AU replies to the "War on Christmas"

[USIncognito]

I'm not sure if this is the correct subforum to place this in, but it seems right since the culture warriors strum und drang smells of political motivation. I'm on the Americans United for Seperation of Church and State mailing list and this open letter from Barry Lynn to Jerry Falwell was in my inbox today. I thought I'd share it, and see if there are any comments.

Dear Jerry:

Heres some news: There is no "war on Christmas!"

Ive seen you on various television news shows claiming that there is but, in fact, there simply isnt. Even as I write this, millions of Americans are erecting Christmas trees and nativity scenes at their homes, and thousands of churches are planning special Christmas services.

And, if I might say so, most of them are planning their lives without getting permission or encouragement from you.

I am deeply disappointed that you have chosen a time that Christians observe as a season of peace and good will and turned it into a time of religious divisiveness and community conflict. Your "Friend or Foe" campaign may be great for fund-raising and publicity, but it has sown discord unnecessarily.

Contrary to your wild allegations, Jerry, neither Americans United, nor any other civil liberties organization that I know of, is waging any kind of war on Christmas. The First Amendment of our Constitution ensures every Americans right to observe religious holidays or to refrain from doing so. We can wish each other a "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays," and its really none of your business which term we choose. We can call our decorated tree a "Christmas tree" or a "holiday tree," and thats our right. (We can observe the holidays of other traditions as well.)

I think we all know whats really going on with your campaign. You want an America where there is no separation of church and state and where your rather narrow interpretation of Christianity is forced on everyone. If you can convince Americans that their cherished Christmas traditions are under fire, you think maybe they will join your nefarious crusade to tear down the protective church-state wall that guarantees our freedoms.

Well, it wont work, Jerry. Americans are, by and large, a tolerant lot, and they are quite unlikely to join forces with someone like you who is so far out on the political and religious fringes. Many people remember the outrageous comments you made after the 9/11 terrorist assaults, suggesting that America had it coming because of our (in your opinion) sinful ways. They also remember your dire warning that Tinky Winky, a kids TV character, was brainwashing our children into homosexuality! You cant rehabilitate an image like that by trying to depict yourself as Father Christmas.

I am particularly outraged that you are attacking our public schools as part of your misguided project. Our public schools serve children from 2,000 different faith traditions and some who follow no spiritual path at all. They generally do a tremendous job of helping each of these students without imposing any particular religious viewpoint. They steer a careful course, broadly allowing student religious _expression while trying to avoid school endorsement of specific faiths. That means there are sometimes disagreements about what songs should be sung in the winter concert or what decorations should go in the hall. We can work through those decisions by applying common sense, the Constitution and plain old civility.

Thanks to the crusade by you and your allies, however, some of these schools are being targeted for venomous attacks. After the Alliance Defense Fund unfairly maligned a public school in New York for its holiday observance policies, education officials there received hateful mail of all sorts. One e-mail said "You are either bigoted Jews who hate Christians or mindless secularists."

Since I debated you about the Christmas issue on Fox News Channels "OReilly Factor," I have received 66 nasty e-mails, including two death threats. Observed one of my correspondents, "Hope you die soon. Merry Christmas."

Jerry, this is the kind of interfaith and community hostility that you are stirring up, and I implore you to stop it now. You are polluting the public square with animosity and anger. And at Christmas, of all times!! Have you no decency?

Youve dubbed your latest round of antics a "Friend or Foe" campaign. Well, Jerry, I am a friend of the Constitution and a foe of intolerance. You should be too.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays,

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Executive Director

PS: I saw on a couple of the news shows that you are again questioning my ministerial credentials. I believe the _expression that you used on Fox News Channels "The Big Story with John Gibson" is that I am "about as reverend as an oak tree" and that I never "preached in" a church. Drop me a line, Jerry, and Ill send you (again) a copy of my ministerial credentials from the United Church of Christ. And by the way, Id be happy to come to Thomas Road Baptist Church and deliver the sermon on the Sunday of your choice. Your congregation might like a change of perspective every now and then.

[MagusYanam]

Unless they are heretics or anti-Christs trying to destroy Christians from pretending to be Christians. This would be a good way of looking at people like Barry Lynn.

Paranoid speculation is never a 'good way of looking at people'. Unlike the majority of religious conservatives, experience and rationality have taught me that not everyone that doesn't believe exactly the way I do is out to get me.

As for destroying Christianity, the fundamentalists seem to be doing a good job of that all on their own. I have been told personally by fundamentalists that since I didn't share their political views (I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after my parents), that I should leave the Church and reject Christ. Not exactly the most welcoming or gracious or Christian of thoughts, to be sure.

As concerns the Jesus Seminar, I don't have a Bible marked in red, pink, grey and black and the editors of my Abingdon Study Bible are members of the Seminar. I don't see them as trying to alter Scripture, which they are not, apparently, trying to do (my Bible is as complete and as pristine as anyone else's) - but they are trying (admirably) to see past the embellishments that oral transmission will inevitably have added to divine inspiration and historical fact. That they may be overzealous in this I do not deny; however I praise the attempt.

My professor of Christian theology was a great figure in theological liberalism and supporter of scholastic integrity with regard to Scripture (this includes Higher as well as Lower Criticism). Yet he is also an Episcopalian priest who does 'honour God' and 'give thanks' to him.

As regards the CRI, this passage just about established their collective character to me (and as a Christian who values humility, this sent cold shivers down my spine).

It is plain they will not engage us in full public view, for they already have the media on their side, and they know they cannot win such an engagement anyway. But this does not relieve us from the duty of "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15). We need to instruct our young people concerning the methods and errors of such "scholarship" and assure them that they are not wrong in their faith despite being told they are "out of step" with such "developments." They need to know they can respond in a meaningful way to the claims of these groups and truly "give the reason" (1 Pet. 3:15) for the hope that is within them.

These people are so sure that they are right and that everyone else is wrong that they see no reason to engage in honest debate. They have no humility and no room in their hearts, hardened as they are, to accept the idea that their theology and their view of Biblical scholarship may be in error. This is not only offensive to me, it scares me. I weep for my fellows in religion if this is to be their future.

One of the things that I love most about theological liberalism is its capacity to acknowledge and repent of its error. Theological liberals are by and large not people that value methodology above reason, or inerrancy doctrine over actual Scripture and established tradition.

[snappyanswer]

snappyanswer wrote:
Unless they are heretics or anti-Christs trying to destroy Christians from pretending to be Christians. This would be a good way of looking at people like Barry Lynn.

MagusYanam wrote:
Paranoid speculation is never a 'good way of looking at people'. Unlike the majority of religious conservatives, experience and rationality have taught me that not everyone that doesn't believe exactly the way I do is out to get me.

Is this why Jesus has to be edited by those that pervert and subvert the Gospels? Jesus said there would be scoffers and deceivers. He paranoid too?

MagusYanam wrote:
As for destroying Christianity, the fundamentalists seem to be doing a good job of that all on their own.

They should allow the tares in. Some may ask for forgiveness and find God through His Son Christ Jesus. They certainly won't find salvation from John Dominic Crossan's Jesus who was eaten by dogs outside of Jerusalem.

MagusYanam wrote:
I have been told personally by fundamentalists that since I didn't share their political views (I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat after my parents), that I should leave the Church and reject Christ. Not exactly the most welcoming or gracious or Christian of thoughts, to be sure.

And the Jesus seminar guys are saying what about the vast majority of highly educated Christians that do not believe like they do? Or do only degrees from liberal theological schools count? The apostles went to which Universities?

