Re: Sunday visit, and my future church & college plans

Subject:

Comments:
: : : Steve, if I might interject something here, I'm curious: what do you mean by "hypostatization of the transcendent"? I know what hypostasis means in ordinary usage. But Marcus Borg, for instance, though he is not a conservative, is definitely a man of faith, as is evident (to me) in his latest book The Heart of Christianity; he certainly regards the Transcendent as a real entity. Do you mean to say you want to study under someone who holds conservative theological views? Thanks, Dave : : : : Hypostatization goes beyond reification to the personalization of the Transcendent. Reification assumes the Transcendent exists, and hypostatization assumes that the Transcendent has personal characteristics. : : In New Testament studies (unless purely historical and minimalist), hypothetical reification of the Transcendent is necessary because both Judaism and Christianity purport to explain to a great degree who and what the Transcendent is. Still, we do not ask what God is like; we ask what they thought God was like. We point out their inconsistencies and cite anthropomorphic development in their conception of God. We refute their sacred myths by finding parallels to other cultures. We devalue their theology by affirming the influence of other cultures. In the case of historical Jesus studies, for instance, all reference to Jesus as the "Son of God" must be couched in the study of how Jesus was perceived by his followers and opponents and how the title "Son of God" was understood historically and religiously in various cultures and eras, as in the case of Jewish kings and priests being called sons of God, or the case of the apotheosis of Roman emperors, etc. We speculate about when the authors later added the miracles and Messianic understandings and resurrection fables and for what purposes. Nothing is as it seems. The whole idea of scholarship is that you must challenge the tradition and find something that is erroneous. Such theses make the scholars' careers. No professor who affirmed most of the church's traditions would ever receive the limelight the Jesus Seminar members have enjoyed or even become as famous as minimalists like Spong. Doesn't matter if they are attacked or even disproved--they made their own unique mark; they showed themselves to be scholars par excellence by thinking outside the box and causing a major reaction, however imaginative and spurious their logic. : : Borg is not one of my favorites. My thesis involves validating the certainty of Jesus' resurrection in the early church and refuting the assumed metaphorical nature of the accounts regarding it. Borg affirms Jesus' resurrection only in the abstract sense of some abiding presence, and denies the possibility of it involving Christ's body. The appearances of Christ he relegates to "visions" which could be grief-inspired. I am not a fan of the Jesus Seminar at all. Crossan does not even believe Jesus was buried, though his opinions about what happened to the body are marvellously malleable, from being eaten by birds to being thrown in a lime pit (like Sawicki). Miracles do not exist, Mary was not a virgin, and Jesus never thought he was the the Messiah. 90-some percent of what Jesus said in the gospels he never really said--they were words put in his mouth by the later gospel writer for their own ends. And on and on and on... : : There is no evidence for the existence of the early church apart from belief of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and no other good explanation for the growth of the church and commitment of its members even unto death. The resurrection is the foundation of all Christianity, and the appearances of Jesus the proof of his appointment as Messiah in the early church (see Acts 2). An "abiding presence" or dream-visions just wouldn't have done the trick. Hey, 500 people having the same "vision" at once is certainly notable. : : One may call himself Christian, but such purely metaphorical interpretation of the resurrection would not have been accepted by any so-called Christian before the last 2 centuries. To conservatives, the resurrection is still the foundation of everything, just as it was to the early church, and just as it is for me personally today (all my complaints against the church notwithstanding). : : I suggest you check out <i>The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions</i>, by Marcus Borg and N. T. Wright. Borg and Wright trade off chapters. Wright presents a viewpoint more like that which I hold. For a good overview of the Jesus Seminar, I suggest <i>The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth</i>, by Ben Witherington. For a more pointed critique of the Jesus Seminar, try <i>The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels</i>, by Luke Timothy Johnson. : : Regarding divisions of church politics such as those regarding the inerrancy of the Bible, I may not share the more conservative viewpoints, and in regards to the Christian church's responsibility socially I am certainly more liberal-minded. However, regarding the physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead and Jesus' understanding of himself as the Messiah, I am conservative to the core, and remain so after considerable scholarly research in the liberal arts academic community. : : Hi Steve, : Thanks for your careful reply. The distinction you make between hypostatization and reification must be one that is unique to your field of study; in philosophical circles, the terms are nearly synonymous. : I own, and have read, both Luke Johnson's book and the collaborative effort of Borg and Wright. I have not read Witherington, though I am aware of it. It's funny you come down on Wright's side of the debate; I had just the opposite response. : Thanks again for your reply. : Dave

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: