Rating: 
Summary: Borg Wins The Debate
Review: This book presents an interesting debate between two men who have different views of the truth about Jesus. Both men agree that 'the gospels combine historical material with metaphorical significance' but disagree on how much of the material is history remembered. Borg emphasizes that the gospels are heavily influenced by the theology of the developing Christian tradition during the last part of the first century and consequently gives greater weight to the gospel layers he identifies as being written earlier. I am probably more sympathetic to the traditional view of Jesus as put forth by N.T. Wright. However, Borg seems to do a better job of defending his position.
Rating:
Summary: Good intro to contemporary Jesus scholarship
Review: Who was Jesus? From a Christian perspective, there is no more important question than this. "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions" presents perspectives from two Bible scholars, one more "conservative" (Wright) and one more "liberal" (Borg). It would, of course, be a mistake to assume that Wright gives THE definitive conservative view and Borg gives THE definitive liberal view, but it nonetheless is a good starting point for establishing opposing arguments. As an evangelical, Wright's perspectives resonate much more with me than Borg's do, but I learned much from both scholars (somewhat surprising given my total disdain of the Jesus Seminar, of which Borg is a prominent participant). Borg's foundational categories of Jesus' identity (Spirit person, healer, wisdom teacher, social prophet, and movement initiator) are drawn more from a comparative religions standpoint, while Wright's categories (messiah, prophet of the Kingdom of God, Son of God, etc.) are derived from the Jewish context, which was the world in which Jesus operated. Borg is correct when he proposes, in the final chapter, that these two sets of categories need not conflict, but can actually merge together to present a coherent picture of Jesus. But the fundamental difference in Borg's and Wright's arguments boils down to the historicity of the Scriptures, the Gospels in particular. Borg sees much of the biblical record as being "history metaphorized". Whether the events recorded (Jesus walking on water, feeding the 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes, even Jesus' bodily resurrection) are actually historical is of secondary importance to Borg. He believes that just because something didn't happen doesn't make it untrue. Astonishingly, he seems to regard what one "believes" as relatively unimportant in the Christian life. What's important to Borg is relationship with God. But how can you have a relationship with God if you don't believe certain things? Belief is crucial in any relationship with God. To me, Borg misses the mark by a mile here. He sees the Bible (and Christian tradition) as a lens by which to see God, and, after all, you must believe in God, not in the lens. But if the lens is distorted in some way, how do we know what we are seeing through it is really God? Wright takes a more conservative view. He has no problem coming around to the historicity of the Bible (at least for the most part) and rightly believes that one can derive rich metaphorical meaning from actual historical events (particularly the symbolic actions of Jesus). Although Wright's scholarship is more to my personal liking, he still falls a little short in some areas. One example: he seems to wimp out on the issue of the Second Coming. His discussion of eschatology leaves much unclear in my mind. Much of the value of this book derives not only from the elucidation of two major viewpoints concerning Jesus, but the civil tone in which the "debate" is conducted. I'd like to see a face-to-face debate between these two sometime. It would be very enlightening, much like this book.
Rating: 
Summary: When someone has a lack of faith, write excuses..
Review: Why we need to get our faith from this kind of books?
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Are we hearing the word of Christ here? Or only a debate between people with a little faith in the real Jesus, like Borg? When someone has a little faith, begin to make excuses. The Bible without miracles, is not the Bible. God makes miracles, like born from a virgin. Things like that are piece of cake for God. Mt 8:26
He *said to them, "Why are you afraid, you men of little faith ?" Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it became perfectly calm.
Why is so hard to believe that? Some people like Borg are lost in his mind, trying to explain faith or God. And many people here, are trying to justify their lack of real faith.
Remember Paul, and be aware of this:
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
Are you accumulating teachers in accordance to your own desires?
We need faith, faith in a God that made and will make miracles.
Rating: 
Summary: Concise, Lucid, and Engaging
Review: Years from now when people look back on the latest quest for the historical Jesus, this book will be foundational in laying forth the essence of competing views. _The Meaning of Jesus_ offers an excellent introduction to the historical Jesus debate through the eyes of two of the more important scholars in recent Jesus studyL: Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright. The book takes some of the major topics of debate head on, allowing Borg and Wright to articulate their own conflicting positions on such important questions as the resurrection of Jesus, Jesus' self-perception, Jesus' relationship with God, and the virgin birth. The conflicting essays, while brief, offer helpful glimpses into the process by which Jesus scholars reconstruct quite different pictures of the historical Jesus. The book is a must read for readers intrigued by the person of Jesus who are wanting a better handle on the recent debate.
|
