From: jrh@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (James Hester)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: CHRIST WAS JUST A MAN !!!!
Date: 10 Sep 1992 18:05:01 +0800
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au
Keywords: CHRIST

markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU () writes:

>Jon Biddell writes:

>>Now that I have your attention, here is an article that appeared in the "
>>Extra" column of the Sydney Sun-Herald on Sunday August 31.

>>------------------

>>The word according to A.N. Wilson.

>>Novelist A.N. Wilson will bublish next month his controversial biography of 
>>Jesus of Nazareth.

>>Wilson has concluded that Jesus was not born of a virgin, was not raised 
>>from the dead and had no plans to launch an organised religion called 
>>Christianity.

[etc...deleted]

>>"These books don't disturb the Church", he explained. "They come and go, 
>>make their authors a few thousand pounds and disappear into history - unlike 
>>the New Testament."


>>Anyone care to comment ???

>   
>Certainly. 

>What A.N. Wilson has written is in fact hardly new. I have had long debates 
>with Callum and Greg Restall on essentially this topic. Over the last one
>hundred years and more, a vast amount of ink has been spilt on historical
>scrutiny of the gospels. The bishop is wrong when he says that these authors
>come and go. Strauss wrote his famous "Life of Christ" a hundred years ago,
>and concluded the same thing Wilson has. There is a very good, inexpensive 
>book by Ian Wilson, not to be confused with AN WIlson, called Jesus the evidence". It is a good starting place for thos who wish to examine this  topic.
>I am sure Greg Restall will happily provide some other texts from the opposite perspective. Ian Wilson is a practicisng Catholic, who was flayed by the 
>church when the tv series on which this was based came out. 
>The book presnts what is essentially mainstream New Testament scholarship.
>A few of the conclusions are 1) Jesus never claimed to be god;
>2) Jesus never intended a religion to be founded in his name;
>3) the authors of the NT were often unknown in antiquity and their identities
>were essentially given by tradition
>4) The apostle MAthew could not have written the gospel ascribed to him,
>at least in the form we have it
>5) The two epistles of Peter could not have been written by the apostle Peter
>and whoever wrote the letters to Timothy and Titus was not the person who
>wrote the letters to the Romans, Galatians and Corinthians (indisputably
>St Paul)

>Of course people will dispute these claims, although it is hard to see
>how the one about Mathew could be wrong, but What AN Wilson is claiming
>is scarcely radical. I doubt that most new testament scholars would raise
>an eyebrow about it. After all, they have been saying the same things for
>over one hundred years. 

>If anybody is interested I will supply some  references to this
>topic which are not intended as popular works the way  Jesus The Evidence "
>is.                                                                   

>Mark C.

Just to add briefly to those comments, I have recently read books by a
Bishop Spong, who I remember toured Australia last(?) year and was
sensationalised for his radical interpretation of the Bible.  At the
time I thought much the same as the bishop quoted in the newspaper article.
However, reading _Living in Sin_ and _Rescuing the Bible from
Fundamentalism_ has convinced me that he has a significant message.  Not
only because of the presentation of the results of biblical scholarship
mentioned by the posters above, which he admits is necessarily
at an elementary level, but by the positive message that he draws from
his interpretation of the bible.  I'm still digesting these books (OK, I
lied, I'm still reading the latter book), but they certainly go onto the
'Books that are worth the ridiculous price we pay here' bookshelf.

Apologies in advance if Spong has been discussed ad nauseum already,
I've been away for a very long time.

James H.
Newsgroups: aus.religion