Subj : Extent of the Torah
To   : FRANK MASINGILL
From : TODD HENSON
Date : Mon Oct 23 2000 12:08 am

>  TH> > -=> TODD HENSON wrote to FRANK MASINGILL <=-
> 
>  TH> > > I have stated here many times that I stand with Dr.
> 
>  TH> Albert >  > Schweitzer on the question of the historical
>  TH> Jesus.  So far, the
> 
>  TH> So, fill me in on what he said.
> 
>  TH> > C'mon Todd, Scweitzer wrote much and often about this. It's
>  TH> > a big burden: an unfair question.
> 
>  TH> Nonsensical. I didn't ask Frank to quote the entire works of
>  TH> the man, but to give me a description of that he said about a
>  TH> particular person.
> 
>  TH> > More daring (silly) than Frank I'll attempt an imposibility:
>  TH> > Schweitzer said that we cannot know, Scientifically. But
>  TH> > enough is known
> 
>  TH> True. I know of no direct laboratory experiments that can
>  TH> vertify the identity of Jesus.
> 
>  TH> > to change the hearts of men, and he dedicated his life in
>  TH> > running a hospital in Africa. He was a world-renound Back
>  TH> > organist, but gave
> 
>  TH> that up >  because he believed in the sayings/teachings of an
> 
>  TH> > unhistorically proven Jesus.
> 
>  TH> Well, that's not a bad description so far. :-)
> 
>  TH> > (Frank! How'd I do?????) :-)
> 
>         Beautifully. But you know as well as I do that he wasn't
> serious in the first place.   I could easily have said that
> Schweitzer in _In Quest of the Historical Jesus_ concluded that in
> the mountains of scholarship invested in the search for the
> historical Jesus up to the time of his writing there had been hardly
> any advancement in knowledge on the subject.  He said that Jesus is
> still only the "man who walked by the shores of Galilee calling upon
> men to "come follow me!"  [paraphrase quote, of course, but close].


Hey, you're talking to me again. I didn't think you wanted to. :-)  Either
way, I shall read on...


>         In the circa 100 years since that scholarship from
> 1700-1900, about all I've seen has been the mytho-speculation of
> Barbara Thiering that has him walking by the shores of the DEAD Sea
> rather than the Sea of Galilee and her speculation is not to be
> dismissed as worthless, by any means.   The Dead Sea Scrolls,
> however, have not advanced our knowledge of the HISTORICAL Jesus
> beyond mytho-specualation.  And the learned atheists have failed to
> do that as well.  


Well, are the two seas the same? If not, then her speculation, if true,
means that the Biblical 
account is incorrect with regards to this detail. Is that what you believe?


>         How interesting that the Jesus who calls "come follow me"
> continues to defy the counter mytho-speculation of the atheists AND
> the literalists with their endless arguments about the truth or
> fallacy of burning hells and paradisical dreams which they're


Did Jesus claim that hell exists? Why would it be incorrect to believe in
an actual hell?


> determined to substitute for the SUBSTANCE of the Christian
> revelation.  What they LOVE to do is pit one spiritual outburst


You ASSUME that to have a view of the Bible which goes beyond the vague
subjective one 
automatically means to lose the substance of the Christian message. There
is no reason for 
you to assume that, and you need to understand that such an assumption is
one of YOUR 
personal DOGMAS. But you claim that you have a dislike for dogmatists.


> against another as though Man has any control over any of them.  


You assume that to argue the correctness of this outburst or that
automatically means to 
assume that man has control over them. That is another false assumption. If
God truly did 
reveal certain specific things, then man's place is to believe them. That's
not a matter of man 
controlling said outburst at all, but such an assumption does seem to be a
part of your 
paradigm. I notice that when people begin to speak counter to your
paradigm, you are quick to 
issue the "literalist dogmatist" label, in the most derogatory manner, as
if you are somehow 
above and beyond such pitfalls.


>         What the misunderstand, constantly, because philosophy is
> left out of the equation is the "REASON" in man that IS the divine
> in the tension of consciousness, discovered by Plato.  
> 
>         According to my critics, the above is all muddled and
> practically impossible to understand and for that I must continue to
> apologize. 


You can't handle criticism very well, can you?
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr4
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345)

.