Bulletin Board:
JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN
Subject: Peter_Jennings_Jesus
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001
From: "Bob Cochran"
I have recently been looking into the things said and written by John Dominic Crossan. I first learned of him perhaps six years ago, when I read Jesus Under Fire.
The most recent reading I have done includes Would The Real Jesus Please Stand Up, wherein Dr. Crossan debates Dr. William Lane Craig, and an article called "Almost The Whole Truth," by Dr. Crossan (it can be found at http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Crossan_bio/crossan_b io.html).
I have spent some time puzzling over Dr. Crossan's presumptions, presuppositions and his agenda. I don't claim to have these figured out.
While Dr. Crossan has a pleasant public personna with a goodly measure of wit and charm, and while his words are usually couched in gentility, I am offended by his claims to intellectual integrity and honesty.
In Would The Real Jesus Please Stand Up, Dr. Crossan had ample opportunity to coherently explain why he holds the presuppositions that he does. When he stated his objections to Jesus' scolding of the Pharisees (mind you, he also asserted that he didn't believe Jesus really said these mean things, even expressing regret that such material made it into the Gospels), and impled that one of Dr. Craig's statements during the debate had the same kind of mean-spiritedness that Jesus' words had, he could at least have given a decent argument as to WHY he thinks Jesus probably did not scold the Pharisees as the Gospels record. Does Dr. Crossan believe it is anti-Semitic to assert that SOME of the Pharisees in Jesus' time were hypocrites who deserved a good chewing-out, and that Jesus may indeed have given it to them publicly?
Dr. Crossan seems to be one of the chief culprits, if not THE chief culprit in promoting the revisionistic and now quite popular idea that the Jewish leaders did not seek to have Jesus executed, but that it was the Romans who decided to do it. If Dr. Crossan acknowledges Jesus' scolding of the Pharisees (which was probably done in front of witnesses, thus mightily embarrassing and infuriating the Pharisees), then he would have to acknowledge that they had ample reason to want him killed. OH, but that's politically incorrect -- you can't SAY that these days.
Maybe Dr. Crossan really believes he is intellectually honest. He occasionally allows for prejudices he may have. He even offers possible explanations for his prejudices.
I don't believe this lets him off the hook. He has made many strange assertions about what is and what is not historical about the Gospels. Many of his assertions strike me as pure conjecture (conjecture that is offered to support who-knows-what agenda) disguised as scholarly, well-researched conclusions.
That Dr. Crossan has spent an enormous amount of time studying the Bible, I have no doubt. Most of us will never be even knee-high to him in terms of Biblical scholarship. In reading his resume, one would naturally conclude that he is possessed of great discipline -- all the more reason he should be held to a high standard in explaining his odd assertions.
Maybe it is precisely his arrogance regarding the extent of his studies that makes him think he can dismiss certain things as symbolical and non-historical with little or no adequate explanation.
Bob Cochran
CROSSAN COMMENTARY
Subject: Peter Jennings Jesus
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001
From: "Praymore"
Methinks, this man cannot deal with someone knowing more than he does
YOUR TAKE ON JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN
Subject: Peter_Jennings_Jesus
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000
From: Gene Wall
I read your blind "Christian" take on Crossans comments, and took my usual exception to your remarks. Why do you think for a moment you might be more correct in your assessment that he is? My trouble with people like you is you seem to forget what we're all talking about here is faith, and belief. No matter what you might believe about Jesus, you don't know what really happened and since the Romans left the crucified to be devoured by dogs, Crossan must be at least as right as you think him wrong. When will you bible thumpers get the message that while the Bible is a very good book, it is by no means the only book and when you attack anothers position because it doesn't coincide with the Bible you are least as wrong as they might be. I saw the Jennings report and since he was obviously reporting and not pontificating I knew he would be subject to the same boo birds who always flock to such a discussion, armed as they think with the one true word. Get a grip David Bruce, and let another voice into the conversation.
Gene Wall
Response: My point remains, despite your "you people" remarks. I would have appreciated other voices, not just the dominance of Crossan. That's all. Do you have something against other voices. You seem to have a thing about "Bible thumpers" -OOPS sorry, you had that with a lower case "b"- "bible thumpers." Why do you resort to dismisal by classification?
