Christianity Beyond Creeds - book review.

Brickjectivity · Jan 22, 2017

Christianity beyond creeds on Google Books
Christianity Beyond Creeds on Barnes and Noble Booksellers

I ran across this short book by Harry T. Cook and read parts of it, particularly the section at the back called "Unpacking the Language of the Resurrection." The author does not go into depth but explains there are clear signs in the gospels of the resurrection being a vision. Also while Jesus is heroically resurrected according to his disciples, his disciples are full of faults which the author lists with chapter and verse.

I would say it is an interesting a brief read, which goes as far as to point out how things are not what they seem. The author does not go so far as to explain what they are. He does not explain what the resurrection is really for, stopping short of replacing what he removes. It is well written however, currently under 5$ and may be useful for some people such as myself.

allfoak · Jan 22, 2017

Brickjectivity said:
Christianity beyond creeds on Google Books
Christianity Beyond Creeds on Barnes and Noble Booksellers

I ran across this short book by Harry T. Cook and read parts of it, particularly the section at the back called "Unpacking the Language of the Resurrection." The author does not go into depth but explains there are clear signs in the gospels of the resurrection being a vision. Also while Jesus is heroically resurrected according to his disciples, his disciples are full of faults which the author lists with chapter and verse.

I would say it is an interesting a brief read, which goes as far as to point out how things are not what they seem. The author does not go so far as to explain what they are. He does not explain what the resurrection is really for, stopping short of replacing what he removes. It is well written however, currently under 5$ and may be useful for some people such as myself.

Anything that points us away from the historical perspective will make us feel more free and independent with our own thoughts.
Having to always rely on some old or new historical evidence for the way that we think is just nonsense.
If that is the intent of the author then it will likely benefit many people.

Brickjectivity · Jan 22, 2017

allfoak said:
Anything that points us away from the historical perspective will make us feel more free and independent with our own thoughts.

I think you are talking about hanging upon every bit of historical information and being batted about like a ping-pong ball by every new revelation. Is that what you mean or are you referring to the controversy where different schools debate whether Jesus is a real person?

allfoak said:
Having to always rely on some old or new historical evidence for the way that we think is just nonsense.
If that is the intent of the author then it will likely benefit many people.

Its just one book and seems written to contribute to someone's information and not to be the last word on things.

allfoak · Jan 22, 2017

Brickjectivity said:
I think you are talking about hanging upon every bit of historical information and being batted about like a ping-pong ball by every new revelation. Is that what you mean or are you referring to the controversy where different schools debate whether Jesus is a real person?

Its just one book and seems written to contribute to someone's information and not to be the last word on things.

That post i made was horrible.

Viewing religion from an historical perspective it can be argued, is responsible for the horrors we know as religious history.
I would say that if the author is looking at religion from another perspective other than an historical one, then the book has some lasting benefit.

pearl · Jan 23, 2017

Brickjectivity said:
"Unpacking the Language of the Resurrection."

I have not read this particular book, but I am an avid reader of those scholars who follow the methods of biblical criticism, much to the horror of conservative apologists. I can understand why Cook did not 'replace what he removed.' I think it is far more important to come to grips with the original resurrectional language. For some it is simply unfathomable that probably the two most important articles of faith have little or no historical evidence. Add to that the striking differences between Paul and Luke and the concept of a bodily resurrection. Most serious scholars have faced the same dilemma, the language of resurrection no longer speaks to many of faith today, but replacing the narrative while keeping the confession proves to be a substantial obstacle. One of my favorite authors is an eminent biblical scholar, Raymond Brown, who although always stayed within Catholic orthodoxy, is considered by many apologists to be a heretic. I really think these writers have as their purpose is a plea for the those of faith to grow up intellectually.

Brickjectivity · Jan 23, 2017

pcarl said:
I have not read this particular book, but I am an avid reader of those scholars who follow the methods of biblical criticism, much to the horror of conservative apologists. I can understand why Cook did not 'replace what he removed.' I think it is far more important to come to grips with the original resurrectional language. For some it is simply unfathomable that probably the two most important articles of faith have little or no historical evidence. Add to that the striking differences between Paul and Luke and the concept of a bodily resurrection. Most serious scholars have faced the same dilemma, the language of resurrection no longer speaks to many of faith today, but replacing the narrative while keeping the confession proves to be a substantial obstacle. One of my favorite authors is an eminent biblical scholar, Raymond Brown, who although always stayed within Catholic orthodoxy, is considered by many apologists to be a heretic. I really think these writers have as their purpose is a plea for the those of faith to grow up intellectually.

It appeals to me, since I think the resurrection language refers to repentance as eternal life but not an afterlife. I would like to find out if someone has criticized that idea but am not deeply familiar with what you are calling the methods of biblical criticism. I know of some of them.

I am briefly acquainted with higher criticism through Karen Armstrong's book Who Wrote the Bible and think it is over-applied sometimes. It is a useful model sometimes because things do change over time, so then they fit with that kind of model. They do not fit when there are sudden changes, such as when a whole country is conquered or a government makes a move. Sometimes it seems like higher critics force puzzle pieces together that do not fit tightly and imagine a smooth transition in a time period where things are plainly not smooth.

pearl · Jan 23, 2017

Brickjectivity said:
Sometimes it seems like higher critics force puzzle pieces together that do not fit tightly and imagine a smooth transition in a time period where things are plainly not smooth.

I don't think that anywhere in the NT times would be considered 'smooth'. The best that the historical critical method can do after searching through the last extant layer is to offer no more than an
hypothesis, and a consensus of high probability. Creditable scholarship is always a search for truth, no matter where it leads.

Christianity Beyond Creeds - book review.

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain

allfoak

Alchemist

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain

allfoak

Alchemist

pearl

Well-Known Member

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain

pearl

Well-Known Member