MagusYanamn wrote:
As concerns the Jesus Seminar, I don't have a Bible marked in red, pink, grey and black and the editors of my Abingdon Study Bible are members of the Seminar. I don't see them as trying to alter Scripture, which they are not, apparently, trying to do (my Bible is as complete and as pristine as anyone else's) - but they are trying (admirably) to see past the embellishments that oral transmission will inevitably have added to divine inspiration and historical fact. That they may be overzealous in this I do not deny; however I praise the attempt.

Interesting apologia on the Jesus seminarians. They have completely altered the scritures. That they have left in the parts of the Bible that they have voted to be of no worth has nothing to do with their unprovoked attack on scripture.

MagusYanam wrote:
My professor of Christian theology was a great figure in theological liberalism and supporter of scholastic integrity with regard to Scripture (this includes Higher as well as Lower Criticism). Yet he is also an Episcopalian priest who does 'honour God' and 'give thanks' to him.

This has nothing to do with supporting a different Gospel and a different Jesus. There are also lots of versions of gods to honour and give thanks to.

MagusYanam wrote:
As regards the CRI, this passage just about established their collective character to me (and as a Christian who values humility, this sent cold shivers down my spine).

CRI may cause this reaction in anyone, but that is not their mission.

The Christian Research Institute wrote:
It is plain they will not engage us in full public view, for they already have the media on their side, and they know they cannot win such an engagement anyway. But this does not relieve us from the duty of "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15). We need to instruct our young people concerning the methods and errors of such "scholarship" and assure them that they are not wrong in their faith despite being told they are "out of step" with such "developments." They need to know they can respond in a meaningful way to the claims of these groups and truly "give the reason" (1 Pet. 3:15) for the hope that is within them.

These people are so sure that they are right and that everyone else is wrong that they see no reason to engage in honest debate.

Hank Hannegraf does this worldwide every weekday on the radio show The Bible Answer Man. Certainly not the picture of intolerance and closed minded you have portrayed.

MagusYanam wrote:
They have no humility and no room in their hearts, hardened as they are, to accept the idea that their theology and their view of Biblical scholarship may be in error. This is not only offensive to me, it scares me. I weep for my fellows in religion if this is to be their future.

Fear not the truth right? They have the confidence to challenge heresy. Nothing inherently wroing with that.

One of the things that I love most about theological liberalism is its capacity to acknowledge and repent of its error.

Where and when have liberal theologians done that? Spong or Crossan lead a pack of unrepentant heretics. Lynn never preaches the Good news that I have ever witnessed. I have seen him many, many times on TV.

MagusYanam wrote:
Theological liberals are by and large not people that value methodology above reason, or inerrancy doctrine over actual Scripture and established tradition.

They seem to value secularism and relativism over Christ Jesus though. And certainly I have never seen a liberal theologian apologize for anything. They are always popmous and always right. Lynn and Spong again are perfect examples of liberalism becoming a major problem for sinners to find forgiveness that they do not have to ask for. This seems quite the opposite of even 16% of the teachings of the real Jesus.

[MagusYanam]

Is this why Jesus has to be edited by those that pervert and subvert the Gospels? Jesus said there would be scoffers and deceivers. He paranoid too?

I don't see Lynn editing, perverting or subverting the Gospels. I don't see him doing anything but upholding the law of the land (which may say something about his priorities). But he isn't out to get me or my Gospel. And when Jesus spoke of scoffers and deceivers, he was telling his disciples to discern for themselves and not to let such misleading get in their way.

The Jesus Seminar is just a reference point - that's all they claim, at any rate. Their approach is based in historical and literary criticism, which has its merits - yet is only one reference point. I expect that if you asked members of the Jesus Seminar whether what they were doing was the be-all-end-all of Scriptural reference, they would tell you that isn't their aim. Nor is that the aim of any historian. Each historian brings his or her own perspective to the table and attempts to establish fact and a more objective view.

And the Jesus seminar guys are saying what about the vast majority of highly educated Christians that do not believe like they do? Or do only degrees from liberal theological schools count? The apostles went to which Universities?

I didn't know the apostles had universities. Does that mean that we should not attempt to better ourselves through education now?

Theological schools are, by and large, liberal. Educated Christians with a good sense of history are, by and large, theologically liberal and postmillenialist in outlook. Pastors in general are almost always more theologically liberal than the people sitting in the pews. Yet you don't see liberal pastors excluding conservative church members from worship simply because they (may) vote Republican. I know my church doesn't do this.

They have completely altered the scritures. That they have left in the parts of the Bible that they have voted to be of no worth has nothing to do with their unprovoked attack on scripture.

You misrepresent the J-S's work. Those things considered to be embellishments are not considered 'to be of no worth'. They are working with Scripture and with other extant evidence to piece together a picture of an historical Jesus - and this is a pursuit which you seem to be looking at in the wrong way. This is not an 'attack on Scripture', this is scholarship, my friend. Scripture won't change; tradition won't change; our understanding of them both may be improved through their work. And that is a noble goal, for didn't Paul say 'in understanding, [to] be... not children, but men'?

This has nothing to do with supporting a different Gospel and a different Jesus. There are also lots of versions of gods to honour and give thanks to.

This has everything to do with the Gospel - the one based on God incarnate, the embodiment of grace, of self-sacrificial, saving love for the benefit of the world. The theology and the history, as Albrecht Ritschl established in his work, may co-exist without fear between them. Accepting the grace and the love, improving the understanding of both, spreading them to all humankind - these are the pursuits of theological liberalism.

Hank Hannegraf does this worldwide every weekday on the radio show The Bible Answer Man. Certainly not the picture of intolerance and closed minded you have portrayed.

Implying, of course, that he has all the answers and that we're supposed to seek his guidance on the Bible. [sarcasm] I'm sure we can all see the humility and the graciousness in that. [/sarcasm]

Fear not the truth right? They have the confidence to challenge heresy. Nothing inherently wroing with that.

Challenging heresy begins with examination of one's own beliefs. When fundamentalists cannot see past their own weltanschauung to address the overwhelming evidence in support of the theory of biological evolution (even to effectively argue against it), when they cling to their personality cults and icons in people like Pat Robertson and James Dobson instead of Christ, when they try to shout down and invalidate followers of the liberal tradition in spite of all the good we has done for the world, my every intuition as a moral being cries that there is something inherently wrong in their view.

Where and when have liberal theologians done that?

History is rife with examples. William Ellery Channing realised his own errors and those of his church (Orthodox Calvinism) and began preaching a different message, that of Unitarianism. This one leaned too far from tradition, however, leaving Horace Bushnell to moderate Channing's message and bring it back into Athanasian Christianity. Bushnell's beliefs were later corrected in light of Scripture by the likes of Albrecht Ritschl, William Adams Brown, Walter Rauschenbusch, Edgar S. Brightman and the epitome of theological liberalism in the Boston Personalist school, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

In my own church, the Episcopal Church, we are currently trying to examine ourselves and our beliefs on such issues as gay ordination.

They seem to value secularism and relativism over Christ Jesus though.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a relativist, and neither is any other self-respecting liberal of today. He believed, and rightly so, that segregation and racism were objectively wrong, and that action was needed to fight them.

And who was the guide throughout the civil rights movement? Who remains the guide of the liberal churches up to the present day? A simple Jewish carpenter of an age long past, who also happened to be the incarnation of God's grace and self-sacrificial love, who poured himself out for all the world to save the world.

And certainly I have never seen a liberal theologian apologize for anything. They are always popmous and always right. Lynn and Spong again are perfect examples of liberalism becoming a major problem for sinners to find forgiveness that they do not have to ask for.