Peace and Love -David
DISCUSSION NEEDED
Subject: VIDEO
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000
From: "Lion's Head Pastoral Charge"
This talk about who Jesus is today is a discussion most eagerly needed ... is there a video copy of the Jennings program anywhere? S. Nadon maplestone@log.on.ca
INDICATION OF BIAS
Subject: Search for Jesus Peter_Jennings_Jesus
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
From: Tracy
I just found this website today, and saw the program several months ago, so the comments may not be too fresh. I don't know if anyone actually reads these comments, but if so, I did have a couple things to say. I was interested when I heard such a program was coming on. I was severely disappointed with the program, however. I thought it was very intellectually dishonest. The number of scholars who came from the Jesus Seminar is an indication of the bias of the program. While I think it would have been appropriate to use some material from the Jesus Seminar, or people who participated in it, to take a majority of material from this seems to be an obvious bias? Am I missing something? Also, by the end of the program, Jennings was assuming that the things in the Bible aren't true, which I see as a problem. I am not sure you can start with that assumption. The Bible is generally regarded as being historically accurate. Why then does Jennings repeatedly assume historical details to be false? In doing such a program, I think one has a responsibility to consult many different viewpoints. The program lacked a scholar who takes the conservative viewpoint that the Bible is true, Jesus lived, died, and rose and is the son of God. Thank you for reading this. Sincerely, Tracy
DINGO
Subject: this is late but.....
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000
I would only question your nickname for John Crossan. I would call him John "a dingo ate my Savior" Crossan! *G*
Ted
ABOUT SCHOLARS
Subject: Rediculous
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000
From: Mr. Cliff
I too was glad that ABC did a documentary on the life of Jesus and was also dissapointed to see the lack of balance. The number one question that I have is," Why did this documentary use a Biblical scholar to represent the side opposing the diety of Christ but use ministers to represent the other side?" Obviously the scholars would know more than your average minister. They could have used at least one true Biblical scholar who was also a Christian such as Josh McDowell or Don Stewart, authors of Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith. Their tactics would have been different and they have as much knowledge as the opposing side instead of just some knowledge and a lot of faith.
I believe that the intentions of the producers of this documentary were less than sincere in uncovering the truth about Christ as they were in uncovering their own truth. I'm sure they wanted to make Christians seem like morons who believe in some fabricated lie and I think in some ways they succeeded. The next moring as I drove to work I listed to a certain talk radio brodcast in which the host had seen the program the night before. He teased his co-host about being a Christian with an attitude that screamed," See I knew you were crazy to believe in that Jesus crap!" He didn't come out and say it in those words but that is basically what he meant. It is sad that propaganda against the Christian faith is alowed to be brodcast on American television but I wonder why there aren't any programs trying to discourage people from being Satanists? It makes you think doesn't it. Sincerly, Mr. Cliff
COPY OF SHOW?
Subject: COPY OF THE VIDEO...Peter_Jennings_Jesus
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000
From: RICHARD MARKS
Hi Peter.... I was one of the many people who wasn't able to see the special on Jesus...it sounds very interesting and I would like to know I can buy a copy......I couldn't find any information on your website......
thanks.. Richard Marks
Response: No tape yot. -David
VIDEO?
Subject: Peter_Jennings_Jesus
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000
From: Terry
I would love to own a video of the Peter Jennings Special...is it available? Thanks!
Terry
DID NOT FIND JESUS
Subject: Search for Jesus
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000
From: Richard
They never did find Jesus during that production
JESUS WAS DIFFERENT
Subject: The search for Jesus the man
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000
From: meredith
OK - I watched the show. I even tried to put away my knee-jerk mentality.... you know the one that pops up when someone offends your beliefs. Soooooo - since this show was on the MAN and who the man was, I thought I could do it. But I found too many things said that I believe are absolutely false. I don't remember who said this, but someone Peter interviewed really believed that Jesus was just another political maniac and seemed to live in constant fear.
What is so interesting is that the Bible records time and time again that his direct followers thought he was going to bring Rome to its knees through some kind of mighty war-like act, but that Jesus (much to their amazement) was trying to show them he was not concerned about politics, but about peoples' souls and having them healed by God. He met those needs by first attending to their immediate body needs (sometimes through miracles) and then he spoke to their hearts, where everyone is most truly broken. Make no mistake though - the religious leaders of the day knew what he was proclaiming. He was proclaiming to be the Son of God - and everyone knew what that meant.
