From: ! <!@!>
Subject: Re: CHRIST WAS JUST A MAN !!!!
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6C7FFADCF024933@mgfish50.fisher.su.oz.au>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 31 Aug 92 00:56:13 GMT
Organization: !
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 06:49:48 GMT

In article <Jon.Biddell.205.715211263@unsw.edu.au> Jon Biddell,
Jon.Biddell@unsw.edu.au 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.
>
>"Jesus would have hated Christianity," said Wilson, who is the
biographer of 
>Anglican theologian, the late C.S. Lewis.
Before being able to comment, one would have to get the definition of
"christianity" correct. When one looks at that muddle of dogma,
doctrine, tradition, ritual and institution, one can see that at least
some of it contradicts the teachings of Jesus. Beyond this, it would
appear to be an open question to those that do not bring assumptions
to the playing board, as to how much  Christian doctrine is actually
based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as opposed to be later
accretions and modifications to the teaching by other people.
>
>"He wasn't a Christian. But for St. Paul we would never have heard of
Jesus"
Indeed, I guess it is an accurate description. Jesus was not
christian. He was Jewish, and isn't Paul concidered the apostle of the
gentiles (of which most of the people reading this post are)? But
then, as far as I can see, it is an open question as to how much Paul
did teach us about the Jesus that walked the streets of Palestine.
Paul seems to be almost entirely concerned about an apocalyptic Christ
of faith over a historical Jesus. It seems to be a matter of
contingency that Paul's Christ is/was instantiated in the person of
the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

>The idea of the Trinity, for example, would be laughable to Jesus,
who was a 
>monotheistic Jew."
I am not sure that the concept would have been "laughable" to a
historical Jesus, but then I am not sure that a historical Jesus would
have either comprehended or agreeed with such  a concept either. The
Trinity is a very important part of later christian belief, but it
seems strange that such an important christian doctrine has so little
biblical basis. It leads me to wonder whether the doctrine has any
basis at all.

>
>"The idea that he wanted us to worship him would have horrified him."
>
>Wilson's work is likely to cause the same ructions as Sydney
University 
>theologian Barbara Thering's book JESUS THE MAN, which rendered a new 
>meaning to the Gospels and Christ's life.
>
>But the Right Reverend John Taylor, the Bishop of St. Albans, is
awaiting 
>the Wilson revelations with devotional calm.
>
>"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."
Recently I heard an interview with a person that has written a book
about a supposed conspiricy over the dead sea scrolls. He believed
that his findings tore at the fundamental basis of christianity. When
questioned about whether his conclusions would make any difference he
said something to the effect of:
	One must remember that the churches are not about religion, but are
institutions of power. As such, they will seek to protect themselves
by denying my (his) conclusions. Well, the cynical part of my nature
leads me to agree with him, but i guess that it may not necessarily be
the case. Hopefully we all will strive toward the facts of the
matter... toward both truth in belief and truth in action. 

enuff for now...

chris.