Then you haven't looked hard enough. There have been a few pompous, arrogant liberal theologians out there (Reinhold Niebuhr comes readily to mind), but these are far outnumbered by those who conduct themselves in humility and service and who exude the grace bestowed upon them by our Saviour. Walter Brueggemann, Hans Kueng, Gary J. Dorrien... none of these people has their own television station or their own lobbying group, yet these theologians are real and their books and their messages ring of truth and of the Gospel.

Did sinners have to ask Jesus for grace? No; he gave it them freely - that's part of the Good News. But he left it to our charge to forgive and to seek forgiveness and reconciliation amongst ourselves. Just because we have been forgiven and we haven't had to ask for it doesn't mean we are to neglect our duties to others as you seem to imply. No, quite the opposite - that we have been shown divine grace through the burden Christ took upon himself should be even greater reason to show that grace to others.

[snappyanswer]

snappyanswer wrote:
Is this why Jesus has to be edited by those that pervert and subvert the Gospels? Jesus said there would be scoffers and deceivers. He paranoid too?

MagusYanam wrote:
I don't see Lynn editing, perverting or subverting the Gospels. I don't see him doing anything but upholding the law of the land (which may say something about his priorities). But he isn't out to get me or my Gospel. And when Jesus spoke of scoffers and deceivers, he was telling his disciples to discern for themselves and not to let such misleading get in their way.

The Reverend i see is an anti-Christian zealot. He does not fool many people, but he seems to think he does. There is no constitutional law of seperation of Church and state. None. Jesus spoke of scoffers AND deceivers. That does not need liberal or conservative debate. Deceivers are deceivers.

MagusYanam wrote:
The Jesus Seminar is just a reference point - that's all they claim, at any rate. Their approach is based in historical and literary criticism, which has its merits - yet is only one reference point. I expect that if you asked members of the Jesus Seminar whether what they were doing was the be-all-end-all of Scriptural reference, they would tell you that isn't their aim. Nor is that the aim of any historian. Each historian brings his or her own perspective to the table and attempts to establish fact and a more objective view.

And Crossan is on the discovery and History channels with his Jesus eaten by dogs. Enough said.

snappyanswer wrote:
And the Jesus seminar guys are saying what about the vast majority of highly educated Christians that do not believe like they do? Or do only degrees from liberal theological schools count? The apostles went to which Universities?

MagusYanam wrote: I didn't know the apostles had universities.

Interesting huh?

MagusYanam wrote:
Does that mean that we should not attempt to better ourselves through education now?

A different Gospel and a different Jesus does not better anybody but Satan.

MagusYanam wrote:
Theological schools are, by and large, liberal. Educated Christians with a good sense of history are, by and large, theologically liberal and postmillenialist in outlook. Pastors in general are almost always more theologically liberal than the people sitting in the pews. Yet you don't see liberal pastors excluding conservative church members from worship simply because they (may) vote Republican. I know my church doesn't do this.

Republican Christian hold firmly onto the truth. There is no reason to kick them out of any healthy church. Liberal schools do not mean, or do not necessarily have to mean, heretical dens of anti-Christian and progressive heresy. Liberal means teaching a diverse view on many things. It becomes Satanic when Christ is not God. You know when the fundamentals of the faith are changed.

snappyanswer wrote:
They have completely altered the scritures. That they have left in the parts of the Bible that they have voted to be of no worth has nothing to do with their unprovoked attack on scripture.

MagusYanam wrote:
You misrepresent the J-S's work.

No I have not. I have read and understood what they have presented. It is heretical. Colored beads and all.

MagusYanam wrote:
Those things considered to be embellishments are not considered 'to be of no worth'.

Please excuse me in thinking your position is not correct. They consider the embellishments to be of no worth. And they are not new:

A Survey of Historical Jesus Studies: From Reimarus to Wright

By: Michael H. Burer , Th.M., Ph.D.

Introduction
The study of the life, ministry, and person of Jesus Christ has been at the center of the Churchs thinking since its inception, but the last two hundred years have seen a marked change in how those within the Church and those without have examined Jesus and the Churchs conceptions about him. The Enlightenment brought sweeping change to the world, and religious studies were no exception. Everything, even Jesus himself, fell prey to critical method and examination, and the current state of Jesus studies and Christology can be traced back to this fundamental change in the worlds way of thinking. The period of time covered in this study dates from the Enlightenment to the present day, with two respective scholars being used as bookends.1 Of course nothing is as simple as it seems. Hermann Samuel Reimarus did not think in a vacuum; recent study has pointed to trends and periods earlier than the Enlightenment which influenced his thinking.2 He was the first to give voice, however, to anything substantially different from the tradition and teaching received in the church throughout the seventeen and a half centuries before his writings were published, so he is seen as the starting point for modern critical study of Jesus. Using Reimarus as a starting point is now generally accepted as heuristically viable and useful. N. T. Wright is the ending point because he more than many other scholars is doing things in a positive way. He has a respect for history, a thirst for theology, and a sound method. So between these two men comes a period which is important to understand for those who wish to study Jesus and proclaim him in the next century.

Two caveats are in order before beginning. First, this study seeks to give an overview, not detailed analysis. I will show major trends evident in this period, I will identify major players, and I will offer tentative evaluations for the future direction of Jesus studies. It is a definitely a birds eye view. Second, terms must be defined. Technically "Historical Jesus studies" and "Christology" are not identical areas of study even though they focus upon the same person. Studies of the historical Jesus seek to explain and disseminate a reconstruction of his human life and work which is critically accurate and defensible; it is the practice of history. Christology, on the other hand, generally studies the meaning and significance of his death and divine life, both pre-existence and resurrection life, as they are expounded by the Church beyond Historical categories to spiritual and religious meaning and truth; it is the practice of theology. The quandary which this period leaves us and which anyone who serious delves into this area must address is the current divorce in religious studies between the historical Jesus and the Christological Jesus, between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Historical Jesus studies and Christology should go hand in hand; it is only in an attempt to be focused and concise that I have only looked at one side of the equation.

Overview of Historical Jesus Studies: Reimarus to Wright
The history of Historical Jesus studies during this period has generally been divided into recognizable periods. Although there is danger in defining anything into rigid periods of time, these classifications have proven themselves useful in tracking the major trends of study and patterns of thought in Jesus studies in the last two hundred years. Despite slight differences in naming, these distinct periods are generally recognized and used in almost every work concerning this time. My method will be to explain general trends and direction for each period of time as well as major players who helped to define that period. The major periods are the Old Quest, from 1778 to 1906; an interim period or "No Quest,"3 from 1906 to 1953; the New Quest, from 1953 to the present day; and the Third Quest, from the early 1980s until the present day.

The Old Quest (1778-1906)
The first Quest for the historical Jesus, now defined generally as the Old Quest, received its name from the title given to the English translation of Albert Schweitzers book, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, published in 1906.4 The English translation was given the title The Quest of the Historical Jesus which came to be used for the pattern of study as a whole.5 There perhaps is one basic, broad attitude which operated during this period: a true, critical understanding of the history of Jesus life leads one away from the faith that had been received by the contemporary church.6 This time was the time of the Enlightenment. Dogma and revelation no longer were accepted as accurate sources of information. Critical history, devoted to sources and "objectivity," held primacy of place in the determination of truth. Scholars working during this time felt that only critical historical work could truly discover who Jesus was. They believed it could strip away inaccurate layers of interpretation placed upon him by later followers which were not historical in any sense. This method of investigation had been used in other fields, and it was now time to apply it to the Bible. The application of this method of history upon the Gospel materials and their central character yielded something far different than what was normally understood to be true. The essential conclusion was that the Jesus of history was in no way equal to or coextensive with the Christ of faith. In fact, the Jesus of history had been transformed into the Christ of faith by naﶥ people at best, deceivers at worst. Along with this recovery of the true Jesus of history, the Old Quest carried with it the implicit assumption that the theology of the church should change to correct itself in light of this new historical revelation.7 The belief in Christ passed down throughout the ages in the church had been built on an improper historical understanding. In light of that, the belief should now change.