Because Jesus did not fit into the Sadducees understanding of who the Messiah would be and where he would come from, of course he must be put to death for blasphemy (since the Sadducees generally held the high priesthood). Not to mention that in order for them to stay in power, they could not let someone claim to be "King of the Jews" under Roman rule. This would upset the balance of power for them. Even Herod was threatened by him and tried to have him killed as a small baby?!?! And this is way before Jesus stood up and proclaimed his deity and gathered followers around him. How is it that the big Roman ruler and his 'all-seeing, pagan wise men' knew what was coming?!?!?
And to imply that his followers "made up" this Christianity religion so they wouldn't "lose face"?!?! No - Jesus was proclaiming his deity for ~3 years - that is why he was (almost) successfully put to trial and why the governing ruler (Pontius Pilate) at the time almost passed judgement on him. Claiming to be the Son of God is not only a political statement - at least to the Romans, but a religious one as well. I think it is interesting to note that for a long time, many Jews believed in (and still believe in) a war-like, fighting ruler-Messiah.
Simply put - no one was expecting a gentle love/forgiveness doctrine Messiah - except for those Old Testament people who lived in faith of the coming Messiah - the Saver of souls who would breach the gap between man and God. For Peter Jennings not to include that Jesus himself (through the Gospels) proclaimed to be the Son of God is not a full account of the facts. Just because something is written later, even 40 to 70 years later does not make it not true. You can still believe that he said it and disagree with the idea. I guess he thinks much of the Bible cannot be considered "factual" since it is a book of faith - considered by those of faith to be authored *by* the Holy Spirit (one person) over many of hundreds of years and *through* many human authors.
More importantly though, I am more concerned about the people who watch TV and don't think for themselves and kinda absorb what the media tells them. It is a sad day when people go to the newscasters instead of to God himself
TAPE ANYONE?
Subject: Searching for Jesus
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000
From: MYRT
I would like to obtain a tape of Peter Jennings' show on Searching for Jesus as I was not able to see the whole show. How would I go about this? Is a tape available?
FROM ENTHUSIASM TO DISGUST
Subject: Jesus
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000
From: Gary K. Boyd California
I began watching Peter Jennings special about Jesus with great enthusiasm and anticipation. The longer the program aired the more disgusted I became. Where were the interviews with real BIBLE scholars such as Dr. Billy Graham, Dr. Jack Van Impe or the scholars from the Dallas Seminary or any other mainstream " prophetic Christian scholars"? The ones that were interviewed seemed to come across as deserters from Christianity. It was really too bad Mr. Jennings didn't seek out a real Christian scholar, one who knows and understands the Bible, Torah or the Koran, all center on the Jesus. Thank you for letting me air my views, but please Mr. Jennings, Jesus was crucified once all ready, your special did it again. Please stick to the news. Gary K. Boyd California
DISAPPOINTED
Subject: I was disappointed with Jennings "Jesus"
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000
From: Dan
It has been a while since I saw the program but I do remember several times that the "experts" on his show said things like "you must understand the customs in Jesus day" or "Jesus really didn't mean what you think he said" WHAT DID HE MEAN THEN? Probably the most disappointing thing I found was that Jennings report FINISHED before he got to the part of THE RESURRECTION. He skipped that part!
ENRICHMENT
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000
From: Richard
Comment on the statement : "Unfortunately, the spiritual side of Jesus was lacking" : That is the point - it humanizes Jesus. People are familiar with the spiritual side of Jesus when they go to mass or service. A true test of faith after seeing this video is if you will continue to believe. We have - and this "documentary" merely enriched our understanding of the man.
GALLANT EFFORT, HOWEVER...
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000
From: "Jan Schilling"
Dear Peter, Thank you for bringing Jesus to the prime-time media! It was a gallant effort...however more balance should have been used. From what you said, you know Jesus is more than a "man", and the world needs to know that. Perhaps you could do a follow-up on the spiritual life. You know, I get so tired of hearing the word "tolerance"...because every pervert out there wants us to tolerate their views, yet there is absolutely no tolerance in the world, when it comes to Christianity. And one day, every eye shall behold, and every knee shall bend, when Jesus returns! Thank you, Jan
OUTSTANDING REPORTER, BUT...
