Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: OFF TOPIC: Apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls

RE: OFF TOPIC: Apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls

From: Steve Adams <steve.adams_at_ixora.com.au>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:29:05 +1000
Message-Id: <10736.126218@fatcity.com>


Hi Eric,

While I am sympathetic with your idealist epistemology and can understand you construing it as a social project, the implicit consequential denial of absolutes in ontology and kalology is fallacious.

No matter how the consciousness of humanity evolves in its perception of Jesus, all that changes is the degree to which that perception corresponds to reality. The truth about Jesus does not change.

That postulates about Jesus cannot be logically coercive does not vitiate the reality. Such postulates can be false absolutely, and can be tested to some degree both logically and empirically. Such postulates can also be true absolutely, and may be held with a certitude that exceeds the certainty of reason and empiricism. That extra certitude derives from the logic that attaches to the singular and personal. It is like the certitude I have that my wife loves me. The lack of rational and empirical certainty does not undermine my confidence. Similarly, a person can legitimately read the four gospels and be convinced about Jesus (and absolutely right or wrong) without regard for the perceptions of others or epistemic process.

@   Regards,
@   Steve Adams
@   http://www.ixora.com.au/
@   http://www.christianity.net.au/


-----Original Message-----

From: Eric D. Pierce [mailto:PierceED_at_csus.edu] Sent: Wednesday, 10 January 2001 6:56
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: OFF TOPIC: Apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls

Every faith tradition exists in the context of a spectrum of human conciousness ranging from "orthodox" (literalist, authoritarian, legalistic) to "mystic" (metaphoric, symbolic, anti-establishmentarian).

Within any tradition, there have been large historial battles between ideologies and political factions over the "position" that will dominate. And superstition has played a major role in the corruption of thought within most traditions, obviously including the "orthodox" forms. What is perhaps less well known by westerners is the existence of considerable corruption (and superstition) within some of the mysticism paths of the traditions.

Anyway, at this point (in history), the problem isn't "debate" *within* the traditions (which will basically continue until the end of time since neither "legaists" or "mystics" will ever "win" everything), it is the assult on the traditions from "outside" secularists/rationalists.

As you can see from looking at Habermas, the postmodern  relativist attack on "meaning" (as it arises within the faith traditions) is itself based on flawed "logic", so secularism/rationalism does NOTHING but ultimately take the "seeker" back to the source of mystery, which is to say their relationship with "the Sacred" (God).

In other words, you can try to use "science" to clear out the underbrush of superstition in a faith tradition, (which is probably good, but not sufficient) but that still doesn't get at the main issue(s) - of spiritual relation.

Right now, there are a number of thinkers doing important work attempting to establish "integrative" paradigms that allow for respect of traditions, and also recognise the validity of "scholarship" (scientific research) that doesn't seek to destroy ("colonize" in Habermas' terms) the essence of the traditions that are being studied.

eg, Ken Wilber, Buddhist (? of Naropa Institute):

http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Social_Sciences/Psychology/Psychology_of _Religion/Transpersonal
-

http://wilber.shambhala.com
-

http://www.khandro.com/kenwilber/index.html
-

http://members.ams.chello.nl/f.visser3/wilber/frameeng.html
-

http://www.khandro.com/kenwilber/visser0197.html

---

[Wilber is critical of narcisism in "New Age" thought:] excerpt:

   "...As the hours go by it becomes crystal clear to me why he has    always expressed in his writings so many reservations about most    of the alternative and transpersonal world. As anyone familiar    with his work will know, Wilber considers most, if not all,    so-called New Age or New Science models of human development    regressive or reductionistic, regardless of how much they present    themselves as promising syntheses between science and    spirituality. In his massive work Sex, Ecology, Spirituality he    has openly expressed for the first time his sharp criticism of    these dubious trends in contemporary 'spirituality' -- which has    won him a few more enemies. In fact, at the conference the main    point of many contributions was that he, as a spiritual authority,    should know his responsibility and show more compassion and    respect towards other views. Criticizing as he had done was    considered to be unspiritual...

