« Paul and the Asian Mission | Main | The Pope Replies »

March 12, 2009



I've bought the book but haven't read it yet. I presumed the book to be more a devotional tract than anything else.

The reviews/ comments you've referred to point to a real crisis in theology, one that's been around for quite a while but whose effects haven't been so apparent until recently.

There seems to be a disconnect between Biblical hermeneutics/ theology/ commentary, "dogmatic" theology, historical theology, "spiritual" or "mystical" theology and liturgical theology.

All seem to be on different trajectories, hardly acknowledging each others existence.

The end result is a book like the above- with the resulting complaints from all sides.

What's needed is obviously a "theology of everything" that would unify all these areas.

The eastern Orthodox, of course, claim they have that. It does look good on the surface but, poke here and there, and one finds quite a covering up of discrepancies etc;

Perhaps this is as it should be- but the crisis does have to have some resolution before it all shatters.

Anders Branderud

"Historical Jesus"?!?
The persons using that contra-historical oxymoron (demonstrated by the eminent late Oxford historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) expose dependency upon 4th-century, gentile, Hellenist sources.

While scholars debate the provenance of the original accounts upon which the earliest extant (4th century, even fragments are post-135 C.E.), Roman gentile, Hellenist-redacted versions were based, there is not one fragment, not even one letter of the NT that derives DIRECTLY from the 1st-century Pharisee Jews who followed the Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua.
Historians like Parkes, et al., have demonstrated incontestably that 4th-century Roman Christianity was the 180° polar antithesis of 1st-century Judaism of ALL Pharisee Ribis. The earliest (post-135 C.E.) true Christians were viciously antinomian (ANTI-Torah), claiming to supersede and displace Torah, Judaism and ("spiritual) Israel and Jews. In soberest terms, ORIGINAL Christianity was anti-Torah from the start while DSS (viz., 4Q MMT) and ALL other Judaic documentation PROVE that ALL 1st-century Pharisees were PRO-Torah.

There is a mountain of historical Judaic information Christians have refused to deal with, at: www.netzarim.co.il (see, especially, their History Museum pages beginning with "30-99 C.E.").
Original Christianity = ANTI-Torah. Ribi Yehoshua and his Netzarim, like all other Pharisees, were PRO-Torah. Intractable contradiction.

Building a Roman image from Hellenist hearsay accounts, decades after the death of the 1st-century Pharisee Ribi, and after a forcible ouster, by Hellenist Roman gentiles, of his original Jewish followers (135 C.E., documented by Eusebius), based on writings of a Hellenist Jew excised as an apostate by the original Jewish followers (documented by Eusebius) is circular reasoning through gentile-Roman Hellenist lenses.

What the historical Pharisee Ribi taught is found not in the hearsay accounts of post-135 C.E. Hellenist Romans but, rather, in the Judaic descriptions of Pharisees and Pharisee Ribis of the period... in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT (see Prof. Elisha Qimron), inter alia.

To all Christians: The question is, now that you've been informed, will you follow the authentic historical Pharisee Ribi? Or continue following the post-135 C.E. Roman-redacted antithesis—an idol?

Spirit of Vatican II

""Historical Jesus"?!? The persons using that contra-historical oxymoron... expose dependency upon 4th-century, gentile, Hellenist sources."

No, discussion of the historical Jesus depends primarily on the New Testament, composed between 49 AD and 120 AD.

Spirit of Vatican II

The opposition between pro-Torah Jesus and anti-Torah post-135 Christians reflects the general Hellenization of Christianity. But remember that Paul, though a Pharisee and pro-Torah, preached freedom from Torah to his Greek churches. So the topic is more complex than you allow.

Spirit of Vatican II


Is this Tom Wright the same person as Bishop N. T. Wright? He is quite critical of Benedict.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


Blog powered by Typepad