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000
From: "Thomas C. Terrell
Peter, I did not see the program but heard about it from a Sunday morning TV Minister. I then researched it on my computer. Sounds like the title of the program was wrong and should have been something like: "Opinions From Non-Believers Proving That JESUS Was A Myth". I always regarded you as an outstanding reporter but this has totally changed my opinion of you. A one sided program biased against JESUS is not going to set too well with JESUS when you stand before him on Judgment Day. I suggest you do something to reinstate your past good reputation with your TV viewers. As a seasoned news reporter, I'm sure you can come up with something that will explain your biased report against JESUS and why it was so biased. Possibly a chat with Rev. Billy Graham would be a good start. You definitely need some pro-Jesus consultation to counter the opinions given you by the anti-Jesus consultants you relied on.
Thomas C. Terrell bound@qnet.com
LINEAGE NEVE MENTIONED
Subject: In search of Jesus
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000
From: Brit
How was it possible to seriously "search for Jesus" and never show or speak to any descendents of his earthly relatives? The late Emperor Haile Selassie traced his lineage directly to King David. He was never mentioned! I once heard someone interview a man who claimed to be a descendent of the brother of Jesus. Why was the fact that he exists not corroborated, challenged, or even mentioned? Did you visit descendents of the indigenous population where Jesus lived? I saw only what appeared to be descendents of European converts to Judaism and Christianity on your show. You had that in common with what American tourists were shown when I visited Israel. Should you ever decide to honestly search for Jesus, may I suggest looking in obvious places?
FILL IN THE GAPS
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000
From: "RighteousWeed"
If I may... if you want to fully know of Christ, then fill in the gaps, intentionally left in the timeline of Christ. Then look forward to what was said, of him "the High Priest of the order of Melchizadek". Looking for the name is basically useless in history because back then, instead of the name being said differently, the meaning of the name was kept as the physical name changed to suit the culture (i.e. "Issa" = old tibettan translation of "y'eshua", which is Jewish for Jesus). Once you know where he was from age 13 - 29, you can see, based on his actions (being vastly different from anyone in the area but not different from anyone who came to the area) and what was said after the baptism (which was because he didn't come for the non-jews, he had to first go to the jews, then the rest of the world - the whole parable about the servant and the feast, the excuses, and the dregs of society filling their place.) Once you know where he was, you can see the full scope of the whole Abraham / Melchizadek story in the old testament - and understand why it says what it says about Melchizadek, and even Enoch, in the book of Hebrews ( the book of Enoch[who is called the "scribe of righteousness"] is even the only book the bible actually quotes - it's in Jude). Then look to Physics and the principles of light to explain it all to you better. the big picture of the story is.. God reached out to everyone, only Abraham had a right heart, and to him was given the promise of many nations and that his seed would carry the word of God - the canon - as proved by the "bible code'" phenomenon. but, he met Melchizadek, who also knew God, but not much else is known of him...till you trace the life of christ,and understand the order of melchizadek.. . The jews have a certain attitude bred into them, it's their way, then christ came, bringing back the heart to the law but as the high priest of the order of melchizadek, he also had the understanding of melchizadek, making him complete... there is more than i'll type, hands not up to it. just thought i'd give another perception on the matter, to possibly shed some light on things, to see how you express it. don
VIRGIN BORN!
Subject: JESUS WAS BIRTHED FROM A VIRGIN
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000
From: Tracy
Hi my name is Tracy and I was responding to the comment I heard someone make about the Peter Jennings report on Jesus. They told me that in his show Peter Jennings said that logically Jesus could not have been born of a virgin. Now I posted earlier to no response so I'm trying again. As I said before, if this is bogus I apologize. Nevertheless, Jesus was virgin born lived 33 years and died on a cross and was arisen on the third day. That is in black and white in the Bible and if people would spend the time in the Bible studying God's word and praying that they do running behind scholars and books that are supposed to be the truth, they would learn so much more about Jesus and His nature. The Bible has all the information we need if we would take time to study it.
JESUS IS REAL
Subject: I believe in Jesus with all my heart.
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000
From: Owen
Jesus Christ is real. I preach to those who are willing to listen. For Jesus is for those who thrist for his Mercy. One thing I know is that there will be athiests and other false religions untill the judgement day, but through Jesus Christ I will do all that I can to share his good news. Jesus is truley The Lord. Amen.
A MATTER OF FAITH
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From: HOLLY
Many scholars were giving their personal accounts of what Jesus means to them. Instead of concentrating on the intelligence of others, lets' examine what the bible says. ".except ye come to me as a little child ye shall not see the kingdom of heaven." which means that the our relationship with Jesus is quite simple. We don't need to dig deep into philosophy and look for hidden meanings. Our relationship with Jesus is simply our choice and it is clearly a matter of faith. Take it for what it's worth: Jesus died on the cross for our sins--there is no other way we can get to heaven except through Him. Being a good person, going to church faithfully, playing the part and looking good is not the answer. It is the personal relationship that Christ invites us to have with Him. The choice is yours.