   Sharp

     When I confront him with this, he suddenly becomes sharp and very    concentrated. In his opinion, the depth of the spiritual    traditions is lost almost completely in the popular views of    spirituality, from the Aquarian Conspiracy to the Celestine    Prophecy. To point out in what way his view differs from all this,    he explains these views often contain a highly dualistic worldview    (contrary to their holistic pretentions). They talk of only two    poles: ego and Self (Jung), ego and Ground (Washburn), ego and    essence (Hameed Ali), ego and body (Lowen). (Interestingly, Wilber    does the same in his first two books, Spectrum of Consciousness    and No Boundary, where he writes about ego and Mind, FV.) ..."

---

http://www.naropa.edu/history.html
-

http://csf.colorado.edu/sine/faculty.html
-

http://www.noetic.org
-

Templeton Foundation: http://www.templeton.org
-

AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/dbsr/default.htm ( text only: http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/dbsr/text.htm )

...and so forth.

My personal (Wilber influenced) opinion is that the history of the traditions can be seen in "evolutionary" terms, and that human conciousness developes in stages, and that we are just beginning to see the possibilities of looking at the "science/ religion" discussion in terms of a broader level of awareness of the importance of "transcendence" and "transformation" (love/healing) than has ever existed.

Here is some additional info:

http://www.ntgateway.com/Jesus
-

http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar
-

http://westarinstitute.org/JS/js.html
-

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion
-

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/tikkun.html
-

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/symposium/historical.html



excerpt:

   "...we should also recognize that Bornkamm's initial     point comes as a result of two centuries of research     prior to Bornkamm, which increasingly showed (as his     statement suggested) how anachronistic were the     traditional portrayals of Jesus in the popular     culture of each age. Here's how Bornkamm continues     that opening statement:

         Why have these attempts (to write a life of
         Jesus) failed? Perhaps only because it became
         alarmingly and terrifyingly evident how
         inevitably each author brought the spirit of
         his (we would, I think, say now "or her") age
         into his (or her) presentation of the figure
         of Jesus. In point of fact, the changing
         pictures found in innumerable lives of Jesus
         are not very encouraging, confronting us as
         they do now with the enlightened teacher of
         God, virtue, and immortality, now with the
         religious genius of the romantics, now with
         the teacher of ethics in Kant's sense, and
         now the protagonist of social theory. These
         are the different pictures that emerge,
         depending on who's writing the story.


    And all these pictures, Bornkamm notices, are coming     from the same set of sources: the gospels and the     Christian tradition. How can all of these pictures     be true? That's the basic question. That has always     been the question that has plagued the discussion of     the historical Jesus. And this is where we come to     see the dilemma is still with us. One scholar has     referred to it as the dilemma of finding

[]
[]  the [***]Jesus  of history[***]
[]
[]  over against the [***]Christ of faith[***].
[]
[]  And that's a classic definition of the problem that

    persists, I think, in most scholarly discussions:     the recognition that it is possible to have a faith     tradition about Jesus that is different from the     actual figure. And in some respects, we have to     think about keeping both of those things active and     operative as we look at the process.

    Another writer, Henry Cadbury from Harvard, refers     to it as 'the peril of modernizing Jesus'. And it     has also been dealt with in a number of recent     books. In fact, just a spate of new books have come     out since the early nineties on various aspects of     the study of the historical Jesus. One I'll mention     is Jaroslav Pelikan's Jesus through the Centuries.     Pelikan says that one of the best ways to get the     spirit of any age is to watch how it depicts Jesus.     This is true across the Christian centuries. What     should you think, for example, when you see a     Florentine painting of Madonna and Child, or Mary at     the crucifixion scene, wearing a brocade Florentine     gown, and the guards at the tomb are in the armor of     the Swiss Guard? How does that tell the story? Jesus,     Pelikan argues, becomes a mirror of each age, as     each period reflects its concerns and its issues     onto Jesus and reads from that Jesus a support for     its concerns. ... "


On 9 Jan 2001, at 9:00, Boivin, Patrice J wrote:

Date sent:      	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:00:22 -0800
To:             	Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>

> Yesterday someone gave a clean history of how the early Church fathers
> decided what to put into the New Testament and what to leave out.
>
> Here is another version:
> ... it was in 325CE that the Council of Nicaea met to debate which of many
> books would be included in what was to become the New Testament.  There is
> no doubt that the men present at the Council brought to the task their own > prejudices and agendas, of which we are still reaping the sorry harvest.

...

--

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--

Author: Eric D. Pierce
  INET: PierceED_at_csus.edu

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists

--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in Received on Tue Jan 09 2001 - 20:29:05 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US