The starting point for this historical quest was Hermann Samuel Reimarus. Born in 1694, he was a professor of Oriental languages in Hamburg until his death in 1768. Interestingly enough, he never made his views about Christianity publicly known during his lifetime. It was not until Reimarus works were published posthumously by Gotthold EphraﭠLessing in fragments from 1774 to 1778 that his private views were made public. The most important fragment was the seventh one, published in 1778, entitled "Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner J?" variously translated as "On the Intention of Jesus and His Disciples"8 or "The Goal of Jesus and His Disciples."9 This truly was the fragment which started the quest for the historical Jesus.10

In "Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner J?#8221; Reimarus postulated an intense difference between who Jesus actually was and what his disciples proclaimed him to be. Wrights assessment of Reimarus is useful as a summary:

Jesus was a Jewish reformer who became increasingly fanatical and politicized; and he failed. His cry of dereliction on the cross signalled the end of his expectation that his god would act to support him. The disciples fell back on a different model of Messiahship, announced that he had been raised, and waited for their god to bring the end of the world. They too were disappointed, but instead of crying out in despair they founded the early Catholic church, which to Reimarus may have looked like much the same thing.11

Jesus was a revolutionary who tried and failed; the disciples were deceivers who propagated a view of Jesus they knew to be false. Reimarus in his mind had unearthed a historical Jesus antithetical to the Christ of faith, and he hoped it would be the demise of Christianity as he knew it.12

Once begun, the quest of the historical Jesus continued in earnest. David Friedrich Strauss is perhaps the best known scholar from this period. Born in 1808, he held various teaching posts in his early life. He was called to Z?as a Professor of Theology in 1839, but because of opposition to him by conservative Christians he was never allowed to take up his post. He lived as a freelance writer after that until his death in 1874.13 Strauss wrote his monumental work Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet14 when he was 28 years old. In this work he patently rejected supernaturalism and rationalism and described the churchs handling of the historical information about Christ as myth. Strauss accepted a bare historical framework of Jesus lifeincluding events such as his baptism by John the Baptist, his teaching and making of disciples, as well as his death due to the hostility of the Phariseesbut the early church elaborated upon this and turned the historical Jesus into something he was not by a twofold process. First, the church interpreted the events of Jesus life as fulfillment of prophecy and Old Testament belief and expectation, thus establishing him as Messiah. Second, in accordance with his reputation as Messiah, the church created myths and legends about him through the vehicle of community belief. "The historical Jesus was thus turned into the divine Messiah by the pious, but erroneous devotion of the church."15 Thus according to Strauss the historical Jesus was buried underneath deep layers of myth, so much so that a biography of his life was nearly impossible to write.

Following Strauss was a true giant of the Christian faith and scholarly insight who marks both the end of the Old Quest and a new direction for Historical Jesus studies. Albert Schweitzer was truly a genius in his own right. He published his magnum opus, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, in 1906 at the age of 31. Not only did he prove himself to be an influential biblical scholar, he also distinguished himself in the field of music and medicine. It is well known that the last fifty years of his life were spent as a missionary doctor in Africa.16 His work contributed to the study of the historical Jesus in two ways. First, he declared the original quest to be void of results. In his estimation, the liberal lives of the nineteenth century were simply reflections of those who sought the historical Jesus. Second, he took issue with them for minimizing or neglecting the eschatological dimension of Jesus words and actions in an attempt to make him more universal. Schweitzer felt that the key to understanding Jesus was his eschatology. Jesus could not be divorced from the eschatological context which he shared with the Judaism of his day and be understood in any reasonable fashion. The problem with Schweitzers view is the extreme form of apocalypticism which he believed Jesus held. Wrights assessment is useful at this point:

He [i.e., Jesus] believed himself to be the Messiah while the onlookers thought he might be Elijah; he confidently expected that his god would step in and bring the world to an end during the course of his ministry. He dreamed the impossible dream of the kingdom, bringing about the end of world history. When this did not happen, and the great wheel of history refused to turn, he threw himself upon it, was crushed in the process, but succeeded in turning it none the less. He thus took upon himself the Great Affliction which was to break upon Israel and the world. The bridge between his historical life and Christianity is formed by his personality: he towers over history, and calls people to follow him in changing the world. The very failure of his hopes set them free from Jewish shackles, to become, in their new guise, the hope of the world.17

Schweitzer thus halted the Old Quest so severely that it would not continue for another 50 years, yet he also set the stage for the Third Quest which would not start until 75 years after his writing and fifteen years after his death in 1965.

An Interim Period (1906-1953)
The period immediately following the publication of Schweitzers decisive work was a hiatus from the study of the historical Jesus. It has even been called the period of "No Quest."18 Schweitzer had so effectively critiqued the Old Quest concerning its universalizing tendencies and lack of apocalyptic vision that scholarly pursuit into the historical Jesus was halted. Historical skepticism was the major feature of this period and its epitome is found in Rudolf Bultmann. A description of him and his views is sufficient for understanding this period.

Bultmann lived from 1884 until 1976. Throughout his life he held various teaching positions at different schools in Germany. He is most famous for his contributions to form criticism detailed in his work Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition.19 Bultmann contributed to this interim period between the quests by focusing the attention of history upon the early church, not the life of Jesus. The material in the Gospels does not illuminate the life of Jesus but the Sitz im Leben of the church. Jesus words were in fact those of Christian preachers speaking in his name, and the Christ which was preached was the Christ of faith, not the Jesus of history. Because of these characteristics of the New Testament documents, little could be said about the life of Jesus; material to gather that information simply did not exist in the New Testament. Despite this historical problem, Bultmann saw no need for the theology of the church to change in the slightest due to any historical study or knowledge. The theology of the church was in place because of a response to Jesus, not because of historical verity, and could stand as it was with no challenge to change from historical judgments. Jesus places an existential call to decision upon the lives of all whom he touches, and indeed the historical disjunction between his life and faith makes this existentialism all the stronger in Bultmanns thought. 20

The New Quest (1953 to the present)
The force of Bultmanns thinking and theology was difficult to overcome, but not impossible. The next stage of serious investigation of the historical Jesus softened the skepticism of Bultmann somewhat, but it did not alter at any fundamental level the wide reaching disdain for the historical record contained in the New Testament materials. This renewal of the Old Quest shares many characteristics of its predecessor and carries many of its assertions much further.