DENIAL OF DIETY
Subject: The Search for Jesus with Peter Jennings"
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From: CAROL ALLEN
As a born again Christian I found Peter Jenning's documentary insulting. John Crosson's denial of the diety of Christ, his virgin birth, and his resurrection were blasphemeous. Anyone who knows anything about the Bible knows these three facts are biblical truths Christians base their faith upon. I have always admired Mr. Jennings and followed his reporting. However, his selection of biblical scholars can only be described as pathetic. I am thankful that I don't have to search for Jesus.
FIND THE REAL THING
Subject: Looking for the historical Jesus
From: "Gary Lape"
Peter Jennings went in search of Jesus and, alas, did not find Him. He could have, but I think he may have been afraid that he would find the real thing.
Gary Lape
BOTTOM LINE = MONEY
Subject: Disappointment with unfair air-time
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000
From: "Kelly and Jenn"
I think it important to keep in mind that "the natural man does not perceive the things of the Spirit." Also remember that Satan is the one who blinds, seeks, kills, destroys. He is the "Prince of the Power of the Air," and that includes the "airwaves" of media. If any of us are expecting justice in the national media pertaining our Christian beliefs, that will be an awfully long wait indeed. Let's face it - the bottom line in network television is the almighty dollar, and no one can serve two masters.
womanattwell
GOOD JOURNALISM IS NOT ONE SIDED
Subject: Special lacked journalistic integrity
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000
From: Angela
I've read many different comments about "The Search for Jesus" ABC special and noted many people are attacking the fact that "fundamentalist" and "conservative" Christians had a problem with it. I would like to respond to that view. Considering that Peter Jennings is a journalist I would expect him to tackle this subject as he would any other journalistic assignment. Therefore, I would expect to see opinions from people of such groups as the Jesus Seminar. However, to be a good journalist you should look at all sides of the story. This was not done.
Billy Graham has been thought of as one of the most influential people in the country for many years now. Why did he not get consulted for this special? My whole problem with the special (and I believe I speak correctly when I say this was the problem for most if not all "fundamental" and "conservative" Chrisitians) was not that there were opinions differing from mine, but the fact that a "Journalist" put aside his journalistic integrity and only reported on one side of the issue. If this had been any other story this would not be acceptable. I have no problem with the opinions of others. The problem I have is when a show which should be "well rounded" and "unbiased" (which is what we are supposed to expect from our media) turns out to be so one-sided.
THE EBIONITES KNEW JESUS BEST
Subject: Scratched the Surface
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From: Jack Neefus College Park, MD jack.d.neefus@verizon.com
I am a former fundamentalist Christian, and have a keen interest in historical Jesus studies. I saw the Larry King interview with Peter Jennings, and am really disappointed to have missed the special on June 26. (Does anyone know if the show will be rebroadcast, or how to find out? Please write.)
What a lot of outraged posters do not realize, and what the special was too short to show, were the REASONS for skepticism concerning many of the gospel accounts. The more you dig into it, the stranger and more ambiguous Jesus seems (?), and the more contradictory and less certain any characterization of him appears (?).
I will stick to one line of historical investigation that too little attention is paid to -- the early Jerusalem church, the movement that later became known as the Ebionites (says who?). Virtually all branches of the organized church seem to trust the picture of Jesus presented by Paul and the gentile church as opposed to the people who knew Jesus in his lifetime (you mean the Ebionites?). Acts and the Pauline letters (eg, Galatians) make it clear that Paul was regarded as a heretic by the Jerusalem church (where?). Why anyone would trust his version of events as opposed to relatives, friends, and eyewitnesses is beyond me (Aren't these the very people that Luke based his account on? -Luke 1:1-3? And wasn't Mark the son of the Mary who owned the house where the Jerusalem church met? Didn't John know Jesus first hand. If NT documents are written by Jews -except Luke. Why do you oppose a Gentile like Luke (Acts)? Or, the racially inclusive material of Jewish Paul? Why do you feel that the racist Ebionite material deserves greater light than the "all nations are blessed" ideas of Paul? Do you really believe that Jesus, his friends and family were bigoted racists Ebionites? Come on? This is Jesus?).
