinerant, non-conformist Rabbi Jesus into the Messiah, savior and Son of God, could not have developed during the twenty years or so between the occurrence of the events, and the writing of the first gospel account, probably the Q document. Pushing that view into a discussion, and calling it genuine dialogue is nothing more than warmed over tripe. To call that a scholarly discussion is to defame the term "scholarly."

The article only defames those Christian students of scripture who are unwilling to rationally discuss the subject except on their own terms. A non christian and some Christians will read your "It is quite clear that the idea of turning an itinerant, non-conformist Rabbi Jesus into the Messiah, savior and Son of God, could not have developed during the twenty years or so between the occurrence of the events,..." and call it wishful thinking and move on with out you, unless and until you make a creditable case for it being "imposable" for it to have occurred as they believe. Note that I make a distinction between students of Scripture and Scholars who study Scripture.

Far to often we Christians ( note: I include myself) want to quote our spiritual "Cliff Notes" and declare them to override what ever objections to our belief system that come our along. A strong problem to that approach is that the Scholars we attempt to persuade, too often have already read those same Cliff Notes.

If you get into the territory of discussion of a "scholarly" nature that brings the theory that Jesus was just an itinerant, common man's rabbi, and that his disciples turned him into the messiah an the son of God through their writing, you are getting out of orthodox Christian belief and outside the parameters of the core definition of Christian faith. You can consider that scholarly dialogue if you want to, but when you get to that point, it isn't Christian scholarly dialogue.

Stephen throws his intellectual hat outside that Christian circle with his citations of individuals who, for the most part, don't declare "Jesus is Lord," and don't hold a personal belief consistent with the Apostle John in I John 4:1-3. I believe this puts him outside of the left fringe of Baptist thought.

I haven't seen it represented by you here, Ed, but I'll ask the question. Do you think that Jesus' disciples turned him into messiah and savior, or did he come for that purpose and establish that through the evidence presented in the gospels?

Ed: No Sandy, I do not think that Jesus' disciples turned him into messiah and savior. However I do have some understanding of legitimate scholars who promote that line of thinking. But I see the second part of your question, as too nebulous for a definitive reply.

Nebulous? Either it is or it isn't, there's nothing "nebulous" about it. It's hard call someone a "legitimate scholar" that questions the accuracy or legitimacy of something that is an established historical fact according to the methods prescribed by historians to make that determination. The gospels are pretty clear, and consistent accounts which identify Jesus and lend zero support to any theory that the disciples created the Jesus we worship. It's a matter of either accepting the existing evidence or not accepting it. Perhaps "scholarship" in general involves the denial of established fact, but you can't call it Christian scholarship.

()

Sandy in your wide reading and expertise on all things Jesus and Baptist takeover, has Pelikan's Jesus Through the Centuries crossed your radar?


http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=3925

I have shared the endorsement with several facebook luminaries including Worthenand Balmer and a friend in Americus who has played tennis on President Carter's personal court. She recently was given a guest subscription to Baptists today by a Furman grad, not me.

All is not in vain.