Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (24258)	2/12/1999 8:11:00 PM
From: Dr. Stoxx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Sorry DCF, this intrusion is the continuation of a discussion started on another thread, moved here once the subject got onto to biblical scholarship... To Arnie Doolittle, I too have my reservations about the more radical contentions of the Jesus Seminar, but at least two of the members, John Dominic Crossan and one of my former supervisors at Oxford, N.T. Wright, are considered by most to be fine scholars. Nor do I have any reservations around the understanding of sacred texts, of whatever sort, as divinely inspired (in the sense that God uses them to instruct, persuade, encourage, etc.). But the scholars of sacred texts have fought too long and hard for the past 150 years to bring the insights of sound scholarship to those texts—and in so doing, to remove the veil of deification from them—to dismiss their findings so cursorily. No single interpretation of biblical dating is without its contenders, it is true. But there is sound scholarly consensus around such issues as Markan priority, the 2nd century authorship of John, and especially of the general technique on the part of the editors to integrate much of their own theological agendas into the remembered teachings of Jesus. I am of the opinion that such findings (even the more radical discoveries from the Dead Sea Scrolls as to the mystical Jewish context to much of Jesus' teachings), far from posing obstacles to faith (this was not your point, I know, but seemed to have been an assumption), free faith for a more holistic, realistic, and more sympathetic expression. I welcome your response, TC.