The Ebionites are talked about as an early heresy (because of their racist views), but they were the ones in the best position to know Jesus (how so?). The Ebionites are described by early church fathers as believing Jesus was human, had a normal human birth, and died without being physically resurrected. It is easy to believe that a human leader could be deified; it is inconceivable that a divine leader would be downgraded to ordinary status by his own followers. (You are not completely correct: "They denied the miraculous birth of our Lord, but maintained that a Divine influence came down upon Him at His baptism. This Divine wisdom had inspired, and in a sense dwelt, in all the patriarchs. In some sense the body of Jesus was regarded as that of Adam revived. This body was crucified and rose again." -ISBE. You seem to put a current 'Jesus Seminar' spin on the Ebionites.)
The Ebionites were not only followers of the Jewish law (yes, and they were biased against all non-Jews), but were extraordinarily concerned with dietary restrictions (cf. the council of Jerusalem in Acts). The leader whose Jesus' disciples chose by acclamation was his brother James, a leading opposition priest in the temple (?). After Jesus' death, James continued to carry out sacrifices (?) and observe the day of atonement. He was a vegetarian (?), did not drink (?), did not bathe (?), never cut his hair (?) and did not wear wool (because it came from sheep, which had been born of sexual intercourse). (Is it any wonder that the Ebionites died out? By the way, your view of James does not fit with what the eye witness Jewish historian Josepheus' report of his life, nor with Eusebius' investigative report). He was incensed that Herod was able to view the daily sacrifices from the palace rooftop (?), thereby polluting them. Eusebius says that the Essene sect had become Ebionites. (Do you pick and chose what Eusebius says according to your bias?)
There's tons of fascinating material out there, and it all has to be approached with skepticism, just like the original accounts do. If you include the apocryphal books and the Church fathers, there is probably more misleading and contradictory information than on any other historical subject. That's why I love it.
But accepting the gospel accounts as they stand, which is the position so many people take, involves closing one's eyes to not only the history, but the inherent contradictions in the gospels (in the gospel of John, the last supper, trial, and crucifixion take place on a different day of the week than the synoptics). Such an approach has no logical, historical, or theological foundation (?). Peter Jennings was wise to avoid it.
Jack Neefus College Park, MD jack.d.neefus@verizon.com
Response: The Ebionites died out because they lacked practical truth. The genius of Paul was that he brought Jews and Gentiles together, excluding no one. He included all types and races. He was a Jew who made room for the Gentiles. The Ebionites failed because they "would compel the Gentile believers also to be circumcised and keep the whole law, and (would) hold no communion with those who refuse to become Jews." -ISBE. Jack, I am amazed that you would be so taken by such anti-sexual and racially divisive material as the aprocriphal texts. Jack, why would you reject "for God so loved the World (John)" and there "is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male or female (Paul)" ideas of the so-called contradictory Bible for the racist and sexist views of the apocryphal books?
There is a great truth expressed in a kid's song: "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Jesus love you Jack, no matter who you are, and that is the message of scripture. The question is: Do you love Jesus? And do you follow Jesus' message of "Love your neighbor" and even "love your enemy." Now that is the simple world changing truth of Jesus that the Ebionites failed to grasp.-David
APPRECIATE HJ NEWSLETTER
Subject: JENNINGS on THE SEARCH FOR JESUS
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From: BETTY
I appreciate receiving your newsletters and find them very interesting. I don't have access to the internet so I can't view your website. Hopefully, someday soon I'll get a larger PC with enough space for the Windows necessary to get on the net. Unfortunately I didn't get to see the Jennings broadcast about the search for Jesus. The reports I've heard about it have been very disheartening. I have not heard one positive report about the show.
As a Christian, I absolutely believe all that scripture says about Christ. The deluded, misguided souls like John Dominic Crossan are in danger of the Almighty's wrath for propagating false doctrine. His teachings regarding Jesus are nothing more than lies, and I neither consider him a scholar nor a theologian. ABC obviously doesn't want Truth on its website or it would have invited other theologians to participate in discussion.
Jack Van Impe had nothing good to say about the broadcast, either. In fact he said it was blasphemous and derogatory in its portrayal of Jesus and His mother. Have you had any positive comments from viewers? None of this should surprise any of us if we all believe in the prophetic Word and the soon coming of Christ. The world will continue to get worse socially and spiritually - caught in the downward spiral of sin.
Thanks for an email address to respond. Keep up the good work with your reviews. Regardless of the direction in which the human race is headed, I believe that we can still make a difference if we're committed witnesses.
Thanks for listening, Betty
CAN ONE BE CHRISTIAN WITHOUT BELIEVING?
Subject: Christian?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000
From: Nancy
How can a person call themselves "Christian" if they don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God and that He died, was buried and arose on the third day? What do they believe that makes them a Christian? The person who commented to you that the fundamentalists were ignorant of church history, etc. called himself a Christian - I for one am not ignorant of church history, of Christian history, and neither are or were the many scholars who have investigated Christ and have read the Greek text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the numerous new evidences. They are not ignorant. Neither are they blinded by their faith. They are, rather, not out to "get" Jesus. I have heard stories that Paul was the real "advertiser" of Jesus (from the writings of the Jesus Seminar, by the way) and that if Paul had not written so much and spread his version of the Jesus story, there would be no Christianity. Hmmmm.....and then there is the doubting of the Gospels. Well, I believe that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the folks who decided which books should be canonized were led by the Holy Spirit.
Also, there is more evidence that Jesus was born, was a "real" person than there is that Plato and Socrates were. Mainstream contemporary Christianity? If that includes persons that don't belive the two-thousand year old doctrines that have changed this world so utterly, that isn't Christianity. I think Peter Jennings did a good job with what he had to work with, but if he is the one who led the research, he needs to go back to school to learn how to find scholars.
NOTE TO PETER JENNINGS
Subject: JESUS
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000
From: JSMFS
DEAR PETER, I saw your search . I do believe in the risen CHRIST. I am just glad that you and alot of other people are searching and not just believing what others say but that heart felt longing to know the truth is findly surficing in mens hearts . Sir the word of GOD says to knock and the door will open. seek and you will find. Ask and it will be given. My heartfelt desire is that you and others will find who your looking for. I truely pray that the scales will fall from your eyes and the be made known. Just someone who cares.
HAGEE KNOWS
Subject: Another John
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000
From: JHG
If you really want a lesson in the bible, contact John Hagee Ministries. He'll answer your questions and show it to you in the bible. I think it's a shame that anyone would stoop to such lows but then Jesus said you would.
WHERE ON EARTH DID JOHN CROSSAN COME FROM?
Subject: Very Disappointed
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000
From: Anita B. in Tennessee
After watching the show "In Search of Jesus" it wa obivious to me that the people who were a part of the documentary never found Him. Also, the people who were interviewed did not have a clue who Jesus was (God in the Flesh) but one day soon they will all know without a doubt who He was and is and is to come!!! Where on earth did John Crosson, so called bible scholar come from? He knows about as much about the bible as a two year old child in Sunday School. Shame on Peter Jennings for only using John Crosson's opions. I think if Mr. Jennings had looked a little harder he could have found a least one more biblical scholar. I guess we should be glad to see at least some interest in Jesus on national tv. I just wish they could have elaborated more on the spiritual side of Jesus, and told the real reason He came to earth--to save mankind.
Anita B. in Tennessee
INVESTIGATE SPIRITUALITY?
Subject: How do you investigate spirituality anyway?
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000
From: Steve
David, you expressed your disappointment that Jennings didn't probe Jesus' spirituality. How can a TV investigative report probe anyone's spirituality? And you seem to imply that 'The Dogs Ate Jesus' Crosnan was the only scholar interviewed for this show. He was not; there were several others (five, I believe someone else mentioned earlier). Personally, as an amateur Biblical scholar, I thought the program was an excellent, if rather (by necessity) simplified, overview of the most current scholarly debates on the various aspects of the historical Jesus.
Steve
Response: You are right there were other scholars on the documentary. I do not disagree with you. However, I am right when I stated there was only one scholar on the ABC web site for chat. And that was John Crossan. There was NO OTHER POINT OF VIEW! As I stated, John Crossan had ABC-TV in his hip pocket on this one! AGAIN, there were no other scholars of any sort available to answer viewer comments on the ABC web site. This is not balance.
How does TV report on anyone's spirituality? Answer: By reporting on their spiritual message and practice. Just as the scores of documentaries on Sister Teresa, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King Jr. have done.
THIS IS PAGE ONE OF THIS REVIEW
CLICK HERE TO GO TO PAGE TWO
|