The New Quest began on October 23, 1953 when Ernst K䳥mann presented his lecture on "The Problem of the Historical Jesus" to a reunion of Bultmanns students. The ideals and methods adopted by the New Quest did differ somewhat from Bultmanns thought. K䳥mann criticized Bultmanns total disconnection of history and faith, emphasizing that Jesus must be rooted in history to some degree to avoid docetism which would allow Christ to be formed however the scholar wills.21 This was a valid criticism which the New Quest was right to take up. However, the New Quest remained in the same vein as its predecessors in many ways. As Bultmann did, those within the New Quest relied heavily upon the sayings of Jesus as primary material, generally ignoring the events surrounding his life as worthy material for discerning the historical Jesus.22 The New Quest makes full use of critical tools such as source and form criticism which Wright asserts "have caused considerable difficulty when it comes to serious historical reconstruction."23 The New Quest generally holds to an extreme view of apocalyptic and rejects it in contrast to Schweitzer who accepted it. The New Quest generally views scripture in a manner similar to Wilhelm Wredes in that the majority of the framework and content can be traced to the early church and is useless in establishing any type of historical truth.24

The best known permutation of the New Quest is the Jesus Seminar. Headed by Robert Funk, the Jesus Seminar purports to undertake a serious, scholarly analysis of the material in the New Testament with the goal of determining who Jesus really was and freeing the Church from the improper interpretation handed down through the centuries.25 Serious analysis of the Jesus Seminar has been undertaken by many scholars,26 so only two major points need to be stated here. One, the Jesus Seminar falls right in line behind both Bultmanns and Wredes skepticism. One need not read very far into the writings of the Seminar to find statements arguing against the historicity of the New Testament documents. This general attitude has shifted the burden of proof to those who claim historicity. This skepticism is obvious in their results: the Seminar does not rate many sayings or deeds at all as being exactly what Jesus said or did, so they are left with very little information upon which to base their historical reconstruction. Second, it can be charged that the Seminar is simply working to prove forgone conclusions about who Jesus really was. In the Introduction to The Five Gospels, the authors present many "Rules" which on the surface are intended to be understood as objective facts which guide their investigation.27 Many of these "Rules," however, are far from settled in modern scholarship and simply represent the bias of the Seminar. As a matter of comparison, one such rule concerns Jesus teaching: "Jesus images are concrete and vivid, his sayings and parables customarily metaphorical and without explicit application."28 Few would argue the accuracy of this statement. However, on the very same page is another statement of very doubtful worth: "Jesus makes no claim to be the Anointed, the messiah."29 To make this claim as a "Rule" intended to guide the investigation is an a priori assumption which can only be seen as a conclusion reached before the investigation even starts. A cursory investigation of recent scholarship on Jesus statements and view of himself will show that this question is in no way settled, and there is no scholarly consensus. Assuming their conclusions is a serious flaw in the Seminars investigation, and it casts doubt upon the value of their work. Given these brief assessments, it is not difficult to see how the Seminar arrived at their conclusions: Jesus was a wise man, a sage who was distinct but not in any miraculous, apocalyptic, Christological way.[/quote]

They are working within their own agenda.

MagusYanam wrote:
They are working with Scripture and with other extant evidence to piece together a picture of an historical Jesus - and this is a pursuit which you seem to be looking at in the wrong way. This is not an 'attack on Scripture', this is scholarship, my friend.

They should not let Crossan represent them as a scholar on Jesus. That man is simply a heretic, yet, is used again and again as a expert. Spong to me is even worse and Lynn is a sad man.

MagusYanam wrote:
Scripture won't change; tradition won't change; our understanding of them both may be improved through their work. And that is a noble goal, for didn't Paul say 'in understanding, [to] be... not children, but men'?

Paul would be the last person I would quote to back up heretics. He said to hold on firmly to the truth after testing it. He never said to allow heretics to keep on with their madness unchallenged. Especially seeing these men like Lynn claim to be brothers (in the faith, BTW delivered ONLY once).

snappyanswer wrote:
This has nothing to do with supporting a different Gospel and a different Jesus. There are also lots of versions of gods to honour and give thanks to.

MagusYanam wrote:
This has everything to do with the Gospel - the one based on God incarnate, the embodiment of grace, of self-sacrificial, saving love for the benefit of the world. The theology and the history, as Albrecht Ritschl established in his work, may co-exist without fear between them. Accepting the grace and the love, improving the understanding of both, spreading them to all humankind - these are the pursuits of theological liberalism.

Which Jesus does the Church bring to the world? One that allows non-Christians to call themselves Christians while attackling the beliefs of the body of believers? Jesus and the letters speak volumes about rooting out heretics and liars.

snappyanswer wrote:
Hank Hannegraf does this worldwide every weekday on the radio show The Bible Answer Man. Certainly not the picture of intolerance and closed minded you have portrayed.

MagusYanam wrote:
Implying, of course, that he has all the answers and that we're supposed to seek his guidance on the Bible. [sarcasm] I'm sure we can all see the humility and the graciousness in that. [/sarcasm]

I do not agree with several thinsg Hannegraf does, but they are minor points, not the foundation (fundamentals) of belief in Christ Jesus.

snappyanswer wrote:
Fear not the truth right? They have the confidence to challenge heresy. Nothing inherently wroing with that.

MagusYanam wrote:
Challenging heresy begins with examination of one's own beliefs.

And once you have taken the log out of your own eye then it IS time to help a brother or sister in error.

MagusYanam wrote:
When fundamentalists cannot see past their own weltanschauung to address the overwhelming evidence in support of the theory of biological evolution (even to effectively argue against it),

Jesus is not an evolved species of anything. Niether are we. Whatever evolutionists want to spout off about, it is not that man is created in the image of an ape or squirrel that screwed its way to the top of the heap of life forms. No way. As I have shown you, theologians in your own congregation believe that Jesus is a myth, because of evolution.

MagusYanam wrote:
. . . when they cling to their personality cults and icons in people like Pat Robertson and James Dobson instead of Christ,

Niether are heretics. Niether teach a false Christ. Dobson in fact is extremely healthy for the Church. Robertason, needs to get real on some issues, but not a morally sound body of Christ.

MagusYanam wrote: . . . when they try to shout down and invalidate followers of the liberal tradition in spite of all the good we has done for the world, my every intuition as a moral being cries that there is something inherently wrong in their view.

Many will say to Jesus that they did many great things in His Name. But if he was eaten by dogs and not resurrected in Glory OR didn't say 70% of what He said, then liberal leaders deserve to be fought at every turn for the wrong they preach and are doing in leading people into error.

[snappyanswer]

snappyanswer wrote:
Where and when have liberal theologians done that?

MagusYanam wrote:
History is rife with examples. William Ellery Channing realised his own errors and those of his church (Orthodox Calvinism) and began preaching a different message, that of Unitarianism.

Unitarianism is completely heretical.

MagusYanam wrote:
This one leaned too far from tradition, however, leaving Horace Bushnell to moderate Channing's message and bring it back into Athanasian Christianity. Bushnell's beliefs were later corrected in light of Scripture by the likes of Albrecht Ritschl, William Adams Brown, Walter Rauschenbusch, Edgar S. Brightman and the epitome of theological liberalism in the Boston Personalist school, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

Content of character. Actions speak louder, or as loud as words. Words call to action. If King Jr. would have told the world that Jesus didn't say 70% of what is in the Gospels he would have had few followers. Even now the worst examples of people with no decent content in their character claim a high regard for King. His culture certainly does not follow his example.

MagusYanam wrote:
In my own church, the Episcopal Church, we are currently trying to examine ourselves and our beliefs on such issues as gay ordination.

Christianty Today has an article about that this issue. There may be hope yet that the heretics that ordain unrepeantant and open sinners will be put into there place as tares to be tolerated only; and certainly not exhalted into places of leadership. Paul made it clear about what kind of person should lead the church. It is time to start finding married people that were virgins before they were married and exhalt them to leadership positions and support them every way and any way we can.

snappyanswer wrote:
They seem to value secularism and relativism over Christ Jesus though.

MagusYanam wrote:
Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a relativist, and neither is any other self-respecting liberal of today. He believed, and rightly so, that segregation and racism were objectively wrong, and that action was needed to fight them.

He was right. That does not mean we throw open the doors and allow anything within the walls of the Church and within the body of believers. People now are more slaves to more things than just southern plantation owners.

