Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skybird
Now, most people probably know that I describe myself as religious and atheistic, and that I oppose religious institutions in general and the church and the papacy in special. I got some flak from people for making my point that I strictly differ between the church(es), and Christianity in the meaning of exclusively referring to the example of Jesus' teachings. Some may remember that I referred to Jesus at times - but with the same ease quoted Buddha, Nietzsche, and others as well, who are suspicious of being incompatible with the church's interpretation of Jesus. I also expressed my dissatisfaction with "faith and believing. - So why the heck is Skybird reading a book written by an archenemy: the pope, and about this institutional representative's understanding of Jesus as the son of God - and even very much enjoyed to do so?  |
That puts you squarely in the same corner as Thomas Jefferson, one of my heroes. There's an American scholar and author named Bart Ehrman, who has written several books on the Gnostic gospels. His latest is a look at early Christian documents, showing that the accepted versions of the Gospels aren't necessarily the same as the earliest existing documents. It's called Misquoting Jesus. You might like it. |
Yep, and even the very first document tell us more about the people who wrote them then about Jesus.
That might not be a problem however if you consider that "the man who tells us of the profit is the real profit".
A nice review, but I don't really see how it is wildly different from the many, many millions of interpretations and historys of Jesus that have been made in the last 2000 years. Almost every possible take on Jesus has already been done hundreds of times.