MagusYanam wrote:
And who was the guide throughout the civil rights movement?

People that were right ON THE ISSUES of black civil rights. Now many of those leaders are heretics or at least in gross error on many things.

MagusYanam wrote:
Who remains the guide of the liberal churches up to the present day? A simple Jewish carpenter of an age long past, who also happened to be the incarnation of God's grace and self-sacrificial love, who poured himself out for all the world to save the world.

Incarnation od God's grace OR God? Please define your Jesus? It appears from the Anglican Communion there are Jesus' that actually never existed.

snappyanswer wrote:
And certainly I have never seen a liberal theologian apologize for anything. They are always popmous and always right. Lynn and Spong again are perfect examples of liberalism becoming a major problem for sinners to find forgiveness that they do not have to ask for.

MagusYanam wrote:
Then you haven't looked hard enough. There have been a few pompous, arrogant liberal theologians out there (Reinhold Niebuhr comes readily to mind), but these are far outnumbered by those who conduct themselves in humility and service and who exude the grace bestowed upon them by our Saviour.

Pompus and educated elite go hand in hand. Liberal theologians dine at political feasts while the poor are fed by Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham.

MagusYanam wrote:
Walter Brueggemann, Hans Kueng, Gary J. Dorrien... none of these people has their own television station or their own lobbying group, yet these theologians are real and their books and their messages ring of truth and of the Gospel.

I'll agree with you 100% that TV evangelists are to be treated with absolute skepticism. TBN I rarely watch without getting sick. I mean really ill. But Robertson, Dobson and Falwell, teach and preach the right Jesus. Though Robertson errs more than the other two when it comes to talking about non-believers.

MagusYanam, wrote:
Did sinners have to ask Jesus for grace? No; he gave it them freely - that's part of the Good News.

The Gospel account of grace is an offer freely accepted and freely rejected.

MagusYanam wrote:
But he left it to our charge to forgive and to seek forgiveness and reconciliation amongst ourselves.

And to seperate if necessary. It is most necessary in todays world of relativism for Christians to find safety for their children away from churchyes that allow anything goes, instead of transforminf lives. Liberal theolgy shoudl not and doesn't have to mean giving free reign to sinners to go unchallenged in the congregation.

MagusYanam wrote:
Just because we have been forgiven and we haven't had to ask for it doesn't mean we are to neglect our duties to others as you seem to imply.

Where is it taught in the Gospel or letters that we do not have to ask for forgiveness? Confessing sins would show the logical course of things to be asking for forgiveness. Unless the sacrifice of Jesus is grasped with all of our hearts and minds AND bodies, there is little fellowship that should be given to the kind of person that thinks there is faith but no works.

MagusYanam wrote:
No, quite the opposite - that we have been shown divine grace through the burden Christ took upon himself should be even greater reason to show that grace to others.

Grace does not mean allowing poisonous people with harmful theology to be members or leaders of your congregation.

[MagusYanam]

I see that snappyanswer is more interested in posting inflammatory comments and daemonising Christians who disagree with him than engaging in actual debate. Despite the constant anti-rational witch-hunt cry of 'heresy' throughout the last couple of snappyanswer's posts and the smorgasbord of definitions snappyanswer seems to be using for it, I shall attempt to stipulate what I believe to be a cogent definition.

The Anglican Communion has three authorities for correct belief: the Scriptures, the whole of Church tradition (including Victorian rationalism) and reason itself. The cornerstones of Church tradition are the Book of Common Prayer and the Nicene Creed as contained within. As long as our practise is consistent with the Nicene Creed, the word 'heresy' is not to be applied to us.

The Nicene Creed appears here exactly as it appears in the Book of Common Prayer.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This is the Creed that liberals, as well as conservatives, hold in our church as well as in the other mainline denominations: Methodist, Presbyterian, Northern Baptist et cetera. It is what has been laid down as a set of boundary conditions, amongst which there can be infinite diversity of opinion within the 'one holy catholic and apostolic Church'.

Belief in biological evolution or an ancient earth is not heresy, for while the Nicene Creed asserts that God is the 'maker of all that is, seen and unseen', it is not explicit with regard to the mechanisms in that making. Liberal politics are not heresy, for by and large they follow Jesus' teachings very well with regard to the poor and with regard to social and economic justice. Historical criticism of the Gospel is not heresy unless it tries to make claims about purely theological matters such as the ascension of Jesus into heaven. Thus, while I think some of the conclusions to which the Jesus Seminar comes are inherently flawed, I don't think their purpose or their MO inherently flawed.

And yet, what do we see the conservatives doing throughout the history of the Church? They are breaking apart the one holy catholic and apostolic Church in which they profess belief in an astonishingly hypocritical policy, dividing it against itself, and over what? Over petty politics, over science, over scholarship (or lack thereof)? snappyanswer protests too much, methinks. Indeed, why did snappyanswer think separation was 'most necessary' among fellows in faith, even when it is proven to him that 'liberal' does not mean 'anything goes'?

[snappyanswer]

I see that snappyanswer is more interested in posting inflammatory comments and daemonising Christians who disagree with him than engaging in actual debate.

Christianity Today. The current issue has a long article about the Anglican Communion. "Global Anglicans Flex Muscle." In a phote on page 54 are two Bishops; Nigerian Bishop Akinola and Bishop of cantebury Rowan Williams.

Wlliams is heralded by Bishop Spong as the man to usher in a new Jesus. This has been shared with the forum here before:

A Bishop Speaks
John Shelby Spong

The Right Man for a New World
The new Archbishop of Canterbury must get rid of the Jesus who "died for our sins."

In late February the Church of England, the mother church of Anglicanism, will install a new leader. He is an interesting man and, in my opinion, the best of all possible choices to head the third largest group of Christians in the world. His name is Rowan Williams.

Williams has the academic skills to engage changing ideas in our culture. One hopes he will use these gifts to hammer out a Christianity that is both relevant and believable. Christianity desperately needs to escape the language of antiquity that has portrayed sacrifice and shed blood as signs of salvation.

The Jesus who "died for our sins" has simply got to go in our post-Darwinian world.

Christianity must move beyond a rescuing Jesus, who overcame a fall that never happened, even metaphorically, to restore human life to a status it has never had, even mythologically.

Williams' task is nothing less than to articulate a new Christianity for a new world.

Williams is nothing new but a hertic preaching heresy. MagausYanam, even you claim a mother that is a biological evolutionist and is a Christian. Does she believe that Jesus did not actually die for our sins? Someone is right on this issue and someone is a heretic. Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles backs up my stance.

Despite the constant anti-rational witch-hunt cry of 'heresy' throughout the last couple of snappyanswer's posts and the smorgasbord of definitions snappyanswer seems to be using for it, I shall attempt to stipulate what I believe to be a cogent definition.

YOUR beliefs does not disprove my challenge and facts.

The Anglican Communion has three authorities for correct belief: the Scriptures, the whole of Church tradition (including Victorian rationalism) and reason itself.

Is it reasonable to call oneself a Christian and yet disbelieve in everything that makes a person a Christian namely the resurrection and fact of Jesus Christ? Jesus, Peter, Paul and Jihn fromn scripture makes my point for me.

The cornerstones of Church tradition are the Book of Common Prayer and the Nicene Creed as contained within.

The Cornerstone of the Christian community is Christ Crucifed and Resurrected.

As long as our practise is consistent with the Nicene Creed, the word 'heresy' is not to be applied to us.

True enough unless Anglicans follow heretics like Spong, Crossan and Williams. Scriture condems their actions and their followers not my posts.

The Nicene Creed appears here exactly as it appears in the Book of Common Prayer.

The Book of Common Prayer; Holy Eucharist Rite II wrote:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I can find within the Creed many things that Liberal Theolgians have rejected. Shall we psot this in another thread? Williams and Spong stand condemend by this Creed.

This is the Creed that liberals, as well as conservatives, hold in our church as well as in the other mainline denominations: Methodist, Presbyterian, Northern Baptist et cetera. It is what has been laid down as a set of boundary conditions, amongst which there can be infinite diversity of opinion within the 'one holy catholic and apostolic Church'.

YES, they represent what has become termed as Fundamentals.

Belief in biological evolution or an ancient earth is not heresy, for while the Nicene Creed asserts that God is the 'maker of all that is, seen and unseen', it is not explicit with regard to the mechanisms in that making.

Please prepare an apologia in defense of Spong and Willimas then?

Liberal politics are not heresy, for by and large they follow Jesus' teachings very well with regard to the poor and with regard to social and economic justice.

But have embraced heretical actions on sin and sinners. Spong admits to ordaining an openly and unrepeantant homosexual to the leadership over believers.

Historical criticism of the Gospel is not heresy unless it tries to make claims about purely theological matters such as the ascension of Jesus into heaven. Thus, while I think some of the conclusions to which the Jesus Seminar comes are inherently flawed, I don't think their purpose or their MO inherently flawed.

Unless they are of the class of anti-Christs mentioned in the New Testament. False teachers come from the body of believers. Do I really need to list the scripture evidence?

And yet, what do we see the conservatives doing throughout the history of the Church? They are breaking apart the one holy catholic and apostolic Church in which they profess belief in an astonishingly hypocritical policy, dividing it against itself, and over what? Over petty politics, over science, over scholarship (or lack thereof)? snappyanswer protests too much, methinks.

"Petty politics, over science, over scholarship?" These thinsg are being used to define true believers. Certainly not a petty bunch of issues. You seem to have no problem in testing the faith of conservatives. I am hoping that the same zeal will be put into action where other errors are shown. The Anglican Communion is not part of the catholic and apostolic church, that they broke away from. I'll give a call to the Vatican and check it out.

Indeed, why did snappyanswer think separation was 'most necessary' among fellows in faith, even when it is proven to him that 'liberal' does not mean 'anything goes'?

The Anglican Communion has proven that liberalism means "anything goes" and this is what is what is being fought against by the "conservatives" within the body of that particular denomination. Please get a copy of the January 2006 issue of Christianity Today and see for yourself.

[MagusYanam]

Williams is nothing new but a hertic preaching heresy.

Perhaps you'd better apply to Williams for that and not to what Spong thinks our good Archbishop believes. The results may surprise you.

MagausYanam, even you claim a mother that is a biological evolutionist and is a Christian. Does she believe that Jesus did not actually die for our sins? Someone is right on this issue and someone is a heretic. Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles backs up my stance.

Yes, my mother does work at the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology labs at Brown and yes, she does believe that Jesus did die for our sins. Paul can't help you if you're working from a faulty implicit premise.

Is it reasonable to call oneself a Christian and yet disbelieve in everything that makes a person a Christian namely the resurrection and fact of Jesus Christ?

Are you implying that liberal Christians disbelieve in the Resurrection? I daresay that is an extraordinary claim, as I certainly believe Jesus to have 'ascended into heaven'. And I'm as liberal as He made them.

The Cornerstone of the Christian community is Christ Crucifed and Resurrected.

Undoubtedly. But you must see the need for creeds, as it were.

True enough unless Anglicans follow heretics like Spong, Crossan and Williams. Scriture condems their actions and their followers not my posts.

You suppose actions which you believe Scripture to condemn. So far I have seen no historical proof for a Jesus eaten by dogs, I have seen nothing to indicate Williams' apostasy regarding the Crucifixion and Resurrection. All said, you have built no case against them from Scripture or from fact, and are depending on the force of emotionalism to carry your argument.

I can find within the Creed many things that Liberal Theolgians have rejected. Shall we psot this in another thread? Williams and Spong stand condemend by this Creed.

Which they themselves profess? I highly doubt it. I don't agree with Spong on a great deal, but at least I can recognise the latitude he is due to hold an independent opinion.

YES, they represent what has become termed as Fundamentals.

Note that nowhere in the Nicene Creed are established Biblical inerrancy, total depravity or literal creationism. Fundamentalists seem to be straying quite far from the fundamentals they claim to uphold.

But have embraced heretical actions on sin and sinners. Spong admits to ordaining an openly and unrepeantant homosexual to the leadership over believers.

No different than any other sinner in the eyes of God, and given that I don't know Bishop Robertson personally, I wouldn't presume to know whether or not he repents of his sins.

Unless they are of the class of anti-Christs mentioned in the New Testament. False teachers come from the body of believers. Do I really need to list the scripture evidence?

Indeed, but I would be more inclined to list Dobson, Falwell and Robertson as false teachers from among the body of believers before the far more moderate and traditionally-minded Archbishop Williams, given their attitude toward their fellow Christians.

These thinsg are being used to define true believers. Certainly not a petty bunch of issues. You seem to have no problem in testing the faith of conservatives. I am hoping that the same zeal will be put into action where other errors are shown.

I hope so as well, though I should be mortified to be considered a zealot.

The Anglican Communion is not part of the catholic and apostolic church, that they broke away from. I'll give a call to the Vatican and check it out.

The Anglican Communion has proven that liberalism means "anything goes" and this is what is what is being fought against by the "conservatives" within the body of that particular denomination. Please get a copy of the January 2006 issue of Christianity Today and see for yourself.

The Vatican is not synonomous with the 'catholic and apostolic Church' - 'catholic' having a lower-case 'c' and meaning 'universal' - and the Anglican Communion represents a very broad swathe of Christianity and Christian opinion.

Given that CT has a decidedly conservative bent, I wouldn't take anything they say at face value were I you (much as I don't take anything hardline liberals say at face value). I've already established that it's not 'anything goes' within the Anglican Communion, though we do allow our members to exercise their own sense of reason tempered by the Scriptures and by our traditions.

[snappyanswer]

I am not trying to inflame anything by using this heretic charge. This would be a good definition of the Reverend Barry Lynn. He certainly shows a watered down Christ.

snappyanswer wrote:
Williams is nothing new but a hertic preaching heresy.

Perhaps you'd better apply to Williams for that and not to what Spong thinks our good Archbishop believes. The results may surprise you.

Do you want the entire article from beliefnet.com. Spong supports the heresy of Williams and praises him. They have put their opinions about Christ for all to see and judge. May God guide these men back to the faith.

snappyanswer wrote:
MagausYanam, even you claim a mother that is a biological evolutionist and is a Christian. Does she believe that Jesus did not actually die for our sins? Someone is right on this issue and someone is a heretic. Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles backs up my stance.

Yes, my mother does work at the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology labs at Brown and yes, she does believe that Jesus did die for our sins. Paul can't help you if you're working from a faulty implicit premise.

Paul stands firm the resurrection is an absolute to being a believer. Don't defend heretics.

snappyanswer wrote:
Is it reasonable to call oneself a Christian and yet disbelieve in everything that makes a person a Christian namely the resurrection and fact of Jesus Christ?

Are you implying that liberal Christians disbelieve in the Resurrection? I daresay that is an extraordinary claim, as I certainly believe Jesus to have 'ascended into heaven'. And I'm as liberal as He made them.

Liberal does not have to mean heretic. But in the case of a new Jesus that was a myth or did not die for sins resulting from a fall that never happened? To belive that disqualifies the person from being a Christian.

snappyanswer wrote:
The Cornerstone of the Christian community is Christ Crucifed and Resurrected.

Undoubtedly. But you must see the need for creeds, as it were.

The Nicene Creed was developed against heresy and to combat against heretics. Please send a copy to Spong and Williams as it is speaking right at them.

snappyanswer wrote:
True enough unless Anglicans follow heretics like Spong, Crossan and Williams. Scriture condems their actions and their followers not my posts.

You suppose actions which you believe Scripture to condemn. So far I have seen no historical proof for a Jesus eaten by dogs, I have seen nothing to indicate Williams' apostasy regarding the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

I will provide examples of Crossan ("Jesus was probably eaten by dogs")and Williams (Jesus is a myth) stands in his own words a heretic. Spong as well. This does not mean these men have followers in great numbers. The Christianity Today issue seems to be giving hope that these men will be pushed aside for orthodoxy to take its proper place again.

All said, you have built no case against them from Scripture or from fact, and are depending on the force of emotionalism to carry your argument.

That is an odd statement. These men have written books. Spong in fact: "Christianity Must Change Or Die." Williams is well representede by Spong. The major media have reported a great deal on the heresy within Anglican churches tearing apart these congergations. This has nothing to do with you it seems quite clear.

snappyanswer wrote:
I can find within the Creed many things that Liberal Theolgians have rejected. Shall we psot this in another thread? Williams and Spong stand condemend by this Creed.

Which they themselves profess? I highly doubt it. I don't agree with Spong on a great deal, but at least I can recognise the latitude he is due to hold an independent opinion.

You cannot hold an opinion contrary to the Gospel and the New Testament and be a Christian. And certainly have no place leading the believers. Spong represents a wrong Jesus to a searching and hurting world. He stands condemned by his own words and actions.

snappyanswer wrote:
YES, they represent what has become termed as Fundamentals.

Note that nowhere in the Nicene Creed are established Biblical inerrancy, total depravity or literal creationism. Fundamentalists seem to be straying quite far from the fundamentals they claim to uphold.

Biblical inerrancy and the depravity of literal creationsim? So much for Jesus being a believer in Jesus. Jesus quoted scripture to prove His point time and time again. He even talked about Adam and Eve and what marriage is all about.
"It was not this way from the beginning."

I agree that fundamentalists are straying from the Gospel. They should allow tares in with the wheat and try to allow a change in sinners to accept the Gospel. Why they tolerate divorced people and not gays is strange. Though niether should ever be in the clergy as leaders over believers, there is no reason for more leniency to people that want to be members in a particular church.

snappyanswer wrote:
But have embraced heretical actions on sin and sinners. Spong admits to ordaining an openly and unrepeantant homosexual to the leadership over believers.

No different than any other sinner in the eyes of God, and given that I don't know Bishop Robertson personally, I wouldn't presume to know whether or not he repents of his sins.

Let us not forget that he is divorced from his wife and he is the adulterer. That alone should disqqualify him from leadership over the believers. Bad role models should not be allowed to lead. He is living in an open relationship that cannot find scriptural support. Especially as clergy. But heresy always begets more heresy.

snappyanswer wrote:
Unless they are of the class of anti-Christs mentioned in the New Testament. False teachers come from the body of believers. Do I really need to list the scripture evidence?

Indeed, but I would be more inclined to list Dobson, Falwell and Robertson as false teachers from among the body of believers before the far more moderate and traditionally-minded Archbishop Williams, given their attitude toward their fellow Christians.

Really? Let's compare the Jesus of Dobson ( a fine man), Falwell (a good pastor) and Robertson (getting old), to that of Williams' Jesus that is a myth destroyed by evolution? Shall we?

snappyanswer wrote:
These thinsg are being used to define true believers. Certainly not a petty bunch of issues. You seem to have no problem in testing the faith of conservatives. I am hoping that the same zeal will be put into action where other errors are shown.

I hope so as well, though I should be mortified to be considered a zealot.

Your passion is beautiful to observe. Nothing wrong in being a zealot. The Jesus that really existed had one as an Apostle.

(Unless of course the Jesus Seminar doesn't black bead the whole thing away.) C'mon you can laugh.

snappyanswer wrote:
The Anglican Communion is not part of the catholic and apostolic church, that they broke away from. I'll give a call to the Vatican and check it out.

The Anglican Communion has proven that liberalism means "anything goes" and this is what is what is being fought against by the "conservatives" within the body of that particular denomination. Please get a copy of the January 2006 issue of Christianity Today and see for yourself.

The Vatican is not synonomous with the 'catholic and apostolic Church' - 'catholic' having a lower-case 'c' and meaning 'universal' - and the Anglican Communion represents a very broad swathe of Christianity and Christian opinion.

Yes, absolutely right. But the Anglican Communion did break away from "it" right?

Given that CT has a decidedly conservative bent, I wouldn't take anything they say at face value were I you (much as I don't take anything hardline liberals say at face value).

C'mon now, that is a bad position to take against CT.

I've already established that it's not 'anything goes' within the Anglican Communion, though we do allow our members to exercise their own sense of reason tempered by the Scriptures and by our traditions.

Scripture and traditions? Jesus as a myth and Clergy that cannot be clergy? Where is the history and foundation of those two things? I'll help out here. Heresy. Which of course the Nicenen Creed was written to combat.

Let's hope that Bishop Akinola and his band of believers can bring back those traditions and reverence for scripture within the Anglican Community.

[MagusYanam]

Do you want the entire article from beliefnet.com. Spong supports the heresy of Williams and praises him. They have put their opinions about Christ for all to see and judge. May God guide these men back to the faith.

The Latimer Trust (a conservative Episcopalian think-tank) does a rather complete criticism of Williams' theology. They acknowledge, as Spong seems to have a problem with doing, that Williams does have a theology of the Crucifixion and of the Resurrection and does not treat them as falsehood. I would appreciate it if you would kindly refrain from libel against my church by using a misguided bishop's opinion of what our archbishop's opinion is, since I can demonstrate that Spong is wrong about Archbishop Williams' views.

Paul stands firm the resurrection is an absolute to being a believer. Don't defend heretics.

I have demonstrated that a viewpoint that can accept the scientific principle of biological evolution does not deny the Resurrection, and therefore is not heretical. Don't defend illogic.

But in the case of a new Jesus that was a myth or did not die for sins resulting from a fall that never happened? To belive that disqualifies the person from being a Christian.

I don't agree with Spong on this. You're making a straw man of liberalism by using the arguments of one radical bishop.

Really? Let's compare the Jesus of Dobson ( a fine man), Falwell (a good pastor)

Bigots like Dobson and Falwell do not fine men or good pastors make. These are people whose churches and congregations supported segregation in its heyday and condemned people like King for 'moving too fast'. What credibility they ever had with me is long gone.

Scripture and traditions? Jesus as a myth and Clergy that cannot be clergy? Where is the history and foundation of those two things? I'll help out here. Heresy. Which of course the Nicenen Creed was written to combat.

Let's hope that Bishop Akinola and his band of believers can bring back those traditions and reverence for scripture within the Anglican Community.

I am a liberal Episcopalian who believes in an historical Jesus who was crucified, died, and was raised from the dead.

I also believe, given the physical evidence, that the theory of biological evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on this planet. I have a respect for responsible scholarship and believe that freedom of inquiry is necessary to the development of critical thinking in a democratic society, and see no harm in the Harry Potter series of books or movies, which are being written by a practising conservative Presbyterian (J. K. Rowling). Yet some would think these opinions 'heretical', even though they are not positions on faith. 'Heresy' is not a label to be bandied about lightly.